Fathers – the first Great Reset Victims

Parental Rights Activists could see this “Great Reset” of the World Economic Forum (WEF) coming for everyone else as it was applied to them many years ago.  Many are becoming aware of the “new socialism” of the WEF which uses high taxes and burdensome regulations combined with a surveillance state to control you (instead of Marxist direct control of business and individuals).  That is what has been done to fathers and families and it is the reason we have such a high out-of-wedlock and divorce rate and why many young people are not getting married nor having children.  

Marxism has at its roots a desire to destroy the nuclear family which they proudly proclaim publicly.  While Marxist Critical Race Theory (CRT) is now being used to undermine parental rights and raising of your own children it was Marxist Radical Feminist Theory (RFT) which first assaulted the family.  Both evolved from the Frankfort School’s Marxist Critical Theory to create a world which “satisfies the needs of human beings” and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see when placed side by side the Great Reset, RFT, and CRT are the same, socialism with a differently named bourgeois and oppressed proletariat.  

Just as the Great Reset has been in motion moving slowly over decades, the government regulation of the family and driving fathers out of the family has been occurring over decades, each decade getting more onerous in directing individual behavior.  In the 1950s White Fatherless Homes exceeded Black Fatherless Homes.  Enter President Johnson and his “Great Society” of social programs for women and children. Black Fatherless Homes skyrocketed to 20% in the early 1960s, labelled a crisis, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan published “The Negro Family: A Case for National Action,” now known as the Moynihan Report.  The report received pushback from the African American Community as it was viewed as blaming African American men for the breakdown in the African American Family.

Enter the RFT in the 1970s and the war on “the patriarchy.”  Far from being a war on those who held the reigns of power in government and industry it was a war on men in general, including fathers and blue class working families.  Who needs a man was the common refrain. In 1970 No Fault Divorce was enacted in California and quickly spread to most other states.  Even in NY, which didn’t enact No Fault Divorce until 2010, a woman only needed to go to family court and make ex parte allegations of an unfit spouse and was virtually guaranteed to get child custody, child support, and a separation agreement which would be turned into a divorce after one year of constructive “abandonment.”

The standard for awarding custody in family courts was the Tender Years Doctrine, that being young children would go with the mother for their tender years but older children would go to the father and his “firm hand” as they were learning to navigate in the world.  But over time the standard was changed state by state to the best interest of the child standard.  This shifted decision making on what is the best interest of the child from the parents to the judge. Through the 1980s and 1990s bias in the courts had them awarding mother custody over 85% of the time in divorce cases and almost 100% in out-of-wedlock births, in all cases making one of the child’s biological parents “non custodial” with limited parenting time.  Parental rights stripped without cause. 

And over this time, increasingly, 2 parent families were dragged into family court at the request of child social agencies and the judge’s opinion inserted over those of both parents.  Cases are easy to find where parents left a child unattended but in a safe place yet the police were called and child neglect charged. Schools started to refer cases where parents refused to follow the dictate of the administrative state, such as one whose parents declined to put a child on drugs for ADHD preferring to try alternative methods first. Parents have been hauled into family curt because they made their child attend church too often even though in accordance with their beliefs. Once the courts made one parent a “non” (custodial) parent it became easier and easier for the Judge to impose his opinion of the best interests of the child on both parents.  How long before parents are dragged into family court for NOT teaching their child CRT?

Increasing out-of-wedlock birth rates and exploding divorce numbers had “single mother” homes increasing, and increasingly they turned to daddy government to help them financially. As federal coffers were strained government looked for a funding source to replenish expenditures.  Enter the “deadbeat dad” under the Reagan administration where popular media was used to portray fathers who “abandoned their financial obligation” to their children.  Never mind it was the “single mother” who decided to get pregnant and rely on daddy government, it was “deadbeat dads” fault.  As the money was to go to federal coffers the amount of “child support” wasn’t based on the needs of the child but assessed as a percentage of gross income of the father, a per child excise tax.

Even though marriage and divorce were state issues, a Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement was developed and a counter office in each and every state in the nation working under the federal guidelines with reimbursements of money to the states to ensure compliance. Before this a father was ensured access to his children as that was when he picked up his kids he delivered the child support check directly to the mother, no kids, no money.  Now she could, and many were, refusing to deliver the children at court ordered times but as his “child support” went direct to the state he was thus forced back into family court to try to get back the lost time with his children, which caused greatly overburdened courts to admonish mothers to not do it again with no penalties.

Initially directed towards out-of-wedlock births the Child Support System couldn’t get any returns as it turns out poor women have out-of-wedlock babies with poor men who can’t pay in to the system due to lack of income.  So to show that they were “successful” the system increasingly looked to include those fathers, mostly from divorce cases, where they were already paying child support on time and in full.  Many states now directed that ALL child support payments had to go through the government.  When the federal government included an incentive for cases with a health insurance order, millions across America were served with an administrative order directing they provide health insurance for children already on their health insurance. “Problem” solved with a windfall to the states.

In 1984 the Duluth Project was begun to address domestic violence against women, ignoring violence in families with child and/or father victims.  Even though early domestic violence shelter operators were reporting that the mothers were often as violent as the fathers, the Duluth Model was developed along RFT and it held that ALL domestic violence was because a man wanted power and control over his wife and children.  When (then) Senator Joe Biden introduced the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) it was based upon the Duluth Model.  VAWA passed in 1994 and has dutifully been reauthorized by both Republican and Democrat alike to the tune of billions of dollars, most of which funds radical feminists and RFT, CRT, and the Great Reset.

When police on the street weren’t arresting enough men due to women not filing complaints (or not showing up in court to testify) mandatory arrest laws were passed which required an arrest if any party was injured.  This in spite of the fact it is considered prosecutorial misconduct to arrest a person who obviously can’t be convicted.  When police started arresting both parties as much of domestic violence is mutual the laws were changed to arrest only the “primary aggressor” which was defined as the larger person, more intimidating, in effect describing men. To help identify the primary aggressor Domestic Violence registries were set up in every state.  Unlike relying on adjudicated cases the registries rely on domestic violence reports, often by one party, with no opportunity to have the case adjudicated by the other party.  There is no expunging your name form the record for the innocent.

The socialist daddy state has been very successful in destroying the African American Family as it is widely reported 80% are “father absent” homes. Like in the Moynihan Report we keep blaming Black Men for this.  CRT would have us believe that it is “institutional racism” yet the greatest income disparity isn’t between Blacks and Whites, it is between college educated Blacks (who run the cities that Poor Blacks live in) and non college educated Blacks. Having decimated Black Men and Boys and their families the New Socialists need to move on to the rest of families.  15% of White families are headed by the mother, 5% by the father with CRT and school control of children looking to undermine the remaining 80% of 2 parent families. Using “toxic masculinity” and “believe all women” they are looking to drive fathers out of families. Families are dissipating just in time for the Great Reset.

Marriage is hostile to men, and can also be to a female spouse out earning her husband.  Many forego marriage not because of men or women but because government controls it and thus controls the finances of the family.  Many are foregoing marriage but still creating a home with 2 biological parents of their children. 75% of White families have 2 biological parents while only 39% of Black families* do.  We don’t know how many of these families Black and White Fathers are actively involved in the raising of their children for the government keeps no statistics on that, indeed most states have no access enforcement for court ordered parenting time for parents labelled ‘non custodial.”  It is apparent the next “critical theory” has to attack the White 2 biological parent families and I believe the Marxist CRT combined with the Great Rest is designed to do just that.  The issue isn’t one of race or sex, it is will we allow the “educated class” to dictate to us working class folks how to live our lives and raise our children?

