Template letter to Senators supporting equal registration for Selective Service

Feel free to use all or part of the following discussion and modify it to meet your own views. Type “Contact Senator and Their Name” of your two Senators in a search engine and it will show a link to their official contact page. It is best to send it through their official web page contact the Senator which will require entering your name and contact information.

Subject: Selective Service Registration (NDAA)

The National Coalition For Men (NCFM.org-which I agree with) has again filed federally arguing that male only registration is a violation of the 5th Amendment to restrict females from registering for the draft. The previous suit had made it to the Supreme Court which deferred to Congress as the issue was then being debated. Congress having not acted on it the issue is once again being decided by the judicial branch and given restrictions on women in any position in the military, including combat, it is difficult to see how the suit will not be successful.

The question is, do we want this decided by the judiciary with no Congressional control?

The web site “There are no longer any private Ryan’s” found at https://nymensactionnetwork.org/2025/06/there-are-no-longer-any-private-ryans/) argues for ALL persons of an age bracket to have to sign up for selective service but the actual draft should allow hardship exemptions (mothers, pregnant women, single fathers). Further, the military should be allowed to draft according to those they think will be able to meet the job qualifications such as doctors or nurses with advanced medical training. Also each branch should be able to report the number of males versus females in direct ground combat positions and draft according to those needs. Certainly the combat positions will be overwhelmingly male and losses (especially in peer on peer conflicts) will be disproportionately male requiring draft of a higher percentage of men.

85% of positions in the military are non combat so I ask the question and expect an answer; how is it fair to draft a married black fathers from his family restaurant in MS so he can be a cook at Ft. Dix, NJ but we exempt a Single White Female with no children from culinary school in NYC?

Family demographics of today, which have changed from historical norms, are families of usually only one son and I make the argument that there are not enough men to fight overseas in a peer on peer conflict and protect the homeland from distant assaults (cyber, drone, missile) at the same time. Single women will simply need to step up and serve in these defensive support positions. The “I’m not going to let my daughter be drafted to be cannon fodder” firstly tells me you do not value your sons life and secondly is ludicrous in the fact that modern warfare is such that even third rate powers could attack the homeland making your daughter “cannon fodder” for a suicide drone.

Lastly, by exempting women with children and married women I expect the birth rate to increase with a decrease in abortions and formation of families with children. The 2.1 child per woman replacement rate would almost be met with no abortions as the rate absent them would be 1.9-2. Many women who were looking to put off children until later will certainly move up their timeline to avoid actually being drafted. Pregnancy was the most common reason for evacuating females from the Gulf War Theatre, although there are no definitive studies of increases in pregnancy and whether unintended or intentional. Each branch of service needs to look at pregnancy rates as they impact operational readiness (for example enlisted versus unlisted pregnancy rates are almost double of officers).

The argument for registration seems to be the 2 polar opposites, “no women made to serve as cannon fodder” and the opposing “women can do anything a man can do.” There is great overlap in the bell curve of physical and mental ability between men and women but the fact is that men are bigger and stronger on average and they will have to fill the bulk of combat positions. Secretary Hegseth is doing the right thing in requiring the same physical standards for combat positions regardless of sex. This needs to be done for every position, set the standards and work off of merit. Further, if females in forward units interferes with operational readiness upsetting unit cohesiveness or through fraternization and unintended pregnancies each branch should be able to direct personnel as needed without suffering complaints of discrimination based upon sex from females denied to serve in a specific position.

Societal impacts also need to be considered. The Men’s right to vote corresponded to his responsibility to serve the nation at time of need (military draft) but Women’s right to vote had no military service as their service to the nation was to have babies and nurture them (“Rights with Responsibilities: Voting and Selective Service, https://nymensactionnetwork.org/2018/11/rights-with-responsibilities-voting-and-selective-service/). I know few men who would not serve before their sister or wife but the fact we are demanding men alone suffer the draft while we exempt single females (especially if they serve the bulk of non combat and stateside positions) creates great animosity among men. By requiring ALL to register but exempting parent caregivers of children, etc. restores the balance between the sexes and allows men’s natural ingrained biological chivalry to protect women and children while requiring both sexes to serve “as needed” without placing women into a path in life not of their own choosing.

