| As a consequence of the ECMAS Scandal, Donna
Laframboise, a journalist writing for the National Post in Canada who brought to light
incompatible and perceivably harmful ideological goals by people in the
Fathers Rights
movement, became the target of criticism, derogation and
worse by some Canadian Fathers Rights activists. Donna Laframboise most
likely will not write any articles anymore about Fathers Rights issues.
That's how people who derogate her and anyone like her shoot the "fathers" rights movement in the foot. The
issue is not whether freedom of speech has been violated by objecting to views which
promote the sexualization of children (which no father in his right mind would do), but
that the public will find it troubling that the Fathers Rights movement lends its solid
support to childless men promoting those views.
That is very political, but it most certainly is not politically savvy. Let's call a
spade a spade. The Canadian Fathers Rights movement has become tainted, perhaps even
soiled, by the humanistic views of its libertarian leaders and spokesmen.
Stephen Baskerville wrote an article about the need for fathers to become politically
active, Fathers' Rights Are Fathers' Duties.
The article contains much that all Fathers Rights activists can learn from. And who is to
argue with Stephen Baskerville on that? It would be hard to find a better expert on the
subject. He is a Fathers Rights advocate, a spokesman for Fathers Rights and a professor
lecturing in political science. To boot, he's not a childless man, he's a divorced father
who cares very much about his children and those of other fathers.
No matter how cathartic it can be to appear angry and to express it, being politically
active means much more than merely raking politicians and judges over the coals. More than
anything else, it means that one must be perceived as being a father, not as a
gender activist.
The general public, whose support ultimately decides whether fathers will once more
gain the respect of all of society, is in the vast majority conservative in relation to
fundamental questions of our humanity. One of those questions is whether we should have
fathers within or without families. The political reality is that nobody in his right mind
will fight for the rights of fathers who go out of their way to defend the merits of the
sexualization of children through the promotion of pornography; ostensibly in the name of
protecting freedom of speech. The vast majority of people consider such views as being
immoral, regardless of how enlightened the proponents of such views claim to be.
It is no crime to be conservative. Until the
gender
activists made it possible for
the planned
destruction of our families to become reality, it was a sign of respectability to be
conservative. Many of the ostensible leaders of the fathers rights movement hold liberal
and libertarian views, especially with respect to family issues. They are not
representative of the conservative majority in the population. By supporting the views
that they piggy-backed onto the fathers' right movement, the
movement puts itself firmly on the outermost fringe of the scope of public opinion. That
is not how fathers can regain the respect of society.
If we want to work to restore society's respect for families and fathers,
then we must begin to act and talk like fathers should. We must not just insist on
Fathers Rights, but we must also stress fathers' duties. We must not just insist on
society's duties to fathers, we must stress even more society's right
to have fathers in families, not families without fathers.
Being a father is a sacred duty. It means much more than the right to more, bigger and
better orgasms, more than the right to become a sperm donor. It is a life-time mission and
ends with death, but even then the memory of fathers must live on in and guide their
children.
Fathers are an integral and critical part of views such as these:
A country stands or falls with its families.
— Rosalie Henke, my sister,
a wife and mother of four, grandmother of four
Any nation, the German too, that doesn't have women and men who are willing
to become parents and to raise their children cooperatively in permanent family
relationships will dissolve into nothing.
— Karin Jäckel, Ph.D.,
wife, mother and author of many books on family issues,
in The Wife at his Side: 'Mere' Housewives in
the Looking-glass of Feminism
and
The "family" in all ages and in all corners of the globe can be
defined as a man and a woman bonded together through a socially approved covenant of
marriage to regulate sexuality, to bear, raise, and protect children, to provide mutual
care and protection, to create a small home economy, and to maintain continuity between
the generations, those going before and those coming after.
It is out of the reciprocal, naturally recreated relations of the family
that the broader communities—such as tribes, villages, peoples, and
nations—grow.
— Dale O'Leary, The Gender Agenda,
p. 24,
original source: Allan Carlson, in
What's Wrong With the United Nations Definition of 'Family'?
The Family in America (August 1994), p. 3
How can any father forget about the crucial role he must play in that design for the
fundamental building block of any well society and still demand respect and justice?
Real fathers put the welfare of others — their families, community and nation —
before their own. However, they cannot exercise their role if they are not part of their
families and if they don't receive the respect they deserve for the sacrifices they make.
For that we need:
Fathers in families, not families without fathers.
|
|
Share