We have gone from “shiftless” black men, to “deadbeat dads”, to “toxic masculinity” and I think it’s time for men and boys, and the women who love them, to say enough.  This led to conservative families being labelled “right wing” zealots, parents opposed to CRT being labelled “domestic violent extremists,” and I say it’s time for parents and traditional families to say enough is enough.  We’ll bond with a mate, have our children, and raise them as we see fit.  And we don’t need your theories and government regulation of the family, we can figure out life on our own based upon our heritage and beliefs, free individuals entering into our social contract of a family beholden only to God, family, country, and community.  

*Note there are discrepancies in reported numbers of homes by head of household and marital status and/or unmarried long term biological parents or those separated households that have both parents active in raising their children. The last federally funded research on fathers was in the 1990’s (Sanford Braver) and updated, unbiased, and accurate statistics and studies are needed.

The Life of Married to the State Linda

The current administration is promoting the complete replacement of a husband and father with daddy state subsidies to single mother homes. For those of us advocating for the Father/Men’s/Parents Rights this attack on the family is no surprise for we have seen the steady destruction of individual and parental rights under the guise of “protecting” women and children and fighting the “war on poverty”.  Indeed, one can put the 1960’s federal government war on poverty and subsequent programs on a chart showing increased “family” programs and it corresponds with the increases of single parent homes.  Following the trend, this next round of government programs should get us near to no nuclear families by 2040.

As part of its Build Back Better plan the current administration promotes the fairy tale “The Life of Linda” (https://www.whitehouse.gov/build-back-better/) showing a single mother, Linda, and her son Leo from his birth to her end on earth subsidized by funds from the daddy state.  Missing from this once upon a time is the husband/father and any male influence in their lives as the story paints a fantasy world of happiness for her and her son from her pregnancy to her need for elder care, overseen by Leo, or course.  It is obvious government propaganda on a par with Stalin’s completely made up Pavlik Morozov (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlik_Morozov) which duped a generation into support of a communist police state in the Soviet Union.

Presented in 7 panels in comic fashion we are introduced to Linda who’s pregnant and working in a factory.  In panel 2 Linda is seen grocery shopping with her toddler son Leo, subsidized with $300 a month for essentials. #3 Leo is happy in day care, subsidized by the government capped at 7% of her income.  #4 a happy Leo enterers a “high quality” Pre-K program for “free” at 3 years old.  Next we fast forward to Leo graduating high school and entering community college subsidized by extended Pell Grants. Panel 6 has Leo getting a good paying, union job.  And lastly we find an old Linda, arm in arm with Leo as she spends her last years taken care of by government which is paying for her elder care.

Cradle to grave government happiness

The true story of the life of Linda is more like this.  Linda meets Lenny and they date.  Linda wants a child but not a husband so Linda lies about her reproductive status.  Once pregnant Linda breaks it off with Lenny without his knowing of the pregnancy. At birth Lenny learns he has a son and files for paternity and DNA shows him to be the father, using all of his savings to pay for an attorney.  It is then that Lenny gets hit with a child support order and is assessed at 17% of his $60,000 income is to be paid to the Child Support Unit.  He also learns that the child support is after taxes so he is assessed 22% federal and 5% state income tax.   This has reduced Lenny to $710 a week.

Both Lenny and Linda have health insurance through work but it is Lenny who is ordered to maintain a family plan to cover Leo which is $85 a week for the family plan as opposed to $20 a week for the single plan.  After Social Security, union dues, and other mandatory deductions Lenny’s is reduced to $600 a week take home pay.  Lenny also has to file as single for tax purposes while Linda gets to file as head of household thus reducing her income for tax purposes.   As Lenny’s income is higher than Linda’s he has to pay 60% of all out of pocket expenses such as child care and co-pays and Linda pays 40%.

Linda’s after tax weekly take home after mandatory deductions is $675 a week as her tax is reduced by her head of household, standard deductions, and child tax credits.  On top of this she gets $196 a week tax free in child support giving her $871 a week in income.  Lenny has filed for visitation and he is allowed to visit every other weekend and every Wednesday for 4 hours.  To maintain his visitation Lenny needs a two bedroom apartment so his son Leo has a bedroom of his own on the 4 days a month he is sleeping over with his dad.  Even though Lenny’s mother is available for child care and wants to spend time with her grandson, Linda chooses to put him in day care at $270 a week, and Lenny has to pay $180 of that but Linda’s child care is capped at $1880 (7% of her income), a cap which doesn’t apply to Lenny.  Together with co-pays for doctors and such, Lenny’s weekly income drops to $510, 2/3 of which is used to pay rent on a 2 bedroom apartment (about $1800 a month). 

Linda gets a new boyfriend and he owns his own house and she stays with him rent free.  Unfortunately the rent or other financial benefits she receives from him don’t affect what Lenny has to pay her in child support nor does it count against the government benefits and tax breaks she receives.  The house is two counties removed and Lenny has to spend extra time and money traveling farther to pick up Leo.  At 3 Leo is placed into pre-K and Lenny doesn’t like the facility they chose as what they teach are counter to his beliefs.  He finds out there is nothing he can do about it as he is a “non custodial” parent.

Leo was smart and good in math but with limited father involvement he started to use alcohol and drugs.  When Lenny tried to intervene Leo just pulled away and would skip his visitation time with his father.  Lenny thought with supervision Leo could work hard and earn grades to get him into a 4 year college and earn an engineering degree.  But Linda didn’t want to pay the 40% she would be assessed to send him to college and encouraged him to go to the free community college which Leo did.  So instead of earning $150,000 a year as an engineers Leo earned $60,000 a year as a technician. 

Working until she was 62, in retirement Linda could only afford a one bedroom apartment on her retirement and social security, the boyfriend long gone from her life.  She has a nice photo of her and Leo from the last time he visited 2 month’s ago, luckily she gets elder care in her home.  It’s not the quality care one gets from a caring relative, but it’s enough to keep her out of the nursing home.  Leo has 2 children with 2 different women, both of whom moved away from where he works.  He is assessed 17% for each kid, 34% of his gross pay before taxes.  Both his “baby-momma’s” are on welfare so what he pays in child support goes back into federal coffers to offset the costs paid to the mothers.  He lives in a one bedroom apartment in the bad part of town as that’s all he can afford.  He still drinks and uses drugs to escape his reality.  He’s “to busy” to visit his mother working extra to try to keep ahead of the bills, besides, she has people who from the government who take care of her.  Linda has a photo of each kid as a baby and she hasn’t seen either in over 2 years.  She sits alone, counting the days.       

Lenny paid his child support for 18 years and became estranged when Leo pulled away as he started the partying, drug lifestyle.  Lenny warned him about gold diggers looking to get pregnant by him as he had a good job.  Leo didn’t listen and blames his problems on his father “for not being there,” even though it wasn’t the fathers choice.  Lenny had lived on so little for so long when he finally didn’t have to pay through the nose he started saving and investing.  He built up a nice little nest egg, including long term care insurance so he wouldn’t be stuck in a state nursing home when he’s very old and feeble.  He sees both his grand kids when he wants as he can afford to travel to them and free babysitting for the weekend and a gift certificate to the spa to mama is enough to get him a weekend.  His last girlfriend gave him the marry me or I leave speech.  He has a new girlfriend. 