War is rapidly changing and many positions, lethal and defensive, no longer require strength. Women can certainly sit in the cockpit or container in Nevada and fly an aircraft. The “two big oceans” no longer protect us with drones, balloons, cyber, and missiles and any peer on peer conflict will result in attacks on the homeland. That said, what are we fighting for if not society, our way of life, and the next generation? We need to recognize, even with changing demographics and expectations of the sexes, that “those who birth children,” aka women, also serve. And we need to recognize that our right to vote requires the responsibility to serve “as needed” to our Republic held in common amongst all of us.

There are no longer any Private Ryan’s

An argument for women in the military and to keep women out of most direct combat positions. And perhaps a solution to the low birth rate in America.

In the movie we find a unit assigned to find Private Ryan is WWII after ALL his brothers are killed in separate engagements. The question we have now is what do we do when the vast majority of families have only 2 children and most of them having only a single son? Do we exempt the single son’s from combat under the last remaining son doctrine?

Feminists have long argued that women should be allowed in combat roles and the lack of participation in combat roles was the reasoning SCOTUS used to exempt women from signing up for selective service. That has now been lifted and women are allowed in combat roles. The National Coalition For Men (NCFM) had a lawsuit demanding equal treatment for males and females regarding selective service which made it to SCOTUS. SCOTUS (as is the norm for useless judges) failed to rule on the merits and deferred to Congress as the National Defense Authorization Act was being debated. Congress (as is the norm for useless politicians) ignored the issue hoping no one would notice and have it sway any votes for their reelection. (NCFM has refiled the suit due to Congress’ inaction)

At least in my case, and I expect in many others, they are wrong that this isn’t a voting issue.

It is high time we recognize that the “socially constructed gender” is a myth and that there are 2 sexes and that each sex has different physical abilities. That is not to say that the bell curve of physical ability at the top end for females is below the bottom end for males for there is a great overlap. But at the top end for males the size, strength, and lung and heart capacity is unequaled by any female. That is why the under 15 year old male soccer players trounced the USA Women’s National Team as the teen boys were “bigger, stronger, and faster” than adult females.

As I pointed out in a previous piece (Rights and Responsibilities: Voting and selective Service), the right to vote was contingent on the responsibility to serve the country in time of need. Note that the responsibility was not to serve in direct combat but was to serve when you had the skills needed by your country. We don’t draft 50 year olds to fight because they are not in their prime but in WWII we did use them in the civil defense and emergency response for the homeland.

85% of military positions are non combat support positions. When America had excess sons, almost every family was the Ryan Family with multiple boys, it made sense to fill all the positions with males. Especially since the war was being fought mostly overseas with America relatively safe with 2 large oceans to protect us. This is no longer the case as there are few “excess” sons anymore. Indeed, women deciding to have abortions and to work instead of having children has dropped the birth replacement rate well below replacement. Even if abortion was completely banned the birth rate would still be 1.9-2.0, below the replacement rate of 2.1 per female.

And the 2 big oceans which protect the homeland have shrunk due to technology. Recent conflicts have shown the nature of warfare is changing with missiles and drones having a great impact and the assault on Russia’s nuclear triad jets by Ukraine with drones hidden in their homeland has us expecting the same here in America. Add to that cyber assaults and terrorism, which are already occurring in America, and we can expect the same to increase if in a declared war. China’s Unrestricted Warfare policies means America will be attacked.

The aforementioned is exacerbated by illegal immigration which is almost all military aged males. While the selective service states that permanent resident immigrants, refugee, parolee, and asylum immigrants, and undocumented immigrants must resister for the draft how many do you think have actually done so? And if they did, how many would show up for military service instead of returning to their home country which they still pay allegiance to?

The question I ask is how it is fair to draft a Black Male Father from his families restaurant business in Mississippi to be a cook at Ft. Dix, NJ and we exempt the Single White Female who is in culinary school in NYC to be a cook at Ft. Dix, NJ? We require physically or mentally handicapped males who are able to “function in public with or without assistance” to register but exempt females entirely?

