Forum

Free news

FREE blog

Donate

Search

Subscribe

jews/911

Feedback

dna

Gun poll

RCC

AIDS

Home

Fathers

Surveys

Holocaust

IQ

14th Amdt

19th Amdt

Israelites

NWO

Homicide

Blacks

Whites

Signatory

Talmud

Watchman

Gaelic

Traitors

Health?

 

Boulding

by Dr. Daniel Amneus

FATHERS' MANIFESTO Home Page


Feminist sociologist Elise Boulding wonders at the inner peace 
of mind, the autonomy, the quiet sureness, the serenity of Native 
American Indian squaws--their freedom from what Betty Friedan calls 
"the problem that has no name":
	

		For Americans, North and South, there is an alternative 
model for women close at hand, in the native American 
communities....It doesn't take many encounters with women 
tribal leaders who have the quiet confidence of centuries of 
traditional knowledge behind them to realize that here are a 
set of teachers for European-stock American women right in our 
midst.  Where does their serenity and self-confidence come 
from?....A combination  of humility and good sense should make 
it possible for non-indigenous American women to learn from 
Native American women.  

	One supposes that the serenity and self-confidence goes with 
the lifestyle which causes so many of their babies to be born with 
fetal alcohol syndrome and makes their infant mortality rate so 
much higher than that of whites, which makes their men ten times 
more likely than white men to die before age 45, makes the 
Amerindian suicide rate triple that of the national average --their 
lack of self-discipline, their unwillingness to submit to 
patriarchal law-and-order, their sleazy self-indulgence which keeps 
them in their squalid poverty.
	"Another place to look for role models is in black Africa," 
says Ms. Boulding.   "Every part of the world has teachers for 
women.  These women of quiet self-confidence, with knowledge, with 
strength, are everywhere."  
	In the following passage feminist Marilyn French describes the 
daily life of two of them from the Subcontinent of India:

	Two women gather seaweed on the Indian coast near Ahmadabad: 
they bend and rise, bend and rise, pulling up the greens, 
adding them to their pile.  When they have as much as they can 
carry, they lug the pile up the beach to a wagon pulled over 
on the side of the road, dump it in the wagon, and return for 
more.   They continue in this for hours, until the wagon is 
full.  All the while, a man sits in the wagon, head nodding in 
the sun, holding the reins of his horse.  He does 
nothing....Farm women in Africa (and India) are the most 
overworked humans in the world, working ten to fifteen hours a 
day at a host of jobs.  A typical Zimbabwean  woman's day 
begins at 3:00 A.M.  Every day she goes to the river for 
water, weeds the fields (breast-feeding her baby as she 
works), chases animals away from crops, pounds grain into 
flour, prepares meals, and gathers wood (steadily walking 
farther with these heavy loads because drought and overcutting 
have depleted fuel wood). 
 
	Poor women.  Might their being so overworked have something to 
do with the lack of motivation of their men?   These are "the most 
overworked humans in the world."  But they do not suffer from "the 
problem that has no name," as women do in America, where Ms. 
Friedan holds the men up as models for women's emulation.  Their 
men doze in the sun, go to pubs, idle their time away and expect to 
be served by their women.  
	Suppose Freud's question "What does a woman want?" had been 
put to such a native American, Zimbabwean, Indian woman, what would 
her answer be?  Perhaps: "I want to live in America, that women's 
paradise, to have a loving father who would care for me, buy me 
nice things, send me to a posh women's college like Smith where I 
could get a superior education and meet interesting people.  After 
college I would want to marry a nice husband who would buy a split-
level suburban home for me, a car and a station wagon and would 
protect me with life insurance and health insurance and let me go 
shopping with his credit cards and allow me to play golf and bridge 
on the afternoons when I don't shop.  In America I would need to 
spend only 3 percent of my time on my maternal functions.   In 
America I would live such an easy life that I would survive my 
husband by seven years (unlike here in India, where men outlive 
women).  Or I could divorce him if I felt like it and take my 
children and his house and compel him to continue supporting me.  I 
could join a feminist group and complain of how oppressed I was."
    Thus (perhaps) the yearning of the Indian woman, dreaming of 
the good life as Ms. Boulding dreams of the good life of third 
world women, and their serenity and quiet sureness.  
	Suppose Freud's question were asked of an American housewife, 
someone like Betty Friedan.  Betty Friedan would reply that she 
suffered from boredom or acedia ("the problem that has no name")--
but that she did not at all wish to live the life of the squaw or a 
Zimbabwean peasant woman or the seaweed gatherers of Ahamabad.  
When Betty Friedan complained that "society asks so little of 
women"  or when Ibsen's Nora complained that her husband's 
pampering and coddling of her kept her from growing up and being a 
high achiever on her own, she was thinking of helping to share 
men's work in corporate offices, university classrooms, medical 
clinics, research laboratories.  This is also what Dr. Gerda Lerner 
is thinking of when she says "What the cost was to society in 
general through the loss of talent and intellectual work of half 
the population cannot be estimated."   Dr. Lerner isn't thinking of 
seaweed gathering.  
	Would some Indian philosopher-playwright like Ibsen sympathize 
not (as Ms. French does) with the female seaweed gatherer but with 
her husband sitting idly on the wagon all day holding the reins of 
his horse--and allow him to complain (as Ibsen's Nora does) that he 
was suffering a "great evil" by being deprived of meaningful labor, 
perhaps driven, like the husband of of the squaw described by Ms. 
Boulding, to alcoholism or suicide?
	Here is another feminist complaint.  Readers of Virginia 
Woolf's Three Guineas will remember her indignation over the money 
expended by educated parents on the education of their sons, not of 
their daughters.  Thackeray calls this "A.E.F.," Arthur's Education 
Fund.  "You who have read Pendennis," she explains:

	will remember how the mysterious letters A.E.F. figured in the 
household ledgers.  Ever since the thirteenth century English 
families have been paying money into that account....It is a 
voracious receptacle.  Where there were many sons to educate 
it required a great effort on the part of the family to keep 
it full.   

	Virginia Woolf's complaint is that families will not make such 
sacrifices to educate their daughters.  The reason, clearly, that 
these families understand the male role to be what Margaret Mead 
calls, "a social creation."  Putting money into Arthur's education 
fund is the way to make Arthur a high achiever capable of 
supporting a family.  The role of Arthur's sister is like the role 
of the Indian squaw, what Mead calls "a biological fact"--it 
doesn't need to be created.  
	The non-creation of a comparable role for Arthur's sister 
might have enabled her to be a contented squaw of the sort envied 
by Ms. Boulding.  But this merely "biological fact" won't suffice 
for Ibsen's Nora, or Virginia Woolf or Betty Friedan, who dazzled 
by male achievements in the real world, aim to found empires, build 
pyramids and sway multitudes, just like us peacocky males.  "In the 
primitive civilizations of the South Sea islands," says Ms. 
Friedan,

	anatomy was still destiny when Margaret Mead first visited 
them.  Freud's theory that the primmitive instincts of the 
body determined adult personality could find convincing 
demonstration.  The complex goals of more advanced 
civilizations, in which instinct and environment are 
increasingly controlled and informed by the human mind, did 
not then form the irreversible matrix of every human 
life....Because the human body is the same in primitive South 
Sea tribes and modern cities, an anthropoligist, who starts 
with a psychological theory that reduces human personality and 
civilization to bodily analogies, can end up advising modern 
women to live through their bodies in the same way as the 
women of the South Seas.  The trouble is that Margaret Mead 
could not recreate a South Sea world for us to live in





 
But the price of leaving her in that role and not creating a role 
for her husband--or rather, her boyfriend, for the male in her life 
hardly functions as a husband or father--is that the squaw is 
pretty much the master of her own destiny: she functions without a 
male provider.  The man is getting drunk or idling away his time 
while the woman does the work.
	What Virginia Woolf hates is that Arthur's sister can't escape 
from her biological role and get into Arthur's "invented" role 
where she will not be required to bear some man's offspring, change 
its diapers, get up with it when it cries during the night and so 
forth.  A fair distribution of the money going into Arthur's 
Education Fund would enable her to escape these chores, get an 
education like Arthur--maybe remain childless, like Virginia Woolf 
herself and the heroines mentioned on page 14: Jane Austen, 
Charlotte Bronte and George Eliot.   The idea suggests itself that 
Arthur's father and Arthur himself are more concerned about having 
families and bringing up children properly than is Virginia Woolf 
and her feminist sisters, few of whom, not incidentally, have 
families.
	This non-desire for having families is the key idea.  This is 
why feminists want to have careers "so I don't have to depend on a 
man...so I don't have to live the kind of life my mother lived, so 
I can control my own reproduction, my own body, my own sexuality." 
 Female autonomy is the goal: they want to live like my neighbor's 
cat, who, being female, runs her own reproductive enterprise once 
she gets herself impregnated by some otherwise useless male.  Only 
the human female doesn't want kids, or not very many: it is the 
human male, like Arthur, who wants kids and is willing to work and 
create the wealth to pay for them and for the wife who bears them.
	Today the woman's way of handling this situation where  Arthur 
wants a family and she is much less desirous of having one is to 
not have kids (like Virginia Woolf, Jane Austen, Charlotte Bronte, 
George Eliot) or to have them and then kick the old boy out and let 
him pay for them in absentia via alimony and child support.   
	English sociologist Patricia Morgan informs us that there are 
five main ways by which wealth moves from one group to another.  
These five ways are thus summarized by Tom Utley in the London 
Sunday Express, 12 Feb, 1995:

	*From families with children to individuals without 	
	dependents.
	*From families with one main earner to couples with two full 	
	earners.
	*From two-parent families to lone parents.
	*From the child-rearing to the elderly.
	*From child-rearing at home to child-rearing outside the 
	home.
	
	Utley complains against the British Tory party, which 
engineers such transfers, but the same complaint can be made 
against U.S. policy-makers: "The party," says Utley, "is against 
two-parent families, but in favor of single parents.  It is against 
mothers who look after their children, and in favor of mothers who 
go out to work. It is against marriage; and it is against the 
family."

