Curbing the Appetites of Women:
A Summary of The Garbage Generation by Daniel Amneus
By Robert Reis

{L]ike hemophilia, crime is manifested in males but carried and transmitted by females—or rather by single females.
Most criminals come from female-headed families. Most gang members come from female-headed families. Most addicts come from female-headed families. Most rapists come from female-headed families. Most educational failures come from female-headed families. Every presidential assassin before Hinckley came from a female-headed family or one in which he had an impossibly bad relationship with his father. Most illegitimate births occur to females who themselves grew up in female-headed families.
What is happening to our society is that it is discarding patriarchal sexual regulation and reverting to the primeval mammalian pattern of a reproductive unit consisting of the mother and her offspring, the male putting in an appearance to perform his minuscule sexual function and then disappearing or being hauled away to the sausage factory or being reduced to the role of stud who can be discarded when his female tires of him.
“Men and women,” rejoices feminist-anthropologist Helen Fisher, “are moving toward the kind of roles they had on the grasslands of Africa millions of years ago..”
It was the creation of [the role of the father]—only a few thousand years ago—which made patriarchal civilization possible. Prior to that, mankind had to muddle through the million years of the Stone Age with the female-headed reproductive arrangements of the ghetto, the barnyard and the rain forest.

Curbing the Appetites of Women: A Summary of The Garbage Generationby Daniel Amneus
By Robert Reis

Chapter I
The Pathology of the Female-headed Family
{L]ike hemophilia, crime is manifested in males but carried and transmitted by females—or rather by single females.
Most criminals come from female-headed families. Most gang members come from female-headed families. Most addicts come from female-headed families. Most rapists come from female-headed families. Most educational failures come from female-headed families. Every presidential assassin before Hinckley came from a female-headed family or one in which he had an impossibly bad relationship with his father. Most illegitimate births occur to females who themselves grew up in female-headed families.
What is happening to our society is that it is discarding patriarchal sexual regulation and reverting to the primeval mammalian pattern of a reproductive unit consisting of the mother and her offspring, the male putting in an appearance to perform his minuscule sexual function and then disappearing or being hauled away to the sausage factory or being reduced to the role of stud who can be discarded when his female tires of him.
“Men and women,” rejoices feminist-anthropologist Helen Fisher, “are moving toward the kind of roles they had on the grasslands of Africa millions of years ago..”
It was the creation of [the role of the father]—only a few thousand years ago—which made patriarchal civilization possible. Prior to that, mankind had to muddle through the million years of the Stone Age with the female-headed reproductive arrangements of the ghetto, the barnyard and the rain forest.
[T]here exists [and can be consulted on pages in the Annex of the original article ] proof that the high-crime, low- achieving areas of society are those with the greatest numbers of families headed by women and that the low-crime, high-achieving groups in society are those with stable, patriarchal families—that the feminist/sexual revolution and its attempt to impose a social organization based on female kinship is a failure and that it is necessary to return to a social organization based on male kinship.
Chapter II
The Once and Future Matriarchy:
The Stone Age, the Ghetto, and the Promiscuity Principle
In the Matriarchal System the reproductive unit consists of the mother and her offspring, the father playing a marginal role, wandering into and out of the “family,” subject to dismissal at the mother’s bidding. The central fact about this kind of family is its naturalness. Roman jurists spoke of maternity as a natural fact, “natura verum,” and of paternity as merely a matter of civil law. “In all but a few species,” writes Sarah Hardy, “females are permanent residents in social groups, males mere transients.” This is the reproductive arrangement of all lower mammals. It has been the reproductive arrangement of the human race itself until recently. Its biological backup is awesome—what Margaret Mead meant by saying the female role is a “biological fact.”

It is the reproductive pattern that re-emerges in times of social catastrophe…When ghetto males sit on curbsides and gets stoned, ghetto females and children stay home and watch T.V. The matriarchal family may result from catastrophe, but it may also result from doing nothing, from biological and social drifting. It is always on standby, always waiting to resurface and re-establish itself. It is what society lapses into when the upkeep and maintenance of the patriarchal system is neglected. It is the pattern which is re-emerging at the present time under the aegis of the feminist/sexual revolution.

“Originally,” writes W. Robertson Smith, “there was no kinship except in the female line and the introduction of male kinship was a kind of social revolution which modified society to its very roots.” “

Kinship through females,” says John McLennan, must be a more archaic system of relationship than kinship through males….“Wherever non-advancing communities are to be found,” he informs us, “—isolated in islands or maintaining their savage liberties in mountain fastnesses—there to this day exists the system of kinship through females only.”

That term [family] stands, in the tradition of civilised societies, for a group centering round the interests, activities, and authority of a dominant male. The husband is the head of the family; the other members of the group, wife and children, are his dependents and subordinates. The corresponding group arising out of the reproductive functions among animals presents no trace of that constitution. It consists of the mother and her offspring. The male, instead of being the head and supporter of the group, is not an essential member of it, and more often than not is altogether absent from it.

“In the great majority of uncultured societies,” writes Arthur Evans, “women enjoy a position of independence and of equality with the men and exercise an influence which would appear startling in the most feministic modern civilized society.” “Women,” he adds,
had a very high status in the Stone Age, as we have seen. Archeology, myth and comparison to still existing nature societies all point to their dominant position.

Jacquetta Hawks:  “Indeed, it is tempting to be convinced that the earliest Neolithic societies throughout their range in time and space gave woman the highest status she has ever known”

The matriarchal family pattern is being restored….

Elizabeth Nickles and Laura Ashcraft say, “The Matriarchal woman who finds that her relation with a man is undermining her sense of self-esteem will not consider it necessary to cling to the relation for the traditional reasons, and she will have the self-sufficiency to stand on her own.”

Because “the Matriarchal woman” can afford it, she reverts to the mammalian/matriarchal family pattern.

  “In the coming matriarchy,” continue Nickles and Ashcraft “We may see the advent of the rotational family, in which there is no single, stable cast of characters for a lifetime, but rather a series of individuals—male and female- -who will be added to or phased out of a continually reconstituted family unit as the needs, interests, and emotional commitments of the couple, individual, or group dictate. The first five years of a woman’s adult life may be spent living with male and female roommates; the next five years with a male mate; the next five with a husband and a child; the next three with two female friends, and so on. This pattern is already emerging, but when it occurs on a large scale, we will see the rotational family replacing the nuclear family as the status quo.”

