I believe that Janice’s article should be read by everyone who cares about the integrity of the family and the betterment of our children. Tour de force… many thanks for saying forthrightly what should be done and having the courage to speak up . Kudos 👏
Agreed, Sanjay. Modern feminism is one of the pillars of the whole Leftist narrative. It's a structure so rickety that it's gonna collapse at some point.
Sir Bob Geldof, drawing from Oscar Wilde's quip about homosexuality in those days, said that "father love is the love that dare not speak its name." (He meant that to apply specifically in British courtrooms.)
Interesting (though not surprising) that even back in the 19th century, fathers were not the autocratic patriarchs which feminists are always inveighing against.
I was blown away by Tom James's research! There was far more there than I could convey (originally my summation was twice as long, it took over the entire essay), and it was all utterly fascinating.
But it is true, nevertheless, that dysfunctional families were held together much more in the past than at present due to the inability of single mothers to achieve financial independence.
Throughout the history of the United States, the wealth was held by most women in the urban areas. Those women that moved to and lived out in the Wild West needed men to protect them, because they were physically, and in most cases, mentally outmatched by Indians, robbers, murderers, thieves, bullies, government officials, and other unscrupulous men (and some women). That lasted until about the very early 1900s. By 1920, women had gained the upper hand with the ratification of the 19th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Guess who caused Prohibition to ban all manufacture, sales, and consumption of alcohol??? Women's groups. Prohibition (18th Amendment ratified) started in January 1919. The Suffrage Amendment, passing both Houses of Congress in June 1919, led up to the ratification of the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote was passed in August 1920. The 21st Amendment ending the ban on Prohibition was passed in 1933. See the pattern here. These were all women-driven constitutional amendments to control men.
And, I forgot to mention that from the period of 1919-1933 was the most violent time period in American history, with the likes of gangsters like Al Capone, Bugsy Siegal, Frank Nitti, Pretty Boy Floyd, John Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde, Baby Face Nelson, Machine Gun Kelly, Ma Barker and her sons. Because of women driven control of government at the time (Prohibition and Suffrage), it caused a lot of crime. Same can be said of today with the bleeding heart, liberal, leftist, white, college-educated women allowing for criminals to go free and allowing the bringing in of illegal aliens because they believe "everyone should be allowed to come into the United States for a 'better life'".
By putting everything under the umbrella of patriarchy, it denies individual differences in personalities within the sexes. It really is shallow and fatuous. It denies what everyone can observe from life - there are kind, loving, empathetic men as well as women, but there are also cold women as well as men lacking in empathy now and in the past. It perpetuates the myth that all women are maternal, which anyone with discernment, experience of life knows is not true. Luckily, my mother was a maternal type. My father was quite a stern figure. The mix was beneficial.
From my own family history I know it is also a total lie that women couldn't have private money that their husbands couldn't touch. But the women did need a bit of sense plus a father or brother who could get the neccesary legal framework set up so I get that for poor people or rich noddle heads it wasnt available. But in families that thought ahead a legal framework could be set up BEFORE the wedding to keep the woman's money completely in her control ( except for emotional blackmail or charm of course). I guess that reality goes against the victim narrative.
We grew up relatively poor by today's standards. My mother controlled the family finances while Dad handed her his pay envelope. She gave him bus fare to work. That was typical for many working class families in the 1940s-50s. Even my grandmother who worked in a garment industry sweartshop kept her own savings, much of which she sent back to the Old Country. Rich women had their own trust funds and separate banking arrangements. The current feminist narrative is mostly myth.
I would like to take this opportunity to raise awareness of my own book on the subject, "Ideology and Dysfunction in Family Law: How courts disenfranchise fathers" (2014). It is available as a free download on the websites of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and also the Canadian Constitution Foundation.
The book covers the subject of child custody and support from sociological, ethical, economic, and legal angles. I focus on the contemporary situation in Canada, although much of the analysis can be generalized to other countries that have a legal system descended from the British.
Haven't read your book but will do. I endured a very ugly divorce in Canada wherein my lawyer admitted upfront that no way would I come out of it whole. The presiding judge had been the target of complaints to the Law Society for having awarded custody to fathers in some cases and, in the spirit of self-preservation, was detemined to avoid that "open manhole." When he called my three kids before the bench to publicly announce that they would be going with their mother, the oldest announced "No way! We're going wirh Dad." One of the boys is now a prominent criminal defence attorney. Other two have successful businesses, all university educated, entirely at Dad's expense. My Ex is still in the religious cult that destroyed our marriage, supported by our oldest son who remains unmarried. Lesson learned.