	Last week [says Utley] I rang the French Embassy and asked how 
much income tax a married man earning 50,000 pounds a year, 
with four children and a wife who stays at home, would have to 
pay in France.  The answer was 2,400 pounds.  The same man 
living in Britain has to pay 14,239 pounds.

	Patricia Morgan's five "movements of wealth" are ways of 
financing the War Against Patriarchy and the father-headed family. 
 (She omits to list payments of support money to ex-wives and ex-
girlfriends--surely anti-family also.)
	The feminist reply will reply that feminism is not anti-
family; it is pro-family.  It's just not in favor of the Ozzie-and-
Harriet family, what Betty Friedan calls the "family of Western 
nostalgia,"  "that obsolete traditional family in which mothers, by 
necessity or choice, stayed home and were supported as housewives 
by breadwinning fathers."   This family is now obsolete and must 
be changed, developed, modified, modernized--otherwise, like the 
dinosaur, it will become extinct.  The "modernization," however, is 
a reversion to the pattern of my neighbor's cat, where Mom is 
everything and Dad nothing except a sperm-provider--and a provider 
of support money for Mom, since Mom's role in reproduction is 
obviously central and it would be a crime against biology to not 
subsidize her.
	The Ozzie-and-Harriet family, the family of Western nostalgia, 
however, was not only characterized by the feminine mystique and 
the "problem that has no name," it was characterized by the 
creation of the wealth feminists want to get their hands on.  The 
family of Ozzie-and-Harriet's day created the most prosperous era 
in the history of the world: "Never, have so many people been so 
well off," said Joseph Satin back then.  "The future can be left to 
care for itself," said William Baumol back then. 
	This wealth was created by men during the era of the feminine 
mystique.  Women were not grateful.  Betty Friedan complained that 
"Society asks so little of women"--much less than it asked of the 
Indian seaweed gatherers or the Zimbabwean women described by Ms. 
French.  Arthur's education enabled Arthur to work and support his 
wife and children.  But he is resented by women who want to work 
too, so they won't have to depend on a man, so that they won't have 
to live the kind of life their mothers lived, even though these 
mothers wouldn't exchange places with the seaweed gatherers.  
	"If you enter a Dublin pub during working hours," says Ms. 
French,

	it is filled with men....In Moscow even in the days of full 
employment , men loitered outside hotels, in airports and 
railroad stations, waiting to sell rubles to a foreigner on 
the black market, waiting for something, a deal.  There are 
more of them now.  You don't see women except on the block-
long food queues; the only queues men stand on are for vodka. 
 You don't see women on the streets of Athens either, except 
in the evening shopping hours.  You don't see women because 
they are all working--at home, in offices, in factories.  But 
you know that the men, whatever they do, however little work 
they do, earn more than the women.  And you know that the 
women spend the evenings working just as hard at home, while 
the men sit back expecting to be waited on. 

Unlike Arthur or Ibsen's Torvald (Nora's husband in A Doll's House) 
or the competent husbands held up as exemplars for wives by Ms. 
Friedan, who, confronted with housework which would take their 
wives all day to do, polished it off in a hurry--these males in 
Dublin, in Moscow, in Athens, lack motivation.  Men's lack of 
motivation is why "you don't see women because they are all 
working."  On the contrary men's high degree of motivation is why 
Ibsen's Nora complained of being consigned to being a sex-toy doll-
wife and why Ms. Friedan complained that "society asks so little of 
women," and told them that "housewifery expands to fill the time 
available."
	Ms. Friedan would like to tell these women--Nora and American 
housewives of the era of the feminine mystique--they can find 
fulfillment by getting elitist jobs.  But she cannot tell this to 
most women, who are not women "of ability and education" and who 
will find that the jobs they qualify for are mostly less 
interesting than housework and don't offer the kind of fulfillment 
she is promising women.  She might warn them that achieving 
economic independence may be hazardous to their marriages and their 
sex-lives--that the Kinsey statistics on  the high orgasm rate for 
educated married women during the era of the feminine mystique fail 
to indicate that once these educated women are also economically 
independent their marriages are at enormously greater risk. 
     She might issue the same warning to men contemplating marriage 
with such liberated women, who need to know that their chances of 
being dragged through the divorce courts and losing their children 
are far greater than if they married less-educated, less 
economically independent women.  In other words, the kind of 
fulfillment Ms. Friedan is talking about is statistically not 
likely to be accompanied by a stable, happy marriage, whatever 
satisfactions the women (not the husband or the children) may 
obtain by women's liberation.  
	Ms. Friedan may tease the boys by asking, How will men know if 
their wives really love them as long as they are economically 
dependent on them?  How will they know if their ex-wives love them? 
  What they do know is that ex-wives, including elitist career-
women, are very much interested in what they affect to call the 
"assets of the marriage"--aka the man's money.  Wives and ex-wives 
retain an abiding interest in their paychecks and this interest 
provides a far more stable basis for ensuring their role within 
their families than the agreeable but fluctuating set of feelings 
called "being in love."
	Ms. Friedan is saying that it is capable, educated, 
economically independent women who suffer from acedia, "the problem 
that has no name."  From which it follows that education (1) is 
wasted on women or (2) disqualifies them for marriage.  Unless, of 
course, their husbands are guaranteed custody of the children.  
	Ms. Friedan holds up Margaret Mead as an exemplar of "the 
woman thinker in America"  who should be regarded as giving her 
sisters a 

