The War Against Fathers
June 16, 2001
by Tom Barrett, Editor@ConservativeTruth.org
THE WAR AGAINST FATHERS. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the social agenda of the liberal left is their unrelenting attack on fathers. Of course, feminists and their allies have attacked men in general for decades, portraying them as stupid, dominating, and every one a potential rapist. They have in recent years broadened their attacks to include boys, an agenda that Christina Hoff Sommers (a converted feminist) brilliantly exposes in her book, "The War Against Boys." But the bulk of the forces against males today are focused on an unprecedented attack on fatherhood.
Let me begin this article by saying what should not be necessary. The fact that I support and encourage fatherhood and the traditional two-parent family does not mean that I hate, put down, disparage, or disapprove of single parents of either sex. I was a Singlesí Pastor for many years, and know better than most that the majority of single parents are not in that position by choice. The people to whom I ministered would be the first to say that they would prefer to raise their children with a loving mate if that was possible. I recognize that that ideal is not always possible. I am simply pointing out that it IS the ideal family.
Thirty years ago about 7 million children in the United States lived in homes without a father. That number has QUADRUPLED in the last three decades. FORTY PER CENT of American children will lay their heads tonight on pillows in homes where their father does not live. This is a frightening statistic, considering the differences between the futures of these children and those who live in homes headed by two parents. Consider:
*Almost 75 percent of children without fathers in the home will experience poverty before they turn 11, compared to only 20 percent for families where there are two parents.
*Violent criminals are overwhelmingly males who grew up without fathers: 60 percent of Americaís rapists, 72 percent of adolescent murderers, and 70 percent of long-term prison inmates.
*Children living in father-absent homes are more likely to be suspended from school, or to drop out; be treated for an emotional or behavioral problem; commit suicide as adolescents; and be victims of child abuse or neglect.
*Children with little or no contact with their fathers are more likely to become involved in drug and alcohol abuse; girls are more likely to become pregnant as teens.
These are FACTS. A cursory Internet search will yield these and other alarming statistics. Two sites you may wish to start with are www.fatherhood.org and www.fathers.com. They both offer links to other sites with valuable research material. Given these facts, why would anyone attack fathers? More importantly, where does the attack on fathers originate?
An unholy trinity of liberal politicians, feminist activists, and the media leads it. As I read my own words, I find myself thinking what you must be thinking: "Why in the world would they do this? What do they have to gain?"
Liberal politicians depend on poor voters and those on welfare. Without this constituency they could not remain in office. Their message is that government handouts are the answer to societyís ills. They buy votes by promising more welfare programs and higher wages. Do they destroy families deliberately, cold-heartedly attacking fatherhood for political gain? In most cases, I donít think so. But I do believe that in the back of their minds, they realize that they must keep a large part of the population dependent on them. They have done this with no-fault divorces; taxes that penalize marriage; laws that encourage co-habitation instead of marriage; and a host of other anti-family measures. Perhaps the worst is the welfare system that penalizes families where the father is present in the home. Yes, this actually happens. Fathers that would prefer to live with their families actually live elsewhere so that their wives can continue to receive welfare payments.
Earlier I mentioned "feminists and their allies." N.O.W., the so-called National Organization for Women, would be better named N.O.L.A., the National Organization for Lesbians and Abortionists, since those are the main agendas they push. Originally founded to promote equal rights and pay for women, the organization has been taken over by homosexual activists and militant abortionists. The vast majority of American women no longer support this organization. But their attacks on men, families, and fathers in particular are supported by organizations and institutions that one would not expect to do so. As the saying goes, "Politics makes strange bedfellows." So we see groups that need N.O.W.ís support for THEIR agendas (such as the teacherís union and Hollywood movie producers) supporting N.O.W. when they push legislation intended to demean fatherhood. And in return, the women of N.O.W. turns a blind eye to the damage the N.E.A. does to their children, and the violence caused to women by Hollywoodís pornography.
Finally, Hollywood and the liberal media have for years ridiculed fathers, portraying them as stupid oafs in sitcoms, as oppressors of women in movies, as violent beasts in news coverage. One glaring example is the way child sexual abuse is portrayed. In TV dramas, movies, and in the news the natural father is almost always seen as the offender. The fact is that unmarried sexual partners of mothers, family friends, and relatives perpetrate most child sexual abuse. Some fathers do commit incest, but statistically the safest place for a child is a home where her natural father resides.