Where will we get the manpower to fight in a foreign war? 60% of democrats polled stated they would dodge the draft and not fight. We exempt all women, illegals are certainly not going to go fight so are we relying on the remaining moderate and conservative males to be cannon fodder while the rest stay home with no sacrifices? When the body bags come home who is going to replace them at the front? A young man can give up his career in (pick a field) to go fight for years and if lucky enough to return only to find he can work for a working on her career in your absence boss babe “single mom” who has been making time with an illegal immigrant who didn’t register or serve?

Feminists, always working for women’s privilege and not equality, have been quite quiet about women registering for the draft and it is in fact the TradCon Republican’s loudly working against it. Hon. Chip Roy of TX exemplifies the chivalrous gynocentric focus of their thinking yelling at any news outlet that will listen, “I’m not going to let my daughter be cannon fodder.” Of course his virtue signaling (I’m a real man!) is what is now being labelled as the “woke right.” So what we have is both the argument that women can do anything a man can do but that women should be given special privileges because they can’t do what men can do.

The answer is that women can do many of the things that men can do but men can do many of the physical things that women can’t do. We need to recognize that men and women are different. Regarding which jobs women can do and which jobs each man can do needs to be defined by each branch. ALL women and men should be required to sign up for selective service but if the need arises the selective service needs to be allowed to differentiate based upon sex and call up men only when Infantry or Special Operations Groups, etc. are needed.

And we need to restrict females from serving in the infantry and other front line positions which requires the strength of men; armor, field artillery, and combat engineers comes to mind among others. Marine Corp studies have shown that mixed sex combat units perform worse than male only units and it is the unspoken “secret” that standards were lowered to get females into these positions. The standard should be the standard, for ALL, with no deviations based upon sex or age. You can either physically do the job or not. 40 pound ammo boxes don’t get lighter for older men and women when they need to be moved.

Further, pregnant women, mothers of children, sole custody fathers, married women (assuming they did so to be mothers) and others with hardships related to caring for children should be exempt from being drafted (excepting a woman who divorces and has no children who would then be eligible to be drafted). While we can’t force women to have children, babies to replace the population losses due to war are necessary for society. By exempting these women from service we provide the incentive for women to have babies and not to abort them. This is accepting the biological differences between men and women and recognizing the role that mothers play, that by having children they serve society.

The “women as cannon fodder” and “real men don’t let women fight for them” opposing women signing up for selective service are straw man arguments given the majority of jobs are non combat, many stateside. So too is the “women can do anything a man can do” argument for allowing women into combat positions they are not physically designed to do as it reduces unit effectiveness and cohesion. The military shouldn’t be a “gender studies” experiment looking to attain “equitable” outcomes. Women should not be excluded from direct combat positions where the strength and size advantage of being male, fixed and rotary wing aircraft comes to mind, among others.

The right to vote us into war means you have the responsibility to serve the country as needed (see Rights and Responsibilities: Voting and Selective Service and also correspondence to Senators regarding NDAA, Equal Rights and Responsibilities). Current demographics leave us with no excess males to use as “cannon fodder.” And “women as cannon fodder” while demanding your son sacrifice for them is a disgusting bit of misandry for which you should be ashamed. Given 85% of military positions are not direct combat there are certainly many positions which women can, and do, do. When we send our men off to a foreign war should we leave women all helpless and untrained sitting at home as the enemy turns America into “cannon fodder” with missiles, drones, cyber and terrorist attacks and unconventional warfare?

The military is based upon merit and the ability to do the job. Each branch can identify those positions requiring men alone or filled by either and the selective service instructed to birth day lottery draft according to the needs of each branch. The fact is there are no longer any Private Ryan’s and women are not having enough babies to provide even ONE Private Ryan per mother and if not women will need to step up and provide human resources in the non combat positions in the military, especially in stateside positions. Female privilege was to ensure that women were protected to have children, and women and children were protected for the betterment of society and exempting married women and those with children we recognize their service to the nation by doing so.