It is the pattern of the Hopi Indians.The household revolves about a central and continuing core of women; the men are peripheral with divided residences and loyalties.

It is the pattern of the ghettos, where illegitimacy now exceeds 50 percent and where men and boys grow increasingly roleless and violent—and where women live in poverty and complain of their insufficient subsidization.

The promiscuity which characterizes the matriarchal system denies men a secure role within families and the motivation provided by that secure role. The absence of that motivation is why the ghettos are the mess they are—why the women of the ghettos enjoy the “freedom to follow their personal inclinations in sex relations[.]”

Once women get the freedom to make the marriage contract non-binding, then they may suppose they have the “option” of either remaining for life with one husband or of not so remaining, but since the husband has no comparable option—the woman’s freedom includes the freedom to throw the man out and take his children from him (and in the American matriarchy to take part of his paycheck as well)—the man is forced to share the woman’s view of the marriage as non-binding. He becomes roleless and de-motivated, likely to become a drifter or a disrupter of society, likely to be regarded by women as poor marriage material, to be pointed to by feminists as proving the anti-sociality of males and the need for more feminism.

Feminists believe that the patriarchy ought to subsidize its own destruction by paying women to create fatherless families. According to Martha Sawyer, a Ph.D candidate at Howard University, the costs of these fatherless families should be paid by “the most advantaged category, monied white men.” Paid, that is, by men who retain a niche in the patriarchal system which creates the wealth.

{F]eminists Monica Sjoo and Barbara Mor, [tell us] “we have to comprehend the first law of matriarchy: Women control our own bodies. This would seem a basic premise of any fully evolved human culture; which is why primate patriarchy is based on its denial”

The most significant thing about this statement of “the first law of matriarchy” is that it is asserted categorically, without reference to the marriage contract. It assumes without even bothering to assert it, that marriage confers no rights on husbands.

It must be obvious to most men—though it is clearly not obvious to these women—that this female sexual autonomy rules out the possibility of using the family as a system for motivating males. Such is the state of things. said (correctly) by Sjoo and Mor to have existed prior to the creation of patriarchy a few thousand years ago, and such is again becoming the state of things as patriarchy melts away. It was to prevent this state of things that patriarchy was created, a central feature of it being society’s guarantee of the Legitimacy Principle—every child must have a father. The present situation, which has created the Garbage Generation, results from society’s delinquency in refusing to implement this guarantee

The Welfare State has teamed with the feminist/sexual revolution to replace the patriarchal family with the older matrilineal unit. The ghettos provide the textbook example[.]

[T]he first law of matriarchy has deprived these men of families and therefore of the motivation which would keep them working.

The Promiscuity Principle entitles her to paternity suit income. It is her right to control her own sexual behavior—including the right not to use contraceptives—and to impose the economic costs upon one of her sex partners—if the District Attorney can round up her playmates, compel them to take blood tests, and identify the lucky one. Then her sexual irresponsibility will pay off and reinforce society’s acceptance of the first law of matriarchy, otherwise known as the Promiscuity Principle. The identified boyfriend will be reduced to years of involuntary servitude for the benefit of another person—slavery.

Patriarchy divides women into good and bad, those who accept the Sexual Constitution (sexual law-and-order, monogamy, the Legitimacy Principle, the double standard, etc.) and those who reject it. {A] woman rejects it, and she is “bad” because she denies to a man the possibility of having responsible sex with her even if he wants to. Her unchastity deprives her child of a father and deprives men of the possibility of being a father to her children. She can have a sexual relationship only with a man as irresponsible as herself. She is a sexual Typhoid Mary who has inflicted illegitimacy upon a child and seeks to ameliorate what she has done by demanding to be paid for it. She will plead as justification that “there is no such thing as an illegitimate child,” signifying there is no such thing as an unchaste woman.

The workability of the patriarchal system requires the regulation of female sexuality, including the enforcing of the double standard. In no other way can men participate meaningfully in reproduction. A woman violates the Sexual Constitution by being promiscuous. A man violates it by refusing to provide for his family. The new feminist sexual order proposes that women shall be free to be promiscuous and that the social disruption thereby created shall be made tolerable by compelling men to provide for non-families.

P]patriarchy holds a man responsible only for the subsidization of a wife, a “good” woman who accepts the Sexual Constitution and her obligation under it to bear only legitimate children.

The historical development of this arrangement in the second millennium B. C. is thus described by Dr. Gerda Lerner: As we compare the legal and social position of women in Mesopotamian and Hebrew societies, we note similarities in the strict regulation of women’s sexuality and in the institutionalization of a sexual double standard in the law codes….This is quite in line with the general stress on the family as the basic unit of society, which we have also noted in Mesopotamian society at the time of state formation.

The “time of state formation” [read: the creation of civilization] was the time which stressed the family as the basic unit of society, just as today’s social and sexual anarchy is the time which stresses women’s desire to wreck the family and return to “beena marriage,...a form of marriage which allows the woman greater autonomy and which makes divorce easier for her.”

[The matriarchal arrangemnt] is one with sexual freedom and no responsibilities—plus the advantage of having bill-paying men around as long as they behave themselves and accept second class status.

The underlying difference of opinion between the feminist view and the Mesopotamian/Hebrew/patriarchal view is whether society should be understood as composed of families or of individuals. Those who today believe the latter might be asked whether sexual behavior is better regulated in the ghettos on the basis of the Promiscuity Principle than it was in the Kingdom of Hammurabi on the basis of the Legitimacy Principle. The Legitimacy Principle can only operate if its implementation is in the hands of men who conceive of it as operating to preserve their families and their meaningful role within them. It is the purpose of feminism to deny men this role.

Nothing has changed in four thousand years. In ancient Mesopotamia, as in the United States today, women were more concerned with maintaining their sexual autonomy, men more concerned with maintaining the integrity of families, and per corollary the regulation of female chastity upon which the family depends. What Hammurabi’s legislation shows is what contemporary lawmakers fail to see—that the Sexual Constitution is a male creation and must be supported by males. Men, not women, are the ultimate guardians of morality;..., when women subvert the moral order, men must reassert their responsibility to restore it.

The matrikinship system persists up to our times in many primitive regions, even where fathers have become known.This persistence is, of course, the chief reason why these regions are primitive.

Jamaica is a another textbook case.

Jamaican women practice the first law of matriarchy and thereby deny a meaningful role to males, many of whom become anti- social[.]

