Fathers For Justice
Fathers Groups Miss The Big Picture
Many men and fathers seem to believe that merely demonstrating the validity
of their various cases and arguments is all that is required to bring about
changes of policy by their governments.
And they often seem completely ignorant of the
fact that government officials, government workers and politicians have their
own agendas - which are very often antagonistic to the well-being of the people
whom they are supposed to be serving.
You only need to look at the numerous and
social pathologies that have mushroomed in western countries over the past
four decades as a result of fatherlessness to realise that what is good
for the people - and for the children - cuts no ice when it comes to government
The Number One priority of governments and their
workers is to look after themselves.
The Number One priority of governments and their workers is to look after
themselves. It is most definitely not to look after the well-being
of their own people; though they are very adept at pretending otherwise. And
given that the horrible consequences of widespread fatherlessness provides
millions of western government workers with so many career
opportunities, western governments will quietly resist doing anything that will
reduce the incidence of fatherlessness - see below - unless, that is, they are
put under considerable public pressure; e.g. see
Why Governments Love Feminism.
Indeed, the only way that men and fathers are going to create a
world in which they are not forever being demonised, disadvantaged and
discriminated against is by waging some kind of public war against those who
promote such things, not by pleading with them.
Talking politely to the powers-that-be achieves absolutely nothing.
These people only respond appropriately when their lofty positions are
threatened in some way.
Indeed, it was around 1993 that I read Warren Farrell's brilliant book The
Myth Of Male Power which exposed just how poorly men and fathers were being
treated, but, despite its brilliance and despite Warren Farrell's many other
scholarly endeavours, and, indeed, despite the good work of many other serious
and respectable researchers, absolutely nothing was ever achieved.
Feminism and man-hatred simply marched onwards completely unopposed - while
greedy politicians ever desperate to increase their own powers continued allying
themselves with these unholy forces in order to profit from the negative
consequences arising from them.
Of course they did.
Governments love to stir up problems.
Governments love to stir up problems. Problems are the only way that they can
fully justify their existence. Without problems, there is no need for large
swathes of government.
And governments will surreptitiously stir up problems wherever they can in
order to empower themselves; e.g. see The
And what could be more lucrative for them than to do this by arranging
matters so that as many males as possible end up behaving in a dysfunctional
manner and/or can be portrayed as doing such?
Fatherlessness and feminism have therefore been goldmines for them.
They love such things.
Governments have little interest in seeing their
societies running smoothly.
Governments have little interest in seeing their societies running smoothly.
What they do have is a great deal of interest in looking after themselves.
However, in the case of the Men's Movement - where the many
issues in its spotlight should be of considerable concern to
half the population - it should not be too difficult to persuade
governments to start addressing the concerns of men and fathers.
And yet it has been difficult to do this, for many reasons.
One main reason is that men and fathers who are experiencing severe
problems as a result of government policies seem mostly to be so concerned over one particular problem
and so adamant in their belief that there is just one route in which to tackle
it - that they fail completely to see the bigger picture, and, as a consequence,
they spend many years getting precisely nowhere.
They are like a heavily-blinkered Jewish man living in the Germany of the
early 1930s wondering why on Earth the court decision went against him when he
seemed to have such a very good case.
In other words, they continue to believe that if they can just 'get their
documents into better shape' then the government and the courts will be bound to act upon them -
which, of course, they won't.
They do not seem to have any awareness that the particular problems that
concern them so are arising from forces that are vastly bigger than what they
Let me give you just a little insight into this.
A few years ago I was watching a woman's programme on TV in the afternoon and
the chairman of a big Japanese car company (and I cannot remember which one) was
being questioned over some of his company's car advertisements that made humour
out of situations wherein women were being aggressive and callous toward men
(e.g. kicking them out of the car door while the car was moving etc.).
these car sales were being targeted at women who wanted
to be independent of men
He said that these car sales were being targeted at women who wanted to be
independent of men, and who could show men that they could happily do without
The interviewer (a woman) then asked him whether or not his advertisements
depicting female aggression toward men might actually encourage women to feel
this way, and so were bad for gender relations.