Unfortunately the real world outcomes for boys of single mothers is far from the happy idealist scenario presented by the government.  By choosing a state subsidized single mother lifestyle the Linda’s of the world are setting themselves and their sons up for negative consequences from increased domestic and child abuse to possible gang participation, drug and alcohol use, and poverty.  While negative or positive outcomes are not guaranteed, the statistics are clear that a child raised in a 2 biological parent household have a much greater chance at a successful and happy life.  Single mother homes are the bulk of families living in poverty and no person ever got out of poverty by living off of government programs.  Some may seem to do better financially up front with government subsidies, but the back end financial and social costs for all are steep.

Remembering Wiley Dobbs – FaFNY Volunteer of the Year

It was 13 years ago, May 29, when Wiley Dobbs passed away .  Shortly after we formed the Coalition of Fathers and Families NY, Inc. (FaFNY) I, as President then, began giving out the Wiley Dobbs Volunteer of the Year Award.  Wiley fought for our freedom in WWII as an air crew member on B-17’s over Germany and retired from employment with NYS which I learned from his obituary.  

What I did know personally about Wiley was that he was a tireless parental rights advocate.  Before social media, the internet, and even email, communication was in written form on paper which had to be delivered by some means.  To convey the importance of both parents to children Wiley purchased on his own, every month, 220 copies of the Children’s Rights Council monthly magazine and he would personally hand deliver them to the legislature and Governors Office.  This was in addition to him writing short hand written letters mailed to elected representatives on a consistent basis.

When I picked up the duties of the Legislative Coordinator with FaFNY I followed his example and would regularly go to the state capitol and walk the 9 floors of the Legislative Office Building, Capitol Building, and Executive Chamber and deliver information to every legislator and the Governors Office.  I wrote letters to legislative leaders and authored memo’s in support and opposition to legislation based on the position of FaFNY and its members.  I also used fax machines to deliver them until email became available and I started using that medium.  All this was in addition to phone calls and meeting face to face with policy makers in all 3 branches of government.  

I followed Wiley’s lead in working tirelessly to foster change.  Now old myself, retired, with 2 replaced knees, my days of walking the legislature are done.  I still author an occasional piece, such as this one, for NY MAN.  I include my comments on Wiley’s Obituary below with the hope that perhaps someone will be inspired to take up the call and lobby for change.  And should you find yourself wandering the halls of government in Albany, stop and listen for a moment and hear the footsteps of those who went before you, knowing you are in good company.

James H. Hays, Lt. (Ret) NYS EnCon Police

Old civil rights activists never die, they just fade away. And so it is with Wiley, for the FaFNY volunteer of the year award is named after him. For many years Wiley stepped up and carried on the fight for parental civil rights. Many a time he would show up at a parents rights meeting with a hand written letter in his hand, sent to the Governor or some such other official and their reply, “Just write them a short letter by hand” he would say. I also remember him for his purchasing of the Children’s Rights Council newsletter for the entire NYS Legislature, over 220 copies, and delivering them himself, walking the halls of the Legislative Office Building and stopping at each office to deliver and chat. When his legs weakened with age he still would purchase them for others to deliver. He was also not afraid to cut a check to do good, contributing to the first Parental Civil Rights PAC in NY, always working in any way to help others. Do a little here, donate a little there, and keep doing it year after year.

That is why the FaFNY Volunteer of the year award was named after Wiley. He sought not personal gain nor even recognition for the good that he did, He simply set about trying to correct the injustices of society by doing whatever he could. This honest advocacy was planted like a seed into others, and today many carry on the fight for justice growing from his contributions.

As time went by Wiley didn’t attend meetings or walk the halls of the LOB as age got the better of him. Many today would not even recognize his name, the old advocate fading away.

In closing here I would ask that all who read this take a minute and write a hand written note to the Governor or some such other official advocating for a civil rights for individuals. And should you be one of the few who takes the time to walk the halls of government advocating for others, stop and listen for a moment for you will hear the foot steps of a Great American walking with you and recognize that you are in good company.

In memory of a friend and mentor,

Mr. James H. Hays, (former) President and founder of FaFNY.org and FaFNY-PAC, a life long civil rights activist.

Jim Hays

August 02, 2007 | Ballston Spa, NY

A crisis is no reason to stop advocating for men and boys

It seems that the focus on the Corona Virus has shut down government activity but that doesn’t mean that it shuts down our political activism. Indeed, the fact that many legislators and their staff are sheltering in place means that we may be able to reach them through electronic means, social media and email, and the old reliable snail mail may be an option also. And since we are ALL sheltering in place we all have the time to advocate for reform of the anti male, anti father, anti parent, anti children and family system.

Might I suggest that each person take a topic or two, get well read on it, and focus on lobbying for change on that? For example shared parenting at the state level brings us equal parental rights under state law and the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act would give us equal parental rights at the federal level. You can advocate for them both at the same time. You can find information about them and a list of other topics and the level of government to lobby for change at “About NY MAN”. Remember to link to NY MAN and any other sites such as NCFM, or The Coalition to Create a White House Council on Men and Boys in support of your position.

As an incentive to get others to join the advocacy make sure to post your activity on social media sites such as Friends of Protection For Men or Fathers and Family NY (FaFNY) or a state organization in the state you are in. If possible, join a state or national organization which advocates for your topics and work yourself into the grass roots lobbyist for them on that topic. I think you will find many who need an organizer to DO and this will give you a grass roots base for you to represent and also an organization with information on the topic that you are presenting.

As a 25 year fathers rights/men’s rights activist, holding a Bachelors Degree in Family and Society, a leader and life member in many rights organizations I am versed on many topics and I lobby for many but (in addition to NY MAN) I limit myself to comments on Facebook, Fox News, and Epoch News and comment on multiple topics related to the men’s movement as they come up due to time constraints. Most won’t have the breadth of knowledge or the time to lobby on multiple topics across multiple platforms so pick one or two areas of expertise. Advocates should then get on multiple platforms to get the word out and if staying on one or two topics can work on many platforms. By staying on one or two topics you can get well informed and debunk a lot of the false narratives out there.

While memes like the one above are good at pointing to overall problems lobbying is about targeting government in one specific area to foster change. For example, Warren Farrell wants to address bias against men and boys by forming a White House Council and advocates for that. NCFM addresses bias against men and boys by advocating for equality in selective service for men and women. The same objective, bias against men and boys, addressed in two different lobbying areas. National Parents Organization is an example of focusing on one topic, shared parenting, across many platforms at all levels of government.

As most of us are hunkering down remember to take care of both your physical and mental health. I think that advocacy will help with the both as it will sharpen the mind, take your mind off of the crisis for a bit, and provide you some reward for working on behalf of another and helping to alleviate their problems and issues. Pick a topic, pick your platforms, and get to work.

Lastly, I’ll be looking to update NY MAN as some of the information is outdated. I’ll also look to post about my years as founder, President and principal lobbyist for the Coalition of Fathers and Families NY Inc. and the founder and Treasurer of the NY MAN PAC including the specifics of how to lobby NYS Government and what NOT to do based upon my experiences. I hope this sets up the next generation of activists for success as I fade off into retirement.