According to Carl Williams, head of California’s Workfare program, the unmarried teen-age motherhood resulting from the first law of matriarchy burdens the welfare system and contributes to illiteracy. 60 percent of California women under 30 who are now on public assistance began receiving welfare as teen-agers. 57 percent of them cannot read, write, add or subtract well enough to get a job or train for one.
A survey of 108 rapists undertaken by Raymond A. Knight and Robert A. Prentky, revealed that 60 percent came from female-headed homes, that 70 percent of those describable as “violent” came from female-headed homes, that 80 percent of those motivated by “displaced anger” came from female-headed homes.

Thanks to the first law of matriarchy, births out of wedlock have increased more than 450 percent in thirty years[.]

The existence of an extensive welfare system permits the woman to put less pressure on the man to behave responsibly, which facilitates irresponsible behavior on his part, which in turn leads the woman to put less reliance on the man, which exacerbates his sense of superfluity and his search for alternative definitions of manliness.

[O]ne of the persistent demands of feminists is that the woman’s emancipation from control by divorce shall not emancipate the man, but obligate him to make her “independent” of him by giving her alimony and child support money.

Let’s consider a specific case. Brandon Tholmer, 29, killer of four women, suspected killer of eight others. Tholmer is illegitimate, but that’s OK, because, as Ms. Phyllis Chesler says, “every child has the right to be wanted.” It doesn’t occur to Ms. Chesler that the best way of insuring this right is for him to have a father who would want him, protect him and provide for him. Anyway, Tholmer’s Mom practices the first law of matriarchy and her kid is a killer.

Dean Philip Carter is convicted of killing three women and suspected of killing two others.
21 witnesses show that he had a troubled childhood and therefore is less culpable. Quite so. But who, then, is culpable for having inflicted the troubled childhood upon him? ....Mom accepted the Promiscuity Principle and exercised her right to impose illegitimacy upon her boy, which placed him at greater risk of becoming a criminal, as the documentation given in the Annex to Chapter I shows.
The pattern being promoted by feminism is well summarized by a recent Canadian study of female offenders:
In response to suggestions that the feminist movement has brought “a new era of emancipated female offenders showing some of the same patterns as male offenders,” the authors acknowledge many similarities. For example, about the same percentage of female criminals commit violent offenses as do males (although “women’s victims more so than men’s have trouble defending themselves—for example, children, intoxicated, asleep, infirm”).
[W]hat their study does describe—sexual promiscuity, divorce, women who act increasingly like men—are familiar results of the sexual revolution.

The problems created by the first law of matriarchy were predictable—female promiscuity and illegitimacy, male rolelessness and anti-sociality. With more illegitimacy, come more second generation crime, more educational failure, more demoralization, less motivation, less productivity, reduced self- esteem, less commitment to the future as evidenced by reduced accumulation of stabilizing (and garnishable) assets such as real estate, annuities, pensions, stock portfolios, savings accounts, insurance. More sexual confusion, more hedonism, more infantilism (of which non-commitment is a variety), more emotional shallowness. And, of course, in consequence of all of these, more family breakdown, more family non-formation, more demands for freebies from the government’s Backup System (welfare, day care, workfare, wage-garnishment as a means of financing families—with the consequence of yet further fear of commitment to family living). And so on, without end, each attempt by the Backup System to patch up the mess created by family breakdown working to further undermine the male role, and with it the family.

Chapter III
The Patriarchal System: Putting Sex to Work

The matriarchy described in the previous chapter is perceived by feminists as a lost Golden Age—and also as the bright wave of the future. Women living in surviving Stone Age societies, such as exist on Indian reservations, are held up as exemplars for the liberated women of our own society.

These Stone Age women, despite their squalor, ignorance and poverty, are contented. They fill the biological role of the mammalian female, heading the reproductive unit, enjoying the liberty of the first law of matriarchy. And today’s feminists are coming to share their tranquility and placidity. They are, as Helen Fisher says, “moving towards the kind of roles they had on the grasslands of Africa millions of years ago….Human society is now discovering its ancient roots.”

Men in the larger society are being ground down to the status of the men on Indian reservations—roleless, unmotivated, alcoholic and suicidal, because the first law of matriarchy deprives them of a stable family role.

Patriarchy, says Adrienne Rich, “is the one system which recorded civilization has never actively challenged.” That is because without patriarchy there can be no recorded (or unrecorded) civilization. The central fact about patriarchal civilization, besides its recency and the magnitude of its accomplishments, is its artificiality and fragility, its dependence on women’s willingness to submit to sexual regulation. Women’s de-regulation of themselves by achieving economic and sexual independence can wreck the system. The ghettos show how easily this can happen. The wrecking of the system is rapidly spreading from the ghettos to the larger society, where the legal system has become patriarchy’s chief enemy, expelling half of society’s fathers from their homes.

It doesn’t occur to feminists that “their subordination in sexual matters” benefits women as much as it benefits men. It means law-and-order in the sexual realm and the creation of wealth in the economic realm. It means stable families which provide women with security and status and in which children can be decently reared and socialized.

“The appropriation by men of women’s sexual and reproductive capacity,” says Dr. Lerner, “occurred prior to the formation of private property and class society.” It was the precondition for the creation of the wealth upon which civilization depends. Without sexual law-and-order men cannot be motivated to create wealth or do anything else worth doing.

“The sexual control of women,” says Dr. Lerner, “has been an essential feature of patriarchal power. The sexual regulation of women underlies the formation of classes and is one of the foundations upon which the state rests.” Quite so. If you doubt it, ask yourself what kind of a state we will have when it is populated, as it is coming to be, by the fatherless offspring of today’s promiscuous females—when the feminists on the campuses of our schools and colleges have convinced young women that the traditional patriarchal attempts to regulate their reproduction by imposing chastity and modesty upon them are a sexist plot to contravene the first law of matriarchy. The kind of state we will have is indicated by the evidence given in Chapter I, showing the high correlation between female-headed families and social pathology.

This is the way the patriarchal system works, and it benefits everyone. It gives men motivation, makes them productive and thus helps their wives and children. It puts sex to work as a motivator, focusing on long-term (family) arrangements rather than on short term sexuality—promiscuity, the first law of matriarchy.

If women were to become economically independent (as feminism wishes them to be) and if the feminist principle becomes accepted that “there is no such thing as an illegitimate child,” then men have no bargaining power, no way of inducing women to enter a stable marriage (though they may be willing to enter an unstable one as long as, following divorce, they have assurance of custody of the children accompanied by economic advantages). Under such conditions society becomes a matriarchal ghetto.

