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.

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.

Bias against fathers is killing children

Due to blatant sexism the police and DA’s office refused to enforce a custody order that the father had and this directly led to the death of Gabriella Boyd. “Child Protection” Services was non existent. The article contains video of the father discussing the incident. We brought the issue before NYS Government Officials in 2001 and ask ALL members of NYS Government how long will you turn a blind eye, fiddling away while families burn and children die. If the system didn’t harbor such anti father bias the mother would most likely be receiving mental health care and Gabrielle would be alive.

https://www.lohud.com/story/news/2018/09/12/mamaroneck-cynthia-arce-charged-murder-daughter-gabriella-boyd/1277593002/

Our original post regarding the incident:

It’s a Child’s Best Interest to be neglected, abused, or killed by sole custody?

It hit the local news and social media here in New York State (Mamaroneck, Westchester County) that a knife wielding mother is shot by police after they find “her toddler” severely injured. The child later died from her injuries. It is then reported (Mamaroneck Daily Voice 4-30-18) that the day before this incident the father, armed with a Custody and Order of Protection from the court, was denied custody by the mother who closed the door in the face of police and the father. The police refused to act as they “didn’t know if they had authority to arrest” the mother. The fathers attorney reports the District Attorneys Office was contacted and Assistant District Attorney Mary Clark refused to act on the valid court order as it “is a civil matter”.

Apparently both the police and the District Attorney’s Office are unfamiliar with Section 215.50 the NYS Penal Law, Criminal Contempt, “Intentional disobedience or resistance to the lawful process or other mandate of a court” a class A Misdemeanor which allows the police to arrest a person for violating it. Based on the inaction of the police at the time, and the inaction of the District Attorney’s Office, it appears the mother abused the child the next day, resulting in her death. In the process of trying to save the child two police officers were attacked and injured, and the mother shot by police. Ignoring the “problem” with an “It’s a civil matter” hasn’t seemed to make the problem go away.

Incompetence, bad training or bias against fathers, or all of them?

It is hard to imagine a scenario where the circumstances are the mother seeking to enforce a court order against a father where the police didn’t, at a minimum, step in and transfer custody of the child to the mother and most likely would arrest the man. This sexist anti-male bias against fathers and their parental rights by police and District Attorney’s is the number one complaint of men attempting to enforce their parenting time. Hundreds, if not thousands, of fathers in NYS each year are met with custodial interference in gross violation and criminal contempt of the custody order of the court and law enforcement advises them it “is a civil matter” that they need to return to family court to correct.

Unfortunately, buried in the denial of access for fathers and the uneven enforcement and bias which doesn’t recognize a fathers parental rights, is the fact that children are being neglected, abused, and murdered by “custodial” mothers while police, DA’s, and social service agencies do nothing to help. And the system is well aware of the problems which have been occurring for over 25 years now. In 2001 the case of Logan Marr was aired by Frontline on PBS. At the same time here in NYS we had the Kali Warrington saga, a child grossly abused and neglected by her mother and the live in boyfriend as the father, Daniel Simms, tried to get police and prosecutors to remove the child from her custody to his under a court order.

The issues of denial of a families access to a child, most often the father, which results in harm to children was brought to the attention of the NYS Legislature, Governors Office, Courts, District Attorneys, and government agencies extensively in media releases and public education campaigns by the Coalition of Fathers and Families NY, Inc. (FaFNY) such as this 05-10-15Warrington-Simms piece. Mr. Randall L. Dickinson, then FaFNY VP spoke to the recognized institutional bias against fathers and warned of future harm to children; If, indeed, Social Services and the Courts were performing their duties and responsibilities in a accordance with conventional orthodoxy and did nothing wrong in their handling of this case, and, if, as Mr. Kisselbrack states, they acted in “the best interests of the child,” what, pray tell, are we to expect when, as may occur from time to time, they inadvertently drop the ball? Seven-year- old Kaili Warrington very nearly died before her father, Mr. Daniel Simms, was provided the necessary assistance and even allowed to rescue his daughter. She was fortunate to have survived. How many others will be as lucky? Will some other innocent child have to actually be sacrificed before Speaker Sheldon Silver and the New York State Assembly finally get the message???

How many child victims from Kali Warrington in 2001 to Gabriella Maria Boyd in 2018?

In January of this year I sent a letter to (my) Senator George Amedore and Assemblyman Angelo Santabarbara (link here 17-09-15 Legislation request my districts) regarding legislative corrections for fathers and families. Clearly requested was “Legislation to provide for access enforcement of parenting time by law enforcement agencies for clear violations of a court order” where I explained, “Access Enforcement. Right now there is NO access enforcement for parents save for a costly return to court which after the fact results in the parent losing time with the child even when it was ordered by the court. It is criminal contempt in the penal law to violate the order of a court yet law enforcement agencies will not enforce custody orders. Just as we have mandatory arrest for violating an Order of Protection we should have equal mandatory arrests for violating custody orders of the court.”

Just like all legislatures before them, my own “representatives” didn’t bother to respond to my correspondence and request to protect children. After the child suffered at the hands of her mother through the neglect of the police and district attorney I posted on social media with these elected representatives, “when?” Senator Amedore’s Office has done nothing. Assemblyman Santabarbara’s office simply blocked me from their social media accounts. How many other innocent child have to be sacrificed before the NYS Legislature, Governors Office, District Attorney’s, Police, and Child Welfare Agencies finally get the message???