The Tyranny of Protecting “Victims”: The sexual harassment bureaucracy

The current gynocentric hysteria of combatting perceived sexual harassment of women is creating a multitude of bureaucratic government agencies and quasi-governmental functionaries, bound by hierarchal politically correct dictates, which function for social control of individuals and groups under threat of government violence for “non compliance”.  The mandated NYS Sexual Harassment policy placed upon businesses, even small family operations including farm operations, serves as an example.

New York State law recently mandated that ALL employers provide sexual harassment training for employees and have a policy in place to deal with it.  The law applies to not only employees but also to job applicants, contractors, interns (even if unpaid), and persons conducting business with them.  While the law allows businesses to make their own policy it must comply with the state mandates.  The state provides a Model Policy and given possible legal ramifications for non compliance it is hard to imagine a policy will be adopted other than by the state policy verbatim.  This is in addition to federal employment (E.E.O.C.) laws and regulations, and Penal Law protections of individuals.

There are a multitude of problems with these laws:

  • They imply sexual harassment of women in the workplace is a widespread problem.
  • They are bureaucratic social controls over individuals actions not based upon normal human business interactions.
  • They are sexually biased against men in dealing with false allegations.
  • They are sexual biased against male victims of sexual harassment by women.
  • They have vague descriptions of what constitutes sexual harassment.
  • They criminalizes non criminal activity.
  • They create multiple overlapping enforcement agencies.
  • They deny due process and double jeopardy protections for individuals and businesses.

The deadline for implementation of the NYS Law was October 9, 2018 which prompted the NYS Farm Bureau to respond with resources for compliance for its members (November 2018 “Grassroots”) with a full page (pg. 3) of articles on gaining compliance.  The requirements; interactive training, training in the language of the employee, public posting and individual distribution of the policy, will add a large bureaucratic burden on small operations.  Worse, the overlapping regulatory agencies with differing and obtuse definitions make it almost impossible for an individual to remain in compliance and businesses will be forced to legally defend themselves against complaints.

We need only to look at page 5 of this same publication (Do the Right Thing on Sexual Harassment Prevention by Richard Stup, Ph.D., workforce development, Cornell University) to find exaggerations of the “problems” and sexual bias towards men in the application of this new law.  Simply by choosing this title Stup is insinuating we have NOT been doing the right thing regarding sexual harassment.  Following the politically correct liberal view of sexual harassment, male perpetrators and female victims, he goes on to give extreme anecdotal examples in support of his “men are bad” position.

Let’s look at these “real-life examples”, and offer some differing real world – real life examples NY MAN has encountered in 25 years of advocacy for men.  First his examples given and then the real world examples in italics.

A young woman starting out in agribusiness is introduced to a client by the salesman she is replacing and the client states “she is much better looking than the last guy” and she felt demeaned as she was being judged by her looks and not her value.  Upon being introduced to a client by the person she is replacing the client states she is “much better looking than the last guy”.  She responds with “that’s not much of a compliment given the looks of that guy”.  They all laugh and then get down to business.  OR, A new saleswoman is uncomfortable when a client comments on her looks and she politely asks him not to in the future and he politely complies.

An American Male farm employee has a crush on a Mexican female farm employee and blocks her passage to get her attention.  She stated she wasn’t interested but he persisted and she felt threatened.  A female farm employee from Mexico develops a crush on an American male farm employee.  She took to blocking his passage by bending over in front of him and would press against him when passing even though there was room to pass.  His protestations drew criticism from the employer and fellow employees, telling him he was “lucky” to have the attention and they questioned his manliness and sexual orientation for declining her offers. OR, An American male farm employee rebuffed the advances of a Mexican female farm employee.  To get even she field a complaint of sexual harassment against him alleging he brushed his body against hers while they were working.  He was fired based upon her allegation alone.

A Farmers Daughter was subjected to extended looks and even a few whistles from farm employees as she did her chores.  While trying to do their work farm employees were continually subjected to the farmers daughter who dressed inappropriately for farm work and suggestively sexually animated her actions in sight of the male employees making them all uncomfortable to the point they started to avoid her and vacate buildings when she entered.  They feared reprisals or even being fired for pointing it out and so said nothing.  OR, A farmer noted untoward advances towards his daughter, warned the offending employee to stop, then fired the one who didn’t comply.

Stup goes on to say women readers will recognize these scenarios and men need to take them more seriously.  Thus he points to his sexist “women are victims – men are perpetrators” gynocentrically biased view of sexual harassment.    In all the cases he presented Stup fails to see the real world perspective of men which includes both male and female victims and also false allegations by “victims” as well as perpetrators who deny their actions occurred.  This one sided view of the issue can have negative consequences for small business owners.

By using vague descriptions to define sexual harassment and by defining sexual harassment ONLY by actions committed by men the system is training businesses to ignore both false allegations and also male victims of sexual harassment.  Many men have successfully resorted to civil litigation for employer (or organization) non compliance with sexual harassment of male victims and the creation of hostile work environments.  Those suffering false allegations have also successfully litigated the denial of due process and unlawful dismissal from employment.  While these laws are mandated by government, it is the employer who suffers the litigation and financial penalties.

The vague definition of sexual harassment, acts which “are objectionable or offensive to the recipient” allows a person to find offense where none is intended.  Simple innocent comments such as “you look good today” can be turned into an offense.  The workplace is being turned into a hostile environment for men who fear that any comment will be taken with offense and negatively impact their job and career. Allegation, even if not resulting in dismissal, will stay on the employment history of individuals and worker camaraderie and team work suffer in a sterile work environment with employees avoiding human interaction.

An unintended consequence of ignoring false allegations and male victims is that men are excluding themselves from interactions with women when they can avoid them.  By separating themselves from females men do not have to worry about an unintended action or comment being taken wrong.  False allegations can be avoided by avoiding females in the work environment.  Men are simply not working on joint ventures with female coworkers nor are they mentoring younger female workers due to the possible negative ramifications of the false allegation or misconstrued comment or action.

It’s not hard to see that a male small business owner would determine that not hiring women to work under him, or along side with male employees, will help to prevent them from having to defend against a hostile work environment complaint against them or the few male employees working under them.  Given the possible negative outcomes a small business may just forego getting larger and hiring any employees due to the bureaucratic oversight that comes with it.   

While well meaning these vaguely defined “violations” open to interpretation by both the “victim” and unelected government bureaucrats with mandated postings, reporting , and complaint investigations under threat of penalty by government is adding greatly to the expense of operating a business.  Sexual biases toward males in both false reporting and in male victims has negative outcomes for both men and women.  Indeed, it appears that the only party which benefits from these policies are the government bureaucrats and compliance advisors who increase the size of their agency under the guise of doing good.   

 

 

Rights with Responsibilities: Voting and Selective Service

A main area of sexual bias against men and gynocentrist favoritism for women is in men having to register for the selective service (draft) while women do not.  A citizen’s individual rights come with a corresponding duty.   Exclusion of rights is based on the person not being a “citizen” or they have limited rights from limited responsibilities.  In the U.S. voting has always been tied to the responsibility to serve in defense of the state.  Given the right to vote, women continue to avoid the responsibility of defense even though all barriers and legal arguments to exempt them have been rendered moot.