Let’s put this the other way round: the patrilineal classes are wealthy—because their males are motivated to provide for stable families; the matrilineal classes are poor because their males are not. As she adds on the following page, “In matrilineal societies there are more sexually integrated activities and more sexual freedom for women.” That is why they are poorer.

Savage women and feminists want marriage to be unstable in order that they may point to its instability not only as justification for the first law of matriarchy but as proving the necessity for women to be subsidized by non-family arrangements which do not impose sexual law-and-order upon them.

The increase in illegitimate births among white teenagers from 6.6 percent in 1955 to 40 percent today follows from the removal of the controls (shame, guilt, etc.) which feminists have been working to remove, and their replacement by “a woman’s right to control her own sexuality.”

The larger society offers white males a fifty percent chance of having and keeping children and a fifty percent chance of losing them to their ex-wives. In the ghettos society offers virtually nothing to males who accept the responsibilities of fatherhood—and it attempts to compensate for its failure to provide the props needed by responsible fathers by showering rewards upon single mothers (non-ghetto and ghetto) in the form of AFDC, food stamps, subsidized housing, free medical care and the rest.

Women’s [and girls’] refusal to grant men a significant role in reproduction means that they are denying to themselves the right to make a dependable commitment to bear a husband’s children. The Promiscuity Principle (a woman’s right to control her own sexuality) makes women moral minors who cannot enter into an enforceable contract to share reproduction with a man. A contract with a woman is worthless if she insists on her right to break it—and has the law on her side in doing so. No matter what a man does, a promiscuous woman excludes him from responsible reproduction. It is for this reason that the civilizations of antiquity found it necessary to divide women into “good” and “bad,” those with whom a binding contract of marriage was possible and those with whom it was not.

It is the labor of males which creates the prosperity of society, as the poverty of the surviving Stone Age societies, the ghettos, and the Indian reservations amply shows. There is one way, and only one, of motivating males to earn that money, and that is to make them heads of families.

The male is not equally responsible with the female for inflicting illegitimacy on a child. In the patriarchal system a man can only be held responsible to a “good” woman, one who accepts the Sexual Constitution. The bad women are an essential part of the system, but they must be de-classed and regarded as unfit for marriage, since husbands can have no assurance of their chastity and loyalty, no assurance of having legitimate children by them. The feminist campaign to do away with the double standard is an attempt to remove this class distinction and make all women “good.” Instead, it is making all women “bad,” creating the Garbage Generation in the process.

If the fathers of illegitimate children can be coerced into supporting the mothers, the mothers will believe that a paternity suit (or a divorce decree) is as good as a marriage contract—or rather better, since it involves no reciprocal responsibilities, not even temporarily. Such sexual de-regulation of females means the destruction of the family and the ghettoizing of society.

The Prophet Mohammed emphasized the importance of regulating female sexuality. According to Dr. Fatima Mernissi,he saw the establishment of the male-dominated Muslim family as crucial to the establishment of Islam. He bitterly fought existing sexual practices where marital unions for both men and women were numerous and lax.

Samuel Blumenfeld sees “the moral codes crumbling all around us,” and says, “Whoever sold teen-agers on the idea that there is such a thing as premarital “recreational sex” ought to be shot. Unless one understands that sexual pleasure was created by nature as bait for the more painful responsibilities of existence, one cannot understand sex, one cannot understand love, one cannot understand life. Unless sexual pleasure leads to human responsibility, it then becomes the shallowest and most depressing of pursuits.”

[The] lesbian-feminist Charlotte Bunch writes “that the demand by some for control over our intimate lives—denying each person’s right to control and express her or his own sexuality and denying women the right to control over the reproductive process in our bodies—creates an atmosphere in which domination over others and militarism are seen as acceptable.” She makes no reference to the contract of marriage, which is intended to allow men to share in women’s reproductive lives. She would have the marriage contract place no obligations on the woman, and allow her to exercise her reproductive freedom as though there were no contract.

“There is no such thing as an illegitimate child”—no such thing as an unchaste woman, no need to regulate sexual behavior. But there are unchaste women ..., and unchaste women do bring illegitimate children into the world,..., and illegitimate children are responsible for a disproportionate amount of social pathology, a fact which will not be changed by passing as law (as has been done in Sweden) that there are no illegitimate children.

Women aren’t drawn into marriage by their “nature.” They accept it because it is advantageous and because its advantages cannot be obtained without submitting to the patriarchal constraints whose purpose is to channel procreation through families. The present disruption of sexual law-and-order is produced by women’s trying to retain the advantages while rejecting the constraints.

This promiscuity is why these societies are “primitive.” It is to prevent civilized society from relapsing into this primitivism that the Legitimacy Principle—every child must have a father—must be enforced.

There are new proprieties to which everyone must conform on pain of being disliked by feminists and believers in the first law of matriarchy. Since the feminist/sexual revolution the Promiscuity Principle has replaced the Legitimacy Principle and one sexual arrangement is as good as another. Nobody’s feelings must ever be hurt—unless they happen to believe in the Legitimacy Principle.

According to feminists Barbara Love and Elizabeth Shanklin:“The matriarchal mode of child-rearing, in which each individual is nurtured rather than dominated from birth provides the rational basis for a genuinely healthy society, a society of self-regulating, positive individuals” Things are this way in the ghettos, where half of the young bear the surnames of their mothers, and where the proportion of such maternal surnames increases every year, along with crime and the other accompaniments of matriarchy.

The patriarchal family, whose linchpin is female chastity and loyalty, makes men work. That is why civilization must be patriarchal and why it slides into chaos, as ours is doing, where family arrangements become matrilineal.

Here, described by the 19th century German explorer, G. W. Schweinfurth, is the way males perform when females regard them as inessential. The tribe described is the Monbuttu: “Whilst the women attend to the tillage of the soil and the gathering of the harvest, the men, except they are absent either for war or hunting, spend the entire day in idleness. In the early hours of the morning they may be found under the shade of the oil-palms, lounging at full length upon their carved benches and smoking tobacco. During the middle of the day they gossip with their friends in the cool halls.”

A large survey of college students indicated that while virginity among girls was rapidly diminishing, virginity among boys was actually increasing, and at an equal rate. Impotence has for some time been the leading complaint at most college psychiatric clinics.

