There is a great “to do” about the alleged problems women encounter by virtue of their gender.  The problems of men, especially fathers, receive very little attention.  In the last several generations of our feminized, lawyered-up society, the position of men has deteriorated significantly.  The male of the species is under increasing attack — legally, politically, economically and culturally — causing many to become confused, helpless, and oppressed.  Those who deny there is a problem are part of the problem.

That famous phrase from George Orwell’s Animal Farm, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” is apropos.  To say that gender bias is present is to state the obvious (which is the first duty of intelligent men, according to Orwell).  Dual discrimination, pro-female and anti-male, is pervasive.  The dogs in the street know it.  The bias is so institutionalized, it is taken for granted.  There are few expectations of women and many expectations of men.  Oversimplified, the cause of men’s sorry situation is a combination of misplaced chivalry (or more accurately a perversion of it) and misandry, a near universal zeitgeist.  This and the metastasizing of Feminism have severely damaged society.  These strains interconnect the various parts of this book.

A large part of this tome is devoted to domestic relations because that is where males and society are most harmed.  Therein lie vast social engineering schemes and prejudices working to the detriment of traditional men and traditional families.  Bad as it is, divorce is but one facet of a general pattern of discrimination, a broad and sinister phenomenon whose tentacles reach throughout society.  A double standard extends into nearly all areas of law and society beyond domestic relations, into crime punishment, employment, and affects men’s very image.

The threat to all things masculine is a virus to rival that from Jihadist hate and envy of the West, and much greater than that of “global warming” or cooling.  One wonders whatever happened to common sense.  The War Against Men is a battle which both men and women must take seriously.

Men are not better than women or always in the right; but women have the entire legal establishment oriented to help them, so I am no more overly concerned with women’s problems, however legitimate, than the NAACP is with white people’s problems.  Admittedly, there are evil men and good, competent women, and some traces of discrimination against women may remain.  But that which exists against men is vastly greater.  The concept of equal rights for men, if not non-existent, is of a very low profile.

Luther once compared humanity to a drunkard who, after falling off his horse on the right, remounts and falls off again on the left.  That’s an excellent analogy to sexism.  In the past, many prejudices favored men over women.  Today, that situation is reversed.  Ours is almost a “Kill Bill” culture.  To deny that misandry exists is like denying that a disproportionate amount of crime is committed by blacks.  One has to have an agenda to deny both.

Many political agendas and players are involved in this “rape of the male.”  I strive mightily herein to expose them, and to warn anyone who will listen of the dire consequences of anti-male attitudes.

The many restrictions placed upon men and manhood are analogous to the thousands of small ropes with which the fictional Lilliputians tied down the powerful Gulliver, a situation brilliantly depicted in the illustration in Part II herein.  In The War Against Fathers, Dr. Richard Hise explains that men have been so preoccupied with work and family that they haven’t noticed the incremental losses of their liberties and the increasing amounts of disrespect toward our sex.  He compared it to a frog not noticing the slowly increasing temperature of the water he is in before being boiled to death.

Paul Craig Roberts puts it thusly, “The war against men is real.  It requires men to exercise care in choosing an occupation and in choosing a woman.  The risk-reward ratios have deteriorated both for marriage and for working for a corporation.  A bad choice can leave a man wounded, maimed, bereft of property and children, and in prison on trumped-up charges.”

In 1945, faced with similar threats in a different country, Rev. Martin Niemoller said:

First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for anyone.

It is irritating to be drawn into the victimization game, but I do not intend to let “Feminists” claim the high ground by default.  This rail against the feminization of the West is a defensive action in the perceived battle of the sexes.  It is not intended to drag women down to the level of treatment accorded men, but to bring men up to that accorded women.  The purpose is to rescue men, not to denigrate women.  Remember that as you read on.

Some may consider the situations mentioned herein to be exaggerated or mere anecdotes, but almost any divorcing man or jailed innocent will concur that they are ugly realities.  If anecdotes are sufficient in number, they become probative statistics, however unscientific their collection. 

This book is the result of decades of research, divorce counseling, divorce-reform organizational work, being blown about by the winds of chance and of culling the thoughts of better men than me.  I interviewed noted professors and habitants of that boulevard of broken dreams — skid row.

Problems affecting males are addressed in early parts of this book, and revisited regarding solutions in later parts.  Some of the references herein are old, but still valid; facts are stubborn things.  Nit-pickers are bound to find something to criticize and will take many things out of context.  They will find an error or two, and on that basis condemn the entire book, ignoring its 99.8% accuracy.

As many authors have discovered to their chagrin, traditional publishers – normally staffed with feminists – seldom if ever publish a book defending males or offending feminists.  That phobia has applied to this book as well; I encountered nests of feminist gate-keepers.  Hence the self-publishing route.  A good aspect of that route’s print-on-demand capability is that the book can be constantly revised, hence the numerous editions (This is the 4th).  It remains a work in progress.

Henry David Thoreau said “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.”  How true.  This rearguard defense of traditional morality explores the realities of life, resurrects the old-fashioned concepts of right and wrong, and examines their eternal conflict in law and behavior.  Claiming no expertise in these latter two fields but a great deal of experience therein, I submit that there are higher laws and an innate sense of direction superior to temporal dictums.  Law degrees, black robes or Roman collars aren’t needed to perceive them.  In fact, these trappings are often detrimental; a conscience is sufficient.  Thomas Jefferson said “The greatest principles of right or wrong are legible to every reader; to pursue them requires not the aid of many counselors.”

It is time, beyond time actually, to apply garage logic to these issues, to speak out, especially for the common man – the guy working on a farm, in a factory, in a garage, driving a truck, or laying bricks — men without the time, talent, or inclination to sit behind desks manipulating facts and statistics favorable to our cause, as our more glib detractors do.  Our type may be looked down upon by the ‘elite,’ but I believe that wisdom is composed of common sense and life experience as well as education.

This enormous reservoir of anti-male sentiment makes judicial and social reform incredibly difficult.  I don’t expect this book to completely reverse gender favoritism; that would be akin to the earth ceasing to roll right and commence rolling left.  No, it’s just a very small candle lit in a very dark night.  It is an unconventional look at conventional subjects, classically liberal and socially conservative, a dissenting voice to received wisdom.  Seeking to provide an understanding of the politics of gender, and hoping to give “think tanks” something worthwhile to think about, I try to make the case that restoration of men’s rights is the best route back to a civilized society.

This will be plain talk; no trendy jargon.  Speaking truth to power, it is logic – cold, cruel, inexorable, and undeniable – with all the subtlety of a Panzer division.  As Barry Goldwater said, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.  Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”  This is not meant to be light-hearted entertainment.  One cannot be humorous about the annual ruin of thousands of men, children, and families.

Like hitting a beehive with a stick, this book will be offensive to some, but how else can one deal with offensive subjects?  The arguments herein will outrage chivalrous instincts, but such instincts are largely responsible for society’s problems.  It might also be argued that the moral issues discussed are not germane to saving males, but they are germane as will become apparent.

History teaches us that all great truths began as heresies.  To quote George Orwell, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”  The whole question of men’s rights and of divorce is one that society would rather sweep under the rug.  To most people it is inconvenient, embarrassing, politically incorrect or confusing.  Certain subjects are offensive to many who would prefer not to face them, but their airing might prevent consequences far worse than ruffled feelings.  The very idea of men’s rights is unpopular, and shocking.  The anti-slavery cause was unpopular and shocking 150 years ago, as were earlier moral voices crying in the wilderness.  Attacking popular misconceptions enrages elements in all social strata, as Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, Freud XE “Freud” , even Jesus Christ can attest.  Voltaire said “It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.”

Gender justice will benefit women as well as men.  Decent women, though they may read this with one eyebrow raised, do not want sons, brothers, and loved ones to suffer injustice, or the institution of marriage to disappear.  Children deserve a family — father and mother, an environment free from prejudice — ethnic and sexual, and a country safe for marriage.

R. F. Doyle

A malignant infection is attacking the masculine and feminine images, especially the former. Like a child going through phases, the western world has recently experienced phenomena, considered by this writer at least to be unhealthy: a general subordination of male characteristics, innocent-appearing egalitarianism and inter-gender exchange of functions.

Sex distinctions are fading and unisex is on the rise. Adherents seem to consider normal sexual characteristics restrictive and to resent traditionally distinctive members of either gender. One can hardly distinguish sex by given names anymore. To tell the boys from the girls these days one has to check the sweaters; and that isn’t foolproof. More than once I’ve been made to feel like a pervert ogling the wrong sex. It’s becoming more appropriate to describe individuals as mostly male or mostly female; instead of man or woman, boy or girl; and to use the pronoun “it” instead of “he” or “she.” Government forms may list M, F and O (for other).

A large segment of the population seems to be at war with normal life. Some have mounted an ill-conceived move to rid us of all distinctions between men and women. They denounce masculinity as “macho,” and likewise denigrate true femininity. Rambo and John Wayne are bogeymen, except it’s OK for women to imitate them; witness the many actresses clumsily playing tough cops and other male roles. TV Kiddie Comics has “The Powderpuff Girls” as crime fighters.

Male actors and advertisement characters are models of neutered masculinity. A media fad is to portray women as smarter and tougher than husbands and male co-workers, or as martial arts experts beating up men. It is also popular to portray women as brilliant doctors and lawyers, mouthing lines usually written by men, in numbers out of proportion to their existence in real life (The same fad occurs with race, but that’s beyond the purview of this book.) In old movies we often saw two men performing all sorts of heroics, vying with each other over the favors of a beauty whose only contribution to anything was being the prize, but such scenarios were often more realistic than those in today’s movies.

Women are buying almost as many pants in department stores as are men. Men are buying cosmetics, earrings and other female accoutrements. Female bartenders and waitresses wearing neckties look somehow out of place. For what it’s worth, Deut. 22:5 instructs us “A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel, neither shall a man use woman’s apparel; for he that does these things is abominable before God.”

This phenomenon is too widespread to be attributed to a mix-up in hormones. Long a pet theory of the writer, these observations have been verified by a leading clinical psychologist, Dr. Fred Brown, head of the psychology department at New York’s Mt. Sinai Hospital. Also by child psychiatrist Arthur Kornhaber, Dr. Ralph Greenson (Marilyn Monroe’s former psychiatrist) and child psychiatrist Thomas Johnson of San Diego.

Those families wherein women have assumed the male family functions of breadwinner and authoritarian, putting husbands to work in household chores, somehow seems unnatural, and is. If some persons choose to live otherwise, they have that right. They do not have the right to expect others to submit to their deviations. This seems a good place to throw in a Scottish proverb, “It is a sad house where the hen crows louder than the cock.”

A bill pending in the California legislature (where else?), if it becomes law, would remove all references to gender in public schools. According to the Capitol Resource In­stitute (CRI), the legislation sponsored by lesbian Sen. Sheila Kuehl, “could potentially require gen­der-neutral bathrooms in our schools and all references to ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ or ‘mom’ and ‘dad’ removed from school textbooks as the norm.” Another California bill, which has already passed in the state Assembly and is expected to be approved in the state Senate, gives the California State Superintendent of Public Instruc­tion the power to withhold state funds from school districts that do not promote trans-sexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality.

At a meeting of the United Nations’ Commission on the Status of Women, the focus was on the role of men and boys in achieving gender equality. The bottom line was clearly stated, “We must nurture boys into developing more feminine characteristics — gentleness, compassion and tenderness, among others — and train them away from the more typically male aggressive and competitive behaviors.”

The attempt to manipulate kids into opposite sex interests extends far beyond entertainment. The programming begins with very young children and continues through the school years, and even thereafter. Seventy five percent of primary and secondary schoolteachers are female, many of whom try to recondition boys to be more feminine, often medicating them with Ritalin. Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, says there over 300 publications by the U.S. Department of Education promoting parity in education, none of which are designed to improve the situation of males. Federal funds can actually be cut off to a state which doesn’t advocate androgyny in its school books. This borders on the unhinged.

Sex melders have almost completely achieved social integration. Most high schools, colleges and universities in the U.S., including the military academies, have been forced or persuaded to integrate by sex. There are all sorts of federal legislation cutting off funds to states and institutions which drag their feet in melding the sexes and in persecuting males. Federal courts have declared sexually segregated schools to be unconstitutional, excepting women’s schools for all practical purposes. The privilege to elbow their way into women’s schools and clubs hasn’t been available to men. At this writing nineteen women’s colleges remain single-sex versus only 3 men’s colleges. In a pitifully small gesture of defiance I quit donating to my prep. school and college after they went co-educational.

A 1972 amendment to Title IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act has been (wrongly, I submit) interpreted by Feminists in the Department of Education and former President Clinton’s Office of Civil Rights to blindly enforce a proportionality quota system that blatantly discriminates against male athletic teams; and courts perform legalistic contortions to support such notions – contrary to the statement of Title IX’s author, Rep Edith Green, that “…the establishment of quotas would be prohibited.” Doing nothing for women, Title IX nonsense simply feeds the anti-masculine animus of Feminists.

The numbers game has resulted in the elimination of hundreds, perhaps thousands by now, of male teams: 171 colleges dropped wrestling, 37 colleges dropped football, 27 dropped outdoor track, 25 dropped swimming, and 10 abolished ice hockey. In some schools, men’s track and field and gymnastics went by the boards. Title IX quotas killed the University of California’s Los Angeles swim team that spurred Mark Spitz to his records. Private swim clubs can still train champions, but other sports such as wrestling and track depend entirely on school-based competition. The promising baseball players at Howard University lost their chance to develop their skills and become stars. Our future Jesse Owenses have been replaced by less talented women who took an athletic scholarship to get free college tuition, not necessarily because they were keen on sports.

The act’s interpretation – the “proportionality test” – pushes girls into sports in which few are interested and many get hurt. Nevertheless, sports writers maintain the pretext of great importance for girls’ sports.

A few years ago only 200 U.S. high-school girls participated in ice hockey nationwide (more probably play now). In Canada Brigitte LeBlanc, a 14-year-old Moncton girl, wasn’t satisfied playing hockey with the boys. She wanted more, so she petitioned the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission to grant her the right to use the boys’ locker room. Astonishingly, she won. Then there’s Robyn Waite, the Ontario high school girl who played quarterback on the boys’ football team. Before her, there was Justine Blainey and Hayley Wickenheiser, who fought for and won the right to skate with the boys. Coaches have aptly called this scheme “sheer idiocy.”

Of course, the door doesn’t swing both ways; female athletes continue to have the luxury of maintaining girls’ teams and girls’ clubs. That guys do not have that right is discrimination. Surely, there are a few 14-year-old boys out there who wouldn’t mind gaining entry to the girls’ locker room. But you can bet that day will never come.

A woman can play on the men’s PGA golf tour, but a man can’t play on the women’s tour. The LPGA wasn’t good enough for Annika Sorenstam, so she decided to tee off with the men during a 2003 PGA tournament. One bright, shining exception to this nonsense is the success of Hootie Johnson, Chairman of the Augusta National Golf Club, home of the Masters golf tournament. The National Council of Women’s Organizations pressured major advertisers financing the Masters to require sexual integration of the tournament in 2003. They lost that battle when the tournament proceeded without advertising revenue.

That sham boxing match some years ago between a professional woman boxer (loaded with male hormones, no doubt) and a little man who had never won a fight is an example of the lengths to which people will go to hide gender differences. Ditto the decades-earlier tennis match between a young Billy Jean King and an old Bobby Riggs.

Until reform comes about, freedom of association will continue to be trampled on to promote less important rights. Author Steven E. Rhoads says, “Only when we begin to take sex differences seriously enough to see that men are intrinsically more attracted to sports — and need sports competition more than women do — will we be able to design public policies that are just, functional, and sensible.” The Bush administration has shown signs of recognizing the problem by authorizing rules allowing schools to use surveys to gage which sports students want to participate in, surveys which can provide evidence in defense of commonsense proportionality in providing gender-based sports activities.

On September 3, 1974, the Santa Cruz, California, Board of Supervisors, adopted an ordinance permitting women to sunbathe bare-breasted. Their rationale was that the only constitutional alternative was to require men to wear brassieres. In March 2004 in Daytona Beach Florida, Elizabeth Book was arrested when she exposed her breasts during Bike Week to protest laws that bar women from publicly going topless. Volusia County Judge David Beck agreed with Book’s contention that she was exercising constitutionally protected free-speech rights, and threw out the nudity charge. That Constitutional ‘right’ doesn’t apply to men who expose themselves.

A Seattle judge, Barbara Yanick, dismissed charges against two topless sun-bathers, declaring the city’s lewd conduct ordinance unconstitutional because a Washington school rule barring girls from playing football with and against boys was declared by the State Supreme Court to be unconstitutional (What else can you expect from the left coast?). Joseph L. Hess, Chairman of the Baltimore County Liquor Board, ordered a male go-go dancer to “wear a bra or something” because a local ordinance requires female employees of licensed establishments to “conceal their nipples and lower (parts of) breasts.” Rumor has it that the next legislative demand will be that men must squat to urinate. In Santa Cruz, Seattle or Baltimore County it might pass.

It’s bad enough that female prison guards can watch male prisoners at shower and toilet, and women reporters are allowed in male athletes’ locker rooms – not vice versa however. In The War Against Men Dr. Hise reports that Chris Gatling, a forward on the Toronto Raptors basketball team, was fined $10,000 and forced to apologize for joking about the situation.

To quote Margaret Mead: “If any human society large or small, simple or complex, based on the most rudimentary hunting and fishing, or on the whole elaborate interchange of manufactured products is to survive, it must have a pattern of social life that comes to terms with the differences between the sexes.”