It’s time to recognize that both men and women have rights with corresponding responsibilities and also recognize that biologically men and women are different, and while greatly overlapping, with different skill sets based upon biology. And as an added bonus, perhaps if women are required to serve there will be a greater attempt by our government to ensure neither our daughters or sons end up as cannon fodder.

Dismissing the Beat to Death Beat Dead Dad

An “empowering and inspirational story” of disenfranchising a father and driving him to his death, Pregnant at 17, Woman Who Chose Life for Her Baby, Says She’s the ‘Brightest Thing in My Life’ 12-05-23 Epoch Times.

In typical gynocentric fashion the Epoch Times highlights a story of a “single mom” who is supposed to be lauded for choosing birth over abortion. Lost in the one sided telling is the story of the father who, as is the standard in support of the “single mother success stories,” is portrayed as a danger to mother and child in this case made worse than the usual unverified allegations of abuse and “fear” using mental health issues to both justify the disenfranchisement of the father and to deny their participation in driving the father to death by suicide.

We learn that the couple started a relationship in Idaho where she “fell for him super hard.” When she moved to Colorado the boyfriend moved to be with her but upon learning that he had mental health issues she decided to end the relationship. She alleges to learn of the pregnancy one week after the breakup. The father attempted to remain in contact with the mother so she filed for a restraining order to prevent him from contacting her.

At one point the “heroic single mother” considers putting the baby up for adoption to avoid a custody battle, again dismissing the rights of the father and of his entire family to be involved in raising the child. The unfortunate “complication” of the father asserting his parental rights is settled when he takes his own life to end the pain of disenfranchisement. It is then that she decides to keep the baby. To escape the “anger of the dads side” and others who blamed her for the fathers suicide the mother returned to Idaho, further alienating the fathers family.

The article ignores the systematic denial of fathers rights to be a parent by a system which sees no value other than paying financial support and which fosters Parental Alienation by one parent which excludes the other parents entire family. The number one reason a father doesn’t spend more time raising his children is a limiting court order and number two is a mother who interferes with his access to his children.

Further, Men suffer suicide rates at 4 times that of women but in child custody case this jumps to 10 times that of women, a good indication of the systemic abuse that fathers have to endure in trying to be a parent. This article blames the true victim for being unable to endure the pain of being forcibly removed from your child without cause. The denial of care and concern for the father is used as “proof” of the justification for disenfranchisement.

Blaming the victim allows all involved; mother, maternal family, courts, social services, and the media, to wash their hands of the blood that is on them as “there was something wrong with him.” Obviously it was “his own fault” and they had no part in driving a man to suicide. The heroic single mother is so “magnanimous” she has “let go of the anger she felt at Josephine’s father.”

I suspect that the father’s family would view this “inspirational” story differently, the father’s and his families perspective which was ignored in the entire article.

The problems with Domestic Violence: an Interview with Erin Pizzey

A shout out to the Center for Male Psychology for the interview, which can be viewed here, https://www.centreformalepsychology.com/male-psychology-magazine-listings/an-invisible-hero-for-invisible-victims-an-interview-with-domestic-violence-pioneer-erin-pizzey.

And I have been rendered voiceless except to throw in a Hear, hear and an Amen.

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.

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.

NY MAN endorses Larry Sharpe for Governor

The New York Men’s Action Network endorses Larry Sharpe for Governor of New York State. Larry Sharpe, running on the Libertarian Party line has come out strongly for shared parenting as natural and normal and believes parental rights should not be restricted unless a parent is proven bad and an unfit parent (see his campaign meme above). You can see Larry Sharpe speak to these issues on Long Island Back Story.

For the parents, men and women, and families abused by New York States incompetent and corrupt (anti) family courts the choice of Larry Sharpe is a no brainer for he is the FIRST statewide candidate in the last 20 years to come out publicly calling for family court and child custody reform. He has gone so far as to include it on one of his campaign buttons and other campaign materials.

available here

Let’s address the nay sayers who will dismiss this endorsement asking for support for their party. For the last 20 years each party has controlled one house of the legislature and held the Governor’s Office about 1/2 the time, yet neither party has seen fit to pass ANY reform legislation. Additionally, NO candidate for statewide public office of either major party has publicly come out in support for reform of the system in any fashion.

