An Essay In Defense Of Fatherhood

I came across this feature by Aaron Burr due to one of my fellow admins, And I found it quite interesting, and worth sharing. It's quite a different perspective to what you're used to reading, But I think it will generate some worthy thoughts to be heard. Click "read more/post comments" to read it.Dear People,





One of the most outrageous facts in the modern "Codes" and "laws" throughout the United States as well as all the states is the laws which are implemented against fathers for the collection of Child Support. After much analysis, I have come to the conclusion that they are not only unconstitutional--but they are opprobrious and in direct contravention to our foundational form of government. They are, in fact, "anti-law" laws--which our form of government prohibits, and it was the reason why we formed our government in the first place.



Here is a simple deconstruction of the problem:



First, that our children hold some form of status to their parents, cannot be controverted. Your child IS your property. You "created" and "own" your own child. Most Father's Rights advocates go white with fear at this realization--but it is well spelled out in the law...and it is a fact. Children are "something"--and under Hale v. Henkle as well as Dartmouth College cases--that property gives both parents and children substantive rights to this fact that children are property and that the state is prohibited from intruding upon this sacred contract.



When a child is born, it is expecting an unwritten contract--that it should have both parents. There is an unwritten contract that the child has a mother to nurture it. She has been designed, and is best suited for that role. The mother has a contract with the child, that she will be the mother, and uphold all the duties in relation to that station and those duties. The child also has a unwritten contract with the father, to be provided for and protected by him. The father concomitantly has a unwritten contract with the child, that he will be the child's natural guardian; as he
is best suited for that role and has shown he upholds that function very well (for six thousand years, this system not only worked, but it ascended Western Civilization, generation after generation). All three parties to this unwritten contract assume the proper places within it.



The child is the child-- the unemancipated minor who cannot decide for itself; and thereby, defers to the protection and guidance of its parents. The mother is the strongest link with the child, and is thereby not the focal point of keeping the family together--as she will always be there, come hell or high-water. She will be there through all, and is not the "glue" to complete the family. The father is. He is the weakest link of the home and
family--and may leave it, unless he is given a benefit to stay in the
relationship. Society has bolstered his participation in the family by establishing marriage and the social institutions which give men "Quid Pro Quo" contracts with the father.



"This for that." Society, knows that marriage is the best place all three people can be. The family, Western Civilization has understood, is the best place for men, women and children. This is incontrovertible. This is where families do best: within the home and family.



So, mothers, because they will always be there, are allowed the role of subordinate; as again, they are best suited for that role. The father is the ordinate within the family, and has the obligations--because the law points to him as having all the benefits. (Quid pro Quo).



This interrelation of the family, suited both society and men, woman and children for 5000 to 6000 years. It worked. It kept social pathology rates low. It kept prison rates low. It allowed, year after year, wealth to be slowly accrued within the home and family--not government. It created "free-Societies" advanced and superior to all other tribal institutions before it. It gave both the family, stability--and it allowed society to flourish as it used [the regulation of] sex as a tool to promote society to
societies advancement. Society needed this sexual regulation and the rigid demarcation of the "contract" of the family, between children and their parents.



Currently our society has completely deconstructed this archetype, in favor of socialism. It has allowed the leakage of feminism to directly destroy the home and family (and most particular the father). Presently, it does this and forces the man to be the slave of the child, woman and government--at their bidding. (Yet, our laws clearly state that no person is to use their rights at the expense of another).



One of the largest frauds of this is the Institutionalized implementation of CHILD SUPPORT.



What is extreme and very odd about this "obligation" (which has not been fully and exactly defined at law, nor admitted by government employees whom are enforcing it), is that in their "law" there are only limited defenses for any father attempting to refute it. For instance, the California Family Code states that the following defenses are applicable in court:



4612. An obligor-parent alleged to be in arrears may use any of the
following grounds as a defense to the motion filed pursuant to this
article or as a basis for filing a motion to stop a sale or use of
assets under Section 4631:
(a) Child support payments are not in arrears.
(b) Laches.
(c) There has been a change in the custody of the children.
(d) There is a pending motion for reduction in support due to a
reduction in income.
(e) Illness or disability.
(f) Unemployment.
(g) Serious adverse impact on the immediate family of the
obligor-parent residing with the obligor-parent that outweighs the
impact of denial of the motion or stopping the sale on obligee.
(h) Serious impairment of the ability of the obligor-parent to
generate income.
(i) Other emergency conditions.

The only defense NOT ALLOWED is the most obvious one: THAT THE FATHER DOES NOT OWE IT.

