THE CASE FOR FATHER CUSTODY - Father Figure Video – A

438 Pages·2000·2.15 MB·English

by  Daniel Amneus

THE CASE FOR FATHER CUSTODY

By

Daniel Amneus, Ph.D.

Copyright  1999 by Daniel Amneus
Primrose Press
2131 S. Primrose Ave.
Alhambra, CA 91803

All rights reserved
First Printing 1999
ISBN 0-9610864-6-7
By Daniel Amneus

BACK TO PATRIARCHY
THE MYSTERY OF Macbeth
THE THREE Othellos
THE GARBAGE GENERATION
THE CASE FOR FATHER CUSTODY

THANKS TO: Richard Doyle for proofreading and saving me from many
mistakes, and to John Knight and Bob Cheney for solving my computer
problems.

BRIFFAULT’S LAW:

The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal
family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the
male, no such association takes place.

—Robert Briffault

ii
This book deals with the problems of:

THE FEMALE KINSHIP SYSTEM
OR

MATRIARCHY
OR

THE CLASSIFICATORY SYSTEM
OR

MOTHER-RIGHT—

—the system of female-headed “families” which has created ghettos
and barrios by encouraging women to marry the state and breed
fatherless children who are eight times more likely to become delinquent.
iii
For

CLARK

iv
CONTENTS

FOREWORD...............................................................................................................................................................1
I) INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................................4
II) THE SAFE DRUNK DRIVER ARGUMENT...................................................................................................16
III) THE WAR AGAINST PATRIARCHY............................................................................................................36
IV) THE FEMININE MYSTIQUE AND AFTER..................................................................................................70
V) THE ASHERAH...................................................................................................................................................86
VI) RESTORING FEMALE KINSHIP.................................................................................................................115
VII) THE CREATION OF PATRIARCHY..........................................................................................................132
VIII) THE DOUBLE STANDARD........................................................................................................................143
IX) CHILD ABUSE.................................................................................................................................................166
X) ALTERNATIVE FAMILIES............................................................................................................................171
XI) EXOGAMY.......................................................................................................................................................182
XII) THE SOCIAL CONTRACT..........................................................................................................................204
XIII) NO FAULT DIVORCE.................................................................................................................................215
XIV) DOMINATION VS. PARTNERSHIP..........................................................................................................220
XV) RE-DEFINING THE FAMILY......................................................................................................................233
XVI) ALIMONY AND CHILD SUPPORT...........................................................................................................253
XVII) FREE LIKE BLACKS.................................................................................................................................295
XVIII) VIOLENT LAND........................................................................................................................................312
XIX) HYPERGAMY...............................................................................................................................................319
XX) GANGBANGING AND ILLEGITIMACY...................................................................................................330
XXI) SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................................359
ANNEX.........................................................................................................................................................................0
INDEX........................................................................................................................................................................65
v
T he Case for Father Custody
FFOORREEWWOORRDD
The female role, says Margaret Mead, is a biological fact, the male
role a mere social creation. Until ten or twelve thousand years ago the
function of the male was primarily to impregnate the female. He might
also function, at Mom’s pleasure, to provide care for her and for her
offspring; but if Mom became dissatisfied with Dad, she gave him his
walking papers and found a new boyfriend, as she does today in the
ghetto. The male role had no stability. Children depended primarily on
Mom.
In pre-mammalian reproduction (say that of a green turtle) the
offspring begins its existence as an egg and never learns that it has a
mother or a father. Its mother’s participation in its existence consists of
conceiving and gestating it and burying the resulting egg in the sand.
After remaining there and maturing awhile, it emerges from the sand and
waddles down to the water to find a meal—or to become a meal for some
other creature. It is self-contained and lives on its own inherited
resources or it dies.
In the mammalian female kinship system the offspring are born
alive but are still a part of nature–they just happen. A mother cat just
has kittens as a river just flows. However, mammalian mothers cherish
their young, feed them from their own body, protect them, educate them.
Your cat and her kittens show how meaningful mammalian motherhood
is, and how irrelevant mere fatherhood is once the father has performed
his minuscule sexual function. Mammalian motherhood enables the
kitten to have an infancy. This is the relationship which judges
understand and seek to preserve by awarding custody to mothers in
divorce cases.
The kitten has no childhood. After a rather short period of helpless
infancy, it becomes almost suddenly a mature adult capable of fending
for itself like the infant turtle after it emerges from its egg.
The male kinship system found among humans is an extremely
recent engraftment upon the female mammalian kinship system, which
1
The Case for Father Custody
originated in the Mesozoic Era when the dinosaurs were young, some two
hundred million years ago.
It was John Fiske, the nineteenth century American historian and
philosopher, who pointed out what made human beings special—and
more successful than other mammals: not only the prolongation of
infancy, but the creation of a whole additional era of life, childhood,
something unknown in any other species, so that human children can
enjoy an enormously long period during which they are protected,
cherished, educable, playful, exploratory, sensitive and aware, a period
during which they can reach out and learn about and come to love the
world they live in. The male kinship system, or patriarchy, is still a part
of nature, but in a new sense: it depends not on biological heredity but
on social heredity. It is a human creation, like a hydroelectric dam
placed over a river to harness its power and use it to run factories and
light streets. It was the great achievement of patriarchy to raise
reproduction above recreation and put it to work. Man was taking
charge of part of his heredity.
It is largely fatherhood which makes childhood possible. Mothers
make infants but when the infants become children they are likely to be
less well socialized if they have no fathers.1 It is largely father absence
which creates ghettos and gangs and messed-up kids—boys trying to
find their identity through violence, girls trying to find their identity
through sexual promiscuitywhich generates the male violence of the
next generation. They need real fathers, sociological fathers, not mere
biological studs interested in a one-night stand or a brief or superficial
relationship. Sociological fatherhood is real fatherhood. It is also what
Margaret Mead called “a social invention.” In the ghettos biological
fathers seldom become sociological fathers, seldom amount to much,
because Mom’s sexual promiscuity or disloyalty—her belief in what
feminists call a woman’s right to control her own sexuality—denies them
the role of sociological fatherhood. Lawmakers and judges fail to
understand that fatherhood is a social invention, that it must be created
and maintained by society. This is the main reason patriarchal society—
the father kinship system—exists. They do not grasp that social heredity