	vision of the infinite variety of sexual patterns and the 
enormous plasticity of human nature, a vision based on the 
differences of sex and temperament she found in three 
primitive societies: the Arapesh, where both men and women 
were "feminine" and "maternal" in personality and passively 
sexual, because both were trained to be cooperative, 
unaggressive, responsive to the needs and demands of others; 
the Mundugumor, where both husband and wife were violent, 
aggressive, positively sexed, "masculine"; and the Tchambuli, 
where the woman was the dominant, impersonal managing partner, 
and the man the less responsible and emotionally dependent 
person. 

	The "infinite variety" and "enormous plasticity" referred to 
need to be not merely acknowledged but emphasized.  This variety 
and plasticity have created (1) the Arapesh; (2) the Mugundumor; 
(3) the Tchambuli; and (4) American patriarchal civilization.  What 
conclusion deserves to be derived from a comparison of these four 
systems of sexual arrangement?  

	That there can be many different sexual arrangements.

	That the Arapesh, the Mugundumor and the Tchambuli are 
miserable failures, incapable of raising their societies out 
of Stone Age savagery.

	That the American patriarchal system is a success.

	
It might be added that the American patriarchal system was 
considerably more successful a third of a century ago, prior to 
feminism and its weakening of families--and the accompanying mass 
illegitimacy, drugs, demoralization and the rest, which have worked 
to restore the matriarchal family.  Washington, D.C., for example,




	
	Which women are truly oppressed?  
	Arthur wants an education so he can have a family; Virginia 
Woolf wants one so she need not have a family, or can have a 
smaller one, or, perhaps like Betty Friedan, can afford to divorce 
her husband.  There is a jingle which incorporates what is supposed 
to be the wisdom of the folk: "Higamous-hogamous, woman's 
monogamous; Hogamous-higamous, man is polygamous."  Is it so?  Not 
at all; it is men who want families, women who say "Get rid of 
HIM!"  who say "'Marriage as an institution is doomed' is the 
feeling of many women in the movement for whom the essence of 
women's liberation sometimes seems to be liberation from 
marriage."  
	Nancy Yos, reviewing volume V of A History of Women in 
Commentary, Jan 95 has this: "Nevertheless, in spite of the opaque 
writing the tome's central theme emerges with crystal consistency: 
20th-century women have strained to escape patriarchy and 
'phallocentrism' and its horrible servant--motherhood--but are 
nowhere fully free...to achieve autonomous creativity outside the 
domestic setting....Women's liberation is completely bound up in 
the thinking of those scholars with the desire and right to work 
outside the home.  Whatever is in aid of this end (day care, 
unfettered access to abortion) is objectively good, whatever 
hinders it is bad....And children themselves are the worst of all, 
being physical danger, poverty, and frustration to the progressive 
female class.  The more children women have the less they work 
outside the home."
	President Clinton, on the other hand, is concerned about 
yuppies not having enough children.  The Los Angeles Times of 20 
July, 1995, quotes him as follows: "We have more and more young 
couples where both of them are working and having careers and 
deferring child-bearing, and in many cases not having children at 
all....That is a very troubling thing for our country: The People 
in the best position to build strong kids, and bring up kids in a 
good way are deciding not to do so."  Clinton, says the Times, 
apparently learned about the declining birthrate in his voracious 
reading.  The President suggests better child care might help 
encourage two-career couples to have more children."
	The President's voracious reading evidently didn't include 
Nickles and Ashcraft's The Coming Matriarchy, where he could have 
read that women who work "prefer smaller families....In fact fewer 
have children."   This is why they want to work.  Work offers them 
the lure of economic independence, sexual independence, meeting 
males and having innocent flirtations and adulteries on the job.  
Dad's paycheck becomes relatively less attractive, especially when 
they know they are assured custody of the kids in the event of 
divorce, as well as support money, maybe welfare money to help them 
stand on their own feet "without sexual favor or excuse."  Then 
they can talk about giving their love "freely and joyously" rather 
than as "joyless dues for economic support," --paid for, required 
of them, by their patriarchal marriage vows, which everyone now 
agrees are obsolete, designed to enslave them, keep them barefoot 
and pregnant, breeders in an overpopulated world.  	
	There's a new order of things now, thanks to feminism.  Mom 
can now be true to herself as Fergie the Duchess of York says, 
rather than to her marriage vows.  Here's how Andrew Morton 
describes her declaration of independence:

	A few days before the Queen celebrated the 40th anniversary of 
her accession, the Duke and Duchess of York [Prince Andrew and 
Fergie] drove from Buckingham Palace to Sandringham to see the 
Sovereign.  On that bleak Wednesday in late January the royal 
couple formally discussed an issue which had troubled them for 
many months: their marriage.  They had agreed that, after five 
years of married life, it would be sensible if they separated. 
 The Duchess...had become increasingly disillusioned with her 
life within the royal family and depressed by continual and 
hurtful criticism....The final straw was the raucous 
discussion in the media about her relationship with Steve 
Wyatt, headlines provoked by the theft of photographs taken 
when the Duchess, Wyatt and others were on holiday in 
Morocco....
		One of the first to be given of the news was the Prince 
of Wales who was then staying on the Norfolk estate.  He spoke 
to her about his own marriage difficulties, emphasizing that 
his constitutional position as direct heir to the throne made 
any thought of separation from Diana almost unthinkable.  In a 
ringing rebuke the Duchess replied: "At least I've been true 
to myself."  It is a sentiment which lies at the heart of the 
dilemma facing the Princess of Wales and strikes at the 
foundations of the modern monarchy.   

	It is a sentiment which strikes at the foundations of the 
patriarchal system, the male kinship system, the family and the 
civilization based on these.  And nobody sees this.  Being true to 
herself was not the requirement of her marriage vow.  If it had 
been, it would have justified the return to the matriarchal system, 
which is what Fergie and the feminists want.  If the Archbishop had 
said "Will you, Fergie, be true to yourself?" he would have been 
saying what feminists want, which is: "Will you, Fergie, regard 
your (other) marriage vows as non-binding?"  Then her "Yes, I will" 
becomes a statement of the Promiscuity Principle, her right to 
control her own body/sexuality/reproduction.  That is matriarchy, 
the female kinship system, where the woman refuses to share her 
reproductive life with one man, the system of my neighbor's cat, 
who doesn't want a male around except when she feels like giving 
her love "freely and joyously," being "true to herself," being in 
heat.
	This is the "greater morality" of Dalma Heyn's adulteresses:

	All those words I'd scoffed at, words like "growth" and 
"experience" came to me in a rush: I suddenly felt my own life 
was a human-potential movement and this was the only way to 
develop my human potential and I'd be throwing away what I 
knew was right for me if I didn't pursue it.  I'd be a woman 
with no life in her, a silly, scared wimp.  All my "Grab the 
Moment" impulses; all my "Don't Let Opportunity Pass You By" 
feelings came up and squashed my puny little "Don't Because 
You're a Married Woman" prohibitions, which suddenly felt 
about as compelling as my "Don't Eat Sugar" vows.  I was 
surprised by my own vehemence, and about the stupidity I was 
able to ascribe to my own prohibitions.  It wasn't as if 
morality didn't exist; it was as if a greater morality, one I 
hadn't yet been aware of, and finally made itself visible to 
me.  This must be how people rationalize murder, I thought.  
They tell themselves: It Is Good.  God wants it that way.  Do 
it.
		And so I decided, since I wasn't even on the fence about 
this, that I wouldn't dredge up some fatuous rationale to try 
to justify it or dissuade myself.  I'd go with it, and deal 
with the rest later." 

	A greater morality.  Growth.  A mission.  This is the way 
feminists see their right to control their sexuality, their 
commitments, their marriage vows--and it is the way the law sees 
them, which is why society is reverting to matriarchy.  The law 
doesn't have the foggiest notion what it is doing.  Which is why we 
have all the crime, delinquency, drugs, teenage suicide.  Women 
yearn for the life of the squaw on the Indian reservation, so 
admired by Ms. Boulding, the life of the ghetto matriarch, so 
admired by Debold, Wilson and Malave,  and Richmond-Abbott and 
most feminists.  They hate patriarchy and want to get back to 
matriarchy.  This is what the sexual revolution is all about.  
	Dalma Heyn does a service to patriarchy (and a disservice to 
feminism) by revealing that this sort of shallow emotionalism is 
what motivates her adulteresses and drives them to undermine their 
families and the patriarchal system based on the family.  These 
women, all of them--and there is no reason for supposing them 
atypical except in being better educated and more intelligent--are 
moral minors who have no intention of keeping their marriage 
contracts.  They have the judges on their side, and the judges 
don't understand how patriarchy works, that its object is to create 
a two-parent family headed by the father.  "The courts have 
abandoned the concept of breach of matrimonial obligations," says 
former Law Commissioner Brenda Hoggett.  "We should be considering 
whether the legal institution of marriage continues to serve any 
useful purpose."   "The law," says former Lord Chief Justice Lord 
Lane, does not seem to be about justice.  It seems that the needs 
of children have to come first."   That means, if the children are 
removed from a father headed family and placed in Mom's custody, 
the needs of Mom have to come first, and Dad has no right to spend 
his own paycheck--he must share it with Mom.  
	The Church of England, according to Paul Johnson,  thinks 
"living in sin" is so common that it is scarcely sinful.  And 
Abigail van Buren tells us (about once a month) that there is no 
such thing as an "illegitimate" child.  A correspondent writes her: 



	Our son and his girlfriend (both in their 20s) aren't married. 
 And when they first announced she was pregnant we weren't 
elated, but we accepted the situation.
		Your answer was terrific: "There are no illegitimate 
children--all children are 'legitimate' in God's eyes."  I 
could never say the word illegitimate or even consider it.  I 
see only a beautiful, healthy, bright child who, with his 
parents' and God's help, will be an asset to this 
world....Keep up the good work.  We're not here to judge; God 
handles that!