Just out of curiosity, Janice, do you know who invented the word 'feminism'? One of the reasons that I have decided to write a short history of feminism was that most people have absolutely no idea where the movement started and how it evolved. It's actually shocking. You go to your standard AI engine like Alexa or Gemini and ask what feminism is and how it started and you will get garbage. And yet, the reason why feminism can't abide heterosexual pairing and biological origin of parenting, or the presence of the 50% of any kid's daddy DNA in the house he or she lives, has been there right from the start. It's in the name. Feminism does not concern itself with the welfare of the dumb half of humanity that can't do better than complain about women crazies. Why should it care about fathers? Ellen Keys found the perfect sub for the father in the 1900's - the welfare state. Ok, the guy who invented the 'feminism' was one Charles Fourier. He was a French utopian socialist and surely much crazier than the likes of Saint Simon or Robert Owen. Other than free love, he believed in astro-travel and making lemonade out of sea water. I am not kidding. He had this idea of creating a perfect society that would do away with monogamous marriage, as some binding and long-term commitment to a partner. Men and women should screw around as much as they wanted to - this idea was later popularized by "Mrs. Satan", the most scandalous feminist of all time, Victoria Woodhull. To bring up a child was the business of a Fourierist village. Monogamy oppressed women, as did religion, and the civilization itself. It was Fourier who first used the term 'patriarchal society'. (From him it was adapted by one Friedrich Engels). Fourier's ideas informed directly the thinking of Cady Stanton and other early feminist types. Angelica Grimké and hubby lived in a Fourierist colony. Stanton herself only visited but could not quite act on her yen to join because she was pregnant most of the time. Besides she had it too good with Stanton whom she drove up the wall and who would not do much else about it. So it should not come as a surprise that the likes of Robin Morgan and the current legal establishment revert to the oldest of feminist archetypes. Btw, Janice, I am looking for an editor of my book. Would you like to take a look at my writing ? Me email is jiri.severa@rogers.com Thanks either way.
Thank you! Yes, I've read some Fourier, though probably not as carefully as I should have (I have pages of notes on his weirdness), and I am familiar with Victoria Woodhull and her free-love advocacy.
It would be fascinating to edit your book but I am desperately trying to finish one of my own (and keep up my Substack as well). I am a pathetically slow writer. I will write you at your email address. Glad to meet a fellow chronicler of feminism.
In the 1950s, the National Association of Women Lawyers (“NAWL”) undertook what it considered its “greatest project,” the drafting and promotion of a model no-fault divorce law. It launched its campaign at a time when post-war realities and the law in practice were putting increasing pressure on the law on the books which lagged behind contemporary sensibilities. NAWL acted two decades before the no-fault divorce “revolution” of the 1970s. It did so in the 1950s when women were said to be both “domestic” and “quiescent.” NAWL was a major player in the history of divorce law, the no-fault revolution, and the rise of mass divorce in mid-twentieth century America. NAWL was heavily involved in the undertaking for the standard narrative of “domesticity” in the 1950s, an account that has been questioned in recent years. They were the leaders in women's activism in the depth of the so-called “doldrums” of the organized women's movement in the 1950s.
Antonio Gramsci was a radical Marxist hell bent on destroying society. Gramscian Communism told us about how the break up of the family would cause the break-up of American society. He said Communism must infiltrate the schools and governments first, and then change societal norms and create chaos (to the point of the craziness and violence we have today with the radical LGBTQ+ and Radical Trans crowd, BLM and ANTIFA). As part of the government infiltration, they were to aid in the break-up of families. Hence, the "destruction of the family" courts.
Betty Friedan—who later co-founded the National Organization for Women—was a card-carrying Communist that argued that women were still relegated to unfulfilling roles in homemaking and child care. By the early 1960s, many people had started referring to feminism as “women’s liberation.”
A lesson in "the utility of interpretation": no fault actually means "men's fault". Redefining words, phrases, interpretations, perceptions is fundamental to the fuckery of any narrative. If the fuck...ers were to come in your mouth, they would be "providing you nourishment."
I am sorry to break this to you but you have been brainwashed. I spent two years researching the two (and the now forgotten Matilda Joslyn Gage) and I gathered enough evidence to label them confidently as feminist supremacists. There are certain aspects of the suffragist movement that has still not gotten out. As for Douglass, he broke up with ECS and SBA after the Civil War when the two threw in their fortunes with the racist copperhead G.F.Train who financed their paper The Revolution.
And, she was a feminist. Read the article I sent you from History.com. Many other links also show that Stanton was an early "FEMINIST". The articles all state the same thing. Suffragists/Suffragettes were Feminists. And, Feminists were Suffragists/Suffragettes.
Again, you are mistaken. Stanton was censured by the National American Suffragist Association in 1896 for organizing a "revising committee" to create "The Woman's Bible" which had nothing whatever to do with suffragism. It was a feminist attack on the Scriptures, where Stanton claimed she did not believe that any man ever saw or talked with God, and did not believe that God inspired the Mosaic Code. Why would a suffragist need to believe that? Indeed the censure of Stanton stated precisely that. You are also wrong about the meaning of the word "feminism". It was first recorded in Oxford English dictionary in 1933, with the description, "the opinions and principles of the advocates of the extended recognition of the achievements and claims of women; advocacy of women’s rights". However, the belief in women's rights does not make one automatically a feminist. I am for legal equality of women, and support a number of so-called women's issues, if they agree with the principles of liberal democracy but would not dream to call myself a feminist.
I have to only skim your words here Janice, and bad memories coming rushing in and yes, every thing you've written is accurate. It brings back painful memories - in our first meeting with lawyers and a first meeting attempting to lay out conditions of separation and my lawyer says yes, Kevin will settle for seeing his 2 children, 2 nights a week at least it seemed as if I had agreed to abandon my children. And the reality was that I felt I was more active in parenting our children. I called a halt in the meeting and overrode my female lawyer saying that I was expecting at least half time with my children. She protested that that wasn't the way things worked but I got that standard established. Wooosh what a nightmare. That was just the start of a long painful, expensive process to eventually getting a divorce and resume my life and retrieve my children.