If the androgynous trend continues, man as unequivocally male and masculine will become as rare as the definitely female and feminine woman. In his A History of Marriage and Family, Australian Professor Willystine Goodsell posits that the causes of modern western social decline are identical to those which caused the fall of the Roman Empire. Women took on non-traditional roles when men left to fight the Punic Wars, and remained in those roles after the wars. This led to promiscuity, divorce and widespread demoralization. One need not be a college professor to see the parallels; in many cases, occupying that profession seems to be a hindrance.

Referring to this situation in France, in 1831 Tocqueville said: “It may readily be conceived that by thus attempting to make one sex equal to the other, both are degraded, and from so preposterous a medley of the works of nature nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly women.”

“Girls are made of sugar ΄n spice ΄n everything nice. Boys are made of snips ΄n snails ΄n puppy dog tails.” — Anon.

Listen to the experts: Esther Vilar, in her best seller The Manipulated Man, calls the American male “the most exploited, the most suppressed, the most manipulated man on the face of the earth;” Linda Bowles said “It isn’t even close, the most abused, vilified, and sexually harassed Americans are white, heterosexual males. I don’t know why they put up with it — and I wish they wouldn’t;” Cato said “And we who govern all men are ourselves governed by our women;” Blackstone said “Woman is the favorite of the law;” University of Wisconsin sociologist Professor Ersel E. LeMasters claimed that women are boss in most contemporary families.

Writer and TV personality Doug Giles says “Masculine values are vanishing from within our nation faster than a Chimichanga dipped in motor oil would zip through your digestive tract.” In many circles, opprobrium attaches to being pale and male – almost an ‘Original Sin.’ The phenomenon seems to have gotten into the drinking water. Women are practically canonized by simple virtue of being female, long-suffering heroines all but gleaning coal from railroad yards. Females must be condescended to like “special” children whose crayon drawings of flowers everyone must praise.

Two or three Fathers’ Days ago Kathleen Parker satirized the image of the “Three-D Dad: dumb, dorky and dispensable.” She says “It’s a wonder men still submit to the altar. If we did to motherhood what we have done to fatherhood, we’d all be wearing riot gear. That a father revolt is inevitable seems a matter of cultural physics and human nature. Human beings can withstand only so much contravening pressure against what is in their interest or necessary to their survival. Meanwhile, old-fashioned masculinity is demeaned as we celebrate ‘metrosexuals.’ Raising children without their fathers is simply another, unfortunately accepted, form of child neglect.”

Opponents of gender fairness falsify what everyone knows to be true and assert what everyone knows to be false. There was a joke about an imaginary headline in the New York Times, “Tidal Wave Strikes New York. Women and Children Suffer Most.” Well, it’s no longer a joke; an AP story reported just that: Angie Daze, a program manager with a Canadian group called Reducing Vulnerability to Climate Change, said in a Dec. 6-17, 2004 conference “Severe weather caused by global warming can pose greater physical danger to women than men.” Other speakers said women in poor countries are particularly vulnerable to the effects of global warming, “Women are highly dependent on the environment for their family responsibilities in developing countries,” said one environmental worker based in Bangladesh, “Any type of environmental degradation impacts them more severely than men.” In warfare, men sacrifice life and limb in defense of women and children. Still, Marylin French in her recent The War Against Women claims most casualties in wars are women and children. I’m not kidding.

Female glorification, not of the fairy godmother type, is demonstrated by the, seriously taken, demand for a statue of a “combat woman” to be erected at the Vietnam War Memorial to specially and separately memorialize the eight women who died in Vietnam, only 1 by hostile fire, contrasted with 58,000 men who died there, most by hostile fire.

Men have never quite reached that level of sainthood. In fact are often depicted as knuckle-dragging abusers who beat their wives on Super Bowl Sunday. If a man cheats on his wife he is an unfaithful, philandering playboy. If a woman cheats on her husband she is searching for a meaningful, emotional relationship. Fearful of molesters, Air New Zealand and Qantas have a policy of moving men sitting next to unaccompanied children. Consider the situation of the Negro male; victim of prejudice in both dimensions, race and sex. His demeanment has helped make the black family an infrequent, or at best matriarchal, arrangement.

The popular sport of male-bashing is ubiquitous. Advertisements and situation comedies denigrating males are still common in the big media. T-shirts sporting “Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them” are popular items. TV shows, even common gossip, make men out to be all types of bad guys; from litterbugs, through abandoners of pregnant women, to bloodthirsty killers. “Dead white males” are high on the list of Feminist bogymen. On TV it is considered comical to kick men in the testicles. In the “All in the Family” series, only Archie Bunker was ever heard flushing the toilet, to great laughter. Evidently ‘Saints’ Edith and Gloria never defecated.

The male qualities that protected and preserved the race down through the ages are largely shunned as undesirable in modern society. Words must conform to political correctness. We can’t say “policeman,” “fireman,” “mailman,” “foreman” “Congressman” or “Chairman,” because the connotations are good (Must say “Chairperson,” etc.). But we can say “gunman,” “con man,” “garbage man,” and “Chairman Mao” because those connotations are bad. Then there’s “bad guy” and “manhunt.”

Liberator writer Max Friedman objects to the zeitgeist thusly, “The woman’s champion runner in this year’s marathon is getting $30,000 more than the male winner! (Not to mention some $130,000 more than those few dozen men who will finish ahead of her, but will be paid zilch.) Men are too intimidated to complain.”

The federal government has conscientiously pursued, and rightly so, a course of eradicating discrimination based on race but has studiously ignored that based on sex (except for alleged anti-female discrimination). The very term, “men’s rights,” reeks of political incorrectness. It turns off neo-liberals and conservatives alike. While the situation has improved somewhat of late, such attitudes have become calcified in our culture. The attack on males and manhood may be a rebellion against authority, with which men are often identified, or were. Ironically these sentiments adversely affect women also, because attacks on manhood are attacks on all humanity – indeed on creation if you will.

How did this situation come about? To answer that we have to go back to the days of patriarchy, “once upon a time,” when man was king and woman was considered socially and legally to be inferior, mere chattel. Offsetting woman-protective ideas, laws, and practices were in vogue, many of which persist to this day. The famous writer Dr. Samuel Johnson in the 18th century observed that “Nature has given women so much power that the law has very wisely given them little.” Now the law gives them much, as will become apparent herein. These customs, which postulate the false planted axiom that all women are ladies, are commonly referred to as “chivalry.” Originating in the 12th and 13th centuries, chivalry was a quaint consideration, not unlike the bowling handicap, extended to ladies, as distinguished from all women, in deference to their feminine charm, their gentle and retiring ways, general physical weakness, as well as to their baby-making capability. Many privileges attached.

In pursuit of chivalry, men went to war, gave up their seats in lifeboats (“women and children first”), worked harder, placed ladies on pedestals, and offered a host of other considerations. Knightly gallantry was in vogue. The issue is further developed in Part III of this book. Chivalry Trade-offs: The Double Standard Justified.

Though classic chivalry is dead, thanks to Feminism (hoist on their own petard), perverted chivalry thrives. Greatly diluting its original intent, chivalry is generally extended to all females, most offensively by judicial Galahads few of whom can or do distinguish between ladies and women. This, of course, gives all women the best of both ways of thinking. Lip service is paid to equality, but women are considered more equal (George Orwell, call your office). Many take advantage of their role, thanklessly and undeservedly expecting or demanding all sorts of considerations. Sometimes it arguably works to the good: his wife’s tears largely delivered confirmation to Justice Alito.

Many men are being feminized into something resembling well-dressed eunuchs. California Governor Swartznegger colorfully refers to them as “girlymen.” Human Events editor Wesley Pruden insightfully calls this “The Gelded Age.” Opponents of the concept of manhood have successfully imposed a perverted definition of manliness on American men. The Robert Bly school wants men to discover their feminine side. They want men to be sensitive and emotional. They want to see men cry. Well, there is nothing more disgusting than a grown man blubbering and carrying on like a woman. It is demeaning and degrading. Men do it, under extreme circumstances. But they don’t like it. And they would rather that no one was watching. Bly makes a lot out of the idea that men are warriors, yet he wants to see men cry. Warriors don’t cry. So, all this stuff about finding the feminine side is hogwash. It is meant to break the warrior in the man. When men act like women, they are rewarded. When they act like warriors they are put in jail, properly so.

It was men like General Patton who preserved the very existence of this nation. Yet, contrast his popular appeal and remuneration with the non-masculinist likes of Liberace and Michael Jackson. Really good people — athletes, scholars, and the like — take a back seat to all sorts of braying, gargling jackasses who make a fortune picking guitars and caterwauling. Imagine, $450 to see a Mick Jagger concert – and sold out! His ilk inherits the earth while better men die poor. However, this is more symptomatic of generally low values than it is of sex discrimination.

Boys outnumber girls three to one in children’s mental institutions. Boston University Psychologist Pamela Cantor, in a study of the problem, found that the suicide rate of boys over girls is three to one in age bracket 14 to 21. One school says that these situations exist because of an aversion to having the male role thrust upon them, blithely ignoring a more probable cause – the suppression of natural male characteristics. Dr. Derek Miller of the University of Michigan is concerned about adolescents’ “role confusion” caused by Feminism.

When during a boy’s formative years his father is sabotaged and men in general are objects of judicial contempt and social disrespect, can there be any doubt why the boy would emulate women, especially assertive women? The pretense of male incompetence, propounded or believed by judges, social workers, and comedy and advertising writers, coupled with the influence of effeminate entertainers and other public personalities, is very emasculating. These subtle but powerful, mind-conditioning illusions can actually make males inferior; as they do other groups not inherently so. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

It is a basic principle of law that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. However there is an a priori presumption to the contrary regarding males; nearly every cop in the country lives for the opportunity to rescue damsels in distress from predicaments with men, and prosecutors are frothing to convict. Innocence is no defense.

On the other hand, if a woman is at fault there is a great closing of eyes and opening of hearts – legality be damned. Women are favored from decision to arrest, to amount of bail required, to guilt or innocence in judgment, to severity of sentence, to physical conditions of imprisonment, to release on parole. Women are charged fewer times than men for violent crime, convicted less when guilty of the same crimes as men, and are given shorter sentences or simply receive probation. Judges are reluctant to jail women; while men are arrested 4 times as often as women, they are imprisoned 24 times as often.

A substantial percentage of all convicted male prisoners are actually innocent, scapegoated victims of ambitious, man-hating or Feminist-pandering prosecutors or judges. This large number attests to the blatant indifference toward justice for men, and the haste of prosecutors, judges and juries to convict men merely because of their sex.

In Darkness at Noon, Arthur Koestler wrote of the nightmarish world of the Stalinist Soviet secret police, wherein all accused were guilty and protestations of innocence were acts of subversion. Koestler describes how police power was used to extract confessions, and the way perfectly innocent men were manipulated into publicly declaring their crimes and their guilt.

Mark Wayne Rathbun raped 14 women around Long Beach California from 1997 to 2002. None died or were seriously physically harmed according to newspaper accounts. In September 2004 he was sentenced to 1,030 years plus 10 life terms. Contrast that with the sentences given Andrea Yates and Susan Smith for murder of their children by drowning (Yates – 5 children, Smith – 2). They each got one life sentence and, as everyone knows, will be home in a few years. Incredibly enough, on January 6, 2005, a 3-judge Appeals Court panel overturned Yates’ conviction because the prosecution’s psychiatrist was confused regarding an episode of TV’s Law & Order. Out on bail, she will get a new trial or be allowed to plead down. Both Andrea’s husband and Susan’s ex-husband chivalrously ran to their defense.

Society has lost its sense of proportion. A woman can murder a man and receive less punishment than a man who cannot pay his alimony or who urinates in the street. Women who kill their spouse, even while not in immanent and immediate danger, need only murmur “brutality” and hearts begin bleeding. No rebuttal is possible; the victim is dead. It happens so often I no longer keep files on it.

In The Myth of Male Power , Warren Farrell outlined the 12 female-only defenses that let women off the hook for murder. Many who were found guilty have convinced governors of their states that such actions are acceptable and that they should be pardoned. A Milwaukee Journal writer, Beth Slocum, termed it “progressive” when a woman convicted of killing her husband spent only 12 hours in jail; then returned home to live with her children.

Jilted actress Claudine Longet, who killed live-in lover Spider Sabitch because he found a new girlfriend, was convicted and sentenced to 30 days, the same sentence a young Wisconsin lad served in l984 for playing hooky, and a Cheyenne, Wyo. man for violating a local ordinance by fishing with a worm instead of a fly. She served the time at her convenience in a specially redecorated cell.

Doris Keningale of Risca, South Wales, in the U.K., stabbed her husband to death with a eight-and-a-half-inch knife blade. Judge John Griffith Williams QC, of Cardiff Crown Court, was told the knife accidentally “entered her husband’s chest.” The chivalrous jurist sentenced her to three-years of community rehabilitation.

In February 2005, Carisa Ashe, a 34-year-old Atlanta woman who had 8 children by 8 different men, plead guilty to brutally killing her five-week-old daughter. Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard agreed to a plea bargain that would allow the woman to avoid a murder trial and possible prison sentence if she would agree to be surgically sterilized. Such agreements are not uncommon. Some common sense Georgians initiated a move to recall Howard from office.

Acquittal, token punishment or forgiveness of women who murder and maim men signals open season on men. This is a license to kill. Women premeditate over half of the domestic murders they commit, and yet half of them claim self-defense quite successfully. They are convicted of between l5 and 26 percent of the homicides in this country, but suffer less than l percent of the executions, proportionately 50 times less than men in relation to their murder conviction rate. Between 1930 and 1995, 3,313 males have been executed and only 30 females.

Men are assumed to deserve capital punishment and death because they are perceived to have less value than women. Thirty eight states and the Federal government have the death penalty. While that penalty is eminently appropriate in many cases, because of the haste to condemn males to death perhaps it ought to be suspended unless and until justice prevails. Admittedly though, in recent years the lengthy appeals process has greatly minimized chances of executing the innocent.

In battered baby cases, guilty fathers are fined heavily or jailed. Mothers, guilty of more and worse cruelty, are usually put on probation and ordered to get psychiatric help. In other words, if the father does it, he’s a criminal: if the mother does it, she is mentally ill and needs help.

Alba Ingrid Scarpelli, of Germantown, Alabama, was convicted of multiple counts of child abuse for tying up and torturing her 5-year-old son, Richard. Her sentence? 18 months on work release. The boy’s father, Alan Lee Holmes, merely stood by while girlfriend Scarpelli committed the abuse. His sentence? EIGHT YEARS in prison. She does the crime; he does the time.

The Galahad that presided over both the Ashe (previous page) and Scarpelli cases and perpetrated the outrages was Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge DeLawrence Beard. His “reasoning” in the second case? Holmes was the father; he had a “higher duty” to protect his son. Quoth Beard, “You are going to receive a substantially more severe sentence because you were substantially more culpable… You were in a superior position to intervene and stop this.” Beard pointed to Holmes’s former job as a volunteer firefighter and certification as a medical technician as reasons the father should have seen the signs of abuse.

In Will County, Illinois, near Chicago, forty-four year old Fred M. Flynn and his thirty-four-year old wife, Rita, were convicted of selling their twelve-year-old daughter in 1972 for marriage to a wealthy man for $28,000. Although they both pled guilty to the identical charge, the man got a five-month jail sentence and the wife got probation.

Heiress Patty Hearst joined the Symbionese Liberation Army in 1974, become a gun-wielding revolutionary called Tania and held up banks. Bobbi Parker left her family and ran off with escaped convict and murderer Randolph Dial, helping him hide for 10 years. Lord knows how many similar stories exist. All with no penalty, because they were initially coerced.

In October of 2005 Lynndie England of Abu Ghraib fame was sentenced to 3 years for mistreating prisoners. Her equally guilty male co-operative, Pvt. Charles Graner Jr., is serving 10 years in Leavenworth.

Male defenders of U.S. borders are treated more harshly than a female saboteur. Border agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alanso Compean shot and slightly wounded a drug smuggler fleeing back across the Mexican border. They were sentenced to 11 and 12 years respectively, despite their claim of self-defense. A woman in their shoes probably would have been hailed as a hero. In the same week, attorney Lynne Stewart, who smuggled messages from imprisoned terrorist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman to his co-conspirators in Egypt, had her wrist slapped with a 28 month sentence.

Practically every time a man and woman get into a physical fight, regardless of who is the aggressor, the man is blamed. If married, police usually throw him out of his house. As 17-year Seattle family law attorney Lisa Scott explains, “From top to bottom the current domestic violence system won’t let women be anything but victims and can’t see men as anything but batterers. And from the moment a 911 call is made there is practically no such thing as an innocent man. It doesn’t matter that you’re actually innocent. Or that she attacked you first. Or that you both went over the line and that both of you want to put it behind you and work it out. The system will prosecute you and persecute you until you’ve confessed your sins — even if you’ve none to confess. And you’re not cured until they say you’re cured — even if you were never sick to begin with.”

If a man is caught looking into a home in which a woman is undressing, he will be arrested for voyeurism. If a woman is looking, again the man will be arrested; this time for indecent exposure. It happened; the Mississippi Supreme Court rationalized the verdict, as did courts in Delaware County Pennsylvania and Portsmouth, Virginia. There are hundreds of such cases. In Texas a man and woman violated a local ordinance by swimming in the nude. Police arrested only the man.