The chairman laughed and nodded politely, shrugged his shoulders, and pointed
out that such an effect would, indeed, help his company to sell many more cars. After
all, if women were more independent of men then they would more likely buy their
The female audience laughed.
But he was not joking.
He was being coy; but he was being honest.
one way of doing this was to promote hostility in women
His multinational company stood to make hundreds of millions of dollars more
in profit every year if it could persuade more women to become more independent
of men; and one way of doing this was to promote hostility in women towards men.
And, unfortunately, the same is true for hundreds of large companies -
because the greater is the separation between men and women, the more do certain
Indeed, because most of the
profits of large companies are made at the margins - which means that even
a tiny increase in their product sales can have a very large positive
effect on their profits - anything that they can do to increase the
division between men and women can boost their profits very significantly
And, unsurprisingly, the result has been that our societies are constantly
being bombarded with advertising material designed to inflame women's hostility
Indeed, this technique started to be employed in the 1920s when cigarette
advertisements indoctrinated potential women smokers with the view that taking
up smoking was a very good way for women to liberate themselves from men.
The campaign was hugely successful. And this was the case even though it was
not men but women themselves who had seen smoking as being an overtly masculine
- and somewhat dirty and smelly - activity.
In other words, even though it was women who had largely
persuaded women that smoking was an unwholesome activity for women
to engage in, the advertisers managed to convey the notion to women that
were somehow depriving them of this wonderful addiction.
The point I am making is that billions of dollars since then have been poured
by various businesses into advertising campaigns that are designed to sour the
relationships between men and women in order to increase the sales of their
products and to enlarge the market for them.
Indeed, the fashion industry has recently even targeted children with the
David and Goliath T-shirts, which bear upon them such phrases as "Boys Are
Smelly", "Boys Are Stupid", and they have sold millions of these.
And one of the most egregious examples in recent times of businesses
conducting advertising campaigns to demonise men horribly has been the
thoroughly hateful campaigning conducted by the National Society For The
Prevention Of Cruelty To Children in the UK.
This money-grabbing organisation,
in my view, has caused inestimable damage to the relationships between men,
women and children throughout the entire country by its relentless portrayal of
men and fathers as demonic child molesters and abusers, and it has made millions
of dollars by doing this; e.g.
The NSPCC Needs To Be Stopped.
In summary, there has been well over half a century of strong campaigning by
various businesses that has been designed to stir up antagonism towards men in
order to generate profits.
But even these advertising activities pale in significance when compared to
the deluge of man-hatred that has emanated from the feminist-dominated
mainstream media for the past three decades; e.g. see
Spin Sisters Sell Misery by Paige McKenzie and
Some BBC Propaganda Tricks.
TV, radio, cinema, newspapers and magazines have
daily flooded the entire western world with the most horrible
portrayals of men imaginable.
TV, radio, cinema, newspapers and magazines have daily flooded
the entire western world with the most horrible portrayals of men imaginable.
The over-riding message is that men are persistent wife-beaters, child
molesters, rapists, sexual-harassers, or some other kind of animal that is
forever abusing women and children in some way.
This onslaught has been ceaseless - but, of course, the portrayal of men
behaving in an abusive fashion - particularly if it is sexual in nature - is a turn-on for millions of media consumers, which
guarantees that the audiences and, hence, the money flow in.
And, indeed, women,
themselves, are clearly very much turned on by depictions of abuse -
particularly sexual abuse; e.g. see
Eastenders - The UK Woman's Favourite Soap
The problem for men is that people end up being very heavily affected by
these things in real life; not just ordinary people, but judges, police
officers, family case workers, social services, and so on.
men and fathers can now be treated like dirt - and
no-one gives a damn.
And the consequence is that men and fathers can now be treated like dirt -
and no-one gives a damn.
Indeed, so demonised have men been, and so hated are they nowadays, that even
the savage mutilating of them has been accepted as part of mainstream comedy -
e.g. Bobbit jokes. This, alone, is clear proof that
men now constitute a group that is very much hated right throughout society..