Republican’s will point to the anti family policies of NY Democrat’s, and while it is true Assembly Democrats like disgraced leader Sheldon Silver and (then) Judiciary Committee Chair Helene Weinstein have blocked ALL legislation, especially shared parenting legislation (which enjoys over 80% support from all New Yorkers) Senate Republican’s have also been active in opposing shared parenting, with Senators like Republican Betty Little leading the opposition to reform. It is an unholy alliance of “opposing” parties which blames the other for inaction to reform a system they put into place together.

The “deadbeat dad” legislation introduced by Republican Sen. Kathy Marchionne is a classic example of the unholy alliance of Republican’s and Democrats. Studies have shown that the reason for default on child support is due to high awards and inability to pay. Thus the system impacts poor fathers, disproportionately fathers of color, and yet Democrats readily jump on the “deadbeat” bandwagon, even though these fathers are beat dead and dead broke. Democrats and Republicans alike turn a blind eye to fathers incarcerated for non payment, a debtors prison for poor men, mostly men of color.

Republican support to label disenfranchised dads deadbeats 2013

A constituent letter to Assemblyman Angelo Santabarbara and Senator George Amedore has went unanswered by both deadbeat politicians for over a year now. Now that they are running for reelection they freely contact constituents for support. Deadbeat Santabarbara sent a snail mail notice with contact information on his office stating, “I encourage you to call me, send me an email, or visit my web site… I want to hear from you”. A blatant lie given the non response to parental rights issues before him which went unanswered, without even a form letter of acknowledgement. Deadbeat Amedore announces his “lime disease” Committee work and “FREE document shredding” by snail mail. Taxpayer money spent on reelection while he ignores the plight of children and destroyed families. Deadbeat Santabarbara went so far as to block the constituent on LinkedIn when he posted about the death of Gabby Boyd due to his legislative inaction on reform.

Vote for me because the other guys is worse is NO reason to vote for them. The 2 party status quo (crazy) do the same thing over and over again and expect a different outcome people (Republican Molinaro) will tell you a vote for a “3rd party” candidate (LARRY SHARPE) is a “split vote” working for the Incumbent (Democrat Cuomo). Perhaps if the supporters of either major party wished the support of father, mother, and family advocates they would have done something to reform a system instead of creating this one which is harming children and destroying families.

Can Larry win? What we say is does it matter if another status quo do nothing for reform politician wins (Democrat or Republican)? But if recent elections are any indication, the answer is yes, he can. But even without a win we have established the need for reform and if any future candidates want the support of family advocates they will have to begin to address the issues. A good showing on election day for Larry Sharpe is good for reform advocates, families, children, and parents. See Larry Sharpe on the Rubin Report speaking on this topic. He’s also on Joe Rogan here.

NY MAN is a non partisan political action site dedicated to men, father, and family issues. We believe in the EQUAL rights of BOTH parents, the right of children to BOTH parents, and in PARENTAL RIGHTS as superior to government bureaucrats, lawyers, and politicians who act as as if they know best how to raise your children, treating them, and you, as dependent on and working for the state. Morally superior “professional” busybodies telling you how to live your daily life and raise your children “in your best interest” while they plunder your assets while telling you the tyranny is for your own good need to be voted out of office.

Let your voice be heard. We encourage you to support and VOTE for Larry Sharpe for Governor of New York State.

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?

What does society gain by making beat dead, dead broke, disenfranchised Dads?

It always amazes me that the vast majority of sheeple (Americans) just accept the government propaganda and allow men to be thrown in debtors prison for not paying a child excise tax (child support). The media is the worst, never asking the simple $64 questions, why and how, and looking the other way at the blatant sexist misandry which says men pay for children and the gynocentric sexist system which grants children to mothers automatically yet does not hold THEM financially responsible for the children. So lets list a few questions to ask.

