Government’s Feminist Tyranny Fosters a Matriarchal and State-Run Families
By Shane Flait © 2010

 Heavy government funding of feminist-based programs has lead to injecting perverse feministic demands by the state into every facet of business, education, and family law. Feminist-demanded privilege especially within family law –referred to as Feminist Jurisprudence – bypasses constitutional protections and common law maxims designed to create freedom and fairness for all.

 

This article shows how feminist jurisprudence fosters state-run families under matriarchal control and drives fathers from control of their family into slave positions with state-mandated obligations yet no rights.

 

Our government fosters the growth of fatherless, mother-headed, and truncated families. This trend is endorsed by state laws and benefits. It’s implemented through court-ordered destruction of fathers’ fundamental rights which results in enslaving fathers to support the government’s feminist tyranny. It brings about fathers’ disempowerment, absence and destruction. Much of today’s youth pathology is a direct result of this.

 

 

Custodial vs noncustodial is akin to master vs slave

 

That state through its family courts is creating a matriarchal society by creating an inequivalent status between fathers and mothers with the destruction of the father-headed family and imposition of a mother-headed family.

 

With feministic jurisprudence dominating our family courts, a dual class system for fathers and mothers is being maintained and strengthened. The two classes are custodial and noncustodial. Having physical custody of the child under divorce or paternity judgments puts you in the custodial class. Mothers are almost invariably assigned custodial status while fit fathers are relegated to a non-custodial status which legally forces a father to pay onerous payments – perhaps a third or more of his gross income - to the mother for whatever use she wishes.

 

Under divorce and paternity actions, the family court- i.e. the state- assumes virtually permanent control of the family – but most especially of the noncustodial fathers. By unconstitutionally denying a fit father to directly parent (including directly supporting) his children, the state throws a father into the noncustodial status and commences the extortion of money – euphemistically called child support - from him for the mother’s arbitrary use of it.

 

The noncustodial status guarantees not rights and benefits for the father. Visitation or ‘sharing in decisions’ possibly afforded to him are less than breadcrumbs and easily disregarded by either mother or the court or both. But if he doesn’t pay all the child extortion - whether he can or not - he’s thrown in jail without a trial with constitutional protections.

 

Clearly, the state-imposed status of ‘non-custodial’ on a fit father isn’t consistent with that of a free citizen. The mother reaps all rights and benefits associated with the child while incurring no enforced financial responsibility – a ‘free’ citizen status granted by the state.

 

Aside from horrendous violations of constitutional rights of the father and the ‘equal protection’ of the 14^th Amendment, the state-imposed termination of a marriage contract of fit parents violates a common equity maxim of fairness: ‘he who accrues the benefit bears the burden’. It leaves each parent not in a ‘quid pro quo’ status but in a custodial v. non-custodial status which is akin to master v. slave status.

 

Considering the enforced equality in all business and educational settings imposed over the last 30 years, the continuing imposed dual status of custodial (mothers) vs non-custodial (fathers) with its increasingly onerous ramifications to non-custodials reveals that feminist jurisprudence is not interested in equality but in the power to tyrannically dominate men and reform societies fundamental unit, the family, as fundamentally fatherless and mother-headed.

 

To validate, but obscure, its tyrannical position to the public, the state propagandizes - based on no valid facts - that fathers are willingly running away from both their children and their responsibility to pay for them; and that the state is saving the taxpayers a fortune by forcing these ‘irresponsible fathers’ to make extortion (child support) payments to the mothers – while of course denying fathers their fundamental right to takeover direct support and parenting of their own children.

 

No fault divorce, a relatively recent invention to more easily allow the destruction of marriage, guarantees divorce at the whim of a mother (or father) which then guarantees her – and overwhelmingly only her - a couple of decades of income, most of the father’s assets, and control of his children and his financial impoverishment and often his criminalization. Somehow, no fault divorce really means father are automatically at fault.

 

This state-supported incentive to divorce is destroying fathers along with their families by destroying all their individual constitutional rights, and thereby destroying freedom. With the state instituting restraining orders against fathers that are handed out to women virtually at their whim, like throwing out free candy to them, the state has ensured a quick and easy process to rip fathers from their children, their property, their income, and their constitutional rights, i.e. their fundamental freedoms.