There was great umbrage when Judge Edward Cashmen of Vermont handed down a 60-day sentence to Mark Hulett in January of 2006 for raping an 11-year-old girl; as well there should be. But where is the umbrage when the sexes are reversed? 25 year-old Tampa Florida schoolteacher Debra Lafave pled guilty to repeated instances of sex with a 14-year old boy. Playboy pretty, her lawyer argued that she was “too pretty” to go to jail. Charges were dropped when the boy refused to testify. That is but one of many such instances. 43-year-old Pamela Diehl-Moore, a middle school teacher, had sex with a 13-year-old male student. Considering all the intense media coverage of male sexual predators victimizing female children, one might expect a stiff prison term, accompanied by a withering rebuke. Not so; New Jersey Superior Court Judge Bruce A. Gaeta slapped her hand with a five years probation, and all but suggested that sentence was too harsh. In yet another recent court case, U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten in Kansas also questioned whether sex with kids was really bad. Shades of Mary Kay Letourneau. Imagine the sentence if the sexes had been reversed.

In 1997 female B52 pilot Kelly Flinn committed adultery with the husband of an enlisted woman, lied to her superiors and refused to follow orders. She was allowed to resign from the Air Force instead of being court-marshaled as would have been the fate of any male officer.

Prostitution is another example of the double standard. It is the only transgression in which the buyers of an illegal commodity are considered as culpable as the sellers, or more so, because they are men. One might expect the prostitute to be a more socially undesirable creature than her customer; evidently not. In Sweden (does this surprise you?) the clients of prostitutes are prosecuted, but the prostitutes are not. Extending the logic of this nonsense makes buyers of stolen goods and of drugs as culpable as the fences and pushers, which might rationalize the consideration by prosecutors and the media that Rush Limbaugh was more culpable than his female supplier.

Police officers around the country dress as women or use policewomen to entrap men, then arrest those who respond. Yet a man who with a detective watched his wife have intercourse with another man was denied a divorce on grounds of adultery because of “entrapment.” The court rationalized he could have stopped her (It might be interesting to attempt citizen’s arrests of policewomen shills for soliciting). In a 15 month study, men were defendants in 63 percent of prostitution cases prosecuted by the St. Paul, Minnesota City Attorney’s Office. Ponder this convoluted logic: some years ago Minnesota prostitution laws were held unconstitutional by Judges Ledbodott and Riley because they discriminate against women. Yet laws which explicitly punish only males for non-support have been held to be constitutional.

A man stealing thousands of dollars is a felon. A woman defrauding the welfare department of the same amount is winked at. California’s “three strike law” incarcerates men for 25 years to life, with over half (57%) of its subjects guilty of non-violent offenses. In one case, Santo Reyes was sentenced to 26 years to life for trying to take the written portion of a driver’s license test for his illiterate cousin. Previously, Reyes had a juvenile burglary conviction in 1981 and an adult robbery conviction in 1987. Kentucky’s “three-strike law,” which includes even minor offenses, increased their prison population by 600 percent.

This writer was successful in obtaining the release of a perfectly normal man who was locked in a Minneapolis psychiatric ward at the request of a wife from whom he wanted a divorce. His “abnormality” was having a girl friend. The wife coaxed him to a purported marriage counselor, actually a psychiatrist, who, deeming his behavior to be “inappropriate,” signed commitment papers. One call from the Men’s Defense Association to that psychiatrist, and the man was released. Can you imagine the jailing of an unfaithful wife?

Queens New York Judge Duane Hart sentenced John Modica to 30 days in jail (the same as Claudine Longet ’s sentence for murder) because Modica peacefully approached the judge in a parking lot asking for a continuance to attend his son’s soccer game.

Evidently the right of an accused to have a speedy trial applies only to women: Charles Thomas Sell, once a successful dentist in St. Louis County Illinois who treated many indigent patients, was accused of Medicaid fraud in 1997. He has spent nearly eight years in prison without a trial. Although Sell has never hurt anyone, and a federal court held that he poses no danger to those around him, prison officials frequently placed him in solitary confinement for nearly two of those years. Mr. Sell is kept locked up under the pretense that his unwillingness to admit his guilt is evidence that he is mentally incompetent. Seventy-year-old Roy Chuster was confined for 30 years in a New York hospital for the criminally insane because he complained about jail corruption. U.S. Appeals Judge Irving Kaufman called it a “shocking story.”

If a man kills a fetus against the mother’s will he has murdered a human being. If her abortionist does it, it’s her “right” and the fetus loses human status, even if already 4/5ths out of her body. A glaring, example of this is the conviction and life sentence of 18-year-old Gerardo Flores of Lufkin, Texas. His pregnant 16-year-old girlfriend, Erica Basoria, tried unsuccessfully to induce miscarriage then asked Gerardo to kick her in the stomach, causing the death of their twins. The equally guilty Basoria was not charged. Another example is the murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Connor. Her husband Scott was convicted of killing both, of 1st degree murder of Laci and of 2nd degree murder of Connor. He received the death penalty. Yet she and an abortionist could have killed Connor without danger of conviction. Woman who damage their babies during pregnancy by fouling their bodies with poisons (nicotine, alcohol, dope, etc.) are seldom prosecuted.

If these were unusual situations, I would have little reason to write about crime and punishment, and could stick to my original concern about anti-male discrimination in divorce, which is more prevalent if not more shocking. But the plight of such men isn’t unusual. Similar outrages are happening in courts across our land every day. If the objects of this pogrom were women, or even real criminals, any number of individuals and organizations would be loudly defending and inventing their rights and stretching the Constitution incredibly to protect same.

The U.S. male prison system is one large Gulag Archipelago, “the tombs of modern society,” to borrow Chuck Colson’s phrase. No less an intellect than historian Henry Steele Commander said that the United States is in danger of becoming a garrison state.” Incarcerating men is big business. America’s publicly-operated prisons have to be fed with inmates in order to maintain the industry, and the privatized ones to maintain their profitability.

The U.S. Dept. of Justice states that over 7 million people (one in every 32 adults; mostly men) were incarcerated in Federal or State prisons, local jails or on parole as of December 2005, terribly overcrowding the system. This country, inhabited by only 5% of the globe’s population, accounts for fully 25% of the world’s prisoners. In a recently-published book, Thinking About Crime, Michael Tonry, a distinguished American law professor and director of Cambridge University’s Institute of Criminology, reports that of any country on earth the US has the highest percentage of its population in prison. The US incarceration rate is as much as 12 times higher than that of European countries. Our rate of imprisoning citizens is approximately 600% higher than either China or Canada. We have more people in prison than live in Nevada, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nebraska, Maine, Idaho, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, or Wyoming. Prisons represent our 35th largest state.

The inmate population continued its rise despite a fall in the crime rate and many states’ efforts to reduce some sentences, especially for low-level drug offenders. Nearly twice as many black men in their early 30s have been to prison as have obtained a bachelor’s degree, according to the report by the non-profit Justice Policy Institute based in Washington, D.C.

According to F.B.I. statistics, and the Institute for Juvenile Research, there are nearly as many actual, if not adjudicated, crimes committed by women as by men; yet ninety-four percent of prison inmates are male. A Pasco County, Florida, jail inmate report for the month of February through March 12, 1974, which is probably typical, showed an average of 85.5 male prisoners and an average of three female prisoners. According to a BJS report, one of every 109 men is living in prison or jail (Another report states the figure is one of every 75 men). For women the figure is one in every 1,613. If 94 percent of prison inmates were female, the problem and the injustice would receive far more attention.

Conditions in some men’s prisons are themselves crimes as great as those committed by the inmates. Modern methods of imprisonment and rehabilitation neither precisely punish nor adequately rehabilitate. Nonviolent offenders are treated much like the violent ones. And men in jail are more likely to be raped than women on the outside. It is done brutally, often, and is permitted by prison authorities as a means of controlling the prison population – and condoned by the silence of society. One never hears rape crisis center entrepreneurs decrying male rapes in or out of jail. Much more umbrage is shown over the treatment of jihadists in Gitmo.

Guards in a Michigan prison watched while mentally ill prisoner Timothy Souder thirsted to death. Incarceration of men can continue even after death. A Sacramento, California prison kept under guard a brain-dead prisoner, Daniel Provencio, accidentally (?) shot by a guard with a foam pellet.

John Murtari, a divorced ex-Air Force pilot, a fathers’ rights activists (founder of AKidsRight.org) and colleague of mine, was jailed in a New York prison for peacefully demonstrating against divorce injustice. Here are John’s words on conditions there, “I am happy to report the local sheriff is an Equal Opportunity Employer. They have a lot of female guards. They walk through our cage any time, even when we are using the litter box! They are even there when we are taking a shower.” Shades of Abu Ghraib! (More on John in Part IV). Imagine the outcry if women prisoners were humiliated as are males.

In contrast women’s prisons are more akin to college campuses with TV-equipped, furnished cottages. No male guards are present to observe showering. A “Women’s Spa Day” with pedicures, aromatherapy, and harp serenade was held on Aug. 21, 2004 at Grand Valley Institution for Women, a prison housing medium-and minimum-security inmates in Canada. Among the almost two dozen inmates at the Spa Day were a woman who killed a child, and a female sex offender. The Correctional Service of Canada defended the activities as a way to teach inmates how to cope with stress and other life lessons. “It’s an attempt to make them feel better about themselves,” an official said.

The difference between men’s and women’s prisons are tacit admissions that there’s a difference between men and women. But we don’t see difference-denying Feminists complaining in this instance.

In the area of employment law, political correctness shoulders gender realities aside. Gender quotas in hiring and promoting employees – the politically correct term is “Affirmative Action” – are mandated by social levelers, ignoring traditional sex roles.

Thanks to Affirmative Action, males are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain employment and to gain admission to institutions of learning. If a well-qualified man applies for work or promotion in government or big business, and a woman applicant is even remotely qualified, it is likely she will get it; though it is usually the men who must bring home the bacon.

Male news anchors, for example, are becoming an endangered species. In the early days of Affirmative Action, C.B.S. Television made Sally Quinn into a major network news broadcaster when, according to her book, We’re Going to Make You a Star, she didn’t even know until some time later that the red light on top of a camera meant that it was active. The failed nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court was another example. Miers was chosen ahead of far more qualified men. I know from personal experience that for years the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) hired women and minorities who did not know the front end of an airplane from the back; and tried, largely unsuccessfully and at great expense, to train them as air traffic controllers and flight service specialists, while experienced male pilots were passed over.

“Affirmative Action” sex quotas became official quite by accident. On June 19, 1963, President John F. Kennedy sent a Civil Rights Act (CRA) to Congress to counter racial discrimination in the work place. The Civil Rights Act, intended primarily to help blacks, met stiff political opposition from Southern politicians. On November 22, 1963, Kennedy was assassinated. His successor Lyndon B. Johnson proclaimed, “No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy’s memory than the earliest passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long.” But opposition was still stiff.

On February 8, 1964, Congressman Howard W. Smith of Virginia made a colossal miscalculation in the House of Representatives. In an attempt to block the CRA, he suggested inserting the word ‘sex’ after the word ‘religion’ whenever it appeared in Title VII, which guaranteed ‘fair’ employment practices. By tying it to the then controversial women’s movement, Smith hoped to kill the Civil Rights Act.

In his book Freedom Will Conquer Racism and Sexism, J. Edward Pawlick, comments on reaction in the House, “[T]he laughter became too great… and Congressman Smith had to stop.” Disingenuously, Smith assured the House that he was serious. The bluff backfired. The Civil Rights Act passed, the U.S. Government threw itself into new areas of human endeavor, gates opened and Feminists ululated.

Incredible pressure is put upon government agencies, like NASA, to conform to affirmative action quotas. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) requested a budget of $310 million for fiscal year 2002. It certainly doesn’t take a budget like that or a staff of thousands to enforce the principle of equal opportunity. Their mission is largely to move women (and minorities) into certain positions and to force employers to accept them regardless of qualifications. The Labor Dept. sponsors symposiums designed to condition women to reject traditional patterns and to rely on government. Orwell’s Ministry of Truth is busily engaged.

This dangerous idea has done more harm than good. Its mandates have created dangerous, inefficient and bizarre results. Female police officers have often failed in violent situations. On March 11th 2005 at his trial Brian Nichols, an Atlanta rapist and 200-pound former linebacker, disarmed a woman deputy, a 5-foot-tall 52-year-old grandmother, murdered four people, wounded one and made a getaway. The New York Times proclaimed the cause of this problem was insufficient government spending on courthouse security; it figures. During a phone interview I had on radio station WXYZ Detroit, the evening of 10/6/75, a policeman called in to relate the following incident: another Detroit policeman and his female partner, answering a domestic call, accosted a shotgun-toting angry man. Drawing his own revolver the policeman forced the man to lower the shotgun, after deadly serious confrontation. Looking around afterward he found the police-woman, who was supposed to be covering him, hiding behind the squad car. No action was taken against her. A man would have been summarily fired for cowardice.

It was absurd to put Lisa Nowak, that diaper-wearing, would-be-murderer astronaut, in a position to endanger others’ lives and billions of dollars worth of space equipment. In Detroit, during a reduction in force due to budget shortages and by court order, senior male policemen were laid off, but not newly hired female “policepersons,” understandably sparking a riot. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police ceased recruiting male officers until the number of female officers attained a politically correct percentage.

Consider the female “firepersons” who are incapable of lifting a ladder or a two-hundred pound man or climbing a six-foot fence, and who prove their upper body strength by performing push-ups from their knees rather than from their toes as men are required to do? Three Saint Paul Minnesota firemen called me to complain that their Department hiring policy, and probably those all across the nation, maintains two lists of firefighting applicants – one for men and one for women. They informed me that the top woman applicant can be hired before the top applicant on the men’s list, though her qualifying score would be equivalent to the 45th on the men’s list. “Diversity (is maintained) at all costs,” one official ruefully explained. While they can be good paramedics, it’s only a matter of time before female firepersons cause tragedies.

Norway has said it might close down companies that fail to meet proposed boardroom quotas for women. The new coalition government in Oslo said it was considering introducing a law which would require 40% of boardroom posts to be filled by women. As I write this, the Spanish Senate is expected to pass a reform to the nation’s divorce laws that would require men to contribute as much as their wives to housework and dependent care. Nothing is included about requiring housewives to have outside jobs.

Affirmative Action is sometimes called “reverse” discrimination, but incorrectly so, because the original discrimination did not exist. “Quota” is a more accurate term. Employment quotas, arguably based on law, are inefficient, dangerous and unfair; they hinder the functions of government and business. What if affirmative action/quotas were applied in the other direction? What if it were decreed that henceforth all children of divorce be placed with fathers until their numbers equal those placed with mothers, or that professional basketball teams must be composed of 70 percent Caucasians? I have no objection to quotas, per se, provided that said quotas mandate that favored parties are qualified.

Not all persons fit into, nor should they, traditional sex roles. I recall a very exceptional lady, one of my flight students with a dual personality. Sometimes she acted like a second mate and was better at business than most men; but when she wanted to be feminine she appeared highly attractive. Recently I flew on an airplane staffed by a male steward and a female First Officer. Neither exhibited outward signs of hormonal imbalance, but it might be interesting to peek inside their heads.

Reasonable sex roles are suggested, and affirmative action is rebutted in Part III.

False charges are self-generating; some people are eager to believe anything negative about others. The 1990 ‘National Women’s Study,’ in a survey of 4,008 women, reported the incidence of rape is 683,000 per year. If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge in New York to sell you. The U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (NCS), in a 1990 survey of 50,000 women, reported 130,000 rapes in a year, and the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 1990 claimed 102,560.

As the saying goes, if a story is worth telling, it’s worth embellishing. Between 27 percent and 60 percent of rape allegations are false. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police found 80 percent of rape complainants who take lie detector tests are lying. Prof. Neil Gilbert of the Univ. of Calif., Berkeley has shown that exaggeration is rampant and definitions of the term, “rape,” are highly dubious. Despite claims that as high as 37 percent of women have been “raped,” only 1/10 of one percent of women have reported rape. Like crying “Wolf!” too often, such accusations can backfire if it really happens.

Exaggerated rape allegation figures precipitated widespread rape shield laws which, combined with questionable – indeed illegal – interrogation methods, have unjustly convicted many men. These laws and language accept as gospel alleged rape victims’ versions of events usually with no opportunity for defense or cross-examination. They encourage false accusations and convictions, and war with the presumption of innocence.

If a woman accuses a man of rape (spousal or otherwise), brutality or ‘sexual harassment,’ the man is routinely denied due process, not permitted to properly defend himself because it might insult the female complainant, regardless of truth. Where it is a man’s word against a woman’s, the woman’s is usually believed. As in all accusations by women against men, the burden is on the man to prove innocence, which is exceedingly difficult. The opposite maxim to our Constitutional right of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ applies.

Rape doesn’t always live up to its involuntary connotation. Eighty percent of sentences are for statutory, not forcible, rape. A Philadelphia study by Menachem Amir, reported in the University of Chicago Press, found no violence in 87 percent of rapes. Prior and subsequent sexual liaisons bear on the likelihood of consent. Morning-after remorse precipitates many false rape accusations, as seemed to be the case with Kobe Bryant’s accuser. A woman can define a sexual event by how she ‘feels’ about it later. She can call it “rape” or not, and her word counts. The National Center For Men in New York and Dr. Roy Schenk have devised “consensual sex contracts” to protect men from women who after having consensual sex decide to charge their partners with rape.