These hard-working African women want independence from men and yet they complain of abandonment by men. Their problem is that their societies have failed to channel male energies into socially useful and economically productive directions. This is not institutionalized male chauvinism; it is the failure to impose patriarchy. The males will never be productive as long as women’s sexual autonomy (the first law of matriarchy) cuts men off from families. They are in the same situation as millions of their American brothers [.]

[W]omen like Ms. Friedan herself, who put her husband’s name on the dedication page of The Feminine Mystique, but later, after she discovered she could make it alone on her royalties and lecture fees, tossed him out, took his children from him and removed his name from the dedication page. (Not that she didn’t complain about his failure to provide her with child support money for the children she took from him. )

Chapter IV
Sleeping Beauty Feminism vs. Slaughtered Saints Feminism

1989 a social service officer in Milwaukee County, by name Terrence Cooley, wrote an inter-office communication titled “AFDC/Child Abuse Information,” a copy of which found its way into the editorial office of The Family in America, pointing out that of the 1,050 cases of child abuse and neglect in that county an astonishing 83 percent occurred in households receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (read: female-headed households).

Today’s legal system has abandoned its responsibility to stabilize families and has become the principal enemy of the family. That such a thing could happen, and happen so rapidly and unobtrusively, suggests that the execrated pro-male 19th century legal system had the right idea. It sensed, if it did not explicitly understand, that women don’t like marriage and family life and would willingly do away with them if they could do so without forfeiting their benefits.

What Dr. Heilbrun says comes close to what the Seneca Falls feminists complained about, that women were moral minors with whom contracts—including marriage—were worth nothing because they could renege on them if they wished. Such irresponsibility justified the pro-male tilt of the law. 19th century men needed the pro-male tilt—and so do men today. “Why do contemporary men fail to see this?”

Marriage means giving men responsibility and a meaningful reproductive role and these gals couldn’t care less about male responsibility—aside from the responsibility of paying child support money. They want to schlepp back into promiscuity, recreational sex, matriliny and the free ride, like the squaws on Indian reservations and the welfare matriarchs of the ghettos.

The suggestio falsi is that “victims” are female and “relatives” and “spouse” male. But there are as many male victims as female ones and the perpetrators protected by their “spouse” from police interference are frequently female. Boys are twice as likely as girls to be victims of assault (by Mom). Men often remain married to violent women out of concern to protect their children, who, in the event of divorce, would be placed in Mom’s sole custody.

The patriarchal system benefits women by marriage. The feminist program of wrecking the patriarchy aims to make it provide the same benefits outside marriage, thereby destroying marriage, the family, the male role and the whole patriarchal system—and restoring matriliny. The only way for men to restore the patriarchy is to insist that there shall be no free ride outside of marriage and the acceptance of sexual regulation—no alimony, no child support payments, no affirmative action and comparable worth programs, no quotas, no goals-and-timetables. To be independent means not to be dependent. The patriarchal system benefits women by marriage. The feminist program of wrecking the patriarchy aims to make it provide the same benefits outside marriage, thereby destroying marriage, the family, the male role and the whole patriarchal system—and restoring matriliny. The only way for men to restore the patriarchy is to insist that there shall be no free ride outside of marriage and the acceptance of sexual regulation—no alimony, no child support payments, no affirmative action and comparable worth programs, no quotas, no goals-and-timetables. To be independent means not to be dependent.

What women want is not independence but de-regulation. They yearn to return to the “kind of role they had on the grasslands of Africa millions of years ago.” De-regulation is the key idea which explains the feminist/sexual revolution. They like to talk about independence because it sounds self-approbatively heroic—and the talk is sincere in the sense that when they write agitprop or get together at conventions and take one another seriously they believe their own flim-flam. But when any tangible, especially economic, benefit enters the picture they opt for dependence. The more dependence—the more alimony, the more child support, the more legislative/bureaucratic/judicial chivalry, the more affirmative action, the more comparable worth, the more quotas, the more goals-and-timetables, the more anti-male discrimination, the more freebies—the better. If it’s free they want it. What they don’t want is the regulation of their sexuality which gives males a secure role within stable families.

Chapter V
The Mutilated Beggar Argument

The Mutilated Beggar technique is employed extensively in the contemporary war over the family. Ex-wives drag their children into poverty and then point to their sufferings as proving the need for ex-husbands or the welfare system to bail them out.

Charlotte Bunch complains about divorced women not getting as much of their ex-husbands’ paychecks as they did during marriage[.]

If being in need (Mutilated Beggar argument) were enough to ensure the subsidization of ex-wives by ex-husbands, marriage would become superfluous except as a preliminary to divorce.

Father-custody was formerly the accepted arrangement. The first feminists, meeting at Seneca Falls in 1848, made it one of their chief complaints that in cases of divorce fathers automatically got custody of their children. The family stability created by this presumption of father custody was a major reason for the progress and achievement of the Victorian era.

Chapter VI
The Custody Trap

“The heart of woman’s oppression,” says Shulamith Firestone, “is her childbearing and childrearing roles.” The predicament of these mothers is trebly pitiable when they are single heads of families. Single mothers complain especially of poverty—theirs and that of the children they drag into the Custody Trap to keep them company and give them a “role.” They aver that the patriarchal family is a prison for the mother; but the mother is far more restricted, impoverished and miserable in a female-headed family, with reduced income and no partner to share responsibilities with.

But poverty is not the only problem, or the worst. 80 percent of children in psychiatric clinics come from female-headed homes. Single women family heads have the highest rate of disease compared to all other women, far higher than the never married. They report “less satisfaction with their lives than Americans in any other marital status, including widows and women who had never married.”

Divorce researchers Judith Wallerstein and Joan Kelly were struck with the pervasive sadness they encountered among 6-to-8- year-olds in female-headed families—a sadness not seldom transformed into rage at the mothers. E. Mavis Hetherington found that mothers in father-absent homes have more psychiatric symptoms than mothers in intact homes. According to Patricia Paskowicz, one-third of children of divorce living with their fathers seem pleased with their situation, compared with only one- tenth of those living with their mothers.

A child living in a female-headed home is ten times more likely to be beaten or murdered.

According to Sara McLanahan and Larry Bumpass, Women who were raised in female-headed families are 53 percent likelier to have teenage marriages, 111 percent likelier to have teenage births, 164 percent likelier to have premarital births, 92 percent likelier to experience marital disruptions.

Dr. Lenore Weitzman’s assertion that divorce bestows upon men a standard of living 42 percent higher than they enjoyed while married is a puerile falsehood which is not made less absurd by repetition.