I went through several lawyers. It’s an industry built to demolish a family’s wealth. And uses cluster B personality disorders of at least one spouse to get their way.
There was one lawyer in a small town. He didn't have much business and was starving. A second lawyer moved into town and placed his shingle out for all to see. Within a year, both lawyers had become millionaires.
For dramas of this situation playing out in real life, one needs only look to Angelina Jole and Brad Pitt. Angela, who's father Jon Voight, a real piece of work, has made their divorce a theatrical public spectacle and is actively painting Brad as a monster. Then there's Amber Herd and her fantasies of abuse by Johnny Depp. Playing victim falls apart when you're the aggressor
Mutual abuse is the modal form of intimate partner violence. About half of cases involve mutual aggression. About a quarter involve unilateral aggression of the male on the female, and about a quarter involve unilateral aggression of the female on the male. This has been studied and the finding replicated in hundreds of sociological studies since the mid-1970s.
The data shows that, however; the public perception is that the woman is ALWAYS the victim. So far, Angelina has been seen as the aggrieved one. Amber got away with her fantasies for awhile before the trail in the US. The facts in the case didn't change, but public perception did. And THAT'S the point. Data says one thing, but in the court of public opinion a woman is always the victim until PROVEN otherwise. For a man an unsubstantiated aligation from a woman is all that's required to destroy him (Senator Al Franken is a perfect example).
For a view on that check out the DoorDash girl drama. She ignored dilevery instructions to leave the order on the porch and instead fully opened a door that had been closed, but not latched, entered the home, took photographs of a semi-nude man, claimed (screamed about) SA, posted the photos, named the man and posted his address. After 6 weeks she was finally arrested. If a man had done the same this narrative would be far more agressive, with greater repercussions.
Women are more and more completely out of control because we deny them the important lesson of denials and boundaries. Instead we lie to them about the nature of SA, we appraise women in whatever they do (one day we will cheer if a woman farts, I am sure). we enable, encourage, empower (and whatever buzzword comes into mind) and deny them responsibility, accountability, reflection on their errors and misbehaving.
I know Donna. I handled a defamation case against her in the 2000s for a brief time. I can refer to my own published research on the differential treatment of men and women in criminal court: Grant A. Brown, “Gender as a Factor in the Response of the Law-Enforcement System to Violence Against Partners,” Sexuality & Culture, Vol. 8, Nos. 3-4 (Transaction Periodicals, 2004), pp. 3-139.
This is in reply to Janice. I cannot reply directly:::::Donna has been working on a tribute to the participants in the trucker protest. If you search within substack you will find her. You both should know each other, your collaboration would be spectacular. Thank you for your fine work and the legal suffering you have endured for doing that work. You are one of the Great Ones!
Oh, sorry, I thought you meant the book. The academic article on IPV will be behind a paywall because it is an academic publisher. You might be able to access it from a university library, with the help of a librarian (or if you know a professor).
Donna Laframboise wrote for the National Post in the early years under Conrad Black's ownership. She was turned loose to expose the contemptuous treatment of men in western society and Canada in particular. Her work there was voluminous, and profound but ultimately, as can be expected, led to no positive result for men. The National Post; the best newspaper in north America at the time was sold to Asper who immediately turned it into shit. Donna and the N.P. parted ways. I still have most of her articles in my tiny library and grieve the loss of access to one of the great ones. She has her substack but her focus has changed.
I know her a little, but I didn't realize she was such an important advocate for men. One learns things every day, even about advocates in one's own country. What does she write about now? Does she mention men's issues on her Substack? I'll look for her.
Donna seems to take the side of contrarians on a lot of issues (like me) - the side of freedom. First I knew of her, she was writing on men's issues for the NP. At that time she had a website advocating for female pornography. Then she shifted to criticism of the IPCC and climate change. It doesn't surprise me that she is now defending the trucker convoy participants, who have been badly treated and unfairly maligned.
Thanks for this Janice. So much I didn't know. The Davis material is sick but expected but the history of custody was a pleasant surprise. Isn't it amazing how the feminists have been able to create a totally different reality, sell it to people, and march on? Totally bizarre.
I am not a father, but I found this to be a very strong article (I began reading before realising who the author was, and I thought, "If this was written by a man, they will get nuked writing this!"
Upon realising that you wrote it Janice (and I am somewhat familiar with your work), I relaxed a little - only to recall that indeed you have, and no doubt still do, get lots of heat from the feminists - so thank you for staying true to your morals/ethics when it would be so much easier to remain quiet: you are a Shining Light in the darkness Janice!
Thank you, Neil. The feminists mainly leave me alone, perhaps because I am too much small potatoes for them to bother with (they've won the war, they don't need to fight the skirmishes) or perhaps because they don't really have any way of getting to me now that I'm retired. So I have no wish or need to remain quiet, and will not do so. This is my subject that I can never grow tired of.