Until recently in rape prosecutions it was customary for the judge to read Sir Matthew Hale’s admonition that the jury ought to “view the woman’s testimony with caution. Rape is an accusation easily to be made and hard to be proved and harder to be defended by the party accused though never so innocent.” No more. Feminists were furious at the suggestion that a woman might commit perjury, and the legal system, always their obedient servant, suppressed Sir Matthew Hale’s commonsense admonition.

The earliest false rape charge was reported in Biblical times. Potiphar, the Egyptian potentate to whom the Ishmaelites sold Joseph (Gen. 39:1) was ‘Captain of the Guard.’ Joseph, though a foreigner, gradually gained his confidence, and became overseer over all his possessions. Potiphar’s wife attempted to seduce Joseph. When it failed, she accused him of rape. Believing the false accusation which his profligate wife brought against Joseph, Potiphar cast him into prison, where he remained for several years.

In Michigan, one of our MDA member’s wife ran off with a low-life boyfriend, leaving her husband with the children. When he filed for divorce and she realized he would obtain custody, she and her mother concocted a scheme to defeat him. She returned, feigning reconciliation, and persuaded him to go to bed with her, whereupon she jumped up screaming “rape.” An ambitious prosecutor obtained the 1st conviction under that state’s new Feminist-inspired “wife rape” law. With his money impounded by the divorce court, the poor man was unable to hire counsel, yet denied a public defender because technically he had money. Talk about a Catch 22 situation!

The prosecutor offered to ask the court for no further jail time than already served if he would plead guilty. Being innocent, he refused and pled ‘not guilty.’ The Feminist-pandering judge, Thomas Yeotis, then sentenced him to 15 to 30 years, twice the guidelines, declaring he was “sending a message” to wife-rapists. Most murderers who are actually guilty of something, certainly the female ones, receive lesser sentences. Even if he were guilty, which I believe he isn’t, he’s been incarcerated far too long. This innocent man has already served twenty one years, parole boards refusing to release him, despite his failing health – fearful of Feminist wrath. Would that he had joined the Men’s Defense Assoc. before his trial. I spoke to famous attorney Alan Dersowitz about this man. He blew me off. A crime was committed; not by the prisoner, but by the State of Michigan in so persecuting this man. Every citizen of Michigan ought to be ashamed that this travesty was committed in his or her name. Details of this travesty are available online at www.ncfm.org. Click on William Hetherington. Every day of my life I think of him and the unspeakable injustice done to him. Phyllis Schlafly became interested in his case, but to date hasn’t been able to wangle a pardon out of the Michigan Governor, who is not of her political party.

William R. Strong, Jr. has been in a Virginia prison for a decade also on false charges of “wife rape.” Mr. Strong has been trying to get a DNA test, confident that the semen in the prosecution’s test is not his but that of the lover of his unfaithful wife. Prosecutors, ignoring their obligation to protect the rights of the innocent, argue that he has no right to the evidence, under the rationalization that Strong was convicted prior to the advent of DNA testing. The goal of the government should be to see justice done, not to win a case by any means.

In April of 2006, the Duke University Lacrosse team hired a stripper with a criminal record to appear at a team party. Drunk, she passed out and accused several party-goers of raping her.

An overeager prosecutor, Mike Nifong – as politically ambitious as the railroading prosecutor of Will Heatherington, required the entire 46 team members to submit to DNA testing, an action which violated hell out of Constitutional prohibitions against self-incrimination as well of as state statutes. Though all DNA tests proved negative, indeed that she had bedded others, a racist mob demanded Grand Jury indictments, and got two. Meanwhile, the coach was fired, guilty for his innocent association ‘while being male.’ Later documents proved the prosecutor and police withheld hordes of exculpatory evidence in seeking indictments. The S.O.B. was obviously trying to force a plea bargain.

Dorothy Rabinowitz, in the Wall Street Journal writes, “there is little that is new or strange about Mr. Nifong. We have seen the likes of this district attorney, uninterested in proofs of innocence, willing to suppress any he found, many times in the busy army of prosecutors claiming to have found evidence of rampant child abuse in nursery schools and other child-care centers around the country in the 1980s and throughout most of the ’90s.”

The situation was so flagrant even the No, Carolina Bar Assn. charged him with violating a rule requiring prosecutors to “refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused.” The bar also charged Nifong with engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. At this writing it seems Nifong might lose his license to practice law.

Ann Coulter said, “Stripper lied; white boys fried.” Shades of Tawana Brawley. I hope the victimized boys sue the pants off everybody – Nifong, the school, the stripper, the newspapers, TV stations and anyone else involved.

(Watch misandrists take passages from this paragraph out of context) Some women seem to have a rape wish. If one is curiously attired, or un-attired, it follows that one is going to be the object of curiosity. For that reason, flirtatious women who go about in public only partially clothed, whether or not in “style,” have little cause to complain about unwanted sexual advances, even vigorous ones, or yobos leering after them. Even though rape is a natural act, the prehistoric means of perpetuating the species, it is uncivilized in modern times, and must be severely punished — when proven. As with adultery, the urge is natural but succumbing to it is unacceptable behavior. Without in any way condoning actual rape, it must be said that it usually involves no physical harm and far less mental harm than that suffered by many men in divorce.

Practically anything a man does – you name it – can be considered sexual harassment, and get him in big trouble. The U.S. Government General Accounting Office in the early 1990s listed “comments that women did not belong in certain military units” as behavior that constitutes harassment. In other words, telling the truth is sexual harassment. Overheard jokes and private pin-ups have constituted harassment. Women have filed preposterous claims and won outlandish court awards or settlements for minor insults or leers. Slobs who make drunken passes at women can be practically hounded out of town as sex fiends.

The climate has gotten so crazy that sailors talking like sailors in the presence of delicate female navel personnel ears is a court marshal offense, as Lt. Bryan Black discovered. Fox TV’s commentator Bill O’Reilly was sued for $60 million by his former associate producer Andrea Mackris for sexual harassment by “phone sex”. The lawsuit was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount, perhaps answering the question of why this complainant or others similarly situated don’t just hang up. It is preposterous to pose the claim that tasteless remarks are worth $60 million, so what has the world come to when such suits are admitted into court?

Consider the “Tail hook” incident. Horny women cavorting with high-testosterone Navy fliers at a drinking party, like strippers performing before athletic young bucks, should know exactly what to expect. As the expression goes, “You mess with the bull and you get the horn.” The widespread credit given the ridiculous charges Anita Hill brought against Judge Clarence Thomas is another example. The 10-year-old charges were a blatantly political and spiteful attempt to deprive this patently decent man of a Supreme Court position.

An unbalanced woman’s unsubstantiated charge that she had a lengthy affair with her father-in-law, George C. Roach Jr., President of Hillsdale College, caused Roach’s resignation and disgrace. More recently, a University of New Hampshire school flyer was distributed indicating women students gained 10 to 15 pounds in their 1st year In response, student Timothy Garneau posted a flyer urging overweight freshwomen to lose weight by walking up stairs instead of using the elevator. For his troubles, Garneau was evicted from his dormitory, forced to undergo psychological counseling and write a 3,000 word paper reflection about the counseling. The penalties were reduced somewhat after Garneau contacted the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) A study by the American Association of University Women found that “nearly two-thirds of college students experience sexual harassment at some point during college.” Consider what the AAUW’s definition of sexual harassment is: unwanted or unwelcome sexual behavior that interferes with your life”

For a male, there is no statute of limitations for molestation, as Bill Cosby can attest. Even in the unlikely case that his accuser was telling the truth, should the good man Cosby is now be punished for what this alleged groper may have done 30 years ago?

During Hurricane Katrina a team of Indiana firemen went to Atlanta to help rescue victims, instead federal bureaucrats instructed them to attend hours of courses on sexual harassment and equal employment opportunity, then hand out flyers. When CIA officer Robert Baer asked for Farsi speakers in Afghanistan, he was offered a sexual harassment team instead.

The hype began with Lin Farley’s book, Sexual Shakedown: The Sexual Harassment of Women on the Job, published in 1978. Later the book Sexual Harassment of Working Women (1979) by Catharine MacKinnon defined sexual harassment as a legal issue. Ellison v. Brady introduced the “reasonable woman” standard into law. Conduct was no longer analyzed from the perspective of a “reasonable person,” but of a “reasonable woman,” from the perspective of the complainant, not of the defendant.

In line with their agenda of re-engineering our society to fit their theories, Feminists have expanded the definition of abuse. Under the term “psychological battery,” it now includes: “acts of lying, humiliation, withholding information, refusing help with child care or housework.” And bear in mind that it is only men who behave this way in the Feminist definition.

Illinois Republican state Representative Robert Pritchard proposed a database of domestic violence “offenders” similar to the “Sex Offenders Registry.” Imagine the weapon false accusers would have if this passes.

Demonstrating how easily a woman can obtain a restraining order against a man, a Santa Fe judge granted a temporary restraining order against TV talk show host David Letterman on behalf of an unbalanced woman who alleged Letterman mentally harassed her through his TV broadcasts.

A Brockton, Massachusetts first-grader whose last name is Dorinvil was suspended for three days for sexual harassment after he put two fingers inside a classmate’s waistband to snap it after the girl touched him.

Prosecutors claim Michael Wiley, a triple amputee attacked his wife, by shoving himself into her and causing her to knock over a lamp. Division Director Mike Halkitis has said he will push for the maximum sentence of five years for Wiley.

In March of ’06, U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney (D. Ga.) slugged a House of Representatives guard who had asked her for her credentials, then accused him of assaulting her because she’s a black female. As Dan Amneus would say, it out-chutzpahs chutzpah! The Grand Jury declined to indict her.

Originally, common law was synonymous with Roman Law, which treated marriage and its dissolution as the product of the free will of the parties; not a matter of public or court concern.  Governments did not have the inclination, necessity or audacity to interfere in family matters.  Libertarians consider it arrogant of government to presume sufficient authority over citizens to issue marriage ‘licenses.’  They have a point.  Yet alternatives like the claimed Muslim divorce ritual – saying “I divorce thee” 3 times – is not practical either.

Once-upon-a-time proprietary interest, largely benign and supportive, reposed largely in the male head of household, but eventually the favored-gender pendulum swung to the opposite direction – the extreme opposite direction.  With that pendulum swing, and to enforce it, arose the concept that the powers that be, government or ecclesiastic, are interested parties in marriage – the infernal triangle.

Government interference has eroded the father’s position.  Treatment of men in divorce became Kafkaesque.  Examples are multitudinous; one such was a State of Wisconsin law ordering divorced men not to remarry without permission of ex-wives and the court (I believe that law was rescinded), and a 1968 decision decreeing that a husband and wife could not agree between themselves to modify alimony without the imprimatur of the court.  The legal doctrine of Parens Patriae literally makes the State a father.

The marriage contract, in addition to having a certain sanctity (“What, therefore, God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” – Mark 10:9), is a legal instrument specifying fidelity, “for better or for worse.”  But if the little woman wants out for even the poorest of reasons, that’s all that’s needed, fault or no fault.  An unholy alliance of Feminist philosophy, government and the divorce system has been instrumental in relieving women of contract obligations, while assuring them of its advantages and denying them to men.

Perpend Amneus again:  The husband’s major contribution to the marriage is irrevocable.  It cannot be removed retroactively: he has supported his wife, paid her bills, given her a home, raised her standard of living by 73 percent.  But the wife’s major contribution to the marriage, the gift of a family, is removed retroactively in over half of marriages and threatened with removal in all:  She never really gave him the family which was the quid pro quo for his supporting her.  The husband discovers in the divorce court that what motivated him to get married and to labor during the years of the marriage had no permanent existence — it was not a gift but only a loan backed by a woman’s promise — and un-backed by the law.  He discovers that the law which must enforce contracts interprets the most basic contract as not binding on his wife, only on him, and therefore deems it just to deprive him of his most precious possession, his children, probably also of his home and his future income.

While women can walk out of marriage at the drop of a whim, men are expected to stoically bear all sorts of faults in their wives; and male scoundrels who initiate divorce proceedings often incur the wrath of the courts.  Any semblance of justification has become a national joke, unfunny to the victims.  The more one examines the situation the clearer it becomes that viable marriages exist as much in spite of the system as because of it.

Although domestic relations laws are generally fair on their face, the administration of them – that is, their application and interpretation in disputed situations – varies primarily with the sex of the litigants.  Out of some misbegotten sense of chivalry, “Up the woman” is the unstated major premise.  Judicial customs and practices openly violate Constitutional protections under color of law.  For divorcing men there is no ‘due process’, there is no ‘equal protection.’  Customs and practices outrage not only traditional principles of justice, but basic human rights transcending the laws of the land.  As we will see below, it is patently evident that government enforces men’s responsibilities, but not their rights.  Conversely, it enforces women’s rights, but not their responsibilities.

A man is like a solitary pawn, face-to-face with the queen on a chess board.  Like a black man in the South competing for a job 50 years ago, he must be superior just to be considered equal.  Everyday, in brutal violation of common sense and decency, domestic courts dignify the double-think satirized in the book Catch 22 into logic and law.  Incredible and even contradictory judgments right out of Alice in Wonderland are the rule, not the exception. 

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I chose it to mean – neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.” – Lewis Carroll

There is sufficient legal precedent on either side of most any issue to justify any decisions judges choose to make, even contradictory ones – anything to favor the woman.

Ordinary men are held in a legal headlock from which there is no escape.  Adversary divorce proceedings are often conducted in the spirit of the Star Chamber or the Inquisition in courtrooms that are a combination of brothel and mortuary.  These Kabuki dances can be so stylized that only occasional, limited variations of issues and circumstances occur.  Players in these hackneyed charades include the female plaintiff — damsel in distress; the plaintiff’s lawyer — her champion; the judge — ostensibly the force of righteousness, wisdom, and impartiality, but more often her champion’s advocate; the male defendant — the villain; and the defendant’s lawyer — the devil’s advocate.

This double standard is quasi-legally possible because divorce courts are “courts of equity,” where ‘judgment’ is the primary basis of issue determination as opposed to ‘courts of law,’ where law, sometimes statute – sometimes case, is the primary basis of issue determination.  So protection of law is largely absent in domestic relations; and judges can do nearly as they wish, supported by no higher authority than that of their own rhetoric.

Appeal is a costly exercise in futility, and only amounts to availing oneself of a pool of prejudice.  A dozen wrong men — all part of the same establishment and tradition — produce as little justice as one.  The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the constitutionality of Georgia statutes allowing alimony only for women.  Yet the federal courts have eagerly entered domestic matters for the benefit of women.

Only the very rich and the very poor can afford divorce.  It is most costly to the vast middle class.  The wealthy, by writing it off already high taxes, are able to transfer the burden to Uncle Sam.  The poor have nothing to lose.  A wife can hire the most expensive lawyer in town to attack her husband, and, adding insult to injury, make hubby pay for it.  Or, unlike husbands, can get help from quasi-governmental sources: the federal Legal Services Corporation and the Legal Aid Society.  While indigent males sometimes obtain free counsel if the opponent is not a woman, it’s almost unheard of where the opponent is a woman.  Legal Services Corporation’s free lawyers represented women (no men, to my knowledge) in 225,000 divorces in 1985 alone.  Meanwhile, men’s rights must be pleaded for by hiring mercenaries.  Into even more mischief, the LSC hands out grants to leftist lawyers to fund ideological lawsuits.  Grantees have sued to keep criminals from being evicted from public housing, to help illegal immigrants get government benefits and to throw out election ballots of military personnel.  President Bush requested a budget of $363,809,000 for LSC for fiscal 2006, an increase of $33 million over 2005.  Not one of his better moves. Received wisdom is that many fathers “desert” families.  George Gilder quaintly assumed that most marital breakdown results from “powerful men” abandoning the wives of their youth and lusting after their young secretaries.   A moment’s reflection would convince him that there aren’t that many powerful men, and that high status men have a lower divorce rate than most other males.  Do so-called “deadbeat dads” walk away or are they expelled?  Mostly the latter.  In truth, a very large percentage of absent fathers have been evicted, either directly or indirectly.

Alimony is a carryover from an obsolete type of limited divorce, a mensa et thoro, wherein the husband was still liable for the wife’s support; an early form of separate maintenance.  It wasn’t applicable to absolute divorce, a vinculo matrimonii, but it is so in modern times.  Its purpose before emancipation was to support destitute, incapacitated ex-wives.  Now it has become corrupted into the notion that an ex-wife “has a right (in the words of one judge) to continue to live in the manner to which she has become accustomed” (by her husband)…  It is considered to be “in the nature of a pension.”  This post facto service charge is, as the saying goes, “the screwing you get for the screwing you got.”

The claim that women give men the best years of their lives is nonsense.  It’s a horse apiece; men give the same and don’t ask for stud fees when it’s over.  An argument for alimony is that husbands owe money to wives for ‘services rendered.’ 

Eulogies have been prepared purporting to list the monetary value of a wife to a husband.  According to Reuters Limited. an informal study conducted by Web site Salary.com shows that stay-at-home moms would earn an average of $131,471 annually, including overtime, if they received a paycheck.  Ridiculous, considering her husband may earn only $35,000 a year.  Such preposterous claims assume that all the alleged benefits somehow accrue to the husband alone, an insult to the greatest recipients, women and children.  Nowhere are there listings of her cost.  Including reserve for alimony, it should come out about even.  A great many are liabilities, not worth their salt.  Husbands’ services, including on the job, usually exceed in value those of wives.  Looked at realistically, an average father raises his wife’s and children’s standard of living by 73 percent.  His marriage motivates him to do so.

