Happy Father's Day my ass!
As recognition days go, this one has become more than just a cruel charade. It would be better acknowledged as Happy Hostage Day.
When fatherhood and Father's Day were represented by the Ozzie (Nelson), Ward (Cleaver), Danny (Williams) and Andy (Taylor) era of father-mostly-knows-best, the recognition afforded the father figure was in sync with the familial values of the culture. These early TV depictions were broadcast in black and white, mirroring the clear moral bearings of the American culture at mid-twentieth century.
When this genre of men married they assumed a passel of responsibilities that included financial support for wife and children, prefect of family discipline, problem solver, and family protector. To the extent that he succeeded in these roles, he was rewarded with social recognition and community standing. His family basked in that happy standing, and his wife was usually acknowledged as the power behind the man.
When male-borne expectations and social rewards were based on the underlying presumption that men were beings capable of honor and respectability, it was still no job for sissies nor the weak of heart.
That America has now gone missing, or more accurately, has been kidnapped. In the post-60s era, something went terribly wrong. Men didn't suddenly alter their essence, but the culture dramatically changed its perspective of them. Not suddenly, but slowly and deceptively, the aura of manhood and fatherhood began to take on the penumbra of suspicion and distrust, if not the outright shadow of terror. The "sexual revolution" evolved into the antithesis of the plot line for the movie adaptation of To Kill A Mockingbird. Atticus Finch (the scrupulously honest lead male figure with Lincolnesque integrity) had been reincarnated as Tom Robinson (a man unjustly on trial for a bigoted accusation of rape).
As a consequence of the 1960s perceptual adulteration of masculinity, the wheels of Justice have been relentlessly and malevolently grinding away at the constitutional guarantees as related to the male half of the sexes.
The first, most benign legal salvo, in the sexual revolution was the advent of "no fault" divorce. It was first signed into law by California Governor, Ronald Reagan in 1969 and quickly swept the nation. This moral abasement leveled the playing field for both spouses in initiating divorce. Oddly enough and in contradiction of urban lore deploring older men and trophy wives, it was youngish wives that ran away with the marbles, and the kids. And that was just the beginning of the evolution of the feminihilist Divorce Industry, with its pre-emptive strikes, false allegations of abuse, and parental alienation.
The second salvo came in 1979 when the radical feminist Catharine MacKinnon linked so-called sexual harassment with "discrimination" prohibited by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Later, this rationale was extended to the 1972 amendment of the civil rights act that created the infamous male-athlete-bashing Title IX. With this deft stroke, women became official "victims" of the male patriarchy.
The third and most vicious salvo, the piece de resistance for the radical feminist movement, was the 1994 enactment of the Violence Against Women Act. And albeit unconstitutional, no state has resisted its enforcement. With this final stroke, men became sexual terrorists by congressional decree.
Accompanied by the steady drumbeat of media support for the tortuous incantations of the radical feminist high priestesses, these illegal statutory underpinnings have served as the shoring for countless institutionalized abuses in the domestic law venue. No less than seven (7) provisions of the Bill of Rights have been stripped from men who work with, or form relationships with women. But the most cavalierly cleaved are those involving fathers.
• 2nd Amendment – the right to keep and bear arms: men accused, without proof, of domestic violence are prohibited this right.
• 4th Amendment – the right to be secure in their person, against unreasonable seizure, and the protection of "probable cause": men and fathers who are alleged, without grounds, to have created even the perception of fear in their female partner may be evicted from their homes and prevented access to their children.
• 5th Amendment – protection against being deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law: a wife may unilaterally file suit for divorce and deprive her husband of his property and parenthood without even an allegation of wrongdoing on his part. And if he is a father, he may end up losing his license to practice his profession, his driver's license, and even the choice of what profession to pursue if it does not match up to the court's view of his imputed earning ability.
• 6th Amendment – the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, (and) to be confronted with the witnesses against him: it is now an everyday occurrence that a domestic law judge may, ex-parte, issue a restraining order against a boyfriend or husband simply on the basis of the complaint or allegation of an irate or vengeful girlfriend or wife.
• 8th Amendment – protection against excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments: One might list a number of abuses, but at the top of that list has to be denying a father equal or full access to his children, and placing them in the sole control of a custodian who may alienate them and sabotage his relationship with them.
• 10th Amendment – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, are reserved to the states respectively: and yet divorced fathers are now held hostage by federally mandated child support guidelines and collection control. The federally mandated Violence Against Women Act is strictly prohibited here as well, but that has not inhibited its enforcement by the states.
• 13th Amendment – Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States: every day, fathers who have fallen behind on unrealistic, constitutionally indefensible, usurious, pseudo-alimony, child support awards are being arrested and imprisoned for imputed wrongdoing in a civil, not criminal, action. Were it truly a criminal action involving, say, fraud, full due process would be implemented. But domestic law courts are not about due process, they are about paternal control through the tyranny of punitive measures and intimidation. And in every case, the presumption of guilt is imputed by dint of status as unmarried or divorced males. Nevermind that there is an 8 in 10 chance that the dad played no role (is the involuntary participant) in initiating the divorce, or that mother may have withheld from him information as to the existence of his child. See the 5th Amendment for additional violations – such as imputed earning ability, hence imputed child support awards ... and other incantations.
Now at every opportunity, some politician is bemoaning the plight of the poor single mother, never once acknowledging that her status was most likely self-determined and maybe even morally irresponsible. In fact, a stripper (a semi-prostitute whose virtual John is a brass pole) mother who willfully, and blasphemously violates her covenant with a Christian School, receives positive social accolades, while a father who meets 90% of his child support "obligation" is still just a damned deadbeat.
Ozzie Nelson and his cohort had not an inkling of what would be involved in becoming a father in the ensuing 50 years. In retrospect, it is incredible that any contemporary man is willing to risk letting his semen get within a hundred yards of an ovum.
In that microscopic moment of conception, a father, whether married or cohabiting or participating in consensual whoopee, implicitly agrees to forego a passel of his constitutional rights. Additionally, he implicitly concedes that his public character will drop about 18 notches (out of a possible 20) the minute the child is known to be his. And further, in that microscopic moment, he has just involuntarily committed himself to the potential for a lifetime of endless legal assaults, possible incarceration, and a financial burden, which could most likely impoverish him for most of his productive years and preclude any thought of a retirement nest egg.
Hell, Ozzie and company were wimps compared with their contemporaries.
As never before, fatherhood is not for sissies; not even close.
Wait … a … minute; maybe fatherhood is for sissies – complacent little male co-mothers; hostages of a feminized culture.
Like I said, Happy Father's Day my atavistic-constitutionally-
deprived-ass.
You must not be aware that Ozzie Nelson had and affair with the church organist in the basement of the Baptist Church during the Sunday school classes.
What a hateful, spiteful screed. Must have been written by a whiny baby-boomer.
"Noted Connecticut criminologist Dr. Henry Lee...said positive proof that Clinton is Williams' father would require DNA test information not included in OIC documents released to the House...."