It is worth knowing a true story from 1953 Dublin of Irish father Desmond Doyle whose wife left him and their 6 children. In Ireland during that time, both parents were required by law to appear in court and consent to the release of the children, but Desmond’s wife was nowhere to be found. Desmond persevered and eventually went to Ireland’s Supreme Court to fight against the combined might of the Irish State and the Roman Catholic Church in order to win back custody of his children. This win was huge since the State had decided that certain children would not be allowed to live with parents, and instead forced the children to live in separate industrial schools run by the Catholic Orders, an institution infamous for neglect and abuse. His victory was inspiring and set a precedent in Irish law that saw many children eventually reunited with their families. The movie Evelyn starring Irish actor Pierce Brosnan is based on Desmond’s battle to regain custody of his children.
I saw that film on tv,Pierce Brosnan was so good as the Dad, so NOT James Bond. Sorry,I know that isn't the point but I was impressed. I once on a bus got in conversation with a lady a little older than me who told me all about how it was in the 1930s Great Depression in Ireland that her Mother and Uncles told her (and her son was researching their family history so she knew about research techniques too. She told me if you were 'on benefits' then (the dole) you could be called up anytime and ordered to work in the Magdalen laundry if they were short,or for a man,work on the roads,dig the gardens or whatever,no show,no money. I'm not praising this it's utterly horrible but I think thats coming back due to people not exercising individual responsibility.
Well we have already experienced what happens in the black community when fathers are absent, are we to expect different results in the white community?
I saw “Kramer vs Kramer” long ago, but didn’t like it much. One scene particularly stayed with me, when Mr. Kramer brings a young woman home to have sex with. His son’s encounter with his dad’s conquest is treated for laughs, when it surely would have been upsetting for a young boy like him.
A far better film about a marital breakup which doesn’t seem to have received the attention it deserves is the 2005 comedy “Halfway Decent” starring Ernie Hudson, of Ghostbusters fame. He is a black LAPD constable, with a white Southern blonde wife (Finn Carter) and one son (Jamil Walker Smith). She has been pestering him to have another child, more and more worried about her biological clock running down. He can’t take the stress and moves out. However, he finds that living without his wife and son is making him nutty. He realizes that the stresses of being a husband and being a father are worth putting up with for the joys that having a family brings. It makes sense to settle for something “halfway decent.”
Katie Lohmann, who has a supporting role in the film as a female barber/hooker, said she learned more about acting from talking with Ernie Hudson when she made “Halfway Decent” than from anyone else. Sorry if this comment is a little off-topic, but it is a marvelous film, much better than “Kramer vs Kramer”, which more people should see.
What is striking as I read this important account is that this greatest and most devastating of all feminist victories (far more important in launching and maintaining their power than abortion) is that they won this battle without firing a shot: no debate, no opposition, no willingness since to reconsider it, and a total media blackout, despite the massive social and legal chaos it causes. This confirms my increasing conviction that the solution proposed by the great Daniel Amneus – father custody (https://www.scribd.com/document/109890549/The-Case-for-Father-Custody) – will not only rectify this greatest of feminist injustices; it will break the back of the entire feminist movement. For a recent discussion, see: https://stephenbaskerville.substack.com/cp/175184143.
Thank you, Stephen. Yes, I have been reading Amneus on your recommendation and originally had a section on father custody in this essay before taking it out because it complicated a piece of writing that was already verging on incoherence. Father custody is definitely worth exploring further. I re-read most of your book (Taken Into Custody) before writing this and was staggered, once again, by the malign ridiculousness of so much of what you chronicle there. What a great work of yours.
Thanks, Janice. I realize that "father custody" is a provocative way of phrasing it. But given that mothers initiate close to 100% of their divorces, almost invariably without legal grounds, "father custody" simply amounts to repealing no-fault divorce when children are involved.
The plan to destroy western society marches on. The monetization of children has been a primary tool as we are turned into "cattle".
As Orwell predicted, no place will be safe, any relationship will lead each to betray the other in "Room 101" where the court system attaches the rats to your face.
We've all been turned into cattle. That's why there's a "human resource" department in every company. We were turned into cattle upon receipt of the Social Security Number, which is the modern version of "666".
Thanks for documenting this long and tragic history, Janice.
I believe that Janice’s article should be read by everyone who cares about the integrity of the family and the betterment of our children. Tour de force… many thanks for saying forthrightly what should be done and having the courage to speak up . Kudos 👏
Agreed, Sanjay. Modern feminism is one of the pillars of the whole Leftist narrative. It's a structure so rickety that it's gonna collapse at some point.
Misandry is the hate that dare not speak its name.
Sir Bob Geldof, drawing from Oscar Wilde's quip about homosexuality in those days, said that "father love is the love that dare not speak its name." (He meant that to apply specifically in British courtrooms.)
I'm not a fan of Saint Bob,but he got that right.
Did he?
Evidence?
Interesting (though not surprising) that even back in the 19th century, fathers were not the autocratic patriarchs which feminists are always inveighing against.
I was blown away by Tom James's research! There was far more there than I could convey (originally my summation was twice as long, it took over the entire essay), and it was all utterly fascinating.
Patriarchy is a myth. Historically nearly all men had no power.
What children need is more Masculinity in their lives.
Patriarchy and Matriarchy are fanciful concepts that belong in a course on Jungian archetypes.
The matriarchy is real. It is oppressing.
But it is true, nevertheless, that dysfunctional families were held together much more in the past than at present due to the inability of single mothers to achieve financial independence.
Yes, certainly so.