Automatic alimony/support awards are nails in the coffin of marriage.  They ‘bribe’ women into initiating the vast majority of divorces.   An open invitation to divorce and prosper, alimony often discourages women from the formality of legalizing new unions and, believe it or not, in some states does not necessarily terminate if they do.  According to an Oklahoma appellate court, it isn’t necessarily terminable by death.  It has even been awarded in voided marriages.

Divorce courts operate on the assumption that men’s sole function is to be a financial base upon which families can live and amuse themselves.  But responsibility is not reciprocally applied.  In the apparent opinion of the legal community, women’s only function is to exist and consume.  Not having such immunity from responsibility, men are judiciously enjoined, under penalty of jail, to perform functions only implied in the marriage contract.  Upon dissolution of marriage, men’s obligations continue to be enforced; yet no judge has ever ordered a woman to cook, clean and sew (OK, that last is an anachronism) for her ex-husband, not to mention an existing one. 

Alimony has been awarded even to women with considerably greater assets than the ‘marks’ ordered to pay it.  Even pension funds are subject to garnishment in domestic relations cases, despite local ordinances to the contrary.  One New York judge, incensed about a man’s pre-marital promiscuity, ordered alimony payments in the amount of 105 percent of his income despite alimony’s non-punitive intent.  A Stillwater, Minnesota judge told a member of the Men’s Defense Association to file bankruptcy in order to free up other obligations in order to support a lazy ex-wife who wouldn’t work.

As a famous judge said, “Alimony drones neither toil nor spin.”  Liquor lounge operators and most judges are probably the only segments of society which don’t despise alimony junkies.  My previous book, The Rape of The Male was replete with citations of, inter alia, inordinate, mind-boggling citations of over-generous alimony/support awards to women.

While not altogether extraordinary, the following situation has received some welcome attention.  Colonel Bob Stirm was a POW long imprisoned in North Viet Nam.  People magazine featured a Pulitzer prize winning picture of Bob meeting his family after his release.  Unbeknownst to Bob, his wife had dissipated all of his salary while he was a POW and was planning divorce, having agreed to marry at least three different men while Stirm was a POW — including attorneys in Texas and California and a Naval officer in California.  Now divorced, she still draws 42% of his retirement pay.  Mat Eytan the famous San Francisco attorney has agreed to use the Stirm case in arguing, in the U.S. Supreme Court, to overturn the practice of awarding large portions of military pensions to divorced wives.

The irony of this situation was stated most poignantly by Colonel Stirm during an address to the American Retirees Association national convention, “During my six years as a prisoner of war, I was able to survive for one reason… by strong faith in God, my country and my family.”

Hear the good Professor Amneus on alimony:  Imagine an employee quitting her job and demanding to be paid for doing so…  Why is the woman entitled to a pension?  For bearing the man’s children and giving him a family?  …  She would have been entitled to a lifetime pension for maintaining rather than undermining his connection with his children and for preserving his family.  This is the idea of marriage — why it is a lifetime contract.  So she is not giving him children and a family, she is taking them away from him — depriving him of most of what gives his life meaning.  And for this she imagines herself entitled to a lifelong pension from the man she victimizes.

It is inherently unfair to take something away from people and then make them pay for it.  Because the word alimony has fallen into justifiable disrepute, the courts are awarding de facto alimony under the guise of ‘child support’ by doubling or tripling (or more) the purported cost of children and ordering that amount in divorce decrees.  This practice is worse than ordering unreasonable alimony because the obligation continues regardless of need until the children are emancipated.

In order to justify increased alimony/support awards, the Agriculture Dept. artificially bumped up the costs of raising children by an accounting trick called “proportional accounting,” which uses per capita costs instead of marginal costs.  This scheme determines the total costs of a household, and then divides by the number of persons therein.  This is illogical because the adults therein incur most of those costs with or without children, who add only marginally to the cost.

Child support is, of course, almost automatically charged to the father, seldom to the mother.  As with visitation, divorce orders may contain token amounts of support from the rare non-custodial mother; but these provisions are usually only as good as the inclination of mothers to comply.  The federal Office of Income Security Policy found in 1991 that less than 30% of custodial fathers receive a child support award, whereas almost 80% of custodial mothers do.  And, about 47% of those mothers who are ordered to pay support totally default on their obligation.  In Missouri in 2000, about 6% of divorced custodial fathers were awarded child support; mothers were awarded child support in 72% of the cases, and no support was awarded in 21% of the cases.  If a woman is arrested for non-support, it makes the news.

In (admittedly extreme, but not uncommon) examples, Diane Richie, aspiring ex-wife of Lionel Richie, filed for separation in October 2003 and divorce in January the next year, citing irreconcilable differences.  In March of ΄04, she asked for $300,000 a month in child and spousal support to maintain the “extraordinary extravagant lifestyle” the couple had during their nearly seven years of marriage.  Stuart, Georgia attorney Willie Gary must pay $29,100 a month for 16 years, a total of more than $5.5 million, to Diane Gowins, an Atlanta woman, for the twins he fathered out of wedlock.  Hip-hop music tycoon Sean “P. Diddy” Combs is battling to overturn record child support payments of more than $250,000 a year – the highest ever made in New York state – for 11-year-old Justin, his son by childhood sweetheart Misa Hylton-Brim.  Then there are the requests of NBA star Jason Richardson’s ex-girlfriend to raise “child support” from $4,000 a month to over $45,000 (the judge gave her $7,000) and of Hollywood actor Viggo Mortensen’s ex-wife to a Los Angeles court to increase child support payments for their son from $3,000 to $18,000 a month.

In the early ’90s Bobby Sherrill was a Lockheed employee and divorced father working in Kuwait when Iraq invaded.  Sherrill was held captive by the Iraqis for five months.  Upon his return to North Carolina, he was arrested for non-payment of $1,425 in alimony/support that accrued while he was a hostage.

A woman took her children to Germany, prevented visitation, agreed to a reduction of support for the inconvenience, then when her third mate couldn’t help her supplement the reduction, obtained increased support on the contention that the biological father could afford it because he bought a motorcycle.  Another ex-husband was held in contempt of court for not paying $26,700 support on a child who was spirited away to Holland for eight years.

  A Kansas father had to pay child support for a daughter who was in active military service.  On Nov. 15, 2005 the So. Carolina State newspaper reported that the state Supreme Court ruled a Lexington County man must continue paying support for his 40-year-old mentally disabled daughter, despite the fact that she is self-supporting (earning between $250 and $350 a week from her part-time job) and collects federal disability payments ($275 in Social Security benefits a month), and despite the fact that the legal deadline for the woman’s mother – the defendant’s ex-girlfriend – to bring the paternity action had expired.

Although the age of majority is 18 in most states, many courts force ex-fathers to continue supporting offspring until age 21, reasoning that age 21 was considered to be the age of majority at the time the divorce order was written.  The logic is convoluted from that permitting ‘No-fault ’ states to destroy without cause marriages entered prior to passage of no-fault legislation.  A Wisconsin court found that state’s guidelines “result in a figure so far beyond the child’s needs as to be irrational.”  When a court struck down Tennessee’s guidelines on similar grounds, the state Department of Human Services announced they would not abide by the ruling.  Yet they jail fathers for violating court orders.

Child support payments accrue to the legal custodian, even if the child is living with the other parent, and continue until the court decides to modify the meaningless decree and order otherwise.  Probably thousands of fathers who didn’t know this have paid double, been held in contempt, or jailed for non-support.

Support obligations can continue even after death of the father.  In Nebraska, Don Harriman died leaving 2nd wife Debra, their 14-year-old daughter and two other daughters by a previous marriage.  Up until his death, Harriman never missed a child support payment.  Enter Nebraska statute 43-513.01, which states, “A judgment for child support shall not abate upon the death of the judgment debtor.”  The government intercepted $1,867 of Debra’s tax refund, and was after more.  Debra’s protests were in vain.  Harriman had no assets, no property and no life insurance, so the state was attempting to collect from income after his death.

The fraudulent and predatory nature of the child support system has been documented in peer-reviewed publications by the Independent Institute, the National Center for Policy Analysis, the American Political Science Association, and repeatedly in Society.

Professor Amneus analogizes the argument that women and courts use to justify giving large alimony/support awards to divorcing women with the “Mutilated Beggar” phenomenon.  In some large cities of the East there are begging rings headed by rascals who kidnap children and mutilate them for use as beggars.  The more pitiable and grotesque the mutilations, the more the beggars earn.  The alms go to the owners of the begging ring.

As Civil war era clucking about runaway slaves (“unlawful”) postulated the planted axiom that slavery is acceptable (“lawful”), so too does the uproar over “deadbeat dads ” postulate the false premise that child support orders are reasonable and that the whole process is fair to men.  The idea is to make males more responsible; the effect is to make females less responsible.

In 1986, the Bradley Amendment (authored by former Democrat Senator Bill Bradley from New Jersey) was signed into federal law.  It requires state courts to prohibit retroactive reduction of child support obligations.  This ill-advised, iron clad prohibition has caused great hardship including prosecution and imprisonment of indigents, deprivation of driver’s licenses, revocation of passports and entry into poverty.  Victims have had difficulties holding jobs, maintaining bank accounts or having any kind of meaningful access to the economy.  By prohibiting obligors from retroactively reducing arrearages the Amendment has had the unintended consequence of preventing non-custodial parents from reaching a point in which they can satisfy the obligations imposed on them.  On February 27, 2006, Phyllis Schlafly penned a brilliant criticism of this Amendment in Townhall.com.

Nationally-known attorney Jeffrey Leving said “Child support orders cannot be retroactively modified, no matter how mistaken, misguided or ridiculous.  Even men who fell behind on their child support because they had heart attacks, broken legs or cancer cannot have their arrearages eliminated.”  On February 27, 2006, Phyllis Schlafly penned a brilliant criticism of this Amendment in Townhall.com.

Few people seem to know or care if most fathers can even afford to pay.  In middle-class families there is seldom enough money left after divorce obligations for the father to live comfortably.  An income just sufficient to support one household before divorce cannot be stretched to support two afterwards.  Men’s subsequent families have no standing regarding obligations to their first one.  The exiled male doesn’t even get to claim head-of-household tax status, although financially maintaining the household.  Talk about taxation without representation – the very cause of the Revolutionary War!

The myth promulgated by Feminist Lenore Weitzman, based on her contrived ‘studies,’ that an ex-husband’s standard of living skyrockets by 42% has been disproved by the scholarly attorney, Jed Abraham, JD and by Professor Amneus in The Case for Father Custody.

Bloviating about non-custodial parents who fail to support their children,” is immensely popular politically.  Alan Keyes, an otherwise very astute political thinker, proclaimed that defaulting alimony/support debtors “should be horsewhipped.”  “We will find you.  We will make you pay” threatened former President William Jefferson Clinton .  “The government will say to absent parents who aren’t paying their child support: ‘If you’re not providing for your children, we’ll garnish your wages, suspend your license, track you across state lines and, if necessary, make some of you work off what you owe.’  People who bring children into this world cannot and must not walk away from them.”  Clinton’s denouncement of such parents during his State of the Union Address met with the loudest cheers of any of his proposals that evening.  California ex-Governor Wilson says, “If you abandon your responsibility to your child…you forfeit the freedoms and opportunities that come with being a responsible citizen…  We cannot and will not tolerate parents who walk away from their children.”  He means men who have been deprived of their children.  This is like stabbing a man in the back and accusing him of carrying a concealed weapon.

The Office of Child Support Enforcement published a series of reports titled The Story Behind the Numbers.  The 1st in the series, Who Owes the Child Support Debt? points out that the vast majority (70 percent) is owed by non-custodial parents with reported incomes of less than $10,000 per year, and 42 percent of the debt is owed by debtors with no reported income.  Federal Child Support Director Sherri Heller acknowledged, during a meeting for African-American groups in Washington in August, 2004, that “about two-thirds of the [child support] debt is owed by people who earned less than $10,000 last year.  Even new Office of Child Support Commissioner Margot Bean admits “a federally-funded study shows most arrears are highly concentrated among a relatively small number of non-custodial parents, and most arrears are owed by non-custodial parents with no or low reported wages.”  According to state officials in New York, at least 35 percent is owed by men with income of $12,500 or less.  Less than 4 percent is owed by men with incomes of more than $40,000.  In other words, it appears that most of the debt is owed by extremely poor debtors.

Washington political analyst Stuart Miller explains:  Of the 30% of child support payments not collected, a significant number are owed by fathers who are imprisoned.  A high percentage of prisoners have child-support obligations, and as many as one-third of the inmates in many county jails are there in the first place because of child support noncompliance.

Many of the other delinquent fathers are addicts, alcoholics, disabled, mentally incapacitated, unemployed, or otherwise unable to pay pre-set child support amounts.  The General Accounting Office found in 1992 that as many as 14% of fathers who owe child support “cannot afford to pay the amount ordered.”  Others don’t even exist.

This section is written in full understanding that divorce often adversely affects both sexes, and that often both partners share blame for the death of marriage.

In almost every marriage there are many good times.  When the dreams and plans of a lifetime are cruelly, uncaringly wrenched from the realm of possibility, part of the person dies.  Although a marriage is buried, it is often buried alive.  One-sided love is a tragic thing.  Love is a great possession; its betrayal, a great catastrophe.  Sincere partners dedicate their entire lives to each other.  Greater commitment is hardly possible.  Repaying this gift with treachery is extremely cruel.  As the song goes, “A false-hearted lover is worse than a thief.”

Loss of motivation accompanies the loss of love; and people are just no good without motivation, the sparkplug of life.  Life becomes meaningless.  The loss, the pain corrodes the spirit and paralyzes the will.  Lack of a nice family to come home to has induced many a man to wallow in self-pity.  The shock of aborted love is difficult to measure, and to predict its results is impossible.  Serene acceptance, if it can be achieved, can be a blessing.  But a loved one’s defection can’t be simply shrugged off by anyone who was really in love.

Divorce is a world of broken promises, shattered hopes, wounded egos and empty lives.  Divorce orphans are pitiful, but adult males arguably are primary, more direct casualties, financially and emotionally.  It has been this author’s impression that most of the books for both men and children on how to live with a divorce are largely psychobabble written by muddle-heads who would expect a lobster to be content with being boiled alive.

There seems to be a similarity between the price of procreation in human males and males of some lower species.  The Praying Mantis and Black Widow spider discard the male after he has served his fertilization purpose – or kill him.  This trait is not unknown in humanoids, figuratively speaking.  His children are a man’s raison d’ être.  Loss and probable estrangement of them are among the greatest injustices that can be visited upon a human being.

Extreme heartbreak can lead to “the death of a thousand cuts.”  According to Dr. John C. Cassel, department head at the University of North Carolina’s School of Public Health, divorced men have a death rate three to five times higher than married men of the same age.  Many good men have died of broken hearts, homeless on Skid Row.  The death of John Fornica, while I worked at Charlie Metz’s A$DM, is a case in point.  The DuPage County, Illinois, domestic court bears a great responsibility for it.  This anti-male redoubt refused, except in token gestures, to enforce visitation provisions of his divorce decree.  The daughter he loved too much became so brainwashed as a result that she screamed her hatred at this gentle man.  He died of a broken heart, too young, removing items from the room she had occupied in happier days.

Men without families who manage to survive are highly prone to various illnesses.  They tend to suffer severe and chronic physical and emotional illnesses.  According to a Danish study, divorced men contract tuberculosis more often than married men, ten times more often than married country-dwelling men, and five times more often than married city-dwelling men.

It has been said that divorced men are “road kill” on the highway of life.  A grim scene is widespread behind rooming house walls: a cubicle furnished in early Salvation Army, an unmade bed, a bare bulb, a soup pan on the burner, a lonely man choking down meals of crackers and cheese, and a john down the hall.  It’s dreary.  Many of us are only an accident-of-chance away from such an ignominious end.

When they are not forlornly moving from place to place, the bitter, defeated flotsam and jetsam crowd jails and homeless shelters.  Liquor lounges reap a windfall from both divorced men and women, but the latter are seldom there to cry in their beer.  Sad ex-husbands are holding down bar stools all across the country, indeed the world.  Various forms of drugs become their hemlock, gradually dulling, existence.  I’ve been there, feeling as if flung into the pit of The Creator’s outhouse during an Almighty bout with diarrhea (OK, maybe I jumped in).

In interviewing the habitants of skid row this writer found that most are divorce casualties.  The shroud of despair was every where apparent.  One could cut it with a knife.  Despite appearances, some of these so-called bums are intelligent and philosophical.  Interviewing them was enlightening, in a depressing way.  You don’t just doubt The Creator – you can hate Him.

Fearful that stress was beginning to affect my ability to control air traffic, I resigned from the Federal Aviation Agency in December 1966.  Though I returned many years later, it was a financially costly sacrifice.

Custodial mothers can easily brainwash children, if only subtly.  The “Generation of Vipers” Philip Wylie wrote of has materialized in countless father-hating children, many passing this sickness on to their children.  If Mom is bitter at divorced Dad, children are insidiously turned against him, sometimes against the entire male gender.  They see their father through the distorting prism of their mother’s hostility.  With Mom’s self-absolving encouragement, Dad is blamed even for his involuntary absence.  The subconscious minds of these unwitting dupes wait for the least excuse, such as a spanking or less, with which to confirm what they have been conditioned to believe — Dad is bad.  Children are hardly to blame, of course.  They are on the horns of a dilemma; a conflict between their conditioning telling them Dad is a big ass, and their eyeballs telling them he is not.

