The Feminist War Against Fathers: From Historical Hatred to Modern Marginalisation, By Mrs Brittany Miller (Londonistan)

In October 2025, the UK government announced a seismic shift in family court policy: judges in England and Wales will no longer operate under the presumption that contact with both parents is inherently in a child's best interests, particularly in cases involving domestic abuse. This change, hailed by campaigners as "groundbreaking" and a victory against "abusive fathers," has sparked outrage among fathers' rights advocates who see it as the latest salvo in a long-running campaign to sideline men in family life. While reactions in North America remain subdued, perhaps due to similar ongoing battles in US and Canadian courts, the move symbolises a broader ideological assault. For decades, elements within feminism have pushed to dismantle the father-led family, framing fathers as expendable at best and dangerous at worst. My discussion explores that "war" through historical texts, cultural artifacts, and contemporary legal trends, while acknowledging the tireless pushback from fathers and their allies.

Roots in Radical Feminist Ideology: Fathers as the Enemy

The notion that feminism harbours an anti-father agenda isn't a fringe conspiracy, it's embedded in the movement's own foundational writings. Take Elizabeth Gould Davis's 1971 book The First Sex, a Second Wave feminist staple that romanticised ancient matriarchal societies where men were mere peripherals. Davis argued that fathers contribute nothing essential to children's lives: "The father is not at all necessary for a child's happiness and development." She went further, claiming maternal love was the only true form of affection, with men incapable of genuine emotion, reducing their "love" to "male frenzy," per psychoanalyst Theodor Reik.

This wasn't isolated rhetoric. Kate Millett's Sexual Politics (1970) targeted patriarchy's "chief institution, the family, as the root of women's oppression, calling for its transformation. Shulamith Firestone's The Dialectic of Sex (1970) labelled the nuclear family a "rigid class/caste system," while Valerie Solanas's infamous SCUM Manifesto (1968) dismissed fathers entirely: "The male has a negative Midas touch—everything he touches turns to sh**." These weren't obscure cranks; they were influential figures shaping policy and culture. By the 1970s, their ideas fuelled a push to redefine family structures, prioritising maternal autonomy over paternal involvement.

Critics might dismiss this as outdated extremism, but the echoes persist. William Collins, in The Empathy Gap (2019), argued that feminism's core aim has always been to empower women to "rid their families of men." Similarly, Stephen Baskerville's Taken Into Custody (2007) quoted Canadian Senator Anne Cools: "The person who is least likely to abuse a child is a married father... The person who is most likely is a single, unmarried mother." These claims challenge the narrative that fathers are inherently risky, pointing instead to systemic biases that amplify false accusations and alienate dads.

Cultural Reinforcement: Fathers as Comic Relief or Villains

Pop culture has amplified this dismissal, often portraying fathers as irrelevant or interchangeable. The 2008 film Mamma Mia! encapsulates Davis's matriarchal fantasy: Meryl Streep's character, Donna, admits to sleeping with three men in quick succession, unsure of her daughter's paternity. The men cheerfully accept shared "third-dad" status, expressing no resentment or demand for clarity. Sophie, the daughter, briefly laments not knowing her father but quickly moves on, reinforcing that paternal bonds are optional luxuries, not necessities.

Imagine the reverse: a film where a daughter doesn't care which of three women is her mother, or where a father shares paternity claims without issue. It's unthinkable, highlighting a double standard. Fatherhood is treated with jocularity and indifference, while motherhood remains sacrosanct. This cultural script aligns with feminist critiques of "patriarchal" families, but it ignores data showing children thrive with involved fathers, lower rates of mental illness, delinquency, substance abuse, and suicide.

Legal Battles: From "Tender Years" to Total Exclusion

Contrary to feminist lore, like Elizabeth Cady Stanton's 1848 Declaration of Sentiments claiming men held "all power" in divorce, history shows mothers have long held the upper hand in custody. Tom James's The History of Custody Law (2014) debunks the myth of fathers owning children as property. In 19th-century America, courts favoured mothers for "tender years" children (young sons, daughters of any age, or those in poor health), even overlooking maternal faults like adultery. Fathers could lose custody for financial instability or merely asserting their rights.

Feminism strengthened this maternal preference. Early activists like Stanton pushed for women's primacy in custody, formalising biases that persisted into the 20th century. A brief 1970s-80s flirtation with gender neutrality, seen in films like Kramer vs. Kramer, where Dustin Hoffman's character fights for equal parenting, faded as financial incentives (child support) favoured sole maternal custody. By the 2000s, groups like the National Organization for Women opposed shared parenting bills, framing them as enablers of male abuse.

The UK's 2025 announcement escalates this. Campaigners like Claire Throssell, who met with Prime Minister Keir Starmer, celebrated the end of "pro-contact culture," arguing it prioritises "abusive fathers" over child safety. Yet this ignores statistics: mothers are the most frequent child abusers and homicide perpetrators (e.g., US data from p. 65 of relevant reports). False accusations thrive in family courts, where alienation, a recognised form of child abuse, is often dismissed when mothers are involved. Reddit discussions from North American users echo this frustration, with fathers describing systemic biases and false claims as barriers to access, even in jurisdictions presuming 50/50 custody.

In Australia and Canada, similar debates rage; recent removals of equal shared responsibility presumptions aim to address high-conflict cases but often sideline fathers further. US states like Kentucky buck the trend with 50/50 defaults, but overall, fathers face uphill battles, sleeping in cars, enduring baseless violence claims, or paying exorbitant support while barred from their kids.

The Fightback: Fathers' Unwavering Dedication

Against this onslaught, fathers' groups have amassed evidence: shared parenting correlates with better child outcomes. Organisations in the US have passed statutes promoting joint custody despite opposition. Stories abound of men like the Colorado dad who went without hot water for two years to fund legal fights, or the Ontario collector ejected from his home on spurious grounds. Baskerville's work details this "judicial kidnapping," where courts criminalise and impoverish fathers.

These efforts highlight paternal love's reality, countering Davis's claim that men can't truly care. Yet, feminists exploit motherhood's mythic power, portraying any father pushback as "control" or "abuse." As Joanna L. Radbord argued in 2004, fathers seek custody not for love, but to evade support or dominate, ignoring sincere aspirations.

Conclusion: Defending the Indefensible Bond

The "feminist war against fathers" isn't about equality; it's about reshaping society to marginalise men in families. From Davis's matriarchal dreams to the UK's presumption repeal, the pattern is clear: fathers are vilified, their roles minimised, and their rights eroded.

This isn't to deny genuine abuse cases or women's contributions, but to demand balance. Fathers aren't optional; they're vital. As advocates continue their Sisyphean struggle, society must confront whether we're building families or battlegrounds. The war rages on.

https://fiamengofile.substack.com/p/dispatches-from-the-long-war-on-fathers