But the inflammation of hatred towards men has not solely emanated from the
antics of big business and the feminist-dominated feminist-fearing mainstream
media. There have been other hugely powerful forces doing their best to demonise
men in order to break down their relationships and their families.
To gain a little insight into these forces, here is a bit of history that
people should know about.
Some 100 years ago the followers of a fellow by the name of Karl Marx were
becoming frustrated because they could not mobilise the 'workers' into tearing
down the 'filthy capitalists' who, they reckoned, were exploiting them. These
'communists' just could not figure out why these 'workers' remained so
complacent in the face of all this capitalist oppression, and why they could not
arouse them into creating some kind of revolution. And without these 'workers'
joining them in some kind of mass uprising there seemed to be no way in which
they could realise their dreams and overthrow the capitalists.
Communists wanted communism - where everything was controlled by the
government; rather than by businesses. And they eventually hit upon a great idea
taken up and implemented gradually over the following decades.
"Break down the families," they said.
"Break down the families," they said. "Make it difficult for people to have
close relationships. This way it will be impossible for them to unite and to
oppose the growth of government. Families are also the reason that the workers
remain so contented and at peace with their capitalist world. Break down these
families, cause as much societal discord as possible and this will make the
people beg for more government intervention and control."
The feminists of the time, of course, reckoned that it was women
who were being abused and repressed rather than the workers. And they reckoned
that it was the men
who were abusing and oppressing them.
Indeed, the feminists believed that the institution of marriage itself was a
major cause of this oppression. And so, just like the communists, they also
became imbued with the notion that the breaking down of people's relationships
and marriages was a good idea.
And so it was, for example, that the suffragettes of the 1900s - having read
a bit about the new grand idea of the communists - suddenly changed their minds
and supported entry into World War 1. By having millions of men engaged with
matters to do with war - with many of them sent abroad to fight - families and
relationships could be broken down much more easily. And, even better, women
could then be enticed out of their homes and into the workplaces to fill the
jobs that were previously being done by the men - who would now be at war.
And so it was that the communists and the feminists were united in the view
that the breaking down of close relationships and families would serve both
their purposes rather well.
the leading feminists of the 60s - Betty Friedan,
Jane Fonda etc - were ardent supporters of communism.
And this is why, for example, the leading feminists of the 60s - Betty
Friedan, Jane Fonda etc - were ardent supporters of communism.
Communism would free women from oppression, they said - but they did not say
this too loudly at the time, because most of the western world was vehemently
opposed to communism; having seen what kind of miserable life those in communist
countries were actually leading.
Bit by bit, however, western governments have grown hugely in size since
then. And they are now extremely powerful.
And what has happened is that the politicians and the government workers
themselves have now become a force - a huge force - that is far less concerned
with serving the people, and far more concerned with serving itself.
And this is why the distinction between, say, the left and the right of
politics has all but evaporated in recent times. As governments have grown ever
larger over the past 100 years (about 70-100 times larger judging by the tax
take) there has emerged a new force for big government - government itself.
And with millions of government workers across the western world now exerting
a truly massive force in favour of themselves - i.e. in favour of
'government' - the people are being both suckered and forced into supporting
their various self-serving agendas.
A great way to maintain big government is to
break down people's close relationships and their families.
And, unfortunately for us, what the politicians and the government workers
have gradually 'discovered' is that a great way to
maintain big government is to break down people's close relationships and their
And this is why western governments nowadays do all that they can do to
interfere with people's relationships and why it is that feminists - and
feminist thinking - are now so entrenched within government departments.
And this is why men now have to walk on eggshells in their dealings with
women and children.
They can be accused at the drop of a hat of sexual
harassment in the workplace, of domestic violence and sex-assault in the home,
of abusing their own children, and the government will immediately step in and
attempt to persecute and/or prosecute them in some way; even when there is not a
shred of objective evidence in support of any case.
Men can also be thrown out of their homes, denied access to their very own
children and divorced with impunity.
The idea behind all these things is to make it very difficult for men to
maintain close relationships.
