Review of “Taken into Custody: The War against Fatherhood, Marriage and the Family”
Some of you saw my first article on Rick Warren and noticed that I focused on his wife’s involvement with domestic violence, protesting the premise of her activism as being feminist inspired and potentially causing collateral harm to men and children. Why the fuss? Shouldn’t we be protecting women? Of course we should, whenever their safety is threatened.
But the domestic violence industry has long been in the hands of the feminist Left. It is a money-making racket, and to put it as succinctly as I can, here is how it works:
– Divorce is a multibillion dollar industry rewarding mostly lawyers and divorced or divorcing women.
– Marriage law today is counter-intuitive and works backwards in relation to all other contract law: It rewards the person who is unfaithful while punishing the one who is faithful. 2/3 of all divorces are filed by women. (Olavo de Carvalho has an excellent as-yet unpublished lecture explaining the “revolutionary inversion,” of which “no-fault” divorce is a prime example. Lord willing, I will be presenting a brief column on this).
– To whitewash the person breaching the contract, a strong argument is needed: an accusation or hint of abuse.
– To make this accusation stick, while lacking any evidence of it, the divorce industry relies very heavily on the threadbare myth that males are typically abusers and unfaithful while women are almost always their victims. As I pointed out in that earlier article on Rick, this myth runs counter to almost all research on the subject, which shows that women initiate violence as frequently as men. Yet this long-debunked myth is the basis for divorce law in almost every Western country today.
– The accusation of abuse alone suffices in domestic court, so that the most of the unscrupulous, or mentally disturbed, women who contrive such accusations win. The male is not allowed to be present in many cases, and when he is he is generally instructed to be quiet throughout the proceedings. No proof is required, at variance with the Constitutional principle that the accused be able to face the accuser and that proof be required to convict.
– The reward? Custody and child support for the accuser. Why would the courts and divorce lawyers go to so much trouble to bolster up a dead myth? Without it many of these people with troubled relationships would stay maried!
Imagine how many children would be living with a father under their roofs if we could overcome this dreadful web of lies!
Donald Hank
The Government, Divorce, and the War on Fatherhood
by Todd M. Aglialoro
7/31/08
Taken into Custody: The War against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family
Stephen Baskerville, Cumberland House, 352 pages, $24.95
For whatever reason, social conservatives focus considerable political effort on abortion, gay rights, and obscenity, but pay scant attention to divorce. Perhaps they think that ship has sailed for good, whereas other battles still offer winnable stakes. Perhaps too few look at our “family courts” and see a culture war; or perhaps too many lack the conviction to fight it. And when conservatives do target divorce, rather than lobby for legal reform of the “no-fault” divorce system, or changes in the way courts award custody or child support, they have preferred to employ the tools of ministry, treating divorce primarily as a moral problem rather than a political one; its attendant social evils as a consequence of sin, not of bad policy.
This is a grave mistake, says Stephen Baskerville, professor of government at Patrick Henry College and president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. In his startling new book, Taken into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family, he asserts not only that reforming America’s divorce paradigm deserves a far higher priority among conservative culture warriors, but that our divorce courts today are agents of radical sexual ideology, occasions of shameless graft, and instruments for the expansion of governmental power at the expense of Constitutional rights.
Read more here
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.


Leave a Reply