How to Cut the Gordian Knot of Feminism
Better than playing Whack-a-Mole
Feminism, it seems, it at the nadir of its disrepute. Almost everyone, from the far right to the far left, seems to have a complaint against the feminists, most of them justified. And yet at the same time, feminism seems to be unstoppable in its influence. Few criticize it in general terms, let alone that the entire experiment was a mistake. Indeed, one place feminism seems the most solidly entrenched is among the “neoconservative” operatives of the establishment Right.
And so feminism marches on, apparently impervious and oblivious to the opprobrium in which it is held by millions.
Only a few eloquent souls, like academic Janice Fiamengo, are willing to confront feminism head-on and criticize it in depth for its “hatred of men, social dysfunction, and victimhood ideology.”
Yet when asked in a recent interview if she had a “magic wand” solution to reverse the destruction, Fiamengo seemed to share the general assumption that such a thing is not possible.
But I believe it is, and what is more it is feasible. We can continue trying to cut off the multiple hydra heads of the feminist monster or disentangling the various threads of the Gordian Knot. (Perhaps a more modern analogy is playing Whack-a-Mole.) Or we can cut it with one fell swoop.
We can break the back of feminism and bring the malcontented ladies under control once-and-for-all. I did not think this up by myself. It was first proposed by Professor Daniel Amneus, the greatest scholar ever to confront feminism and the catastrophe of fatherless children.1 It was also suggested by the late Phyllis Schlafly, who made a career of combatting feminism (starting with her single-handed defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s) — and a name for herself as one of the most influential political figures of the 20th century — when even most men were faint of heart. She must surely be considered one of the most effective political operators of all time and one of the few who combined political skill with ethical integrity.
According to Amneus, feminism’s central impulse is the demand for unlimited sexual freedom and female-dominated reproduction, surpassing in importance all else on its agenda and to which all else is ancillary. “A woman’s right to have a baby without having the father around is what feminism is all about.”
This is what gives feminism all its leverage over men, over society, over all of us. “The linchpin in the feminist program is mother custody following divorce,” Amneus insists. “Pull that pin…and the feminist structure collapses.” More than anything, this is what undermines masculinity and patriarchy and turns the most stout-hearted men into frightened, cowering sissies – at the same time that it turns their children into aggressive nihilists, rebelling against their impotent fathers and everything else. “Until then, men must remain afraid of women, of marriage, of feminism.”
And it does not stop there. Men today increasingly fear not only “the divorce court judges”, as Amneus said, but all government officials, who learned from the matriarchy how to create and enforce the other bureaucratic tyrannies of the “Deep State” and who understand that ordinary men heading families pose the principal impediment to their power.
The feminists’ first substantive achievement, after obtaining the vote, was the welfare state, and their next major accomplishment was no-fault divorce. Both of these governmental innovations furthered their professed goal of decimating the American family by transferring sovereign authority over children from married fathers to single mothers — first in low-income communities, and then among everyone else. Beneath the political radar screen, the subtext enabling both developments was court decisions that gradually weakened married fathers and shifted power to divorcing mothers. This shift was codified in the no-fault divorce laws, which were the proud achievement of the feminist bar associations. The National Association of Women Lawyers describes no-fault divorce as “the greatest project NAWL has ever undertaken.” Within very few years, “no-fault divorce became the guiding principle for reform of divorce laws in the majority of states.”
As long as women can divorce at whim, take along the children and everything else, and consign men to state-enforced servitude, men must fear them. Nothing cows men and extracts concessions with remotely the same effectiveness. As the poet said, “The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world.”
This is why repealing no-fault divorce and making the marriage contract legally binding — with a presumption of father custody — will break the back of not only the divorce/custody machinery but the entire feminist movement. In fact, a legally enforceable marriage contract will carry an effective presumption of father custody: Women may file 70%-80% of divorces, but mothers – who are confident of getting custody of the children – file close to 100%, almost always without any legal fault grounds.2
Other Injustices?
All the other injustices men suffer — all of which are less important anyway and leave them open to the accusation of “whining” — can be rectified more easily once this is addressed and implemented. Here is why:
Women’s two major weapons and source of leverage over men are sex and children. If they control these, they control men. Nothing does more to weaken the patriarchy, not even abortion, because if women can claim monopoly control of the children there is no extortion they cannot commit and no price they cannot demand from men – both fathers and politicians. Fear of this is what emasculates all men and makes all women despise men generally. Only women who despise men demand “equality”. Women who respect men understand – as they have understood for millennia – that male strength benefits women as well, and a woman gets the full benefit by marrying a strong man.
Further reasons why child custody exceeds all other issues and injustices in importance and urgency:
Nothing is more important to men. Most would willingly endure any injustice and the most gruesome physical abuse (and many do) rather than lose their children.
Nothing is more cruel to children than their parents’ divorce and being torn from one of their parents.
Nothing is more devastating throughout society. Fatherless children are plausibly identified (even by tradcons and some liberals) as being the most destructive social problem of our time. Single mothers and fatherless children are tearing down our entire civilization.
Nothing does more to pervert government power and corrupt governmental ethics, to erode protections for citizens’ rights and civil liberties, and rationalize tyrannical measures. This starts with the judiciary but extends to the entire state machinery.
Another Wish List?
Moreover, this is eminently achievable. It will not be accomplished by the conventional political methods of organizing pressure groups, lobbying legislatures, litigating in courts, commandeering the media, protesting in the streets. No, men have little hope of achieving any of that, and there is no point in bothering with it until men first mobilize the leverage they already possess.
What is that levarage? Simple, the Marriage Strike: Men are already refusing to marry, date, reproduce, or even associate with women. This spontaneous, de facto boycott is sad and tragic for all — unless, unless it is mobilized as leverage to force changes in the custody laws. I have described the enormous potential of the Marriage Strike elsewhere. The point here is that the conventional political methods are not working for men, but they do not need to work. Men do not need to shout in the streets (let alone tear off their clothes), which is not masculine behavior anyway. Men can act more effectively from quiet strength. They have this unique source of leverage, which is already growing in strength day-by-day. They only have to harness it for the purpose.
Daniel Amneus, The Case for Father Custody (1999). I discuss his solution more extensively in my most recent book, Who Lost America? Why the United States Went “Communist” — and What to Do about It” (2024).
See my book, Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family (2007).
If you want to read more analysis that will push you to think “outside the box,” you can find it in my new book, Who Lost America? Why the United States Went "Communist” — and What to Do about It — available from Amazon.
Stephen Baskerville is Professor of Politics at the Collegium Intermarium in Warsaw. His books and recent articles are available at www.StephenBaskerville.com.