We hear much about women’s fight for the right to vote which they gained in 1920, but many are unaware that the individual right to vote for all citizen’s in the U.S. didn’t occur until the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Prior to the 1840’s most men, regardless of race, were denied the right to vote yet still had the responsibility to serve in defense.  And many men didn’t gain equal access to the vote until 1965 and yet still had the responsibility to serve in national defense.

During the colonial period and the Revolutionary War conscription was a state issue.  Most states required able bodied men to serve in the local militia.  Often a militia unit would be called up for a campaign and service would be for that campaign only or a limited time.  Given frontier and colonial life it was important to leave some able bodied men at home to work fields and guard the home front and often the militias were fighting in proximity of their homes to prevent invasion.  Avoiding militia service was usually rendered impossible as it was your community being invaded and you were fighting for both life, property, and liberty and running or hiding impossible.

When the U.S. Constitution was enacted and the vote for the new government held it was up to each state to decide on who was eligible vote and most had property ownership or tax paying and European ancestry as requirements.  As such only about 7% of the population could vote to chose the first President.  When war broke out again in 1812 a mandatory conscription at the federal level was shot down and mandatory service remained with the states.  The argument against conscription was that it was not authorized by the U.S. Constitution and was counter to individual liberty, a forced servitude.

Demand for equal suffrage for all white males was strong in the early 1800’s.  White males bore the responsibility to serve at times of war but were disenfranchised from participating in the decision of who decided they went to war which was opposite to the ideals of the fledgling Republic.  By the 1830’s most states removed property ownership as a voting requirement but limited participation to free white men.  Some limited voting to tax payers and in some states free black men could vote.  But by the 1840’s most states limited voting to free white men.  Eligible voters had increase by 20 times from 1820 to 1840 with over 2 million voting.

Prior to the Civil War the Woman’s Suffrage movement and the Abolitionist Movement worked closely together.  The woman’s suffrage movement was based upon women and men being equal taking the wording from the Declaration of Independence with addition, “all men and women are created equal”.  Opponents pointed to the higher calling for women as family caregivers, being the “fairer sex” and nurturing, in effect putting motherhood on a pedestal with women superior to men in that regard.  The responsibility to serve in defense of the country was a main talking point against a woman’s right to vote as they did not have the full responsibilities of a citizen.  The outbreak of the Civil War put Woman’s Suffrage on hold.

Citizen status conveys rights, duties, and benefits.  The right to vote centered on the definition of “citizen”.  A U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case (1857) said that no man of African Ancestry could claim U.S. Citizenship as a right.  Denial of the vote to women was based upon the lack of responsibility as a reason to deny the right to vote.  The woman’s movement split with one side staying with the men and women are equal argument and taking an anti-Abolitionist position of no vote for women, no vote for blacks.  The other side of the suffrage movement started to argue that woman’s superior nurturing made her qualified to exercise the the right and responsibility of voting.

The Civil War saw both sides enact mandatory military service.  Both sides met 90% of their manpower needs with volunteers and looked to fill out the ranks with a draft.  The south exempted plantation owners and the north allowed commutation money for exemption.  Both sides allowed for substitutes and most conscripted were substitutes.  The unfair policies of the draft caused widespread evasion and even violent protests, such as in New York City where riots resulted in the military coming in to restore order.  The draft ended with the end of the war.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1868) guaranteed citizenship to all male’s born or naturalized in the U.S. which set aside the Dred Scott decision.  And the 15th Amendment prevented states from preventing voting rights based upon, race, color, or previous servitude.  Various methods were used to prevent blacks, Native American’s, Mexican’s, and Chinese from being declared citizen’s or voting.  Many areas had pol taxes and literacy tests as a condition of the right to vote.

The draft was reinstated at the outset of WW I (1917-18) for male citizen’s aged 21 to 30 and then expanded to include 18 to 45 year olds with 4 million men conscripted.  It should be noted that the age to vote was then 21 years old.  The draft was ended with the end of the War.  In 1920 the right to vote was granted to women with passage of the 19th Amendment but in practice it was granted only to white women as minority women were either outright restricted from citizenship (such as Chinese and others) and the poll taxes and literacy tests remained in many areas.

It was in 1917 that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled selective service and the draft Constitutional based upon rights having responsibilities, stating “It may not be doubted that the very conception of a just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it.  This decision is based upon European Common Law (see The Law of Nations), brought to America and enacted here.  Although gaining the vote 3 years after it was tied to the draft, sexual biases were strong enough that the responsibility to serve in any fashion was not put on women.

Pre WW II (1940) saw the first peace time draft of male citizen’s 21-30 years old and just after the outbreak of the war (Dec. 1941) it was expanded to 18-45 year olds as mandatory service and registration of 45-65 year old men was required.  By the end of 1942 a Presidential Executive Order ended voluntary service (to control manpower for industries at home).  10 million men were inducted during the war, and 1 out of 5 men were classified fit for duty.  Just past the end of the war inductions stopped (1947) but the selective service system itself remained.

In 1948 peace time draft legislation was again passed requiring all men 18-26 years old to register, this the model for our current system.  With the outbreak of the Korean War (1950) the draft cranked up again and 1.5 million men (and 1.3 million volunteers) served during the war.  This draft was the first credited with driving volunteers as a voluntary commitment meant greater control over branch and duty assignment.  It was also the first draft with paternity and college deferments although paternity deferments ended at the end of the war.

When hostilities ceased in 1953  the draft continued.  The cold war and looming conflict in Vietnam kept it going, manpower needs of the military were met by the draft and the enlistments that having a draft drove men to do to gain favored branches and assignments.  Deferments were also used as a social control over men.  By granting a deferment to an occupation or class of individuals, such as married men with children, government could channel men into socially preferred activities.   These deferments for the “best and brightest” left a social divide between college educated and married men and poor single men, the “others” responsible to fill manpower requirements.

The voting rights Act of 1965, intended to prevent discriminatory practices against minority populations and bolster enforcement of the 14th and 15th Amendments, is in effect is the first legislation which had as a standard the theory of “one person – one vote” for all people 21 years of age and over. The attempt to treat all persons as equal, ironically, occurred as the draft was once again being ramped up in response to the Vietnam War.  Again, women were exempted from registering and deferments were given to married men and college attendees.  18-21 year old men were subject to the draft, even though they could not vote.

The theory of rights connected to responsibilities was the impetus for the 26th Amendment (1971) which was enacted under the rallying cry of “old enough to die, old enough to vote” and made voting a right for 18-21 year olds.  Again, the responsibility for men and the corresponding right was given to 18-21 year old women with no responsibility on their part.  Unfair draft deferments were also under attack.  The marriage exemption ended in 1965 and in an effort towards fairness a lottery system was developed.  As the war ground down in 1968 President Nixon proposed elimination of the draft and the use of only volunteers.  Even though the Gates Commission studied the issue and recommended elimination of the draft it was left in place for 1973, 74, and 75, but no one was called up to serve.  The draft and registration ended for the time being, but the selective service system itself remained.

In 1980 President Carter reinstated the requirement that all men 18-25 register for the draft within 30 days of their 18th birthday.  It was made a felony not to register and additionally there were many sanctions for not registering, including not being eligible for most government programs.  A 1981 lawsuit (Rostker v. Goldberg) challenged the male only provision under the due process clause of the 5th Amendment.  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the fact women were prevented from combat roles allowed Congress the authority to treat men and women as unequal and look at military needs.

