The Backlash! - April 1996

Organization News - Men’s Rights, Inc.
P.O. Box 163180 Sacramento, CA 95816

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines patriarchy by speaking of a "social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family ..." In every instance where one parent is ranked as supreme by American law, however, the supremacy of the mother is affirmed. Indeed, the only relic of patriarchy is the tradition, no longer enforced by law, that children use the last name of their father.

In legal terms, family itself is defined around the mother. The child support system, for example, legally requires that a father's primary obligation be toward his "first family" (that is, his children with the first mother). They are entitled to an established percentage of his income and, should he remarry and have additional children, those additional children (his "second" family) must survive on whatever might be left.

Since the family unit is defined in terms of the mother, however, women don't have "second" families. No matter how many children they have with a series of fathers, it is all one family. If, for example, a mother's welfare jumps from, say, $600 to $900 when she has her second child (with a second father), the first child is not expected to continue enjoying the original $600, while the second child must survive on the extra $300. Rather, the full $900 is for her to allocate as she sees fit within her one family. The ancient patriarchal focus was upon the first son, but the contemporary matriarchal focus is upon the first mother.

Laws dealing with children born out of wedlock (over one fourth of all children and over half of black children) are even more matriarchal. The denial of rights to unwed fathers is proof that a father's parental ties take an indirect route, detouring through the mother. She is the hub, the intermediary, the primary parent; if he does not first establish a legal relationship with her, then his legal rights (as opposed to his legal obligations) are in peril. The matriarchal implications are clear: only mothers have direct parental relationships.

To illustrate how our society defines "father" in matriarchal terms (that is, "husband to the mother") rather than in patriarchal terms (that is, "parent to the child"), consider the case of "Michael H. v. Gerald D." Michael had a relationship with a woman who was separated from her husband. The woman bore Michael's child and the three of them lived together for two years, during which time Michael actively parented Victoria.

The woman eventually reconciled with her husband, and sought to cut off Michael's relationship with Victoria. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a law which decrees that a woman's husband, despite any lack of biological ties or parenting record, is "the father" simply because he was married to the mother when she gave birth. Michael never saw Victoria again.

Rickie M. v. Kari S, is further evidence of "the supremacy of the mother in the clan or family." Upon the birth of their daughter, Kari gave Kelsey to another couple for adoption. Rickie immediately filed papers asserting that he was the father, did not consent to the adoption, and wanted to raise his child.

Under California law, the supposedly allpowerful patriarch must jump through hoops before obtaining any rights. One of them is that he must first take his child into his home and demonstrate that he has acted like a parent. Since Kari and other mothers, however, have the power to give (or bargain) away their child before the father has the opportunity to take the child into his home, mothers have effective veto power. They can dispose of their children almost like property. Rickie never saw Kelsey again.

The idea that a child is the property of the mother lay behind a case dealing with in vitro fertilization ("test tube babies"). When the process was still in its experimental stages, a hospital laboratory housed an embryo created by an egg and sperm from the Del Zio's. Nevertheless, the hospital administrator disapproved of the then controversial experiment, and destroyed the embryo. Mr. and Mrs. Del Zio each sued and won.

Mrs. Del Zio was awarded $50,000. Although the child was never "part of her body," anymore than it was part of Mr. Del Zio's body, the amount was determined under laws dealing with the malicious destruction of property. Mr. Del Zio was awarded $3. Once again, the mother was supreme and the father was barely an afterthought.

Similarly, if this were a patriarchy, it would be sperm donors rather than surrogate mothers who had the right to seek custody of their offspring. And, if this were a patriarchy, the Amerasian children born in Vietnam would have had no difficulty entering our country. Their legal obstacle was not that they were halfAmerican, but rather that it was the wrong half; children born of American mothers overseas have automatic citizenship. Evidence of matriarchy is pandemic.

Next month: The Matriarchy

Reprinted with permission of Fred Hayward, Executive Director of Men's Rights, Inc.

Email to the Editor