In the Executive Summary of the Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect we learn that “Children of single parents have a 77-percent greater risk of being harmed by physical abuse, an 87-percent greater risk of being harmed by physical neglect, and an 80-percent greater risk of suffering serious injury or harm from abuse or neglect than children living with both parents.” The largest class ofabuser is single mother households; the second largest class of perpetrators is “boyfriends”, often referred to as a “father figure” by the popular media.

Denial of access to “non custodial” parents, most often the father, is harming children. District Attorney Anthony Scarpino isn’t commenting, the Mamaroneck PD isn’t returning calls, the NYS Legislature is hiding, social services hasn’t been heard from, the media has moved on. And somewhere a father sit in tears, heart broken, wondering how the current system and denial of his parental rights and bias against fathers has been in the best interest of HIS child?

How many other innocent children have to be sacrificed?

Men in the Middle

First published 2-19-17 (on the old NY MAN web site)

The bulk of us in the middle of the bell curve of male perspectives and issues regarding family are being shouted down by the din from the echo chambers on the right and left. A polarized media spin which ignores the voices and opinions of men. Regardless of liberal or conservative it is a cacophony of moral busybodies advocating for the “rights” of women while holding men responsible to pay for the choices made by others. And unfortunately our perceptions and policies on men, father, boys, and families, are derived from the loud extreme ends and not from the needs, wants, and desires of men and boys in middle America as expressed by them.

Years back (2004) we at the Coalition of Fathers and Families NY, Inc. (FaFNY.org) complained to the Albany (NY) Times Union about sexual bias in reporting with them having more woman’s perspectives than men’s. Of course they denied it. So we did a content analysis over a 30 day period where we cut over 60 articles about women’s issues with none of them negative and 5 articles about men, 3 negative. We met with the editorial board, they again denied being biased and we then plunked the paper articles on the table in front of them in 2 piles. The long pregnant pause set over the room. This, we said, shows great sexual bias in reporting against men, a regurgitation of the NY Times bias against men.

“We don’t see it that way” said the mostly male editorial board, flat-out denial of the evidence before them. Perhaps our response to their continued head in the sand denial of bias was a little extreme when we gave them the “Pretty Pig Award” for 2004 as “You can put as much lipstick on a pig as you want but at the end of the day it’s still a … pig”. We even offered to provide little votive boxes with pink ribbons to the male editors so they could carry their testicles around with them and put them safely away while at work. It doesn’t hurt to burn a bridge that they won’t let you cross anyway.

One would have hoped over the next 10 plus years that social media and competing news outlets would have made things better, but it hasn’t. At best it is the same, perhaps even worse with truth second to belief. This past year I found the same NY Times regurgitation of anti male bias in the Schenectady (NY) Gazette online edition. I complained to the editorial board that they had more NY Times content than local news, mostly anti-male. I posted this opinion on their web-based comments section for each anti male article but when I didn’t even receive a form response to any of my inquiries I cancelled my subscription.

Over the past few days Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/07/better-sex-better-health-more-money-what-men-really-get-out-marriage.html#) Science Daily (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170207135943.htm#.WJ9qHLLgizs.facebook), and National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444746/marriage-benefits-men-financial-health-sex-divorce-caveat?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=wolfinger) have had pieces advising men to get married for their own good. This on the heels of a podcast by Prager University which resulted in an outpouring of negative “what planet are you on” responses by men. All the articles are based on one recent study by a pro marriage sociologist that marriage is good for men resulting in “more sex, better health, and more money”. Don’t be a selfish oaf going your own way they advise as there is obviously something wrong with men. We see the echo regurgitation in multiple outlets of the “marriage” party line, even in the face of push back from men who point out the 50% divorce rate, the vast majority filed by women, which results in the destruction of many men.

This on top of a January NY Post hit piece on men, “How to make deadbeat dads do more to help out” (http://nypost.com/2016/12/21/how-to-make-deadbeat-dads-do-more-to-help-out/). Even though the myth of the deadbeat dad was busted back in 1995 finding that the majority of men were beat dead, dead broke, and disenfranchised, they hold to the “deadbeat” label. Recent studies have shown that the bulk of unpaid child support is due to poverty on the part of men. Ironically the focus of the article is NOT how to get poor men out of poverty for their health and well-being, it is to try to get them to pay into federal coffers to reimburse for welfare and entitlement payments given to women. In this day and age of “gender” equality one does wonder why we don’t hold mothers accountable for financially providing for their children and have developed a social safety net for women and children only.

In 1975 we had a divorce rate in single digits as was the rate of homes with children absent a father. The echo chambers of right and left have pushed policies which caused a divorce rate of 50% and 40% of children living in homes absent a father. Contrary to the din which would lay the blame on men and fathers as “abusive deadbeats who forego marriage” the result is from the negative consequences for men. Over two-thirds of divorces are unilaterally filed by women against men, men lose custody of their children over 85% of the time, and they are then forced to pay for the children they aren’t allowed to raise. There are no family violence programs for male victims of family violence nor are there any financial social safety nets for men.

I have been a men, boy, father, and family activist now for over 20 years with organizations like FaFNY (http://www.fafny.org/), the National Coalition For Men (http://ncfm.org/), NY Men’s Action Network (http://www.nymensactionnetwork.org/), and Friends for the Protection of Men (https://www.facebook.com/groups/protectionformen/). Maybe it’s time you stopped telling us how to be men, fathers and families. Maybe it’s time you stopped turning a blind eye to our problems. And maybe it’s time you stopped turning a deaf ear to our issues. You could learn more with your mouth closed and your ears open. That is my “Dad” advice, direct to you from my father.