To which Abby replies:

	Your letter was an upper.
		The world would be far less complicated if more people 
thought as you do.
		I admire your attitude and agree with your philosophy. 
(LAT 14 April, 1995)

	The world would be less complicated but more matriarchal, more 
like the ghetto and the Indian reservation.  
	If there are no illegitimate children then there are no 
legitimate children, no unchaste women (since all women are 
unchaste and there is no basis for comparing them), no fatherhood 
(since all fathers are mere boyfriends and most boyfriends are 
merely biological--not sociological--fathers)--the ghetto pattern.
	Abby and her correspondent are proposing to solve our most 
pressing problem by applying the Mutilated Beggar Principle, by 
saying we must reject patriarchy and embrace matriarchy because 
patriarchy stigmatizes and humiliates illegitimate children for the 
purpose of enforcing female chastity and normalizing the 
patriarchal family.  By getting rid of the stigma--refusing to use 
shame to regulate sexual behavior--society can reduce human 
suffering.
	Is it so?  There is no stigma for ghetto mothers or the 
children who bear their mothers' surnames and who may not even know 
their fathers' surnames.  But who would want to live in a 
matriarchal ghetto like Watts if he could choose to live in a 
patriarchal community like Bel Air?  Are the children of the ghetto 
happier than the children of patrician families who trace their 
ancestry--through male kinship--back to ancient roots? 
	Robert Scheer, illegitimate and angry at the society which 
stigmatized him for being so, rejoices that

	"Born-free" children, as I prefer to call them, are now far 
more common because parents are freer. 

Also commoner are crime, drug addiction, educational failure, 
gangs, second generation illegitimacy, drive-by shootings, teenage 
suicide, and other accompaniments of father absence.
	Scheer continues:

	Movie stars have made out-of-wedlock kids more acceptable, and 
single parents can get jobs to support their children.

The "promiscuity chic" actresses have helped to de-regulate the 
sexuality of the women and girls of the lower orders.  Anti-
patriarchal social policies such as Affirmative Action, quotas and 
comparable worth have made it easier for single mothers to support 
fatherless households and therefore to create them.  And there are 
other anti-patriarchal social policies such as the welfare program 
paid for by taxpayers who must also pay the costs of the crime and 
delinquency generated by the female-headed households they 
subsidize.  These programs also help to remove the stigma Scheer 
and Abby want to get rid of.  
	The main de-regulator of female sexuality, and hence the main 
reason for the lessening stigma of illegitimacy, is the divorce 
court's preference for mother custody in divorce, its  policy 
requiring ex-husbands to subsidize the ex-wives who throw them out 
and place their children in the fatherless family headed by Mom.   
	What purports to be defense of children and removal of 
humiliating stigma should be seen as a battle in the War Against 
Patriarchy, as the promotion of matriarchy, the great breeder of 
the pathology of society.  
	Scheer rejoices that he is now a role model, like the 
glamorous movie actresses, like Murphy Brown.  But such admired 
role models are increasing the number of imitators who are 
increasing the number of fatherless children who will be 
overrepresented in socially pathologically groups.  These children 
will suffer less stigma but they will suffer more of other 
disadvantages.  And there will be more sufferers.
	Welfare reformers talk about stopping teenagers from getting 
pregnant.  "Eight out of ten teen-agers who have kids," says Kathy 
Kristof, "end up poor for the rest of their lives."  According to 
William P. O'Hare, coordinator of Kids Count at the Annie E. Casey 
Foundation in Baltimore, "the negative consequences of having a 
child when you are 15 or 16 years old seem so clear that it is hard 
to imagine why anyone would do it....But the homes that many of 
these girls live in are so crummy that having a child and getting 
[welfare] is a way of getting out--an escape." 
	The politically correct solution today is to make the fathers 
of the illegitimate children pay for them.  But if there are no 
illegitimate children there can be nothing wrong with procreating 
them--no such thing as irresponsible fatherhood. Abby and Scheer 
want to remove stigma from the child, the corollary of which is 
removing it from the mother also.  But then the other corollary 
won't go away--there is no stigma for the father either.  
	This pattern of joyous and guiltless breeding is called 
matriarchy.  It is an attractive idea--the sort of thing that made 
Margaret Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa popular in the 1920s, the 
idea that what was needed to achieve sexual sanity was to get rid 
of Victorian puritanism and patriarchal sexual regulation. 
     Let's consider an example of how it works.  Lydia Nayo was an 
unwed mother and a welfare mother at age 16.  Also a good example 
of a type much praised in feminist literature, the black matriarch, 
but one who rises above welfare dependency and becomes, no less, an 
associate professor of law at Loyola Law School, and in consequence 
a role model who gets invitations to speak at ghetto schools where 
the girls are considering the plunge into unwed motherhood and the 
matriarchal lifestyle.  She tells the girls about how her unwed 
motherhood didn't stop her.  She got herself pregnant at age 15 and 
bore a daughter.  Her talks to the girls are, she says, "a 
grounding exercise":

	I once was, in the language of social science, an economically 
disadvantaged, single teen mother.  Statistically, I should 
not be a law-school professor, nor should my daughter be an 
only child or a college graduate.  These facts are vital 
elements of my discussion, because the risk exists that some 
members of the audience are or will become single teen 
parents. 