It takes lengthy brainwashing to misdirect children’s understandable anger, to bring them to the point they throw rocks at Dad’s car when he drives up to visit.  That is when the support money goes grudgingly — if at all.  Mothers (or fathers) teaching their children to hate their fathers (or mothers) in western countries are akin to Palestinians teaching children that Jews are pigs and monkeys.  The 10-year-old son of Dr. Rick Lohstroh a Houston, Texas surgeon was so alienated by his mother after a contentious divorce, he shot and killed his father.  To teach a child to hate half of his ancestry is to teach him to hate half of himself.  Because the results of brainwashing are so catastrophic, I consider it more unforgivable than infidelity.  If PAS persists into adulthood, it can become irreversible.  That’s the point at which fathers (and mothers) should consider writing their children off, and getting on with their lives.

Dr. Richard Gardner, of Cresskill, NJ, a child psychologist, was one of the leading authorities on children of dysfunctional families.  According to Gardner, PAS is described as “a disturbance in which children are obsessively preoccupied with deprecation and/or criticism of a parent.  In other words, denigration that is unjustified and/or exaggerated.”  In effect, these children are taught to hate the Targeted Parent to the point of wanting to eliminate them from their lives.  Dr. Gardner considers this to be psychological abuse and to be the only form of psychological abuse that has clear-cut unmistakable signs and symptoms and therefore the only psychological abuse that can be easily diagnosed.

Maine Gov. John E. Baldacci proclaimed April 25, 2006 to be “Parental Alienation Awareness Day.”

In Men in Black, Mark Levin shows that for two centuries now the courts have grabbed ever more authority over our society, that we are ruled by an oligarchy of judges.  Marshaling an awesome amount of data from history and contemporary court cases, he illustrates conclusively that judicial activists with their thumbs on the scales of justice are nothing short of radicals in robes, contemptuous of the rule of law, subverting the Constitution at will, re-writing it in some cases with pronouncements disconnected from reality.  Using their public trust to impose their policy preferences on society, they have interpreted this majestic document both as prohibiting school prayer and as protecting obscenity and abortion.

Decisions depend more on judges’ personal beliefs than they do on abstract legal ‘science.’  Critical Legal Studies (CLS) , a law society at Harvard and other elite law schools, has developed a school of thought holding that “judges decide in advance what they want, then excavate the Constitution and precedents for support to back up their preferences.  Also holding that the entire judicial edifice which gives the impression of impartiality is a fraud.”  They believe achieving true justice is impossible.

Obviously, these are not simply the opinions of a few axe-grinders.  Hear high-profile experts: Harvard Law School’s Edmund Morgan was fond of saying that “There is no proposition so absurd but that some judge, sitting on some bench, has at some time solemnly proclaimed it to be the law.”  In addition, the words of Federal Judge William J. Campbell at a Chicago judicial conference are instructive: “guilt or innocence no longer has much to do with justice, since legal technicalities take precedence in court procedure.”  Here’s Jack Anderson on judges, “Some are merely incompetent, others arrogant.  In their puffed-up importance, they demand that all considerations must yield to the majesty of their courts.  In their narrow circle of omnipotence…, etc.”

One shining exception is Robert H. Dierker, Jr., Chief Judge of Missouri Circuit Court, whose book The Tyranny of Tolerance appears in Recommended Reading in this book’s Appendix.

These criticisms do not constitute contempt of court, because they aren’t directed at our court system (essentially among the best in the world).  It is the administration of that system that is sometimes corrupted, compromised, incompetent, and unjust — beneath contempt.  Our alter-boy deference to these judges needs re-examination.

In Compatible Divorce, Robert Sherwin states “… in many jurisdictions, these judges who are either aging … or who are quite frankly inferior, are assigned to the unpopular divorce courts…  Because of his age or inability… he is forced to accept the odious.”  He notes that by a conservative estimate 50 percent of all U.S. judges are incompetent.  Among divorce court judges the percentage of the incompetent is probably much higher.

Activist judges are destroying much more than the Constitution; they are also undermining marriage.  With each other’s blessing and outright connivance, courts supported by peripheral government agencies routinely demolish twenty-year marriages and put asunder children.  These worthies may in cold blood deliver their sentences of death to families, with less time and attention than they devote to contemplating their lunch menu.

Discrepancies between legality and morality are enormous and innumerable.  The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits government-established religion.  Based only on this fact, and through some tortuous rationalization that would mystify the founding fathers, morality has become taboo in court.  It is as though a lobotomy had been performed on the judicial sense of decency.  Sexual morality is especially ignored in custodial determinations.

Marriage is a contract, and it is the responsibility of the legal system to enforce contracts.  That’s what judges get paid for; but with this, the most important contract, that’s what they refuse to do.  Adept at sophism, judges claim to be following dictates of society; yet their anti-male rulings may be caused instead by what they see other judges doing, a chicken/egg situation.  Like hamsters spinning in their cage wheels, they make the same catastrophic mistakes over and over.

Momism is practically a judicial religion.  For example, consider this eulogy worthy of a legislator, “What a mother’s care means to her children has been so much romanticized and poetized that its substance has sometimes been lost in the flowers of rhetoric, in the aureole of song, and in the vivid color and glistening marble of painting and sculpture.  A mother’s care means instruction in religion and morals, it means the inculcation of patriotism and love of country, it means the maintenance of a clean heart, it means the imparting of lessons on duties in citizenship, courtesy and good will to one’s fellow-man, it means the practical things of preparing healthful food and the mending and repair of clothing, it means ceaseless vigil and the balm of the healing, and when fever visits and the virus strikes — it means all these things and a million others, from all of which the child grows up resolved that he may never be unworthy of the lessons learned at the knee of his most loving companion, his best teacher, his most devoted defender, and his greatest inspiration for this and the life to come, his blessed mother.”  Christ, I could throw up!

The judicial favoring of female litigants is caused by an enmeshing of many, sometimes deep, motivations or psychological compulsions difficult to fathom.  There are several theories.  One is that male litigants are arbitrary scapegoats in an orgy of catharsis or overcompensation for past bias against and suppression of women.  Other explanations include barely concealed sadism, masochism, or jealousy of younger men still possessed of their virility.  Judges apparently get an ‘ego-blast’ satisfying a primitive, self-aggrandizing sex urge or rooster instinct, which they have opportunity to exploit.  It has been demonstrated in research projects that this compulsion is especially noticeable if the woman is attractive.

Women’s tears influence male judges more than does the law of the land.  Most judges are probably convinced they’re doing something for poor, defenseless women, although these women are usually about as defenseless and cunningly aggressive as healthy lionesses.  Presumably, most judges had decent mothers or they wouldn’t have achieved such high office.  A big cause of their prejudice, as I see it, is that they equate all women before them with their mothers.  Big mistake!  Even if they have led a very sheltered life oblivious to the inadequacies of single motherhood, many of their actions and pontifications are indefensible.

The Judge Nolands, mentioned earlier, of the world who systematically and spinelessly relegate children to the clutches, and fathers to the bondage, of unfit mothers scorn morality, family, and the welfare of children – the very principles they profess to uphold.  Unable to differentiate between diseases and symptoms, they piously agonize over the breakdown of society’s moral fabric and the disintegration and disorganization of families, ignorant of the fact that these problems are merely symptoms of a disease that they themselves helped cause – father deprivation.

Because giving custody of children to unfit mothers is child abuse, divorce court judges are among the worst child abusers of all – moral, if not legal, criminals.  They have ruined more children than Doctor Spock, and deserve to be punished under Sharia law.  Yet little thought is given to punishment of the perpetrators – except among some militant divorce reform activists.

With the evolution of civilization, power shifted from the old physical or might-is-right ways, to law.  However, if the arena of power is in law, a theoretical good, the structure of power is in the legal profession, the top of the food chain – and therein lays the potential for mischief.  Lawyers could be called this country’s Nomenklatura, and the rest of us the Proletariat.  For hundreds of examples of lawyer shenanigans, check website: overlawyered.com.  Legal technicalities, maneuverings and mining the law frustrate justice.  Lawyers happily frolic about in this maze, erected largely to create employment for them.

Let’s talk about ethics and common sense.  Some top-flight U.S. lawyers are representing the Guantanamo detainees pro bono.  Some detainees may indeed be innocent goat farmers, but not many.  Yet these lawyers would free all of them.  Saddam’s lawyers include several Americans, including former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark.  (Wanna bet any of these legal heavyweights would represent men in a fight for gender justice, pro bono or not.

Hear Internet blogger Fred Reed: “Lawyers lounge under the lampposts of jurisprudence, in the moral equivalent of plastic miniskirts and fishnet stockings, breathing, “Oh, ba-a-a-aybee, I’ll do anything for $250 an hour.”

Although lawyers exploit many types of situations, domestic relations may be where they sin most.  Easy fees draw lawyers to divorce like sharks to blood.  It’s the same reason Willie Sutton said he robbed banks: “That‘s where the money is.”  These bottom feeders share with wives the legalized plunder; it’s one of their biggest sources of income (“Thar’s gold in them thar hills.”)  The divorce industry is a “cash cow,” comprising some 35% of civil litigation.  According to old estimates, they rake in $800 million nationally each year from their family destruction efforts.  This figure was probably doubled by post-decree and related actions.  In 1988 Nolo Press of Berkley, Calif. estimated that lawyers generate about one billion, three hundred sixty four million annually in unnecessary fees, almost five hundred million in divorce alone.  This is over and above their legitimate charges.  Of course inflation will cause the figures to be higher now; they have been estimated as high as $5 billion or more.

Even non-contested actions (also called defaults), which most any eleventh grader could handle in an hour or two, are ridiculously expensive.  Protracted cases can go into many thousands of dollars for a few more hours of sham.  Every lawsuit is fundamentally the same: pleadings, proof, and procedures.

Arlington Virginia attorney John Crouch says, “Not counting what it does to the standard of living, and having to pay support, and the expenses of visitation, you can get (a divorce) for under $10,000 per spouse in lawyer fees if you’re lucky and if both the spouses and their lawyers are reasonable and fair.  But you really can’t predict that.  In fact, it is considered unethical for a divorce lawyer to even give a client an estimate, because it’s so out of control.  Either side can pull all kinds of stuff in court that just makes both the lawyers waste time until one client runs out of money.  I just finished one case where they settled, but then the husband had to spend $70,000 just to enforce the settlement agreement!  A custody fight is more like $20,000 apiece.”

Wealthy clients especially can expect interminable litigation.  L. S. Rosenstiel, former president of Schenley Distillers, and his wife spent well over $1.5 million during a twenty-year divorce.  John Jacob Astor paid lawyer fees of $105,000 in only one year of a four-year divorce, and that was over half a century ago.  Others of similar high cost and duration are on record.  A Fort Lauderdale heir to the Quaker Oats fortune, Mrs. Eleanor Ritchey, left $14 million to her 81 dogs.  Lawyers argued about that for years, to the tune of $700,000.  Sometimes they work faster: The 80 year-old widow of real estate magnate Sylvan Lawrence sued the Graubard, Miller law firm in New York for $50 million in excess fees and gifts.  The firm reportedly attempted to soak her further by getting her to sign a retainer agreement worth in excess of $67 million.[iv]  In Muskegon, Michigan, Helen Below bequeathed $50,000 to two cats.  Lawyers took $40,000 of it.  Talk about milking situations!

In No-Fault Divorce and the Divorce Conundrum, Lynn D. Wardle states that “a divorce industry…of professional meddlers…make millions of dollars every year off marital turmoil, much of which they have a hand in creating themselves.”  Chicago Judge Nathan M. Cohen says, “Lawyers’ fees lie in divorce, not reconciliation.”  Further, they have an unwritten agreement to see to it that each gets in on the division of spoils, right or wrong, legal or not.  This practice is called champerty.  Bar Associations ‘recommend’ (wink, wink) minimum fees.  This universal practice of price fixing violates hell out of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.  Apparently it’s O.K. if done by lawyers.  Like surgeons who operate unnecessarily, lawyers can be greater make-work artists than railroad firemen.  In most states they are advocating “guardians ad litem.”  This is a scheme to introduce yet another lawyer into divorces to represent children in contested custody situations (at papa’s expense, naturally).  Obviously this would compound an already bad situation.  Another lawyer is needed like Dolly Parton needs falsies.

The California Assembly Judiciary Committee documents the lack of ethics or morals of the divorce lawyers in its 1965 report.  It says, “For them divorce is their rent, their stenographer’s salary, their baby’s shoes, sometimes their solid-gold Cadillac…  How unrealistic to expect them to forego anything like that for mere considerations of ethics or morals.”

Most divorce lawyers would much rather be on the woman’s side, of course.  When unfortunate enough to be representing the man, they find it economically most practical to take his money, pick up the phone and sell him out to their counterpart representing the woman; and most do just that.  This takes only a few minutes.  Really working for the man’s rights produces only a little more income and involves considerable time (better spent milking some other mark), effort, and antagonizing of judges, before whom they must practice again and again.

Courts act as glorified collection agencies for lawyers.  They do this through the subterfuge of writing the fees into court orders, thus giving them the force and dignity of law.  Failure to pay can be, and often is, construed as contempt of court — a jailable offense.  An Illinois appellate court declared “Attorneys’ fees awarded in a divorce decree are in the nature of alimony and not dischargeable in bankruptcy…  Spouses’ award in attorney fees should be treated with some legal significance as an allowance for money to buy food and groceries.”

Often courts order claims against citizens’ property or withhold official records, or both, until lawyers’ claims are satisfied.  Provisos have been written into court orders making visitation contingent upon payment of lawyers.  In Chicago a reconciled couple tried to have the wife’s action for separate maintenance terminated.  Her lawyer jacked the fee up far beyond the original quotation, refused to drop the action until paid, and ensnared them into reappearance in divorce court.  There the judge refused to dismiss the action until the alleged debt was paid.  Donald Cash was thrown into York County jail in Alfred, Maine, for not paying his wife’s lawyer.  His salary was $60 a week, from which he paid $36 in support for three children and $25 for room and board.  MDA member Lloyd Tourville, a 100 percent disabled veteran, now-deceased, languished in the Ramsey County, Minnesota, workhouse for refusal to sign over his veteran’s pension to his wife’s lawyers.

The advice from Watergate applies, “Follow the money.”  This free, efficient collection service is run by the legal profession — judges, for legal professional bedfellows — lawyers, at taxpayers’ expense.  Any other businessmen having such privilege would warrant congressional investigation.  The Mafia must be envious.

Collusion goes beyond the monetary.  Two men were actually arrested in New York for telling lawyer jokes.  Waiting in a courthouse line, Harvey Kash asked Carl Lanzisera, both founders of a group called Americans for Legal Reform, “How do you tell when a lawyer is lying?”  “His lips are moving,” they both said in unison.  The men were charged with disorderly conduct.

Even non-avaricious motives are questionable.  Like social workers, the more unscrupulous have a virtual harem of pre- and post-decree divorcees, who are usually sex-starved and willing to do anything for favoritism and best efforts.  Through half-closed eyes, the aspiring divorcee sees only an intrepid champion desirous and capable of tremendously improving her lot in life.

Priesthoods seldom initiate their reform.  Because so much income is derived from the divorce racket, lawyers have a vested interest in perpetuating any system conducive to a high rate of divorce.  These custodians of the status quo jealously squelch all serious investigation into deficiencies of the system.  Strangling reform legislation is simple because they control legislatures, especially the important judiciary committees.  According to The Trouble With Lawyers, seventy-one percent of Congressmen are lawyers.  The mere presence of “officers of the court” in the legislature, besides violating the principle of separation of governmental branches, is a conflict of interest.  Considering legislation to remove a large source of their private income is doubly so.  Voluntary reform will not spring from this quarter.  If wolves got together to demand that farmers leave their hen house doors open at night, people would be outraged.  But such foolishness is accepted without a murmur when the wolves stand erect and wear neckties.

This is not an indictment against all lawyers; many are honest and fine men, not a bunch of Wm. Kuntsler-type wild-haired, sandal-wearing misfits.  A divorcing man will have to join a reform organization (some listed in the Appendix hereto) to get a referral to those good ones that exist.  Several such lawyers successfully defended me against their brethren back in the ΄70s.

It began when the Minnesota State Bar Association (MBA), hoping to “silence the lambs,” commenced an inquisition.  They sued several other Minnesota divorce reform organizations for “practicing law without a license.”  As we said in the Air Force, “When you’re getting flack, you’re over the target.  The MBA was unhappy that groups like mine were interfering with the divorce racket.  Enraged, I wrote a newspaper article daring the MBA to sue our Men’s Rights Association (also known as Divorce Assistance Ass’n., and now re-named the Men’s Defense Association), essentially saying “I too am Spartacus” during our 20^th century slave rebellion. The Bar Ass’n immediately sued my organization on the same charge and hired the most formidable prosecuting attorney in Minnesota, Tom Collins, to represent them.  My primary defenders were referral attorneys in the MDA stable making good money litigating on behalf of MDA members; but they made an honest living at it (Any who failed to adequately represent members at reasonable rates were removed from the list).  I am eternally grateful to civil libertarian Tom Burke, the main attorney that represented me at the initial level.  The Minn. Civil Liberties Union also filed an amicus curiae brief on my behalf.

One of my most satisfying legal wins was beating the MBA in state Supreme Court and forcing them to pay all expenses.   The precedent that case set paved the way for persons and groups to assist in divorce counseling.