Throughout the history of the United States, the wealth was held by most women in the urban areas. Those women that moved to and lived out in the Wild West needed men to protect them, because they were physically, and in most cases, mentally outmatched by Indians, robbers, murderers, thieves, bullies, government officials, and other unscrupulous men (and some women). That lasted until about the very early 1900s. By 1920, women had gained the upper hand with the ratification of the 19th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Guess who caused Prohibition to ban all manufacture, sales, and consumption of alcohol??? Women's groups. Prohibition (18th Amendment ratified) started in January 1919. The Suffrage Amendment, passing both Houses of Congress in June 1919, led up to the ratification of the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote was passed in August 1920. The 21st Amendment ending the ban on Prohibition was passed in 1933. See the pattern here. These were all women-driven constitutional amendments to control men.
And, I forgot to mention that from the period of 1919-1933 was the most violent time period in American history, with the likes of gangsters like Al Capone, Bugsy Siegal, Frank Nitti, Pretty Boy Floyd, John Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde, Baby Face Nelson, Machine Gun Kelly, Ma Barker and her sons. Because of women driven control of government at the time (Prohibition and Suffrage), it caused a lot of crime. Same can be said of today with the bleeding heart, liberal, leftist, white, college-educated women allowing for criminals to go free and allowing the bringing in of illegal aliens because they believe "everyone should be allowed to come into the United States for a 'better life'".
Not pertinent to the discussion. Please pursue that theme in a separate article.
By putting everything under the umbrella of patriarchy, it denies individual differences in personalities within the sexes. It really is shallow and fatuous. It denies what everyone can observe from life - there are kind, loving, empathetic men as well as women, but there are also cold women as well as men lacking in empathy now and in the past. It perpetuates the myth that all women are maternal, which anyone with discernment, experience of life knows is not true. Luckily, my mother was a maternal type. My father was quite a stern figure. The mix was beneficial.
From my own family history I know it is also a total lie that women couldn't have private money that their husbands couldn't touch. But the women did need a bit of sense plus a father or brother who could get the neccesary legal framework set up so I get that for poor people or rich noddle heads it wasnt available. But in families that thought ahead a legal framework could be set up BEFORE the wedding to keep the woman's money completely in her control ( except for emotional blackmail or charm of course). I guess that reality goes against the victim narrative.
We grew up relatively poor by today's standards. My mother controlled the family finances while Dad handed her his pay envelope. She gave him bus fare to work. That was typical for many working class families in the 1940s-50s. Even my grandmother who worked in a garment industry sweartshop kept her own savings, much of which she sent back to the Old Country. Rich women had their own trust funds and separate banking arrangements. The current feminist narrative is mostly myth.
I would like to take this opportunity to raise awareness of my own book on the subject, "Ideology and Dysfunction in Family Law: How courts disenfranchise fathers" (2014). It is available as a free download on the websites of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and also the Canadian Constitution Foundation.
The book covers the subject of child custody and support from sociological, ethical, economic, and legal angles. I focus on the contemporary situation in Canada, although much of the analysis can be generalized to other countries that have a legal system descended from the British.
Haven't read your book but will do. I endured a very ugly divorce in Canada wherein my lawyer admitted upfront that no way would I come out of it whole. The presiding judge had been the target of complaints to the Law Society for having awarded custody to fathers in some cases and, in the spirit of self-preservation, was detemined to avoid that "open manhole." When he called my three kids before the bench to publicly announce that they would be going with their mother, the oldest announced "No way! We're going wirh Dad." One of the boys is now a prominent criminal defence attorney. Other two have successful businesses, all university educated, entirely at Dad's expense. My Ex is still in the religious cult that destroyed our marriage, supported by our oldest son who remains unmarried. Lesson learned.
My observation is that girls need Fathers even more than they need Mothers although they do best with both.
It is extraordinary what Courts do and have done to Fathers, decisions being made mostly by male Judges who are fathers themselves. Bizarre.
This is part of the planned ….destruction of the family.
Female judges are even worse. Family Law is a gold mine for female lawyers.
Just out of curiosity, Janice, do you know who invented the word 'feminism'? One of the reasons that I have decided to write a short history of feminism was that most people have absolutely no idea where the movement started and how it evolved. It's actually shocking. You go to your standard AI engine like Alexa or Gemini and ask what feminism is and how it started and you will get garbage. And yet, the reason why feminism can't abide heterosexual pairing and biological origin of parenting, or the presence of the 50% of any kid's daddy DNA in the house he or she lives, has been there right from the start. It's in the name. Feminism does not concern itself with the welfare of the dumb half of humanity that can't do better than complain about women crazies. Why should it care about fathers? Ellen Keys found the perfect sub for the father in the 1900's - the welfare state. Ok, the guy who invented the 'feminism' was one Charles Fourier. He was a French utopian socialist and surely much crazier than the likes of Saint Simon or Robert Owen. Other than free love, he believed in astro-travel and making lemonade out of sea water. I am not kidding. He had this idea of creating a perfect society that would do away with monogamous marriage, as some binding and long-term commitment to a partner. Men and women should screw around as much as they wanted to - this idea was later popularized by "Mrs. Satan", the most scandalous feminist of all time, Victoria Woodhull. To bring up a child was the business of a Fourierist village. Monogamy oppressed women, as did religion, and the civilization itself. It was Fourier who first used the term 'patriarchal society'. (From him it was adapted by one Friedrich Engels). Fourier's ideas informed directly the thinking of Cady Stanton and other early feminist types. Angelica Grimké and hubby lived in a Fourierist colony. Stanton herself only visited but could not quite act on her yen to join because she was pregnant most of the time. Besides she had it too good with Stanton whom she drove up the wall and who would not do much else about it. So it should not come as a surprise that the likes of Robin Morgan and the current legal establishment revert to the oldest of feminist archetypes. Btw, Janice, I am looking for an editor of my book. Would you like to take a look at my writing ? Me email is jiri.severa@rogers.com Thanks either way.