She can help the girls by showing that the matriarchal lifestyle 
need not prevent "success"--if you don't go "all the way" by 
continuing to breed illegitimate kids and increasing your welfare 
dependency by using them as Mutilated Beggars.  This is to say, the 
War Against Patriarchy can be a success if you accept patriarchy 
and its values, as Nayo finally does. 

	I tell them about my origins and my early parenthood, not 
merely as cautionary tale, but also as an offering of hope.  
It is as important to me to include unplanned parenthood in my 
presentation as it is to point out how I got into college, 
what my grades were like or the route I took from law student 
to law professor.  It is part of my objective of presenting 
possibility to these students: You can have a life after 
early, unexpected parenthood....[W]hat seems like a mistake 
can become an opportunity.

The guidance counselor suggested that she withdraw from her 
college-preparatory course, enroll in a vocational school, learn a 
trade and maybe find a husband for herself and a father for her 
child: "I ignored her and graduated with my class; my mother 
brought my daughter to the ceremony."  To find a husband/father 
would have been the path of failure--accepting the patriarchal 
lifestyle.  She rejects marriage for herself because it would make 
her dependent on a man.  (Perhaps her feminist teachers had told 
her "You want to have a career so that you don't have to depend on 
a man"?)  She rejoices also in her daughter's independence--she 
won't need a husband either, though Nayo's account ends happily 
with a reference to the daughter's coming wedding, which has 
traditionally signaled success in the patriarchal script.
	The daughter and her husband will have a marriage based on the 
"equality" feminists talk about.  It will be a marriage which 
ignores hypergamy.  It will really mean that the husband, however 
nice, will be dispensable, since the daughter may toss him out if 
she tires of him, while he will not be able to toss her out without 
giving up his children and his home and part of his paycheck.  This 
view of proper reproductive arrangements is one that ignores male 
motivation and the male's biological marginality.  It tells females 
they can earn for themselves the benefits that patriarchal males 
once conferred on their wives and children.
	Since "you can have a life after early, unexpected 
parenthood," you not only don't need a man, you don't need the 
bargaining power in the patriarchal sexual arena which chastity 
formerly gave women by allowing them to offer a male a stable 
family based on a stable marriage.  Men, she is indicating, will 
have to content themselves with what feminism is willing to allow 
them, a marginal role perhaps as stud, perhaps as stepfather, 
perhaps even as traditional father--though with tenure at Mom's 
pleasure.  
	She speaks of "unexpected parenthood."   The wisdom of 
patriarchy speaks of something different.  It says that parenthood 
ought to be the most deliberate and responsible choice of your 
life.  The wisdom of feminism says, Don't worry about it.
	In a later piece written for the Times, Nayo tells of being a 
poor pregnant 15-year-old:

	I was a book-smart ugly duckling.  When an older guy with a 
glamorous-sounding job expressed an interest in me, I was 
grateful.  From my current vantage point of maturity and 
higher self-esteem this seems so little to commend a suitor.  
While I never collected a cash grant, I could not have gotten 
from his abandonment and disavowal of his child to my current 
life without food stamps and Medicaid, without reduced-cost 
school lunches for my daughter. 

She complains of his "abandoning" his child and "disavowing" it.  
His problem is that he has no real claim to the child, no way of 
making a meaningful commitment to it, or to her.  He gives her a 
little flattery and "I was grateful."  He didn't offer her much.  
But she didn't offer him much--a one-night stand, evidently.  If 
she had had "higher self-esteem"--meaning if she had been chaste 
when she was 15--she would have had no reason to complain of 
abandonment.  What could he have offered her besides flattery?  His 
chance of having a stable family with a female he knew to be 
unchaste was insufficient to motivate a reasonable male to make a 
lifetime commitment justifying bringing new life into the world.  
She wouldn't offer him this and society couldn't expect it of him 
because it wouldn't offer him a meaningful role as a father.  
	Her piece is written to show that the welfare system ought not 
to be reformed by denying money to "penniless teen mothers":

	The minds that conceived a provision denying AFDC to teen 
mothers have forgotten exactly how young 16 is.  Sixteen is 
young enough to have a limited idea about how pregnancy 
occurs.

That is why she should have been taught chastity.  The flattery she 
got from her boyfriend "seems so little to commend a suitor."  It 
was, but he was not even a suitor: her unchastity kept him from 
being one and he knew it.
	"Sixteen," she says, "is possibly insecure enough to believe a 
boy or man who professes to have the thorny area of contraceptives 
under control or who says that he will stand by you if anything 
happens."  A girl of sixteen should instead believe her patriarchal 
father who will be asked on her wedding day, "Who gives this 
woman?" and who will reply, "I do," signifying "I brought her up to 
believe in patriarchal values, including premarital chastity, and I 
am now turning her over to a husband who will love, honor and 
protect her within the same patriarchal system, which will maximize 
her chances for happiness and a stable family--and will maximize 
the chances for happiness of her husband, her children and her 
grandchildren and will help stabilize society by reinforcing 
patriarchy, the best friend women ever had."  