After my set-to with the MBA, and seeking to wreak revenge on them, I discovered that Bar Associations all over the country were in violation of postal regulations #s 134.52 and 134.53, by concealing their activities in order to qualify for the reduced rate mailing privilege available to non-lobbying groups.  They were ripping off the taxpayers for perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in this manner, and probably still are.  I intended to nail them for it but, swamped with work, never got around to it.

Is Feminism a cure for which there is no disease, or a disease for which there is no cure?

Once upon a time, some women were sometimes discriminated against.  In 1792 a few frustrated women organized to protest and eliminate ideas, laws, and practices perceived to be adverse to women.  Later came Susan B. Anthony, the godmother of modern Feminism.  They had a few male supporters.  In 1906 Sir Arthur Conan Doyle founded the Divorce Law Reform Union in England to protect women (in those days, the pendulum of power in domestic relations favored men).  Husbands or inheritances usually provided the leisure and funds to pursue their goals, turning some into literal professionals.  One might say they were biting the hand that fed them.  That thesis which helped inspire the early Feminist movement, John Stuart Mill’s 1869 book The Subjugation of Women, despite its fallacies, could be reprinted today with little more than interchanging the words “men” and “women,” certainly that portion of it concerning domestic relations; and it would be almost as accurate and contemporary as when published.

Picayunish railings and distortions were paramount in their platform; several considered homemaking wives to be parasites, proclaiming “Housework is shitwork.”  Theodore Roosevelt termed most of them “fools.”  Actually, in view of the advantages women had by virtue of chivalry, any disadvantages were of minor consequence; the sole exception being voting rights (and a damn good argument to the contrary has been made there).  Back in 1831 the Frenchman, Alexis de Tocqueville, warned Americans that the new Feminist movement would result in the manufacture of “weak men and disorderly women.”  His words have proven prophetic.

Like a tsunami in the Indian Ocean, the ‘postmodern’ Feminist ascendancy has swept over the western world.  With no adult supervision Feminists get into all sorts of mischief, throwing giant jamborees in Mexican and African fever swamps.  Here’s a listing of the present day outfits I’ve been able to dig up just in the US: Catholics for a Free Choice, Center for Reproductive Rights, Center for the Advancement of Women, Center For Women’s Policy Studies, Feminist Majority Foundation, Freedom Socialist Party, Institute for Women’s Policy Research, League of Women Voters, Malia – Collective of Italian-American Women, NARAL Pro-Choice America (National Abortion Rights Action League), National Abortion Federation, National Council for Research on Women, National Council of Women’s Organizations, National Organization for Women (NOW, the Feminist’s attack dog), National Women’s Law Center, National Women’s Political Caucus, Older Women’s League, Peace and Freedom Party, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Radical Women, Veteran Feminists of America, Women’s Policy Inc., Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA).  There are probably more here and certainly more in other countries.

Partially as a result of this phenomenon and partially due to the forces of modernism, the gender situation changed drastically.  Their inordinate worldwide influence is akin to the tail wagging the dog.   As with a pendulum, the momentum carried sexual dominance to the opposite extreme, to an almost pathologically anti-male position.  Through a barrage of demonstrations, speeches, and publications, this juggernaut has become a veritable religion, widely and blindly accepted, much to the detriment of individuals, society and industry.  It is altering the male kinship system, largely explaining the social and sexual chaos of present society.

George Orwell wrote that some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals could believe them.  Intellectually, the Feminist movement is largely a façade; pull back the rhetorical curtain and there is little behind it.  It is driven by non-rational, often anti-rational, sentiments and impulses.  The essence is that gender is “socially constructed” by the patriarchy.  The commonly accepted notion, the basic premise has long been that discrimination against women is greater than that against men.  This is more than fashionable nonsense; it is a bizarre hoax.  Indeed, a good case can be made that western women are the most pampered creatures on earth, sacred cows.

Feminism is a spectrum, ranging from the delusional, pursuing various schemes and fantasies, to the rational, if misguided – all advocating under the veil of rights for women.  I reject the artificial distinction between “gender Feminists” and “equity Feminists” as an attempt to rationalize the latter, but admit a difference in degree (All Muslims aren’t radicals either, but too many of the gentler persuasions in both groupings fail to denounce their radicals).  With Feminists, Teddy Roosevelt’s description “lunatic fringe” is reversed.  The sane are the fringe.  Writer David Usher says:

The relatively small (but growing) cohort of equalitarian feminists (such as Kate O’Bierne, Christina Hoff Sommers, Wendy McElroy, Kathleen Parker, and Erin Pizzey) are the legitimate followers of suffragettes. They still seek reasonable social equality between the sexes, and strongly oppose the egregious destruction of marriage and men’s social rights caused by second-wave feminists.  The prevailing second-wave feminist movement, steered by the National Organization for Women, predominantly applies ideological and statistical machinations to achieve women’s supremacy targets. It sees equalitarians as “anti-feminist” enemies and is constantly at battle with them for control at the helm of feminism.

Feminists want what it pleases them to call “abortion rights” on demand, divorce on demand, child custody on demand, and Lord knows what other demands.  Some demands sound reasonable; but closer examination reveals that they want privilege upon privilege.  When it suits their purposes, Feminists consider the sexes both identical, e.g., in employment, and different, e.g., in child custody – a classic “have their cake and eat it too” situation.  They want access to men’s clubs and organizations.  Men-only clubs and lounges are considered sexist, but women-only clubs and lounges like the one at Boalt Hall and the law school of the University of California-Berkeley are “empowering.”  They clamor for fifty women in the Senate, but not fifty percent of women in the cells of prisons and not fifty percent of military casualties or industrial accidents.

The Feminist position is that divorce should benefit the woman equally as does marriage.  This makes divorce attractive for women.  Ponder this passage from the Declaration of Feminism: “The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women.  Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands…” (November, 1971).

Feminists claim that it is discrimination that poor women can’t afford abortions, and government agrees.  The Feminist catechism, while it rewrites and profanes church doctrine, has made abortion a sacrament, helping to convince mothers to slaughter 41 million of our babies since 1970.  One is tempted to wish their mothers had opted to pursue the freedom-to-choose of which they are such hearty advocates.

Railing against their feminine nature as if it were a congenital defect, the sisterhood seems to have a running argument with life itself.  They preach that women’s accomplishments lie in rivaling males in creativity and external accomplishments.  They would meld us into a unisex society by eliminating sexual distinctions and traditional functions based upon them.  In one cause du jour, Barbara Mapes, former student senate vice president, and Sally Hughes, former student senator, and others at the Minneapolis Metropolitan Community College, demanded access to men’s toilets.

Feminists’ complaints about male dominance and about imaginary grievances, like getting fewer Nobel Prizes or less subsidization for women’s athletic teams, are fodder for lucrative lawsuits.  Low seniority employees are traditionally sent on errands such as to get coffee.  When it happens to women, the libbers cry “discrimination.”  They’re strangely silent about men being sent to shovel snow, unload trucks and do other heavy or dirty work, work more undesirable than making coffee.  Connecticut libbers, still in diapers, threw fits when the state canine license carried the shape of a miniature fire hydrant.  They felt it discriminated against female dogs.  The Cleveland Chapter of NOW. “Girlcotted” Cleveland Indian baseball games because there were no “bat girls.”  Has anyone else noticed that many women drivers seem obliged to pass every male driver on the road?  (I believe that suggestion appears on page 3 of the N.O.W. Assertiveness Manual.)

Libbers are often shocked – shocked! – about the “exploitation” of women in nudie magazines, claiming it reduces women to sex symbols.  Such complaints are wrongly directed at men, obviously realizing the futility in expecting women to have the good sense and decency to keep their clothes on.  Voyeurism is at least as attributable to the exhibitionists as it is to the opportunists.  Since brainless men commenced posing nude for women’s magazines, one doesn’t hear these complaints as often.  And they hate beauty contests.  Little wonder – no one would hire them to jump out of a cake.

It is those women not placed on pedestals who complain so bitterly about the idea of pedestals for ladies.  Most of those who would sacrifice the pedestals of all for their own imagined advantage, and who would push their way in where they aren’t invited, have suspect motives.  Some are misanthropes, female chauvinist pigs — to hurl a horribly-overworked epithet back across the fence, usually rejected-in-romance or lesbian (Kate Millet confesses to be a “queer.”  Her own mother and cousins tried to have her committed for psychiatric care).  It seems the term “rape” is open to definition; lesbian Feminists consider all heterosexual intercourse to be rape (In point of fact, less than 2% of the male population commits 100% of the actual male-on-female rapes in America).  That women’s lib members are largely lesbian can be verified by identifying the targets of classified ads in Ms. Magazine.  Feminist books have about as much credibility as the Da Vinci Code.

Feminists have mounted a massive and insidious campaign to propagandize children, and have subverted almost the entire school and public TV systems into espousing their “philosophy.”  Many other public institutions provide facilities for the dissemination of their gibberish and accommodation of their huddlings.  In the early 1970’s, the Ford Foundation granted the Women’s Action Alliance $95,370 to develop a nonsexist curriculum for preschool children in child care centers.

Max Friedman, a Liberator writer from Brooklyn, says “A fifth-grade test … had been expunged, under Feminist pressure, of such names as Bach, Napoleon and Mozart to make room for the likes of Phyllis Wheatley” (Don’t be embarrassed; I never heard of her, either).  In addition to eliminating books depicting sex roles, there is a concentrated effort by this faction to eliminate differentiated boys’ toys and girls’ toys.  It has also made many inroads into the Girl Scouts (Betty Friedan has been named honorary member to the National Board of Girl Scouts — with voting privileges).

Feminist intellectuals (the term itself is an oxymoron) educated beyond their capacity, regurgitate Feminist agitprop “herstory” and advocate female “empowerment” to vacuous college students at many institutional sand boxes throughout the country.  Instead of being unceremoniously dumped, these hate-mongers get grants and raises to pursue their “courageous” and “important” research.”

Phyllis Schlafly says, “College textbooks portray marriage as especially bleak and dreary for women.  Assigned readings are preoccupied with domestic violence, battering, abuse, marital rape, and divorce.”  Duke University Chaplin Robert Young and his students attempted to rewrite the Bible, eliminating references to gender.  U.S. News & World Report Editor John Leo called these courses “part therapy group, part training grounds for Feminist cadres to fight the patriarchy.”  These courses give new meaning to the expression “theater of the absurd.”

Strident Feminists are marching across campuses chanting obscene words and selling reproductive organ shaped lollipops to students.  Feminist Students United (FSU) of the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill scheduled a sex party for November 10th, 2005 to include “pin the finger on the clitoris” and “locate the g-spot” games followed by contests to see how quickly and properly people of both sexes can put condoms on bananas, with “lots of information on masturbation, orgasm and contraception, orgasm – how to have better ones, or how to help your girlfriend.”

Libbers decry pornography, hypocritically ignoring that their own literature is among the most foul and pornographic.  Their idea of high art/drama seems to be “The Vagina Monologues.”  V-Day has now replaced Valentine’s Day on more than 500 college campuses (including Catholic ones), while some of these same institutions ban the Bible.  When College Republicans at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island rained on the celebrations of V-Day with a reductio ad absurdum by inaugurating Penis Day and staging a satire called The Penis Monologues, the official reaction was horror.  Participants were ordered to cease and desist.

  In Academe, anti-male orthodoxy is rampant and, despite proclamations of diversity, diverse opinion is not countenanced.  To paraphrase Ann Coulter, feminists are constantly rushing in with their rule book about what can and cannot be said.  Camille Paglia, Professor of Humanities and Media Studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, is of like mind.  Christina Hoff Sommers describes the intellectual climate of today’s candy-curricula academy: “Rigid social constructionism so remains the dominant dogma in American humanities and social-sciences departments that to question it even an iota brings the thought police out in shrieking mobs to your door.”

Obvious differences between the sexes are like an elephant in the living room.  But nobody dares notice it or their careers are in danger.  The low estate of intellectual freedom on campus was highlighted in the 1/18/05 Boston Globe.  The story reported that Lawrence H. Summers, president of Harvard University and former Treasury Secretary who once adjudicated questions of the world’s financial system affecting billions on the planet, suggested at an economic conference that innate differences between the sexes could help explain why fewer women succeed in science and math careers.

Feminists who didn’t have fainting spells tantrumed at the blasphemy.  Political correctness ran amok.  The galvanized Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences’ Standing Committee on Women sent Summers a sharp letter of censure; alumnae threatened to suspend donations; students mobilized and Summers was barraged by protests from distraught Harvard co-eds who say they felt betrayed and diminished by his words.  Writer Amity Shlaes said it was enough to bring the entire educational establishment down upon Mr. Summers’ head.  MIT biology professor Nancy Hopkins developed a case of the vapors.  Upon hearing Summers, she “felt I was going to be sick.  My heart was pounding and my breath was shallow.”  And, “I just couldn’t breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill.”  She said that if she had not bolted from the room, “I would’ve either blacked out or thrown up.”  Evidently this hysteric isn’t the typical tough broad most Feminists like to portray themselves as.  She’d have one helluva time in combat!

Columnist Suzanne Fields likened the hullabaloo to the abuse that Galileo took in the 17th century when he questioned the notion, politically correct for his day, that the earth was the center of the universe.  Christina Hoff Sommers defended Summers thusly, “It could explain why there are more men at the extremes of success and failure, more male CEOs, more males in maximum-security prisons.”  Nancy Pftotenhauer, president of the Independent Women’s Forum , also defended Summers.

Attempting to demonstrate his meaning, Summers said “The data will, I am confident, reveal that Catholics are substantially underrepresented in investment banking…that white men are very substantially underrepresented in the National Basketball Association, and that Jews are very substantially underrepresented in farming.”  Nevertheless, because he sinned against ideological conformity, Summers was forced to drink the hemlock, to grovel and apologize not once but three times.  He later resigned.

Academic reformer David Horowitz has devised an Academic Bill of Rights intended to introduce more politically rational and diverse thinking and hiring into academe.  He has garnered 36 Congressional sponsors so far.  More power to him!

Spokeswomen profess to seek equality but these are largely head-fakes.  They demand the advantages men have earned without the disadvantages, like having to earn them.  They want equal employment with men, and equal pay for not necessarily equal ability or equal work.  They demand equal representation in the boardrooms of industry, but not in the grubby jobs or among the burned out inhabitants of skid row.  They consider women too fragile to be pinched in an office, but tough enough to engage in combat.  That’s like wanting a one sided coin.  Someone, I forget who, said “The historical fact of women clamoring for the right to give orders to draftees (a.k.a. men) by virtue of being West Point graduates coupled with the absence of concomitant clamoring that they be draftees themselves leads me to conclude that well … yeah, women pretty much demand and expect special privilege.”

Modern Feminists have piggy-backed their cause onto that of the much more legitimate civil rights movement, as subsequently did the homosexual element.  Their propagandists employ clever reversals of reality.  They cruise in with claims of comparable grievance, which are positively obscene from the perspective of slavery and segregation.  The situation of straight males is more nearly comparable.

Feminist lobbyists, amateur and professional, are literally swarming in state capitols across the nation, influencing government policy and spewing anti-male messages before Congressional committees.  These gender warriors have enormous political power.  Government and philanthropic organizations throw vast sums of money at their crock-pot of programs and office holders.  For example, “Battered women’s” shelters serve as headquarters primarily to pursue Feminist agendas and only secondarily to help these alleged victims.

Every state has generously funded a network of commissions on the status of women, despite the fact women in general are financially as well off as men.  In times of shortage, government budget cuts are imposed, but funding for Feminist programs are sacrosanct; no one dares challenge them.  Even though the current levels of funding provide women’s advocacy programs nearly a billion dollars per year, NOW is instructing their members to ask for still more programs.

Women’s lib is a ‘ladies’ auxiliary of the anti-American left.  The hard core embraces Marxism, although Gloria Steinem will admit only to being socialist.  James Bowman said, “Ideological Feminism… adapted Marxist class analysis to the domestic sphere and so interpreted love and loyalty in terms of power relationships.”  Prime purposes of Feminism are to establish a lesbian-socialist republic and to dismantle the family unit.”  Someone else said Feminism as we know it is the direct ideological and political descendant of the Women’s Ku Klux Klan (WKKK).

Their strange theories, empirically falsifiable claims and Oprah-land pity-parties percolate in a narrow leftist culture where they are reinforced through repetition by like-minded persons, with all the thoughtfulness of a rap message.  Maybe you can’t fool all the people all the time as Lincoln said, but you can fool enough of them with lopsided factoids to ruin a country.  This is explained by a founder of modern psychology, William James, who noted that, “There is nothing so absurd that, if it is repeated often enough, will not become accepted.”  Josef Goebbels, the infamous propaganda minister of the Nazis, well understood this truism.

Hear Paul Craig Roberts: “Feminism is the intellectual organization of gender hatred, just as Marxism was the intellectual organization of class hatred.  The feminist aim is to overthrow ‘patriarchal tyranny.’  In this undertaking, the male’s civil rights count for no more than those of the bourgeoisie in Soviet Russia or the Jews in National Socialist Germany.”

  Leftist Feminists are pinning their hope now on forcing the U.S. to sign the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) treaty and promoting the new Millennium Declaration goals as a means of slipping in their pet causes.  They are turning to the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) to “promote political, economic and social empowerment of women.”  In Sweden, there is talk of establishing a Feminist political party.  Headed by Gudrun Schyman, it seems to be gaining traction.