The failure of the judges and policymakers responsible for most of these female-headed families to understand their responsibility for them and for the disruption, crime, demoralization and illegitimacy they produce derives from the disastrous but natural mistake of supposing that because the female-headed family form is biologically based, whereas the father-headed family form is merely a social creation, society ought to support the biologically based form by choosing Mom for custodian of the children in case of divorce. They cannot grasp the idea that the reproductive pattern found among lower animals is unsuitable for humans.

Society must use the strength of the mother-infant tie not as a lever for wrecking the two-parent family, but as a prop for preserving it—by guaranteeing to the father the headship of his family and the custody of his children. Then mothers, knowing that divorce will separate them from their children and from Dad’s paycheck, will reconcile themselves to accepting the patriarchal, two-parent family arrangement. Marriage will be stabilized. There will be no feminization of poverty, no general acceptance of the female-headed family and its social pathology.

The feminist-sexual revolution is an attempt to get back to the pre-patriarchal pattern of the Stone Age, to mobilize and unleash the discontents resulting from civilization’s demand that women accept sexual law-and-order.

There exists no such disparity in ghettos and on Indian reservations because the males in ghettos and on Indian reservations have no bargaining power and no motivation to acquire it by work and self-discipline. They lack the frustration- tolerance which sexual law-and-order and dedication to family living make endurable. They are willing to accept the one-night stands and the stud-status which their women are willing to offer them. And so, alas, are increasing numbers of males in the larger society. And policy-makers, lawmakers and judges are willing to re-order society to make it conform to this matrilineal pattern which makes men studs instead of fathers. And this is why there is a Garbage Generation.

Chapter VII
The Gilder Fallacy

There is a striking difference in the behavior of males in civilized and in primitive societies—the difference between motivated, productive, stable males in the former and disruptive or idle or macho or narcissistic drones, or at best hunters and warriors, in the latter. However the most essential difference between the two societies is one less conspicuous but more pivotal: In the civilized society the females accept the regulation of their sexuality on the basis of the Sexual Constitution—monogamous marriage, the Legitimacy Principle, the double standard and female loyalty and chastity; in the primitive society the females reject sexual regulation and embrace the Promiscuity Principle, a woman’s right to control her own sexuality. The female behavior is more basic, since it determines whether the males can be motivated to accept a stable and productive lifestyle. The key issue is not, as {George] Gilder imagines, whether men can be induced to accept the Sexual Constitution which he imagines women try to impose, but whether women themselves can be induced to accept it. What causes women in civilized society to accept it is the knowledge that the economic and status rewards bestowed by patriarchal civilization can be obtained in no other way.

Those achievements which constitute what, in the best sense, we term civilization [says Briffault] have taken place in societies organized on patriarchal principles; they are for the most part the work of men. Women have had little direct share in them.

Women are promiscuous unless male-created social arrangements compel or induce them to be otherwise. The truth about the creation of civilization is the opposite of what Gilder imagines it to be.

If men are not deflected from such women by their statistics for divorce and adultery, they might be deflected by those on coronary heart disease. According to the Framingham Heart Study, men married to women with thirteen or more years of education were 2.6 times more likely to have coronaries. If these women are in addition liberated to work outside the home the men are 7.6 times more likely to have coronaries.

Kinsey was radically mistaken   [Liar and pervert. RER] in thinking that women control the moral codes: If they support these codes, they do so because of compulsion or perceived advantage or simple conservatism, not because their bodies tell them they have to make long-term commitments.

[Note] the observations made by Father Jacob Baegert on the Indians of southern California two hundred years ago:“They lived, in fact, before the establishment of the missions in their country, in utter licentiousness, and adultery was daily committed by every one without shame and without any fear, the feeling of jealousy being unknown to them. Neighbouring tribes visited each other very often only for the purpose of spending some days in open debauchery, and during such times a general prostitution prevailed.”

That’s the way it was with savages in California two hundred years ago, and that’s the way it is coming to be in California today.

Autonomy—otherwise known as the Promiscuity Principle, otherwise known as the First Law of Matriarchy. What is being rejected is the patriarchal socialization which led Gilder to suppose women possessed long-term sexual horizons and wanted men to be sexually responsible just like themselves. The fact is that males, precisely because it is they who have the long-term sexual horizons, find such promiscuous women unattractive.

This freedom, which Gilder supposed to be the male pattern, is the pattern of unsocialized, unpatriarchalized females, who view the requirement of chastity and loyalty as their “historic downfall.” Men insist on marriage and female chastity because this is the only way they can have legitimate children, the motivators of the wealth-creation Ms. Reed speaks of. Patriarchy and wealth are the good twins; matriarchy and violence the bad twins. It is the wealth created by the patriarchal system which reconciles females to renouncing the feminist Promiscuity Principle and accepting patriarchy’s Legitimacy Principle.

[T]hree-quarters of criminals come from “broken” (read: female-headed) homes. The way to stop generating these violent male criminals is to clean out their breeding places—to stop creating female-headed homes.

Feminist Professor Barbara Bergmann wants child support payments from absent fathers to be “the same for children born out of wedlock as for children of divorced or separated parents.” The woman has all the rights, the man all the obligations.

The existing policy is that such socially sanctioned unchastity gives Mom title to her children and to her ex-husband’s or ex-boyfriend’s paycheck.

The way to stabilize the two- parent family (which society needs because it produces better behaved and higher achieving children) and to prevent the creation of the female-headed family (which produces most of the criminal class) is for society to maintain the tie between the child and the father by guaranteeing to him that his wife cannot take his child from him.

{B]iology and experience both inform the male that the father- child tie is precarious and requires him not only to take long-term views but also to create social structures which will guarantee the legitimacy and inalienability of his children. Gilder refuses to see that this guarantee has now been lost, that society is returning to matrilineality, and returning likewise to the patterns of short-term, compulsive sexuality which Gilder associates with males but which are grounded in matrilineality and found consistently in such matrilineal societies as those of the Tongans and the Todas and the Takelomas and the Mandans and the Montagnais and the Canelas and the Caraijas and the Nandi and the Masai and the Baila and the Akamba and the Morus and the Dume Pygmies and the Kadza and the !Kung and the Gidjangali—and the ghettos.

The present sexual anarchy has not resulted from “two centuries of secular humanism”; it has developed mostly within the last generation (not, to be sure, without predisposing causes), and it has occurred largely in consequence of government welfare programs, the pressures of feminism, the 50 percent divorce rate and society’s error in supposing that its props are required for the strongest link in the family, the mother’s role, rather than for the weakest link, the father’s role.