Once an equality movement, the women’s movement now is one based upon achieving benefits for women without corresponding responsibilities.  The demand of women to be treated equally in the military and to open up all job titles (MOS) based upon ability resulted in the military removing restrictions based upon sex in January of 2013.  One would think that the right to volunteer also creates a responsibility to register and women’s groups would support this as being fair and equitable.  The National Organization for Women which advocates for passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, and other women’s organizations, remain eerily silent when it comes to women’s responsibilities to obtain these rights.

The National Coalition For Men (NCFM) had filed a lawsuit against male only selective service registration based upon equal protection under the law guaranteed in the 5th and 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  Citizenship conveys certain rights, duties, and benefits on all of us equally.  It is very difficult to see how the selective service is justified for one class of people and exempted for another.  Some women get it for there is a lawsuit by Elizabeth Kyle-LaBell who tried to register and was turned away because she was female.

NCFM filed in 2013 and the U.S. Attorney’s Office continues to fight the case.  Overcoming arguments NCFM has beat back opposition, won their appeals, and now has asked for summary judgement in the case.   Certainly, the backlash of the anti-male women’s benefit movement on one end and the radical traditionalists on the other is the driving force behind opposition to equal rights and responsibilities for men and women.

As we remember those who have served this Veteran’s Day, the anniversary of the end of WW I, let’s honor our veteran’s by working to uphold the equal rights and responsibilities guaranteed to us under the U.S. Constitution.  And when politicians (most who have not served and who do not have veteran status) placate us with hollow words of the value of veterans, let’s ask them why Americas sons are not as valuable as Americas daughters.  And ask them to explain how sexual bias in selective service is fair and meets the equality requirements under the U.S. Constitution, a Constitution veterans swear to uphold and do so for all of us by their service.

10 things men NEED to do in politics for men and boys

  1. Put Men’s/Boy’s/Parent’s Rights and issues above ALL other issues and make it your voting issue.
  2. Register to vote.
  3. Register in a political party.
  4. Vote in every primary and general election.
  5. Focus on what YOUR party does and not what the others don’t do!
  6. Know ALL you elected representatives at the state and federal level.
  7. Write ALL your elected representatives on specific men’s issues.
  8. Write formal letters of complaint regarding any and ALL biased treatment you are subjected to.
  9. Know your political process and the issues you advocate for.
  10. Only support candidates who publicly support your issues!

NY MAN was formed 20 years ago as a political action committee and has been actively lobbying for men’s issues since then as a PAC and then a vehicle for grass roots lobbying.  While these 10 bullet items seem like common sense, it is amazing the number of people who don’t do the political basics needed for change.

First, to foster change for men’s issues men need to make them political issues.  Amazingly, while men/father’s complain of the unjust imposition on their rights or unequal treatment, many will point to other issues when it comes time to support a candidate or a party.  This occurs even with so called movement “leaders” who hide their political tribalism under the guise of “other issues”.  This lets the politico avoid having to deal with our issues.  And often the denial of your rights or due process undermines the other issues, a fact addressed in “Undermine parental rights to undermine all other rights”.

The primary way to be politically active is register to vote and register in a party and then vote in both primary and general elections.  Right now in NYS up to 70% of people don’t bother to vote in many elections.  What this says to politicians is that most people are happy with the status quo and they don’t need to address issues.  Politicians are well aware of who votes and how often.  And by registering in a party you get an extra vote, this being very important as in many areas one party or the other always win’s the general election.  Being in a party allows you to interject the issues into that party during primaries.

But Red, Blue, Green, Gold, or Tea: Which is the party for men’s issues?  Sadly, the answer is NONE!  But why does no party adopt few, if any, issues of importance to men?  The answer is men haven’t made them.  Now this is usually when someone goes off on “the other” political party with a tirade of what that party has done to persecute men ignoring the fact their party has done nothing for men and thus the political discussion get polarized right from the get go.  That’s why we added #5.  Stop complaining about what other didn’t do and look at the party you are registered in as that’s where you can foster change.

If there are no candidates that support mens issues, or one running unopposed, then do NOT vote for “the lesser of 2 evils” but register your protest with a write-in vote.  In Saratoga County in NYS Doug Smith promotes a protest write in vote for family court judge.  By writing in a protest vote you are letting politicians know that you are a person who votes and they do NOT address your issues.  You can bet that if a large number of people put in a protest vote that politicians will look to find out what the issue is they can support to get those votes.

And if it’s a “3rd party” candidate who supports the issues don’t get bamboozled by the “spoiler vote” argument that if you don’t vote for a major party candidate you are “voting for the other guy”.  That is nothing but cover for the fact they do not support reform and change.  We get that from Republican’s in NYS who tell us not to vote for Larry Sharpe even while their candidate isn’t on the record for change.  You want OUR vote then you support OUR issues or we’ll vote for someone else.  Period.

Political activism doesn’t stop after the election.  You should know ALL your elected representatives at the state and national level and you should engage them IN WRITING and on the phone on the issues of importance to you.  You need to understand how the political process works and at what level of government the complaints or reform requests should be directed.  A good example is shared parenting.  At the state level legislation is needed to enact change but at the federal level the issue is one of Parental Rights.   If you are unsure of the issues NY MAN has links and discussions of most issues which you can use as templates.

Filing formal letters of complaint seems like a no brainer but the fact of the matter is most men just don’t bother to do it.  Even though the bureaucratic process is often stacked against you and it will do nothing about your problem, it is important to get formal complaints on the record.   NY MAN met with the Chief Matrimonial Judge in NYS with a laundry list of complaints of injustice direct from fathers only to find out that the courts had NO official complaints on file.  The lack of formal complaints made it look like ours were isolated incidents.

A good practice for writing complaints or advocating for changes in law, policy, or procedure is to use a large CC list and send the issue to a lot of people.  For example, a letter about a problem with your county child support collections should be sent to the state office, federal office, and all your elected representatives.  This will often shed light on a problem and make it harder for the one causing the problem to sweep it under the rug.

Also an individual problem sent with a policy change to correct it not only supports the need to fix your individual case but your individual case also supports the need for structural changes in the program.   A good example is draconian child support collection methods which are policies enforced at the state level in response to Title IVd incentive payments to the states from the federal government.

Thought precedes all action.  The vast majority of negative outcomes for men and boys are due to government polices and laws of the denial of rights and equal treatment under the law.   It’s time for men to think about men’s and boy’s issues then act to change political systems which are harming us or denying our rights.  If we are to be an equal rights movement then we need to be politically active.

Kavanaugh Compared to Fathers in Family Court: – How to Slander a Man as Dangerous

While watching much of the Kavanaugh Supreme Court Senate hearing  we couldn’t but help see the comparisons between what he is enduring and the plight of fathers in (anti) family and matrimonial court.   Indeed, many posts on men, father, and family sites generally agreed with this perspective, most stating they couldn’t make an informed decision based on the lack of evidence and political circus, but the hostile and unjust treatment of Kavanaugh was the same as they endured in (anti) family court.

People are beginning to recognize that false allegations are occurring and ruining men’s lives, even the President mentions it.   Unfortunately the fact this has been occurring in family courts for the past 40 years, and is an accepted practice, has not reached the consciousness of the nation.  This is an opportunity for advocates to bring the issue of false allegations and the denigration of fathers in family court to light.  Advocates need to contact politicians with their personal horror stories and say #HimToo.