Did Mr. Father support his children financially before the divorce? (YES).
Was Mr. Father’s custody of his children removed without cause? (YES)
Are the children suffering due to the non payment of this money? (NO)
Is Mrs. Mother held accountable to provide financial support for the children or will we subsidize her with income (welfare) is she asks? (NO, she isn’t and YES we will)

A brief recap is in order of the making of a “dangerous hardened criminal” out of a father. First you remove his parental rights without cause, then you tell him he has to transfer income to his ex for “support” with no accountability that it is spent on the child, the support amount is an arbitrary number not based on the needs of the children but a percentage of income, set the payment level not on what is actually earned but is expected to be earned and leave it there regardless of actual earnings in the future and ability to pay. When the man falls behind suspend his drivers license and any licenses he needs to make the money, then threaten him with jail, put him away for 6 months (keep the financial charges running while he is in jail). Let him out and threaten him with another 6 months if he doesn’t pay up.

When he gets mad at the injustice of loss of his children, loss of his career, and loss of his freedom, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness he is then labelled “angry” and “dangerous”. Enter one Mr. Leon Koziol, esq. , as reported on by local media. It is now news as Mr. Koziol has reportedly stated he’ll not turn himself in, is avoiding arrest, nor will he go willingly if caught. Lost in the sensationalism is the oppressive tyrannies he suffered to get to this point. The $64 question not asked is how does a man go from being an active and supporting father, a respected member of the legal community, and end up a dangerous hardened criminal? The answer is the system made him.

The Sean Delones cartoon (banner on top) is from an incident in New York City in 2006 where a Doctor lost everything in a divorce, including his house, and went home and blew himself and the house up. These are not isolated incidents and they occur every day to varying degrees. It’s obvious by the cartoon this is an acknowledged problem in society evidenced by the cartoon ironic, “wonder what made him snap”. Destroyed families, lost children, assets plundered, men driven to ruin, violence, and suicide and this occurring every day all over America. And you ask why are these men angry? Really??

To stand up to the system results in the system labelling you the deadbeat dangerous dad. It is easy to imagine Mr. Koziol’s fight for parental rights added to his persecution, and the labels “disgraced attorney” and “bad dad’ who doesn’t pay his child support, designed to label and disgrace. We know “deadbeat dad” isn’t true, Sanford Braver proved that in the 1990’s (Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myth’s). Yet the abuse of fathers, and the labelling, continues. In 2006 the following flyer was distributed to show the level of injustice which is driving men to kill themselves. The result was court administrators and government officials complaining that we were “inciting violence”.

So we ask you Mr Government Official, is it not violent to remove a persons children from their care, custody, and control? Is it not violent to plunder a person’s assets in a star chamber of lawyers who are violating the most basic human right, parental rights? Is it not violent to force a person to work and take the fruits of their labor as spoils for the oppressor? Is it not violent to destroy a man’s reputation? Is it not violent to have armed men chase a man with continuous threats of incarceration in debtors prison? Is it not violent to put him into debtors prison for non payment of a debt he did not accrue on his own actions?

Indeed, the system is so bad and ruins so many that it is amazing that MORE people aren’t lashing out at the system. “when a long train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government… For over 30 years Government “child support” bureaucracies and the Courts have been violating parental rights and persecuting fathers to the point we now have 40% of children suffering without a father to the detriment of their children and society as a whole. It does seem a design to reduce men to despotism which certainly deserves men to declare their independence from.

No, I’m not advocating violence or the overthrow of government. Claims which will certainly be thrown in response to this post. But I do advocate for every act of civl disobedience, including direct protest at individual omnipotent moral busybodies who hide behind the bureaucracies which persecute people and destroy families in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the individual rights guaranteed under it. A person deserves to get as they give.

I’m sure the system will run down the 60 year old former father and former attorney, over react to the “dangerous” 60 year old former father and attorney at the expense of his physical safety, and with moral authority throw the “deadbeat” 60 year old former father and attorney into jail at taxpayer expense. Hounded, he’ll be run down and captured.

So one last $64 question for the blind media and despots who make up this system. What do citizen’s and society in general gain by government removing children from fathers and then making beat dead, dead broke, abused and disenfranchised men of fathers?