Thank you! Yes, I've read some Fourier, though probably not as carefully as I should have (I have pages of notes on his weirdness), and I am familiar with Victoria Woodhull and her free-love advocacy.
It would be fascinating to edit your book but I am desperately trying to finish one of my own (and keep up my Substack as well). I am a pathetically slow writer. I will write you at your email address. Glad to meet a fellow chronicler of feminism.
Thank, Janice. Looking forward to hearing from you. And as I said.....no pressure, I am not done myself. :)
'I am a pathetically slow writer.'
I would remove the p-word and add 'brilliant'.
Your articles are diamonds and a love to read them.
In the 1950s, the National Association of Women Lawyers (“NAWL”) undertook what it considered its “greatest project,” the drafting and promotion of a model no-fault divorce law. It launched its campaign at a time when post-war realities and the law in practice were putting increasing pressure on the law on the books which lagged behind contemporary sensibilities. NAWL acted two decades before the no-fault divorce “revolution” of the 1970s. It did so in the 1950s when women were said to be both “domestic” and “quiescent.” NAWL was a major player in the history of divorce law, the no-fault revolution, and the rise of mass divorce in mid-twentieth century America. NAWL was heavily involved in the undertaking for the standard narrative of “domesticity” in the 1950s, an account that has been questioned in recent years. They were the leaders in women's activism in the depth of the so-called “doldrums” of the organized women's movement in the 1950s.
Antonio Gramsci was a radical Marxist hell bent on destroying society. Gramscian Communism told us about how the break up of the family would cause the break-up of American society. He said Communism must infiltrate the schools and governments first, and then change societal norms and create chaos (to the point of the craziness and violence we have today with the radical LGBTQ+ and Radical Trans crowd, BLM and ANTIFA). As part of the government infiltration, they were to aid in the break-up of families. Hence, the "destruction of the family" courts.
Betty Friedan—who later co-founded the National Organization for Women—was a card-carrying Communist that argued that women were still relegated to unfulfilling roles in homemaking and child care. By the early 1960s, many people had started referring to feminism as “women’s liberation.”
I think Gramsci was the originator of the phrase “….the slow march through the institutions….”
A lesson in "the utility of interpretation": no fault actually means "men's fault". Redefining words, phrases, interpretations, perceptions is fundamental to the fuckery of any narrative. If the fuck...ers were to come in your mouth, they would be "providing you nourishment."
I am sorry to break this to you but you have been brainwashed. I spent two years researching the two (and the now forgotten Matilda Joslyn Gage) and I gathered enough evidence to label them confidently as feminist supremacists. There are certain aspects of the suffragist movement that has still not gotten out. As for Douglass, he broke up with ECS and SBA after the Civil War when the two threw in their fortunes with the racist copperhead G.F.Train who financed their paper The Revolution.
I left the part out about the 1800s suffragists because I was talking about the more modern timeline.
Stanton was, indeed, a feminist. Read: https://www.history.com/articles/feminism-womens-history
And, she was a feminist. Read the article I sent you from History.com. Many other links also show that Stanton was an early "FEMINIST". The articles all state the same thing. Suffragists/Suffragettes were Feminists. And, Feminists were Suffragists/Suffragettes.
Again, you are mistaken. Stanton was censured by the National American Suffragist Association in 1896 for organizing a "revising committee" to create "The Woman's Bible" which had nothing whatever to do with suffragism. It was a feminist attack on the Scriptures, where Stanton claimed she did not believe that any man ever saw or talked with God, and did not believe that God inspired the Mosaic Code. Why would a suffragist need to believe that? Indeed the censure of Stanton stated precisely that. You are also wrong about the meaning of the word "feminism". It was first recorded in Oxford English dictionary in 1933, with the description, "the opinions and principles of the advocates of the extended recognition of the achievements and claims of women; advocacy of women’s rights". However, the belief in women's rights does not make one automatically a feminist. I am for legal equality of women, and support a number of so-called women's issues, if they agree with the principles of liberal democracy but would not dream to call myself a feminist.
I have to only skim your words here Janice, and bad memories coming rushing in and yes, every thing you've written is accurate. It brings back painful memories - in our first meeting with lawyers and a first meeting attempting to lay out conditions of separation and my lawyer says yes, Kevin will settle for seeing his 2 children, 2 nights a week at least it seemed as if I had agreed to abandon my children. And the reality was that I felt I was more active in parenting our children. I called a halt in the meeting and overrode my female lawyer saying that I was expecting at least half time with my children. She protested that that wasn't the way things worked but I got that standard established. Wooosh what a nightmare. That was just the start of a long painful, expensive process to eventually getting a divorce and resume my life and retrieve my children.