With all this said, I do not believe that the root cause of the attack on fathers is political ideology or radical social agendas. I believe the reason these ideologies and agendas exist is spiritual. God created the family, and He gave the father the responsibility for the physical and spiritual well being of his wife and children. The family is the basic building block of the church and of society. As such, it is under constant attack by every force of evil. Any attack on the family must start with an attack on the father, for he is the protector of the family.
As a nation, we tend to be passive. It is hard to get Americans to be passionate, to get them involved on most issues. This is one where we had better get involved. Every time you see an attack on fathers and families, you had better speak up. Every time legislation is proposed that will further weaken fatherhood and the traditional family, you had better let you representatives know where you stand in no uncertain terms. For if the family is destroyed, America will be destroyed.
JUDGE ORDERS 19-YEAR-OLD NOT TO HAVE SEX UNTIL MARRIED. A Texas judge with a history of issuing unconventional punishments has struck again, this time sentencing a probationer to celibacy. State District Judge J. Manuel Banales, angry that a 19-year-old had impregnated two underage girls, ordered the young man to abstain from sexual activity until he takes a womanís hand in marriage.
The order has drawn opposition from the manís attorneys and the American Civil Liberties Union. "Itís really not the governmentís job to tell us when we can have sex with consenting adults," said Diana Philip, spokeswoman for ACLU of Texas.
Banales said he handed down the April decision to encourage Robert Torres to behave responsibly, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times reported in its Thursday online edition. "He is fathering children that he is not supporting," said Banales. "So, I told him he can father as many children as he wants as long as he establishes a marital relationship."
(EDITORíS NOTE: To read the rest of the article, go to: www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,26747,00.html#top .)
ARE HUSBANDS AND FATHERS AN ENDANGERED SPECIES?
Few news stories bother me much anymore. In many ways, Iíve seen just about everything and, I think, the average American has also become a bit jaded with all the politically correctness that weíve been subjected to in recent years. However, some of the comments that have been made concerning President Bushís decision to appoint what is being called a "marriage czar" in some media reports has really raised the hackles on the back of my neck.
FoxNews reports today a "controversial Bush Administration nominee advocates using federal funds to ensure that wedding bells ring more often in poor neighborhoods, sparking a national debate on just how politics and marriage should mix." Sometime, it seems, between my childhood and the present time marriage has become a controversial issue.
Dr. Wade F. Horn, president of the National Fatherhood Initiative has been nominated by President Bush to serve as the Bush Administrationís "marriage czar," as an assistant secretary of Health and Human Services. (HHS) Believe it or not, in 2001 we have reached such a state of cultural decline that Dr. Hornís efforts to "encourage responsible fatherhood" and marriage are being widely ridiculed and attacked.
In fact, some believe a man who encourages responsible fatherhood is a menace to society. The National Organization for Women Legal Defense Fundís Senior Staff Attorney, Tim Casey, in fact said when Horn was nominated in April that "Hornís appointment is a major threat to women, especially low income single mothers. His principal, near exclusive, theme is that increasing the incidence of two parent families is a panacea-like solution for the many contemporary social problems for which he blames single mother families."
Marriage is a major threat to women? Especially low income single mothers?
Casey went on to explain, "Horn embraces many gender stereotypes, opposes abortion, criticizes no-fault divorce, and promotes a sexual morality that many have rejected." He then lists 29 criticisms of Horn to "prove" he is a threat to women. His criticism include: "He thinks privatizing Social Security is a good idea;" and "...Horn wrote during the presidential campaign that "one of the two major Presidential candidates" - Bush - had been touching on issues of "hard work, self-sacrifice and taking care of others" and "Horn asserts that "Dads are Foundations of the Family Structure", the title of his June 16, 1998 column." (EDITORíS NOTE: To read the rest of the article, go to: http://www.bannerofliberty.com/OS6-01MQC/6-1-2001.1.html . The Bible tells us to pray for our leaders. President Bush is under fire for doing what he believes is morally right, such as this appointment. We need to pray for him.)
FROM THE EMAIL BOX
You may remember my mention of one of our subscribers, Betsy Thraves in an earlier issue. She is a missionary in the former Soviet Union, and a former White House staffer. I received an email from a gentleman who thought she might be related to him and put the two in contact. This is the result: "A note on Andrew Thraves. He has sent me a family tree beginning in 1332 and going right up to ME! Also, sent photos of his entire family. They have invited me to come to Wales to visit them on my way back from the States in July. Thanks for making that connection. Itís good to know that I have cousins in England, however distant. Betsy."