Equality for Australian Families!

Dads Against Discrimination Inc
ABN 82 053 905 623

Equality for Australian Families!

I arrived in Australia in 1975, the year of the Family Law Act. I first worked as a Yoga teacher in Fremantle WA and met men who were responding to a change in their family life with searching for spiritual fulfilment.

Divorce leaves men who are dependent on women and children for their emotional lives with a gaping "love void" that must be filled. Most had to abandon their children to Family Court separation orders.

Australian children suffer from a father wound that can only be healed by ending the matriarchal domination of family life. I seek to integrate fathers into the lives of their children, putting an end to maternal gatekeeping in intact families. Mother-only households should be discouraged, in part by overturning the tender-years doctrine, which for most of the 20th century has encouraged judges to place young children in the primary care of their mother in cases of divorce. I deride alimony and welfare - mother-subsidy payments - because they encourage women to be economically dependent.

I used to help the feminist movement because I thought it was about women having choices. I still agree with choices for women, but not when they eliminate choices for men. There should never have been a feminist movement that blamed men for the ills of society. There should not be a men's movement blaming women. There should only be a gender transitional movement that encompasses both genders. Sadly, 30 years of feminism have made the men's movement necessary. After my divorce with the feminist movement in the early 80s I experienced a political love void, and into it stepped men-angry men, wounded men, men who want to be nurturer-connectors but who are simply viewed as killer-protectors.

The stereotype of men as success objects is just as pernicious as the stereotype of women as sex objects, a fact that has been ignored both by feminists, who see men as the keepers of power, and by traditional women, who rely upon men to support them.

I call on men to fight back for their domestic rights. Over 30 years feminism has replaced the benevolent patriarch with an emasculated monster:
We have gone from the "Era of Father Knows Best to the Era of Daddy Molests; from Dad as family head to deadbeat dad.

In all studies single fathers are superior to single mothers on almost every measurable scale: single fathers raise children who are, among other things, more empathetic, less violent, less likely to become teenage parents and perform better in school than children raised by single mothers. They are less likely than single mothers to bad-mouth their absent spouse, the most insidious form of child abuse, and also less likely to abuse their children, in all categories, including physical and sexual abuse (though men are more likely than women to be accused of sexual abuse).

Also single fathers, who make up 14 percent of all single parents, tend to be better educated and have a higher income than their female counterparts.

The man who wants to be a stay-at-home father today is like the woman who wanted to be a surgeon in the 1950s. Because men are not encouraged to be protector-nurturers, any man who wants to be the primary parent is likely to encounter legal, social and familial discrimination every step of the way.

Any man who is strong enough, emotionally and financially, to fight that systemic discrimination is likely to be well above average in motivation and desire to be a parent.

Parents who choose to stay at home know that they are choosing to place more value on time with their child than on family income and position in society. It's what we do within this crucible of choice-knowing we will inevitably sacrifice one thing for another-that reveals what we ultimately value.

Throughout history men have been encouraged to be "disposable," that is, ultimately willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the community. Men are trained for this through competitive sports, like football. They learn that they must buy love with their own pain (on the field or the time clock) and, ultimately, be willing to die. And they do.

Not only do men die an average of seven years earlier than women, but they are five times more likely to commit suicide.

The mistake of feminism is that women equated serving with power and privilege, when in fact both sexes were simply acting out their roles. Now, for the first time in history we don't have to rely on such antiquated notions of gender. In fact, if we do, it will only lead to mutually assured destruction. Western industrialised society has put "our genetic heritage in conflict with our genetic future." This is because, among other things, we have the nuclear bomb, and men who are bred solely as "killer-protectors" will certainly destroy us all.

And yet, sadly women are still choosing men as mates based solely on their ability to be "protectors," at least financially speaking. Most women marry for money, and most men married for looks.

Most women still equate one act of intercourse with a lifetime of economic security and see men as walking wallets. It's equally difficult to imagine that the men who are willing to enter into marriages in which they play the "success object" to their wives' "sex object" are the same men who would clamour for their rights to be stay-at-home dads.

The very woman who is the most likely to be open to the idea of "allowing" her husband to express his nurturing side, who is the most likely to consider a non-traditional family situation in which either partner, regardless of gender, has the option to choose between the breadwinner role and the role of stay-at-home parent, is likely to be, well, a feminist.

Feminism happened because women naturally chose to marry men who would be the best providers. And men who have good jobs don't tend to have much of a nurturing side. How can they? They spend all their time at work, the better to show their love by earning money for their families. So these rich women, not understanding that their husbands were demonstrating their love the best they knew how, had a lot of time and money on their hands. Rich women went to therapists. Therapists told them they were oppressed. A movement was born.

Feminists may claim that they want men to be involved in the home but every single fathers' rights organisation in this country would not exist if women were open to men being involved in their children's lives. Women say, 'Get involved, but you can't take the child here, or you have to be liberal and not conservative.' Women want men to follow their rules, because they think their rules are better and their values are better. And that's understandable, but that's not equality.

There is irony and paradox of being a father denied parental rights. The men who are the most nurturing, who most want to be with their children, are the ones who are the least likely to want to be embroiled in a legal controversy. They suffer loss and turn inside. My students found healing in Yoga, others drown in alcohol. It's a very tough combination of qualities that eliminate the men. Either they're too introspective to get involved in the legal process, or they are so drugged and/or aggressive that you see why they got the divorce in the first place.

It is their children's right to receive equal parenting. Fatherlessness will damage Australia's society on many levels.

Horst Sommer
Australian Family Party

Top of Page