Western governments are also ploughing millions of dollars annually into
demonising men through their various bogus and highly-inflammatory campaigns
associated with domestic violence and sex-assault, and they are constantly
urging women to come forward to allege that they have been abused in some way.
And when it comes to the children, there is nowadays an enormous amount of
governmental effort being expended on luring them away even from their mothers.
In summary, there are huge forces emanating from big business, the media, the
government and the feminists that strive to break down people's close
relationships and their families. Indeed, even those in the judiciary and the
legal profession are involved in this. After all, they also benefit enormously
from all the problems that relationship breakdowns bring about.
In other words, the forces that bear down upon men and their relationships
are nowadays positively enormous.
They are unimaginable. Literally.
And this is why various men's groups hither and thither are going to achieve
absolutely nothing by politely sitting down and discussing the matters that
concern them with those who have the power to help them.
As George Orwell said - more or less - having studied for some 30 years the
way in which all governments operate;
"It is no use appealing to their sense of honour or justice. They will only respond to the threat of losing some of their own power."
Of course, I am not suggesting that every politician and every government
worker is involved in some kind of heinous plot to break up people's
relationships. I see these things in terms of 'organisms' - enterprises - which
serve themselves. And the people who make up these organisms often do not know
what their organisms are doing.
For example, the Japanese car manufacturer alluded to above employs tens of
thousands of workers, very few of who will actually realise that their company
is spending millions of advertising dollars designed to make women more likely
to reject close relationships with men.
Nevertheless, those tens of thousands of workers do, unwittingly, buttress
and sustain a truly mighty force. And this force is being guided by a few of
them (working in the advertising department) in a direction that is very
detrimental to the well-being of men.
And the same is now largely true of those who work for western governments.
They also buttress and sustain a mighty force - much of which is being guided in
a direction that is very detrimental to the well-being of men.
Unfortunately, however, for some time now, western governments have also
actually been indoctrinating their own workers with anti-male sentiments, and
they have also been selecting their employees on the basis of their political
And so, unlike the Japanese car manufacturer, where most of the workers have
no idea what is going on when it comes to undermining men, western governments
are now packed full of workers who know full well what is going on.
As such, many government workers that those in men's groups tend to come
across when making their various complaints - e.g. over child access - are
extremely hostile to their points of view at the outset. And there is just no
way that they will accommodate to them.
they will duck and dive, slip and slide, and do
everything that they can do to thwart any attempts to do much in the way
At best, they will duck and dive, slip and slide, and do everything that they
can do in order to thwart any attempts to help men.
I have watched the various antics of the feminists, the women's groups
and their associated comrades in government, academia and the media very
closely for some ten years now. And I can assure you that these groups
have lied, and lied, and lied, and lied on just about every issue which
they address. Their belief is that the end justifies the means. Lying,
deceiving, distorting, exaggerating - always with the aim of demonising
men and breaking up their relationships - and so empowering themselves -
are activities that they engage in without limit, without conscience and
In the UK, for example, senior police officers and their colleagues at the
Home Office have been caught lying time and time again over issues connected
with sex-assault and domestic violence; and even the most senior
judge in the Family Court Division has recently resorted to lying in an attempt
to undermine fathers groups; e.g. see AH's piece entitled
And so it is that the leaders of men and fathers groups also need to
understand that they are not likely to be dealing with honest or honourable
people when they seek for men to be treated fairly in matters to do with their
families or their relationships.
Finally, does anyone reading this seriously believe that the chairman of the
Japanese car company would alter his advertising strategy - and thus lose
himself and his shareholders millions of dollars - following a few polite
complaints from a few disgruntled men?
Of course he wouldn't.
Indeed, if he even dared to contemplate such a thing, he would be very
quickly booted out of his job and replaced by the shareholders.
Well. The same goes for those who work in government.
They might smile a great deal, and they might say that they will 'look into
the matter', but they will not lift a finger to help men.
As George Orwell said, "It is no use appealing to their sense of honour or justice. They
will only respond to the threat of losing some of their own power."