Kavanaugh entered this hearing like most men enter (anti) family court, they are generally honest and caring individuals who hold their children most dear and would do anything to protect them.  Like fathers entering family court he entered this system of hearings believing:

  • That the system is fair,
  • That the truth will prevail,
  • That the small human faults and frailties common to us all will be accepted under the time, place, and circumstance they are in,
  • That we are all treated equal in the processes and with respect,
  • And we swear before our God to these believing honest statements with evidence will prevail.

And to our dismay we find it all to be opposite of that. It is a gynocentric unjust system which treats women with dignity and men with disdain.  The truth is ignored and perjury and false allegations become the norm.  Any small character flaw, even from years before, is blown out of proportion and exaggerated.  Your demands to be timely heard are ignored while your name is further dragged through the mud.  And when victimized your anger at injustice is then used as proof you are an “angry man” capable of harming others.  The perjurer is treated as the victim, supported, believed, and pampered while you the real victim of a false allegation are treated as a perpetrator, liar, attacked, and made to defend yourself and prove your innocence.

The rules of evidence are plain in that uncorroborated statements are not to be taken as fact.  Absent evidence a “he said-she said” is a wash as it can neither be confirmed true or confirmed false.  The fact is that liars lie because they are good at it and are believable.  Also persons who mistake and misinterpret facts believe the mistake and as such appear to be telling the truth for it is as they see it, especially those with any mental health issues.  If justice is blind it would not see a victimized female and a perpetrating male until the evidence was presented.  But just like a father in family court Kavanaugh was considered guilty until he proved his innocence and Ford, like women in family court, considered truthful without corroboration.

Like fathers walking into court Kavanaugh walked into this hearing expecting an adversarial but fair process.  When faced with public allegations he demanded a timely hearing to clear his name.  Just like most fathers he didn’t make grand, misleading, and false allegations against the opposing party to counter those made against him nor attack the credibility of the opposing party.  Just like fathers he had to wait for justice, which when delayed is denied, while he was further excoriated.

Just like fathers he told his side and presented evidence in support of it only to have it dismissed.   Just like fathers he was bullied, beaten, and attacked under questioning while she was treated with polite conversation and allowed to take a break when “upset” by the soft pitch questions, and obvious discrepancies in the opposing story were ignored.  Questioning under oath is an adversarial process if it is to derive the truth yet there was no adversarial questioning of Dr. Ford, just like occurs in family court.

Just like fathers entering family court, Kavanaugh showed righteous indignation at the character assassination and the unjust system.  And like fathers this was turned against him to show he “lacked demeanor” and was certainly an “angry man” capable of “angry violent actions” and not deserving of the position.  The politically correct method to stop a Supreme Court Judge is the same as it is to remove a father from his children.  High rhetoric and denial of due process.

After suffering the inquisition of the minutia of his life, defending embarrassing sophomore actions when a sophomore, he thought it all over.   And just like fathers entering family court, Kavanaugh sees another delay in the process.  More time to look into the further allegations, this in spite of the fact that they become more ludicrous and numerous as the days pass.  He, like a father in family court, is learning it will never end.  It isn’t about adjudication, it is about winning a war of attrition.

False allegations and slander are a form of relational violence and when government systems respond to it and treat one party with bias based upon the relational violence then we have institutional violence.  This is what fathers suffer every day in (anti) family courts.  It is not only emotional violence, damaging the psyche, the repercussions of the institution which acts on it often results in physical violence against the falsely accused in the form of fines and incarceration.

Our system of justice in the U.S. is based on the fact that the guilty will sometimes go free but that is far superior to the innocent suffering persecution by prosecution.  Judge Kavanaugh is finding out the hard way that this is not how it is working today.  One need only look at the Innocence Project to see the hundreds of falsely accused men who were convicted and now exonerated of sex crimes.  But how many fathers in (anti) family court suffer the loss of children and the plundering of assets by an unjust system which allows perjury and treats them as deadbeats, guilty before walking in the door?

NY MAN has been complaining about the lack of due process for fathers and men in our justice system, now for 20 years.   The pleas to return justice and due process to our court systems have fallen on deaf ears.  Perhaps now people within the court system will recognize that a system based upon biases, false allegations, and perjury can at any time grab an innocent person and oppress them with the tyranny of false allegations, even them.

Unlike Kavanaugh fathers don’t have a powerful senate bloc supporting them.  If the provably false allegations against Kavanaugh are investigated and charged and if the unproven allegations against Kavanaugh are set aside and he is appointed to the Supreme Court, perhaps then Lindsay Graham, Kavanaugh, and others will realize that the reason the unethical sham of false allegations works in politics is because they, all 3 branches of government at the state and federal level, failed to correct it in family court as good fathers were removed from their children without cause.  As Martin Luther King said, “Justice denied anywhere diminishes justice everywhere”, a fact I suspect that Judge Kavanaugh now knows.

Do we believe all male victims of female assault?

The great hypocrisy of “believe all women” who have been victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) or sexual assault is that we do NOT believe nary ANY MAN who is the victim of IPV or sexual assault perpetrated by a female.  Certainly, if we are to skew due process to believe the victim then are not men entitled to the same equal protection?  The focus on women alone shows the blatant sexual bias in this “believe” movement, a gynocentric focus on female victims only.  It is a fact, if we “believe all women” we then inversely NEVER believe a man.

To believe all women is the slippery slope to the denial of due process in our justice system.  Under the U.S. Constitution we stand innocent until proven guilty in stark contrast to blind acceptance of an allegation.  Lady justice is the allegory passed down to us from Roman times representing the morality which should be in justice systems.  She is shown with a scale designed to show that evidence of an offense is present, measured, and balanced.  The blindfold is there to show impartiality in the application of the law.  The sword is for swift justice for justice delayed is justice denied.  If Lady Justice “believes all women” then she removes the blindfold, tips the scales, and strikes any man with the sword at the behest of any woman.  She is then hardly an allegory for justice and equal protection under the law.

At what point do we believe all MALE victims also?  Right now the system dismisses male victims.  How many men’s domestic violence shelters are there?  What government programs are available for male victims of IPV or sexual assault?  Hotlines?  The “Violence Against Women Act” by name and in practice excludes male victims.  Indeed, to admit that one is a male victim of IPV or sexual assault is to subject oneself to ridicule starting with the police and continuing ridicule through the legal system.  If lacking a voice and ignored what is a man to do to get justice?

In a world which believes all women the victimized male is undermined by the counter claim of the female.  Instances of mutual aggression result in the male being prosecuted.  Male victims of female violence are twice persecuted, once by the violence they endure and a second time by the institutional violence of a system which discounts their victimization.  As they are doing now, men will push to be believed and receive equal treatment.  Are we to then morph into a system which believes all “victims” with no measure of the evidence?

Our current system has gotten so gynocentrically focused that we argue about intrusions into protection for the falsely accused as if all false allegations are made by females and all falsely accused are males.  While statistically it may lean in that direction, it is a simple fact of life that both men and women are capable of violence and sexual assault against the other sex, and both men and women lie and are capable of using the relational violence of the false allegation to trigger institutional violence, the prosecution based upon false allegation.  While the institutions are now gynocentrically focused causing more false female allegations then male, we can expect men to push back and gain equality.  Do we want the “equality” of a system which persecutes all falsely accused, both men and women?