What could be the reason the government omitted this defense? Well, the ORIGINAL CONTACT itself which has been violated between a father and child! If a child has been kidnapped, the father has no recourse currently in the law. The courts incorrectly intimate that the father must pay, no matter what outrage, no matter what crime is done against him and his family, no matter what illegality or unjust acts in overt violation to either his rights or the rights of the child--well, the courts illegally compel him to pay. They leave him absolutely no redress at law other than the "no win scenario" defenses shown above.



Yet, the law not only allows, but it compels a father to enforce his power to PUNISH those who defy him in his own home.



"Glanville maintained a contrary doctrine, and insisted that an action lay. 'For,' said he, 'the father hath an interest in every of his children, to educate them and to provide for them; and he has his comfort by them; wherefore, it is not reasonable that any should take them from him and such injury, but that he should have his remedy to punish it." Vaughan v.Rhodes, 2 McCord 227.



Now here is what most Father's Rights activists miss.



The ability of a wife and mother to obtain alimony and child support,
developed under a Patriarchal construct that saw that the wife and mother as incompetents. That because they came under the protection of the father and he provided for them; that under that coverture (the male protecting his wife and taking responsibility for her) that he was thereby obligated to her for Alimony (and then Child Support) upon separation or divorce. This made sense under the light of the institution of Patriarchy.



Yet, the current courts are implementing feminism. The law is feminist. And what we have not placed forwards as a legal proponent to these courts is that under that alien tutelage of feminism, women are now "emancipated." That it is a "you go girl" society where women are now equal, that they do not need men, that they are in fact, superior. (Feminists actually make these claims, and the courts uphold them with a vengeance against men.)



Well, then, if this is the case: then why does the feminist codes compel a man to pay? There never has been any assignment of Alimony or Child Support against a competent father. In fact, it is a fact that most fathers even today, upon getting custody of their children (when that rare event occurs) NEVER ASK FOR CHILD SUPPORT! Nor are the courts too quick in assigning payments to go from the mother to the father--and they are even more recalcitrant in enforcing such support "obligations" when the women defaults!



The big question is here, in the age of feminism--why the assignment of support at all? "IF" women are "you go girl" go-getters and are in fact, "just as good as men" (if not superior, as they allege) and now independent and better than men--and if Patriarchy is now destroyed--then why are we having laws which intimate men only owe Child Support and Alimony--and that we have laws which do not allow men to make the defense that they do not in fact owe the obligation from the onset?!?? (Ergo: "We now are in a feminist society, the Family Code is feminism: Child Support is obsolete because the woman claims she is just as good and just as independent as the man.)



They now say we do not own them. Fine. Okay. Then why are they asking for Alimony?



If they are as good and as responsible as men--then why aren't they assuming the same obligations that men understood? (That you take care of your own without outside support). Men do not ask for child support--but the new feminists implementing this feminist sophistry within the "new" Family Law and throughout the codes--MAKE SURE WITH A DEATH GRIP THAT THEY CLUTCH THE PATRIARCHAL OBLIGATIONS AGAINST THE MALE AND FATHER--when in fact they refute the institution of the Patriarchy.



No person can sit on two sides of the defense. This society is either Matriarchal or it is Patriarchal. "IF" the courts are enforcing Matriarchy: THEN NO MAN OWES CHILD SUPPORT. Because women are independent and equal to men. They don't need coverture...and alimony and child support are Patriarchal systems of COVERTURE.



For "if" children are not property but sovereign citizens with full legal rights (as Hillary Clinton intimates), then they cannot legally compel child support. "IF" women are sovereign and not under the Patriarchal confines of coverture, then they have no basis to demand either alimony or child support.



Either the courts are feminist, or they are Patriarchal....



And if they are Patriarchal, then that means children are property, and they are unemancipated minors who need both parents in a family for help and guidance in their life. They need a mom to be a mom...and they most certainly need a dad to be a dad. And if this is the case, then the full structure of Patriarchy comes into play, and the courts are compelled in the first instance to implement "Quid pro Quo" contract, assured to children and parents under the unwritten contract, so protected under Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution: Obligations of Contracts (Hale v. Henkle,
Dartmouth College, etc).



Consider my words.



Hope this helps.



Aaron

NOTICE: This story was migrated from the old software that used to run Mensactivism.org. Unfortunately, user comments did not get included in the migration. However, you may view a copy of the original story, with comments, at the following link:

http://news.mensactivism.org/articles/03/04/26/1637241.shtml