News From the Real World
"Fathers & Families' highly-publicized lawsuit against the new Massachusetts child support guidelines was heard in a Boston court today. As of 2008 Massachusetts' child support guidelines were already among the highest in the country, and the new guidelines raised them right in the face of one of the worst recessions of the past 100 years.
"As anticipated, Judge MacDonald heard the arguments from representatives of the Massachusetts Chief Justice for Administration and Management Robert A. Mulligan and our attorney Gregory Hession, and took the case under advisement.
"Over 50 Fathers & Families supporters attended the hearing in support. Our lawsuit has been covered by the Associated Press, the New York Times, CBS, WRKO, the Boston Globe, NPR, Newsweek."
And yes, here is the link so you can view the entire article: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3609
You will see a photo of one of the main activists in this affair. Her name is Cheryl Quiambao, and as you might have already guessed, she is female.
Now, the Fathers and Families organization is a kind of a grey-zone organism, given that it is not strictly and narrowly part of the so-called "men's movement", yet is politically right next door to it and even, in a manner of speaking, draws its water from the same well. Such are the complexities and ambiguities of the non-feminist sector. And I hope that my feminist readers are paying attention, and taking notes: they really need to get straight about this stuff!
The updated child-support guidelines in Massachusetts (mentioned in the article) are just another move in the game of perpetual revolution—the latest expansion of the femplex, the latest augmentation of the feminist power base in general, the latest way to suck more blood out of men and move the world closer to the projected goal of female supremacy.
But even if the word feminism never comes up at all, the fact remains that this latest activism campaign constitutes an attack upon feminism because it directly blocks the expansion of feminist innovation. Many of the people involved in the campaign might not think in those terms, but that is exactly what they are doing. They are blocking a plan which directly exploits men in order to empower women, and no matter what anybody says, such a plan is pure, undistilled feminism in its most nakedly elemental form.
It matters not what others call it, or fail to call it. The thing is what it is what it IS, and it needs a consistent name, and as a non-feminist, I say it is feminism! I say this because I hold as good a claim to define the objective forces that shape my world as anybody else does. I stake an additional claim because I know that the average feminist has a confessional interest in promoting her cult and is likely to suppress certain aspects of it.
Feminism is a vast, sprawling, organism—and so is non-feminism. It takes a big beast to vanquish another big beast, or then again maybe it takes a big horde of little beasties to gang up on that big beast and devour it like piranhas, but either way, it takes big to defeat big. And so just as feminism is many things presenting itself in many ways, so too non-feminism must be many things in many ways, in order to encompass and counteract with an adequate range of specialization the many things which are feminism.
It is possible that some of the people in the Fathers and Families group would loosely identify as "feminist", or express mild approval of feminism as they conceive it. On the other hand, it is quite probable that most of the people who oppose them would form a formidable phalanx of indoctrinated adherents to the feminist worldview. The difference between the two groups would be dramatic.
And too, is very likely that the Fathers and Families group would contain a great number of people who know perfectly well what is up with feminism, and would concur with the present writer on most points, even though their immediate political focus is not upon feminism per se, but rather upon the fruits of feminist innnovation. On the other hand, it is unlikely that the opposing gang would contain ANY people of this description.
So the possible presence of mildly feminist-leaning elements (with a naive understanding of feminism) in the Fathers and Families group—and similar groups everywhere—shows us that the border between the feminist and non-feminist sectors is not yet so clearly drawn as we might wish it. That any degree of positive evaluation still adheres to the word feminism (in the minds of people who are NOT profoundly feminist) shows that there is work to be done. The word feminism oughtn't have a halo of any kind—not even a faint one. So, with a developing pressure to get on one side or the other, this word would gain a decisively unsavory aroma, and anybody who is not radically feminist would fight shy of it.