Modern society relies on predictable, regular, long-term activities, corresponding to the sexual demands of the hated Double Standard, imposed by men over the resistance of women, as the pattern found in non-modern, non-patriarchal societies shows. In such societies, as Robert Briffault truly says, and as the condition of the ghettos and the Indian reservations sufficiently proves, “there is no original disposition in women to chastity”.

The “male pattern” which Gilder thinks the enemy of social stability is not the male pattern in patriarchy but the male pattern in matrilineal societies such as the ghetto, the pattern where males acquiesce in female promiscuity (“autonomy”), because they have too little bargaining power to do anything about it.

It is in the American matriarchy, as it is among the Tekelmas, the Mandans, the Canelas and other savages—whereas the father’s tie in these savage societies is easily breakable, which is why these savages, like ourselves, have underachieving children…..[W]at she imparts is the socialization which produces 75 percent of the criminal class.

In the Mahabharata, the ancient epic of India, the character Pandy says, “Women were not formerly immured in houses and dependent upon husbands and relatives. They used to go about freely, enjoying themselves as best they pleased….They did not then adhere to their husbands faithfully; and yet, O beauteous one, they were not regarded as sinful, for that was the sanctioned usage of the times….The present practice of women being confined to one husband for life hath been established but lately.”

In the 24th century B. C., when civilization was a recent human achievement, an edict of King Urukagina of Lagash declared that, “Women of former times each married two men, but women of today have been made to give up this crime.”

Patriarchal civilization is made possible by the regulation of female sexuality on the basis of the Sexual Constitution. Given freedom, females do not use their influence to impose this Sexual Constitution on males but to escape from it, to wreck the hated patriarchal system, as they have done in the ghettos. Surely it is significant that in the vast feminist literature dealing with the economic miseries of single mothers and their children, there is nowhere any suggestion to return to the Sexual Constitution and the patriarchal family—the only realistic means by which the economic problems of most single mothers can be solved. The entire thrust of this literature is to demand alternate methods of improving the standard of living of female- headed families without going back to the family and the Sexual Constitution which Gilder imagines them to be yearning for.

Chapter VIII
The Weitzman Fallacy

Dr. Lenore Weitzman’s book The Divorce Revolution argues that ex-husbands owe ex-wives far more alimony and child support money than divorce courts now compel them to pay.

Being independent was great as long as it meant not having reciprocal responsibilities; losing the free ride was less great. It was accordingly necessary to devise a new justification for the ex-wife’s retaining of the ex-husband’s money, this being that most of the “assets of the marriage” consist of the husband’s earning ability.

Dr. Weitzman’s statistics concerning the ex-husband’s improved and the ex-wife’s deteriorated standard of living are spurious.

The problem of the feminist movement, as Dr. Weitzman articulates it, is to use the Motherhood Card and the Mutilated Beggar argument to get that peripheral male out of the home without losing his paycheck. The problem of patriarchal society and of the men’s rights movement is to ensure that this separation of a man from his paycheck and his family does not occur.

But important as the economic argument for father custody is, it is less important than the greater likelihood of delinquency imposed on the children by mother custody, a fact alluded to earlier. A recent study of 25,000 incarcerated juveniles made by the Bureau of Justice Statistics indicates that 72 percent of them came from broken homes (read: mostly female-headed homes). 74 percent of the nation’s children live with two parents, 26 percent with one parent (read: Mom). In other words, 74 percent, coming from intact homes, produce only 28 percent of the juvenile crime; 26 percent, coming from mostly female-headed homes, produce a staggering 72 percent of the crime. The ratios of delinquency probability in the two groups can thus be stated numerically by dividing the size of the group by the proportion of the delinquency it generates. 72 divided by 26 for the female headed group gives 2.76; 28 divided by 74 for the intact group gives .378. The ratio of the delinquency generated by the two groups is thus 2.76 divided by .378, or 7.3. If the findings of this study are to be trusted a child growing up in a single-parent home (usually female-headed) is seven times as likely to be delinquent.

Chapter IX
Hypergamy

What IBM thinks of as the promotion of equality is better understood as the undermining of hypergamy, one of the pillars of the patriarchal system. Hypergamy, or the “marriage gradient,” means that women “marry up,” men “marry down.” A cinder girl may hope to marry Prince Charming, but a chimney sweep cannot hope to marry Princess Charming. A male doctor might well marry a female nurse, but a female doctor would hardly consider marrying a male nurse. The female nurse may be underpaid, but in the marriage market her prospects are better than those of the female doctor because there are more desirable males she can hope to “marry up” to.

Virginia Woolf thought as IBM thinks: families would make great sacrifices to educate their sons, few sacrifices to educate their daughters. She failed to understand the reason: education enables sons to have families, to provide for wives and children who would benefit from the sons’ education economically and by the transmission of the knowledge and the values embodied in the education. Educating daughters does not enable them to provide for husbands, and greatly decreases likelihood of their having stable marriages. The birthrate of educated women is far lower than the birthrate of educated men. (Ms. Woolf herself was childless, as are most feminists.)

Chapter X
Our Paychecks, Our Selves: Why Fathers Must Demand Custody

Short of total annihilation, there can be no more fundamental change in a society than the one taking place in ours, a change which has no name and whose nature is unrecognized because its separate facets—crime, delinquency, drugs, sexual anarchy, educational underachievement, family breakdown, feminism—are perceived as separate problems, or as not problems at all, but progress. The essence of the change is the abandonment of the system of social organization based on male kinship and the reversion to the older system of social organization based on female kinship. The statistics which measure this change inch upward only one or two percentage points a year, but viewed historically it is happening with electrifying speed.

What men must do to salvage the male kinship system is to safeguard the male paycheck—to prevent anyone, ex-wife, house-male judge or house-male lawmaker, from telling him what he may or may not do with that paycheck, and that if he enters into a contract of marriage to share that paycheck with a wife in exchange for her sharing of her reproductive life with him, this contract shall not be abrogated for the purpose of depriving him of his children and his paycheck.

Early Roman society was divided into the plebeians, meaning “the people” (the base of the word survives in plebiscite, a vote of the people), and the patricians, the “father-people” (from patri, father), a term which can have come into existence only in a society where mother-kinship was normative and the idea of kinship based on fatherhood was an innovation. The success of the innovation made Roman government, law and civilization possible. The patricians were wealthier, more stable; and in time the plebeians saw the advantages of father-kinship, which became the norm for all of Roman society.

