Firstly, Vincent McGovern’s book, above, is out: get it here. My review, which may or may not appear on Amazon….
I suppose “entertaining” is not quite an appropriate word, given the subject matter – but entertaining it is. Fathers after separation from a partner determined to distance them from their own children find out the hard way just how badly the odds are stacked against them. Mr McGovern is well qualified to write such a book, having been through it himself and considering his 14 years in the business of supporting other fathers to remain in their children’s lives. That he manages to do so in a manner replete with black humour and idiosyncratic asides (such as crashing a swanky party in the EU Headquarters) is all to the good, sweetening a very bitter pill. And bitter it is.
One of the troubles with this business is that no one will believe how bad it is until it happens to them – and every one of them, as Mr McGovern says, thinks he is the first and it is all a terrible mistake. It is not a mistake; it has been constructed to be the way it is. And to those fools who say to fathers complaining about their treatment, “well, if only you’d been a rather more involved father before perhaps your protestations might have met with more success” Mr McGovern’s own case stands in refutation. He is by no means unusual in finding that having been the main carer for many years before separation counts for diddly-squat compared with the downside of being the wrong sex.
But McGovern does not let the fathers themselves off the hook, citing modern men as one of the “four pillars of failure”. He is right; vanishingly few fathers who approach organisations like FNF stick around to help other men afterwards. This is the lack of male in-group preference which feminists do not even perceive and could not comprehend if they did. It is the reason why feminism has been able to rip through society unopposed; it is the reason why ‘patriarchy theory’ is not only wrong, but a psychological impossibility.
Read the book: it is full of truth but less depressing than this review!
Secondly, for UK residents, the Society to Establish a Minister for Men is holding a symposium in Bath on Saturday 17th July (10am – 5pm), details here. If you wish to attend please email email@example.com (not me). I shall be there.
Follow the same method they used to gain power. Pick egregious cases and fund legal appeals upto the highest court until an egalitarian precedent is set.
Filing procedural complaints against law enforcement when they default to arresting the male when he and the Male is much more seriously injured.
Track divorce cases having a domestic voilence arrest against the man and publicise the lawyer names of the spouse claiming victimization. Conjecture is that the same lawyers look for similar demographics and take on DV cases divorce as a practice.
The medical examiners compare the number of procedure X vs the average percentage at all hospitals to ferret out ill practices.
– Divorces total
-Divorces with children under 5
-Divorces where one party arrested for DV
-Divorces where one party arrested for DV and the DV complaint is recanted or un prosecuted within 90 days of the divorce finalization
If you can’t laugh about it then you’ll only cry….
Whilst probably carthartic documenting the symptoms of the problem it doesn’t move us forward in identifying the cause. Incidentally I still need to write my carthartic book which will probably be entitled the “Anti-Family Courts” – a title I suggested to a Family Court Usher after the CJ had departed, he replied “You may have something there”.
The turnover in FNF of members which was a third pa (1000 out of 3000) in 2010 is perhaps indicative of an inability for some to cope with the trauma and reality that the state is fundamentally anti-family and they are simply banging their heads against a brick wall, leaving FNF’s self-destructive tendencies whether naturally occuring or engineered aside.
From ‘The Role of the Father in Child Development’ – M E Lamb “”Like the workplace, child care and educational institutions have traditionally made little effort to include fathers and have often acted in ways that exclude them or include them only in gender-typed ways (Klinman, 1986; Levine, Murphy & Wilson, 1993). Men have a role to play and raising children isn’t it.
I rewatched Braveheart recently and realised we need to sack York, the staging post for King Edward to launch his tyranny from. Ok not literally but the legal/systemic/cultural equivalent, first men need to appreciate the sadistic forces in play and second step back and design mechanisms to prevent the attacks. One thing we do know men are good at is being creative and inventive. “If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts.” Camille Paglia (feminist)
Forget the gender divisions between men and women, forget the political divisions, the religious divisions, and so on. Start to understand how we are being mind controlled – “Based on research and theory by Robert Jay Lifton, Margaret Singer, Edgar Schein, Louis Jolyon West, and others who studied brainwashing in Maoist China as well as cognitive dissonance theory by Leon Festinger, Steven Hassan developed the BITE Model to describe the specific methods that cults use to recruit and maintain control over people. “BITE” stands for Behavior, Information, Thought, and Emotional control.”
I shall buy and read, but as y0u say dread to read again of the ongoing injustice. As you say the speedy success of modern feminism in the “west” illustrates the absence of “the patriarchy”. Whatever the genesis, in our gene, the psychology of our biology of socialization it is by now crystal clear there is no strong bonding and support for men from men, except in the very specific circumstances of extreme threat such as war or at sea.
Personally I think this is why many prominent campaigners for boys and men are women, less psychologically disposed to sympathise, indeed in my limited experience of DV support and wider experience of social care it is often other women in their lives that are concerned about abuse or other mistreatment by men from their partners or carers.
I believe that the psychological research that identifies the much stronger belief men have in abstract rules, is the place to look for support for “men’s” issues. In effect doubling down on “equality” and identifying unfairness experienced by boys and males. Men are more likely to be motivated by unfairness or injustice, than an appeal to support men and certainly any suggestion they act “against” women.
As far as I know there is no issue in “mens rights” that would not be improved by a rigorous application of the same treatment as recieved by girls or women. And generally people interpret “equal” as same treatment.
The men’s rights movement cannot be a mirror image of feminism for the very practical reason men are very different, and as far as I can see cannot come close to the self absorption and herding that enables so many women to protect “their” privileges. Even now the majority of actual policy decision makers are men. Clearly men not acting in the interest of the “patriarchy”.