1Leontine Young says of mothers of illegitimate—i.e., fatherless—children: “Furthermore,
her desire and her interest center in a baby almost to the complete exclusion of the
child. The fact that a baby inevitably becomes a child is another of those facts that
she ignores as irrelevant.” (Leontine Young, Out of Wedlock: A Study of the Problems of
the Unmarried Mother and Her Child [New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954], p. 37.)
2
T he Case for Father Custody
has become part of biology and that fathers are the primary means of
transmitting social heredity. They suppose that humans can live like
cattle, without fathers, with only the meager social heredity found in
female kinship systems such as ghettos and Indian reservations. Until
lawmakers and judges see that they must support the father’s role
because it is the weak biological link in the family we will have more
matriarchy—along with its accompaniments: educational failure,
illegitimacy, teen suicide, gangs and the rest.

3
The Case for Father Custody
II)) IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN
A Georgia superior court judge named Robert Noland always gives
custody of children to the mother when he tries a divorce case. He
explains:
I ain’t never seen a calf following a bull. They always follow the cow. So
I always give custody to the mamas.
The reason Judge Noland never saw a calf following a bull is that
cattle don’t live in two-parent households. If we want to live like cattle,
he has the right idea.
Most judges think as Judge Noland does: the mother-headed
reproductive unit is natural.1 If your cat has kittens, you realize how
marginal fatherhood is. If you drive through a ghetto and see the idle
males on the street corners, you realize the same thing. Apart from their
function as sperm-providers, these street corner punks are so obviously
unfit to be parents that if they tried to horn in on Mom’s reproductive
enterprise, she would do what the mother-cat would do to the father-
cat—shoo him away. Leon Dash describes how it works in the
Washington ghetto:
The pregnancy brought out feelings of possession on the part of the
father of her twin boys, feelings that both frightened and angered
Charmaine….The man had begun to act as if “he had [marriage] papers on
me. He had got real domineering. I wouldn’t stand still for it. He acted
like he was more my father than my boyfriend…. I told him, ‘Get your
ass out of my house!’”2
So he gets his ass out of her house and goes to a street corner to
rap with other punks who are also unfit to be fathers and he peddles
dope and becomes anti-social and so forth. This is the ghetto pattern:
female sexual irresponsibility and male work irresponsibility.

1David Kirp, Mark Yudof, Marlene Franks, Gender Justice (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1986), p. 184: “80 percent of Los Angeles judges report that, despite official
neutrality, they unofficially regard the mother as the appropriate parent unless she is
proved unfit.”
2Leon Dash, When Children Want Children: An Inside Look at the Crisis of Teenage
Parenthood (New York: Penguin Books, 1989), p. 230.
4
T he Case for Father Custody
Why is this black male unfit to be a father? Because his mother
didn’t want his father around any more than Charmaine wants him
around, and he grew up not knowing what fatherhood is all about and
associating responsibility with being female—a female parent, female
teachers, female social workers. She married the State, which promised
to take care of her. That’s matriarchy.
The primary bond in nature is that which Judge Noland
understands, between the mother and her offspring. The mother’s bond
with her sexual mate is weaker, more artificial. Men are more dependent
on this artificial bond than women, and therefore more dependent on
women’s acceptance of sexual regulation, more dependent on marriage.
It is women, not men, who write books with titles like The Good Divorce,
The Courage to Divorce, Get Rid of HIM!, and Learning to Leave: A
Woman’s Guide.
Families are created by male intrusion into the primarily female
arena of reproduction. According to ”Briffault’s Law,” quoted at the
beginning, if families are to be stable the male must have some benefit to
offer the female; but females know that if they reject the sexual
regulation which makes stable families possible there are welfare
bureaucrats and divorce court judges like Robert Noland who will help
them because they realize the naturalness of living like cattle and don’t
realize that civilized living is an artificial arrangement, that it requires
male participation in families, and requires the social supports which will
guarantee such participation.3 It requires understanding that the
welfare system and the legal system are parts of civilization, not parts of
nature.
Antonia Novello, former Surgeon General of the Public Health
Service, puts the woman’s attitude this way:
How can a woman really ask for safe sex or control sexual practices when
she is economically dependent on her partner? How can we expect her
to speak up, and risk abandonment, when the one who abuses, neglects
and infects [her] also supports the family?4

3Briffault, The Mothers (New York: Macmillan, 1927), I, 212: “The heterosexual bond is
limited and weak.” Arthur Evans, Witchcraft and the Gay Counterculture (Boston: Fag Rag
Press, 1978), p. 15: “Monogamy and the nuclear family are almost unknown in nature.”
4Los Angeles Times, 29 June, 1993.
5