The fact that an individual does NOT have to prove their innocence and the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt protects the innocent from the criminal justice system.  Unfortunately, to protect the innocent there are many guilty parties who are not prosecuted due to a lack of evidence.  This is the price we pay to ensure that no innocent person is prosecuted, for to be innocent and prosecuted is to be persecuted.  Indeed, enough men are already falsely convicted for crimes they did not commit.  Are we ready to persecute and incarcerate more men AND women as we undermine due process to “believe all victims”?

For those men and women not prosecuted for whatever reason are we then to resort to a system of public majority rule and social destruction of character?    Two parties both claiming status as victim and perpetrator with high allegations and rhetoric replacing evidence?  The loser being the one who can’t muster as many counter allegations nor sway the majority opinion to their side?  What happens when both sides meet with their mobs with no process to contain them?  Are we not then returning to tribal trial by combat?

Both males and females can be the victim of IPV or sexual assault.  And both males and females can be the victim of false allegations and slanderous character assassination.  Individual victims of violence and victims of false allegations who are not served by the criminal justice system need to be served by our civil and social systems without regard to their sex.  The modern day social and media mob rule lynchings need to cease and we need to return to  due process for all.  Impartial balanced swift justice serves us all and anything else is anarchy and mob rule.

False Allegations of Abuse: The Modern Day Lynch Mob for Men

First they came for the “deadbeat dad”, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a “deadbeat dad”.
Then they came for the “abusive men”, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not an “abusive man”.
Then they came for the “toxically masculine man”, and I did not speak out—  Because I was not “toxic”.
Then they came for me, labelled a deadbeat, abusive, toxic man — and there were no men left to speak for me.

Unfortunately, lost in the absurd dramatic theatre of the supreme court hearings before us is the fact that this absurdity can be visited upon any man or boy at any time in any environment.  Chivalry coupled with gynocentrism opens men up to a societal lynching based upon even the most outlandish allegation.  Regardless of obvious fact, the allegations of a Mayella can turn any man into Tom Robinson, arguing his innocence in a sham of a trial where innocence is destroyed at the hands of the politically correct.

Many a NY MAN, like most men nationwide who suffer through the false allegations and perjury of family court, probably have empathy for Judge Kavanaugh for the politically correct sexist institutional and relational violence he is suffering.  It is plainly due to politics and lacking legal or professional cause to deny him the nomination the Democrats use character assassination.  This is the same strategy used to “win custody from the father” in (anti) family and (anti male) matrimonial courts also.  And while we have empathy, the fact of the matter is that he is caught up in a political and legal system allowed by the courts themselves and put in place by Federal Executive and Legislative branches of government which pandered to the “women’s vote”, both Republican and Democrat alike.  Politicians (including judges) pandering to the many social justice warrior “victims” for political expediency, appointments, and elections created the “deadbeat”, “abusive”, and “toxic” male.

Matrimonial and family courts, and increasingly criminal courts, have thrown aside legal protections for the innocent under the guise of “protecting the victim”.  To “prevent” possible future offenses due process and the right to be heard are thrown out and perjury is the accepted norm as judges issue ex parte “Orders of Protection” on hearsay alone.  Over 70% of orders are withdrawn, this after the party obtains their objective (custody of children and money transfers) and the slanderous allegations are no longer needed.  Appellate Courts, which should be protecting Constitutionally protected individual rights and due process, have turned a blind eye to individual violations of civil rights.  Men, individually fighting alone, are squashed under the weight of a political and “justice” system to large for one man to fight, most often surrendering to the no win situation.

The “all women are victims and all men guilty”, once contained in family court, has now spread to EVERY situation where a woman wants to gain leverage over a man.  Given liberal college campuses, it is no surprise that todays female “journalists” would espouse radical feminist “women victims of men” dogma that all women should be believed and all men considered guilty until they prove their innocence (Obviously they don’t read “To Kill a Mockingbird” in college anymore).   It is a movement which went from espousing equality to one hating men, and willing to destroy innocent men to achieve their ends.

Worse, but not unexpected, are the politicians who openly advocate denial of Constitutional Rights for political gain.  The Senator from NY Kirsten Gillibrand used a copy of a domestic violence report to unseat Congressman John Sweeney in 2006 and start her rise to the top of the Democratic Party, even though the wife denied any abuse.  She now stands ready to persecute all men in her push for a Presidential run.  Then, as now with Kavanaugh, the femi-leftist pink hat propaganda machine regurgitates politicians and “celebrities” who argue “all women MUST be believed” even though there were no complaints then, no arrest, no charges, no adjudication, no evidence.  The unsubstantiated allegation itself is allowed to stand as fact, he said is dismissed, she said is believed.  Senator Mazi Hirono says,  “just shut up” to men’s cries of innocence and injustice, so much for airing grievances to men by men.

False allegations of abuse are rampant and men are persecuted by the relational violence of the false allegation and the institutional violence of systems which ignore the innocent, due process, and even evidence.  The cases of falsely accused who manage to overcome the injustice are to many to list, the  Duke Lacrosse case  come right to mind.  The most recent case of the falsely accused male obtaining a measure justice is as NPO says, Vladek Filler Wins Again  and as reported by the Daily Wire  “man receives $375,000 for false rape accusation”.  But at what cost?  Years of freedom, loss of finances, destruction of reputation, years of persecution and fighting.  Link to Vladek Filler’s own words here about false allegations.  How many men, facing certain ruin just “take the deal” saving themselves the institutional and relational violence and possible incarceration which accompanies fighting the charges? Most that I know, myself included.

Father and family rights groups have been complaining for thirty years now about the injustices we suffered, and continue to suffer, in an anti-male system of institutional violence against us; beat dead, assets plundered and driven broke, abused, and disenfranchised by relational and institutional violence against us.  Innocent until proven guilty by a jury of peers, the onus on the government to present their case with evidence showing beyond a reasonable doubt, and the right to face your accuser are the protections in place for individuals.  Hundreds of years of common law trying to build a just legal system.  As William Blackstone said, “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer”. But not for us men, bring in the next guilty bastard.

Gynocentric sexual bias against men was easy to ignore when the injustice was contained in family court.   It was easy for people to turn a blind eye when it crept into criminal court as it wasn’t them.  Men suffered allegations at work, the leverage to get a head of the competition or pay back for some perceived slight.  Then it crept into the deep state, Title IX, and onto college campuses, into high schools and down to grade schools.  It has crept into political campaigns as the nuclear bomb of smear allegations.  Judicial appointments are not immune either.  Now, any man anywhere can be the victim of the relational violence of the false allegation and the violence of institutions pandering to that.  Where does it all end?

Justice Thomas put it well Oct. 11, 1991, when he called the institutional violence driven by relational violence what it is, a modern day lynching.  Unfortunately, from then until today it has not changed and has in fact gotten worse.  False allegations by women and lynchings of men have historically been the norm such as the lynching of Emmitt Till, unacceptable in a civil society.  Perjury and false allegations are the accepted norm in our courts and society today.  Why is this lynching not unacceptable in a civil society?  Perhaps this most recent lynching of Kavanaugh will be a wake up call.

Justice is not righting an injustice done to you, justice is not having the injustice done in the first place.  A system which allows injustice to occur is a system of tyranny.  Hopefully there are enough men left who will DO something and work to end tyranny and prevent the injustices in the first place.