I burned through two female lawyers, both useless. Family Law is a gold digger's paradise.
I went through several lawyers. It’s an industry built to demolish a family’s wealth. And uses cluster B personality disorders of at least one spouse to get their way.
Lawyer 1 to lawyer 2: "Two fat chickens. You pluck one, I'll pluck the other."
There was one lawyer in a small town. He didn't have much business and was starving. A second lawyer moved into town and placed his shingle out for all to see. Within a year, both lawyers had become millionaires.
For dramas of this situation playing out in real life, one needs only look to Angelina Jole and Brad Pitt. Angela, who's father Jon Voight, a real piece of work, has made their divorce a theatrical public spectacle and is actively painting Brad as a monster. Then there's Amber Herd and her fantasies of abuse by Johnny Depp. Playing victim falls apart when you're the aggressor
Mia and Woody, too.
Mutual abuse is the modal form of intimate partner violence. About half of cases involve mutual aggression. About a quarter involve unilateral aggression of the male on the female, and about a quarter involve unilateral aggression of the female on the male. This has been studied and the finding replicated in hundreds of sociological studies since the mid-1970s.
The data shows that, however; the public perception is that the woman is ALWAYS the victim. So far, Angelina has been seen as the aggrieved one. Amber got away with her fantasies for awhile before the trail in the US. The facts in the case didn't change, but public perception did. And THAT'S the point. Data says one thing, but in the court of public opinion a woman is always the victim until PROVEN otherwise. For a man an unsubstantiated aligation from a woman is all that's required to destroy him (Senator Al Franken is a perfect example).
For a view on that check out the DoorDash girl drama. She ignored dilevery instructions to leave the order on the porch and instead fully opened a door that had been closed, but not latched, entered the home, took photographs of a semi-nude man, claimed (screamed about) SA, posted the photos, named the man and posted his address. After 6 weeks she was finally arrested. If a man had done the same this narrative would be far more agressive, with greater repercussions.
Yes, amazing story. Many women are completely out of control, and have impunity for their crazed and destructive actions. Look at Olivia Nuzzi.
Women are more and more completely out of control because we deny them the important lesson of denials and boundaries. Instead we lie to them about the nature of SA, we appraise women in whatever they do (one day we will cheer if a woman farts, I am sure). we enable, encourage, empower (and whatever buzzword comes into mind) and deny them responsibility, accountability, reflection on their errors and misbehaving.
Refer to: "Princess at the window" by Donna Laframboise for info on the Stats Can domestic violence survey of 1990's, it's results and suppression.
I know Donna. I handled a defamation case against her in the 2000s for a brief time. I can refer to my own published research on the differential treatment of men and women in criminal court: Grant A. Brown, “Gender as a Factor in the Response of the Law-Enforcement System to Violence Against Partners,” Sexuality & Culture, Vol. 8, Nos. 3-4 (Transaction Periodicals, 2004), pp. 3-139.
This is in reply to Janice. I cannot reply directly:::::Donna has been working on a tribute to the participants in the trucker protest. If you search within substack you will find her. You both should know each other, your collaboration would be spectacular. Thank you for your fine work and the legal suffering you have endured for doing that work. You are one of the Great Ones!
Thank you, my friend!
Oh, sorry, I thought you meant the book. The academic article on IPV will be behind a paywall because it is an academic publisher. You might be able to access it from a university library, with the help of a librarian (or if you know a professor).
Donna Laframboise wrote for the National Post in the early years under Conrad Black's ownership. She was turned loose to expose the contemptuous treatment of men in western society and Canada in particular. Her work there was voluminous, and profound but ultimately, as can be expected, led to no positive result for men. The National Post; the best newspaper in north America at the time was sold to Asper who immediately turned it into shit. Donna and the N.P. parted ways. I still have most of her articles in my tiny library and grieve the loss of access to one of the great ones. She has her substack but her focus has changed.
I know her a little, but I didn't realize she was such an important advocate for men. One learns things every day, even about advocates in one's own country. What does she write about now? Does she mention men's issues on her Substack? I'll look for her.
Donna seems to take the side of contrarians on a lot of issues (like me) - the side of freedom. First I knew of her, she was writing on men's issues for the NP. At that time she had a website advocating for female pornography. Then she shifted to criticism of the IPCC and climate change. It doesn't surprise me that she is now defending the trucker convoy participants, who have been badly treated and unfairly maligned.
I found the above reference site to your work but the access to read it appears to be restricted.
The link works for me.
https://www.fcpp.org/sites/default/files/ideology-and-dysfunction-in-family-law.pdf
This works. Downloaded and ready to read. Thank you
Bill Burr on reasons: Stand-up
https://youtu.be/sXRstrOqxRc
Great stuff.
Then he married a horrible, horrible woman and made a horrible movie about married life, and it is even a little bit funny.
It's the male/female dynamic.
Thanks for this Janice. So much I didn't know. The Davis material is sick but expected but the history of custody was a pleasant surprise. Isn't it amazing how the feminists have been able to create a totally different reality, sell it to people, and march on? Totally bizarre.
I am not a father, but I found this to be a very strong article (I began reading before realising who the author was, and I thought, "If this was written by a man, they will get nuked writing this!"