Learning how to govern their families on patriarchal principles made the Romans capable of governing the world. The social structure based on mother-kinship is found in relatively pure form in Haiti—the most impoverished, most squalid, most matriarchal nation in the Western Hemisphere. Haitian women enjoy the sexual liberation Ms. Colton covets for American women: the typical Haitian woman has children by three different fathers, none of whom, needless to say, has a family in any meaningful sense of the word, none of whom, needless to say, can be motivated to work very hard. Poverty is the hallmark of societies (or areas within societies) based on female kinship. When the complaint is made that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, what is meant is that patriarchal families get richer and female-headed families get poorer.

The number of incarcerated prisoners is today almost double what it was in 1980. The prisoners are nearly all male, a fact dwelt upon lingeringly in feminist literature, which likes to contrast the dangerous violence of the male with the harmless gentleness of the female. Feminist literature passes silently over the fact that three-quarters of the male prisoners are the products of female- headed households.

Ms. Friedan had no understanding of the pivotal fact that the “little” asked of women was primarily not housework but acceptance of sexual regulation. The male’s reproductive marginality forced him to offer the female the extremely one-sided bargain upon which Ms. Friedan poured her scorn. The benefits of this bargain are being lost to men because women will not keep the marriage contract and the courts will not enforce it. They are being largely lost to women by their insistence on sexual autonomy and their consequent withdrawal of sexual loyalty from the nuclear family, which then ceases to provide what Ms. Friedan deemed a free ride for women. With that withdrawal women can no longer offer men what men must have if they are to participate responsibly in reproduction.

From the feminists’ point of view subsidization by an ex- husband is as good as subsidization by a husband; but from the man’s point of view the difference is total. The husband who works to support his family works to secure his own role and to stabilize the civilization made possible by patriarchy. When he works to subsidize his ex-wife he is undermining the institution of the family and the patriarchy of which his ex-family was once a part—working (under compulsion of the legal system) to wreck civilized society rather than stabilize it. He is an unwitting and unwilling (but helpless) recruit in the warfare of the ages, that between matriliny and patriliny, pressed into service to fight for the enemy, matriliny.

Male unchastity sets a bad example and demoralizes wives who find out about it, but otherwise damages society little. Female unchastity destroys the marriage contract, the family, the legitimacy of children, their patriarchal socialization, the security of property and the motivation of work—destroys civilized society

A man who wants a woman to marry him would get nowhere by telling her, “If you will marry me, I will guarantee that you will be the mother of your children.” He is offering her nothing, since it is impossible that she should not be the mother of her own children. A woman who wants a man to marry her would be talking sense if she said to him, “If you will marry me, I will guarantee that you will be the father of my children”—talking sense, though her personal guarantee is insufficient, because women notoriously change their minds, because the Promiscuity Principle claims for women the right to renege on their promise of sexual loyalty, and because the legal system supports this right. In the words of Mary Ann Glendon, the duty of an exiled ex-husband “to provide for the needs of [his] minor children [in Mom’s custody]...is so important that it cannot be excluded by contract.” In other words, the woman’s promise is worthless and the law will grant the man no rights under the contract of marriage.

The feminist/sexual revolution and the betrayal of the family by the legal system are the two chief causes of this destruction and (a generation later) of the skyrocketing of crime, second- generation illegitimacy and other social pathology.

A father who sends his ex- wife child support money is subsidizing the destruction of his own family, perpetuating the system of child-support-extortion which has wrecked tens of millions of other men’s families, and paying to have his children placed in a female-headed household where they are several times more likely to be impoverished and delinquent and demoralized and neurotic and underachieving and sickly and sexually confused and drug-addicted.

The willingness of ex-husbands to pay child support money to ex-wives is comparable to the willingness of blacks in the South a generation ago to sit in the back of the bus. At the time it seemed natural because everyone did it. When Rosa Parks decided she would no longer submit to this stupid indignity and chose a seat at the front of the bus, segregated seating came to an end. When American men realize not merely the stupidity, but the social destructiveness of subsidizing matriliny, the feminist/sexual revolution will come to an end and patriarchy will be restored.

Juvenile detention centers are bursting with these “primordial” citizens, thanks to judges’ incomprehension of the fact that civilized society needs patriarchal socialization as well as female biology. There is no need for judges to worry about “severing” or “attenuating” Mom’s biology. Mom isn’t going anywhere—not if Dad has assured custody of his children and assured possession of his paycheck. She isn’t going to give up her kids, her role, her status symbols and her meal tickets. Judges suppose they must support the strongest link in the two-parent family, the mother’s role, because it is the strongest. They should support the weakest link, the father’s role, because it is the weakest. It is by doing this that they support the two-parent family, the patriarchal system and civilization.

The female-headed family is “natural” and “biological” and “primordial,” and that is why it is found in the barnyard and the rain forest and in the ghetto and on Indian reservations and in surviving Stone Age societies. The two-parent family is what makes civilization possible—and vice versa—just as the breakdown of the two-parent family is what makes the ghetto possible—and inevitable. Judges don’t understand this and that is why two- parent families are falling apart and why crime and drugs and gangs and illegitimacy are out of control—why there is a Garbage Generation.

Chapter XI
The Humphrey Principle

After a half dozen years of futile war in Vietnam, with nothing to show for our expenditure of lives, money, prestige and good will, with the entire world wondering whether America had gone mad, the question was put to Vice President Hubert Humphrey, Why not just acknowledge that we made a mistake—that we should just put our soldiers on board ships and bring them home and forget the stupid war?
The Vice President’s reply represents the same political wisdom which prevents the solution of the problem of the Garbage Generation:
We must not look for easy solutions.
—Hubert H. Humphrey
The application to the problem addressed in the present book is this: If mother-headed homes generate most of our crime, delinquency, illegitimacy, educational failure, drug addiction, infantilism, gang violence, sexual confusion and demoralization—as they demonstrably do—why should not our society adopt policies which make fathers heads of families?

Daniel Amneus, Ph D, was professor of English (Emeritus) at California State University in Los Angeles.  His specialty was Shakespearean textual criticism.  One of the most insightful men’s/fathers’ advocates of the 20th century Dan left a world of wisdom in three books.  First, Back to Patriarchy, second The Garbage Generation followed by The Case for Father Custody.  Amneus was the leading theoretician and articulator of the Fathers’ Rights movement.  His last decade was dedicated to perfecting articulation of the arguments supporting father custody.