     Elise Boulding, The Underside of History, p. 790.
     Ibid. 
     Marilyn French, The War Against Women, pp. 29, 34.
     Dorothy Dinnerstein, The Mermaid and the Minotaur: Sexual 
Arrangements and Human Malaise (New York: Harper and Row,, 1976), 
p.25:

	Another generous average estimate is that each birth might 
remove a woman from her normal sphere of activity for at most 
six months.  This assumes, of course, that except for 
lactation--which is also optional--the responsibility for 
child care is shared equally by men, and that working hours 
are short and flexible enough to make this possible.  Both of 
these conditions are so well within our technical means that 
the problem is to explain why they do not now exist (that is, 
to understand the societal and psychological patterns that 
block their overdue development).
		Six months times three is a year and half.  Thus to be 
physically a mother should in principle, for a woman who 
chooses this option, require at most about 3 percent of the 
fifty-year period of adult vigor between the ages of fifteen 
and sixty-five.

     Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, p. 338.
     Gerda Lerner, The Creation of Feminist Consciousness (Oxford: 
Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 30.
     Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas, p, 4.
     Sheila Rowbotham, A New World for Women: Stella Browne: 
Socialist Feminist (London: Plato Press, 1977), p. 32:

	When the issue was raised at the Labour Women's Conference in 
1924 people were astonished by,	the intense hostility shown by women to bearing 
children.  It was regarded as the great joy of every 
mother and the noble work of womanhood and there they 
were, all getting up and saying they couldn't stand it, 
they weren't going to have it and they must have it 
limited.

		The actual circumstances of working-class women's sexual 
and maternal lives belied the myth of motherhood.
     Only "alimony" sounds bad, sounds parasitic, so it is better 
to call it something else--"maintenance, rehabilitation, severance 
pay--whatever you want to call it."  The quoted words are from 
Betty Friedan's It Changed My Life, p. 326--following this: 
"Alimony?  Forget it--it's a sexist concept, and doesn't belong in 
a women's movement for equality."
	The simplest way, of course, is just to call the money Dad 
gives Mom "child support."  
     The Second Stage, p. 74.
     Quoted in Sylvia Ann Hewlett, When the Bough Breaks, p. 199.
     Why not especially in the days of full employment, when men 
didn't have to fear loss of a job, which was guaranteed by the 
Soviet constitution?
     The War Against Women, pp. 29f.
     If something good is found in the evidence (women's 
increasing orgasmic response decade after decade, according to 
Kinsey's evidence complied during the era of the feminine mystique) 
it is said to be owing to feminism.  The 1920s are the "era of 
feminism" (FM, 327).  When Ms. Friedan is grinding a different axe 
on p. 100 Ms. Friedan tells us feminism "ended as a vital movement" 
in 1920.
	Ms. Friedan lauds the education of the women enjoying this 
increased orgasmic response, since she thinks education is the key 
to women's emancipation and self-actualization.  However, the 
education which did produce the good orgasmic response was the bad 
education provided by the "sex-directed educators" excoriated in 
Chapter 7 for reconciling women to marriage and maternity, which 
Ms. Friedan wishes to believe detrimental to orgasmic response, 
though Kinsey's statistics prove the contrary.
     Feminine Mystique, p, 135.
     Feminine Mystique, p. 136.
     Jeanne Cambrai, Once Is Enough, p. tk
     It Changed My Life, p. 238.
     P. 42.
     The Second Stage, p. 322.
     Andrew Morton, Diana: Her True Story (London: Michael O'Mara, 
1993), p. 143.

     Dalma Heyn, The Erotic Silence of the American Wife (New 
York: Turtle Bay Books, 1992), p.38; emphasis added.
     Mother Daughter Revolution, p. 14: "Many African-American 
girls manage to hold on to their voices and their belief in 
themselves in adolescence, more so than white or Latina girls.  To 
do so, they draw on strong family connections and communities, and 
on the role that women play in those families, and communities...." 
	P. 130: "Within parts of the African-American community, 
mothers who might be considered authoritarian also produce 
responsible, assertive daughters.

     John Campion and Pamela Leeson, Facing Reality, p. 5.
     Ibid., p.35.
     London Daily Mail, 17 June, 1995.
     Playboy, January, 1992, p. 55.
     Los Angeles Times, 28 August, 1994.
     Los Angeles Times, 25 May, 1994.
      12 April, 1995.

FATHERS' MANIFESTO Home Page

 

TRAITOR McCain

jewn McCain

ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

killed 64 million Christians in Russia

holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

millions dead in the Middle East

tens of millions of dead Christians

LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
millions dead in Iraq

42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

serial killer of 13 Christians

the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

serial killers are all jews

framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught
left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

moser HATED by jews: he followed the law

f.ck Jesus--from a "news" person!!

1000 fold the child of perdition

 

Hit Counter

 

Modified Saturday, March 11, 2017

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party