Upon realising that you wrote it Janice (and I am somewhat familiar with your work), I relaxed a little - only to recall that indeed you have, and no doubt still do, get lots of heat from the feminists - so thank you for staying true to your morals/ethics when it would be so much easier to remain quiet: you are a Shining Light in the darkness Janice!
Thank you, Neil. The feminists mainly leave me alone, perhaps because I am too much small potatoes for them to bother with (they've won the war, they don't need to fight the skirmishes) or perhaps because they don't really have any way of getting to me now that I'm retired. So I have no wish or need to remain quiet, and will not do so. This is my subject that I can never grow tired of.
You are doing amazing work, keep it up!
It is worth knowing a true story from 1953 Dublin of Irish father Desmond Doyle whose wife left him and their 6 children. In Ireland during that time, both parents were required by law to appear in court and consent to the release of the children, but Desmond’s wife was nowhere to be found. Desmond persevered and eventually went to Ireland’s Supreme Court to fight against the combined might of the Irish State and the Roman Catholic Church in order to win back custody of his children. This win was huge since the State had decided that certain children would not be allowed to live with parents, and instead forced the children to live in separate industrial schools run by the Catholic Orders, an institution infamous for neglect and abuse. His victory was inspiring and set a precedent in Irish law that saw many children eventually reunited with their families. The movie Evelyn starring Irish actor Pierce Brosnan is based on Desmond’s battle to regain custody of his children.
I saw that film on tv,Pierce Brosnan was so good as the Dad, so NOT James Bond. Sorry,I know that isn't the point but I was impressed. I once on a bus got in conversation with a lady a little older than me who told me all about how it was in the 1930s Great Depression in Ireland that her Mother and Uncles told her (and her son was researching their family history so she knew about research techniques too. She told me if you were 'on benefits' then (the dole) you could be called up anytime and ordered to work in the Magdalen laundry if they were short,or for a man,work on the roads,dig the gardens or whatever,no show,no money. I'm not praising this it's utterly horrible but I think thats coming back due to people not exercising individual responsibility.
I suggest also: "The Good Father" Anthony Hopkins. Another suppressed gem that is unavailable.
Well we have already experienced what happens in the black community when fathers are absent, are we to expect different results in the white community?
It's happening to whites, too. Only a matter of time...
I have experienced this in my own divorce, men are always suspected while womens lies never get questioned
A lot of it has to do with female judges
In my experience as a divorce attorney in Edmonton, male judges are no better.
If only...
In the Black community, the determining factors are quite different but the outcomes identical.
No.
Great essay as always, Janice.
I saw “Kramer vs Kramer” long ago, but didn’t like it much. One scene particularly stayed with me, when Mr. Kramer brings a young woman home to have sex with. His son’s encounter with his dad’s conquest is treated for laughs, when it surely would have been upsetting for a young boy like him.
A far better film about a marital breakup which doesn’t seem to have received the attention it deserves is the 2005 comedy “Halfway Decent” starring Ernie Hudson, of Ghostbusters fame. He is a black LAPD constable, with a white Southern blonde wife (Finn Carter) and one son (Jamil Walker Smith). She has been pestering him to have another child, more and more worried about her biological clock running down. He can’t take the stress and moves out. However, he finds that living without his wife and son is making him nutty. He realizes that the stresses of being a husband and being a father are worth putting up with for the joys that having a family brings. It makes sense to settle for something “halfway decent.”
Katie Lohmann, who has a supporting role in the film as a female barber/hooker, said she learned more about acting from talking with Ernie Hudson when she made “Halfway Decent” than from anyone else. Sorry if this comment is a little off-topic, but it is a marvelous film, much better than “Kramer vs Kramer”, which more people should see.
Thank you! I'll look for it!
What is striking as I read this important account is that this greatest and most devastating of all feminist victories (far more important in launching and maintaining their power than abortion) is that they won this battle without firing a shot: no debate, no opposition, no willingness since to reconsider it, and a total media blackout, despite the massive social and legal chaos it causes. This confirms my increasing conviction that the solution proposed by the great Daniel Amneus – father custody (https://www.scribd.com/document/109890549/The-Case-for-Father-Custody) – will not only rectify this greatest of feminist injustices; it will break the back of the entire feminist movement. For a recent discussion, see: https://stephenbaskerville.substack.com/cp/175184143.
Thank you, Stephen. Yes, I have been reading Amneus on your recommendation and originally had a section on father custody in this essay before taking it out because it complicated a piece of writing that was already verging on incoherence. Father custody is definitely worth exploring further. I re-read most of your book (Taken Into Custody) before writing this and was staggered, once again, by the malign ridiculousness of so much of what you chronicle there. What a great work of yours.
Thanks, Janice. I realize that "father custody" is a provocative way of phrasing it. But given that mothers initiate close to 100% of their divorces, almost invariably without legal grounds, "father custody" simply amounts to repealing no-fault divorce when children are involved.
The plan to destroy western society marches on. The monetization of children has been a primary tool as we are turned into "cattle".
As Orwell predicted, no place will be safe, any relationship will lead each to betray the other in "Room 101" where the court system attaches the rats to your face.
Every narrative is a "sympathetic lie".
Always follow the money!
We've all been turned into cattle. That's why there's a "human resource" department in every company. We were turned into cattle upon receipt of the Social Security Number, which is the modern version of "666".