Feminist-inspired politics are not only nonsensical, they can be positively dangerous.  An anecdote from Robert Baer’s, memoir, See No Evil illustrates the problem. When W. Baer was the CIA station chief in Tajikstan in 1994, he asked CIA headquarters to send him officers who spoke Dari and Pashtun, the principal languages of Afghanistan, so they could interview the thousands of refugees pouring across the border.  Mr. Baer was told no Dari or Pashtun linguists were available, but Langley would send out a four-member team to brief on the CIA’s new sexual harassment policy.

Feminists begrudge veterans’ benefits, conveniently ignoring the sacrifices of veterans, including the thousands of acres of graves of men killed defending the very existence of this country.  They are alive while many of their contemporary men are dead – killed in wars defending them.  Their wild demands would not be possible without these sacrifices.  Too many of our fighting men have been killed and injured in battle protecting our way of life to lose that way of life in outlandish pursuits.

Writer Jeffrey Jackson tells us that we are now seeing post-feminist “domestic divas” who seek the advantages of both the feminist and traditionalist worlds, as depicted in Desperate Housewives, i.e. the total equality feminism demands without the “drudgery” of housework.  While pockets of bias against women may remain, their straight-faced clamor for equality comes from an overall already superior position, even if artificially so.  May whatever gods there be grant the descent they clamor for.  But the price must be paid.  Further demands must topple existing favoritism.

In another context, Dr. Thomas Sowell put it best when he said, “In reality, the crusade for civil rights ended years ago.  The scramble for special privilege, for turf, and for image is what continues today under that banner and with that rhetoric…”  The tumor of Feminism is shrinking.  I think their party is about over, that we will soon enter a post-feminist world.  Feminist Maureen Dowd admits that Feminism has “curdled.”  Perhaps N.O.W. should change its title to T.H.E.N.

By defining between men and women in terms of power and competition instead of reciprocity and cooperation, the movement tore apart the most basic and fragile contract in human society.  This distorts the true perspective of male/female relationships and upsets the laws of nature with undesirable consequences.

The term “Feminism” is a misnomer because essentially the zeitgeist is to destroy all traces of femininity.  The term properly belongs in quotes, but that is ponderous.  It is difficult to know what to call members of this movement.  They object to the title “ladies” (appropriately so).  The term “women’s lib” has pretty much gone out of style.  Hitting the bull in the eye, Stu Miller says: “If feminism was really about ‘equality and creating a better world for everyone,’ why is it called ‘feminism’ and not ‘equalism?’  (It is probably for the same reason the Violence Against Women Act is not called the ‘Domestic Violence Prevention Act’).”  Calling them “anti-feminists” would be more accurate.

In all fairness, one must admit that many “equity Feminists” are motivated by legitimate concern.  Feeling they are under-contributing, they want alternatives.  Many are prepared to give up women’s privileges for men’s privileges.  Some are honestly making an effort to ensure equal rights for both men and women.  Sincere equity Feminists could be our allies.  Because women may be discriminated against in some areas and men definitely are in others, the rational elements of men’s lib and women’s lib have more in common than in contention.  If this is accepted, the only significant difference lies in the question of degree — who is discriminated against more — men or women?  Certainly, this shouldn’t prevent cooperation for mutual assistance.  (Rumor has it that Betty Friedan may even have been driven in her later years into this camp by a faction of man-hating upstarts.)  The sincerity of women’s libbers can be determined with one nitty-gritty question: Would you advocate fathers actually having equal rights to custody of their children in divorce?  They can prove their sincerity by changing their demands from “equal rights for women” to “equal rights for both sexes.”  If they do and mean it, this writer for one will be out in the streets with them.

Trying to argue rationally with radical gender feminists is like giving a bobcat a prostate exam.  You can’t do it.  Because of their utter lack of logic, they usually refuse debate.  It’s not that they would lose the argument; they have none.  Disagree libbers?  I’ll put up a team of three masculinists against any three of yours.  Make my day!

I define the “big media,” also referred to as “old media,” as that part of the mainstream or established media, electronic and printed, together with libraries and bookstores, all usually with a portside inclination, that controls the cathedral of journalism or what Lenin used to call “the commanding heights of the culture,” as opposed to the newer bloggers, cable TV, and other broader-minded outlets.  Mark Twain said “If you don’t read the newspapers, you are uninformed.  If you do read the newspapers, you are misinformed.”  Bad news drives out good news.  Movies and TV appeal to society’s lowest common denominator.  The hype over, and awards won by, 3rd rate film “Brokeback Mountain” featuring two bisexual shepherds (their occupation itself should be a clue) is exemplary. 

In pursuit of sensationalism, pack journalists breathlessly hyperventilate on allegations of rape, child abuse, etc., barking and pushing all the buttons, grandstanding like CNN’s Nancy Grace.  Fixating on male suspects, they seem willing to believe the worst of, and to sensationalize, any man who is accused of any sexual misconduct, be he politician, actor, priest or athlete.

Legal theory holds that suspects are presumed innocent; in reality the presumption of guilt automatically attaches to males, and the status of victim to female accusers.  Due process and reliable conclusions demand more than summary pronouncements of guilt as with the Queen of Hearts in “Alice in Wonderland.”

A PBS program Breaking the Silence in late 2005 was filled with incredible distortions blaming men exclusively for domestic violence.  One of the mothers portrayed as a victim turned out to be a serial child abuser.  Two ombudsmen at the Public Broadcasting Service itself, Ken Bode and Michael Getler, charged that Breaking the Silence claims were “slanted” against fathers, “incendiary,” and plain “wrong,” that “there was no recognition of opposing views,” and concluded the show was an “advocacy or point-of-view presentation.”  Further, that it “has been a launching pad for a very partisan effort to drive public policy and the law.”

Men are the victims of about 80% of the assaults and murders in America; yet from media reporting, one would think that sexual assault and rape are the major violent crimes.  The reality is that these latter are a small percentage of violent crime in America.  Sixty-two percent of child-killers are men.  While very few of them are fathers, the media frequently lumps these ordained villains in with mothers’ boyfriends and other caregivers, thus supporting arguments for mother custody.  For fatuous minds, facts do not matter.

Consider the media umbrage and fixation over the murder of such cause célèbre΄s as the pretty young North Dakota co-ed Dru Sjodin in May of 2004, over Natalee Holoway in Aruba in May and June 2005 (That practically became a new TV series), and over 17-year old Taylor Behl in September of 2005 (The conservative FOX TV network was the worst offender).  Remember the Princess Diana Festival of Grief several years ago?

In contrast, don’t expect to see this headline, “The disappearance of an ordinary-looking, middle-aged black man has riveted the nation’s attention.”  Relatively little concern is shown over the murder of men repeatedly driven over by the cars of angry wives or by the lingering death of the man impaled in a woman’s windshield and intentionally left to die an excruciating death.

In domestic assaults and rape allegations, the media and even the police routinely release names of alleged perpetrators, but never those of alleged victims, presumably because the former are primarily male and the latter primarily female (Remember, I said “alleged” victims and perps).  Use of the term “victim” before it has been established that a crime has been committed is prejudicial and patently unfair.  “Deadbeat Dads” is another favorite hobby horse.

There are exceptions: in the Kobe Bryant Colorado case the accuser was eventually named, but not until after the criminal case was dropped.  It was dropped because the charge couldn’t be proved, and because the accuser apologized to the police for lying about details of the “rape.”  In Alaska, Kim Tran, 35, was charged with first-degree assault, domestic violence and tampering with evidence.  Tran had cut off her boyfriends penis and flushed it down the toilet after he decided to leave her.  In an unusual application of tradition, the male victim’s name was not revealed.  ‘Bout time.

The Pew Research Center, a non-partisan organization, recently conducted a study of 547 journalists, 247 of whom worked at national-level outlets.  The conclusion: five times more journalists say they are liberal (read Feminist-oriented) than say they are conservative.  Only 7 percent of national journalists call themselves conservatives.  That bias is demonstrated by their largely subversive stance against the war on terrorism.

In his best-selling book Bias and Arrogance, former CBS news correspondent Bernard Goldberg criticized the pro-Feminist slant of the dominant media culture.  Stampeded by Feminists, the mainstream media are as obsequious to them as lawyers are to judges.  Pandering to the common bias, they follow the script, promoting and parroting it as if prophetic, functioning practically as its bulletin board.  The zeitgeist is to push women and minorities forward as high achievers, fighters, etc., beyond what’s real, manufacturing this image more than mirroring it.  Mona Charen said “Whole forests have given their lives so that the complaints of middle class young women could be enumerated, analyzed, deplored, and sulked about.”

Feminist spokeswomen are on the speed-dial of all TV producers, and their propaganda infests the public airwaves.  Media personnel not on the Feminist payroll are getting gypped.  Male writers hump the legs of Feminists and are as guilty as female colleagues.  It’s hard to tell if they cover Feminist doings or sponsor them.  Blinkered and taking at face value as received opinion most anything Feminists say, these acolytes seldom ask for the source to determine if the claim can be substantiated; dissenters have to disprove it.

An important reason the public is little aware of men’s issues is that men’s gripes and arguments, though more legitimate than Feminists’, are censored or denigrated (I’ve taken my share of cheap shots).  Consequently, I’m very cautious about interviews on gender issues these days.  For instance, years ago I appeared on Tom Snyder’s Tomorrow Show.  The best parts were left on the cutting room floor, and a file of evidentiary clippings I loaned the producers became “lost.”  Balance is feigned by publication of writings from anti-male male authors, arguably on the philosophical fringe of our movement, under the guise of “masculinist” material.  Big media makes them seem to outnumber legitimate defenders of men and fathers. 

Divorce can spoil children; often they become selfish little monsters, playing one affection-competing parent off against the other – being bought off with trips to Disneyland or the like.  Those old enough to choose which parent will have custody are really in the driver’s seat.  Many sell out to the highest bidder, which is usually Mom.  Dad is forced to become a “Saturday Santa.”  I have long referred to this heyday of a kid’s life as “Kawasaki time.”  The great wisdom which accrues to those who have seen the leaves change 16 or 17 times begets attitudes strange enough without being further messed up in single-parent families.

It might appear that a parental (read paternal) responsibility law, such as enacted in several Michigan cities, is the answer to delinquency.  Fifty years ago it would have been.  Today it is so overdue that it may be too late, because it is based on the now false premise that parents (read fathers) still have authority.  Because evisceration of his authority has left the married father with little control, and the divorced father with practically none, we are witnessing the advent of a chaotic reign of youth.  We see it everywhere, from the “children’s rights” movement to the pushing, grabbing, sneering teenagers encountered in every city and town; hence, the Martian-like hippies slouching around conforming to a non-conformist image.  There are more monkeys in juvenile court than in a zoo.  For every one you see, you can bet there is an absent father.  You will win far more bets than you will lose.  Prof. Amneus aptly calls them “The Garbage Generation,” and so titled one of his books.

Every relevant study indicates that children raised in single parent homes are more likely to exhibit pathological behavior than those who are not.  The direct, irrefutable correlation between mother-custody and personal problems is presented in a policy brief released in September 2005 by the Washington-based Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, and massively documented in Amneus   Garbage Generation, especially in the Annex to Chapter One.  Loss of paternal stability and discipline is catastrophic.  Most social aberrations – namely higher levels of youth suicide, low intellectual and educational performance, greater mental illness, violence and drug abuse – are associated with father-deprived children.  To these we can add, directly or indirectly, juvenile delinquency, dope addiction, prostitution, and a growing contempt for authority (poetic justice when directed toward the courts).

The police spend a good deal of time with adolescents who do not live with both of their biological parents.  The more serious property offenses are committed significantly more often by adolescents in single-mother families than by peers in intact families. Seventy-five percent of delinquents and most adult criminals are from broken homes.  Three quarters of prisoners in our jails come from female-headed families. The same pattern is found among drug users.  More than two-thirds of the criminal minors handled by the Florida Division of Youth Services are from broken homes.  Baltimore, Maryland, found 60 percent of their juvenile criminals from broken homes.  More than one in three children of broken families drop out of school.

The distinctive criminality of teens from broken homes stands out clearly in a criminological study sponsored by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHHD), based on data collected from a nationally representative sample of more than 20,000 adolescents in grades 7 through 12.  A 1990 survey from the National Center for Health Statistics found an ‘alarmingly high’ prevalence of emotional and behavioral problems among all children, with rates two to three times higher for single-parent and stepparent families than for intact families.

Female-headed households are a minority of households, but they generate over seventy percent of the criminal class.  A study made by the Bureau of Justice Statistics showed that 72 percent of incarcerated juvenile delinquents grew up in broken homes, mostly female headed; yet such single-parent homes are only 24 percent of all homes.  The ratios of delinquency between father-headed homes and mother-headed homes show that it takes eight hundred and fifteen intact homes to generate as much delinquency as is generated by one hundred broken homes, mostly female headed.

The foregoing studies confirm earlier ones.  Doctors Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck; (Harvard University) found the delinquency ratio of children living with mother only compared to living with father only to be about 3 to 1.  According to University of Minnesota Sociology Professor Emeritus, Starke Hathaway, Author of Adolescent Personality and Behavior, the delinquency rate of children living with mothers to those living with fathers is 28.67 to .42 for boys and 18.19 to 0 for girls.  Professor Hathaway told this writer that the statistics he quotes are adjusted to allow for the fact that many more children in broken homes live with the mother rather than the father.  For further corroboration, see the findings of Dr. Clyde Vedder; Dr. Richard Gordon, New Jersey psychiatrist: and any local juvenile authority reports.  Knowing this, auto insurance companies charge far higher premiums for boys living with mothers than for those living with their fathers.  In Social Problems magazine, James Skipper, Jr. and Charles McCaghy report that almost 60 percent of strip teasers they interviewed had no father in the home.

Fatherlessness and crime are linked not only due to a boy’s individual lack of a dad but also, more profoundly, due to his growing up in a neighborhood in which marriage is no longer a norm.  The single best predictor of a community’s level of violence is the proportion of single-parent families.  Remarkably, once family status is controlled for, neither race nor income has any effect on crime rate in a community.

Generally, the female anti-sociality of one generation underlies the male anti-sociality of the next generation, the “vector” for it being the female-headed family.  Hear Amneus , “Crime and delinquency are like hemophilia, manifested in males but carried and transmitted by females.  The empirical data on juvenile delinquency caused by maternal custody just confirms common sense.”

According to Getting Men Involved: The Newsletter of the Bay Area Male Involvement Network, 63 percent of youth suicides come from father-deprived homes, 90 percent of all homeless and runaway children are from father-deprived homes, 85 percent of all children exhibiting behavioral disorders come from father-deprived homes, 80 percent of rapists motivated by displaced anger come from father-deprived homes, 71 percent of all high school dropouts come from father-deprived homes, 75 percent of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from father-deprived homes, 70 percent of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from father-deprived homes, and 85 percent of all youths in prisons grew up in father-deprived homes.  Want recent examples?  Serial killer Lee Boyd Malvo was father-deprived, as was Jeff Weise the Red Lake Indian Reservation killer of 9 fellow high school students in March of 2005, and several others.

Juveniles are the fastest growing segment of the criminal population in the United States.  Between 1982 and 1991, the rate at which children were arrested for murder increased 93 percent; for aggravated assault, 72 percent; for rape, 24 percent; and for automobile theft, 97 percent.  The teen population is expected to grow by 20 percent over the next decade, and this is precisely the generation most likely to be reared without fathers.  The prospect has led many sociologists, criminologists, and law enforcement agencies to conclude that soon we will see an adolescent crime wave the likes of which has never been seen before in this country.  These kids are like time bombs ticking away.  We had better come out of our lethargy before our canoe goes over the waterfall.  One would have to be comatose to ignore the danger.

Gangs have been described as groups of boys who don’t know any men.  The Justice Department has estimated there are 21,400 gangs nationwide with 731,500 members.  Gangs have become sort of a cancer in this country says FBI Special Agent David Bowdich.  Becoming increasingly dangerous, gangs are into the drug trade and soon will be into terrorism.  A new survey by the National Alliance of Gang Investigators Association finds there are now gangs in every state but Vermont.  The Washington Times reports that now girl gangs are on the rise and becoming increasingly feral.  Brenda Scott says “There are numerous reasons kids join gangs…  Most young people who join gangs come from homes without fathers or any significant role models to enforce discipline.”

The phenomenon applies even to animals: in Africa when poachers killed off older bull elephants for their tusks, the young males went wild, ganging up like the kids in Lord of the Flies, and embarked on killing sprees targeting rhinos.  When rangers discovered the problem they killed the young leader and flew in several bull elephants who soon restored order.

Philosopher James Q. Wilson recognizes fatherlessness as the proximate cause of social problems, but fails to understand the ultimate cause is misdirected chivalry and misandry.  Former President Nixon blamed drug addiction among the young on defeatism.  He was partly correct; the young men are defeated — by the “rape of the male.”  The girls are naturally playing follow the leader; if the boys are defeated, so are they — becoming increasingly feral in the process.  Regrettably, this element prejudices many people against all young persons, including the great many sincere, commendable ones.

Adults.  Compounding the problems, juvenile delinquents grow to be adult criminals — because, as William Wordsworth wrote in 1807, “The child is father to the man.”  Measured by the FBI’s index, the crime rate has increased 158% since 1960.  This is almost precisely the results to be expected from correlating the divorce rate with broken home/delinquency rates, proving that the roots develop in childhood.  Dr. Shervert H Frazier, in a study of convicted murderers in Texas prisons and mental institutions, has this to say “…They are males with an absence of a father symbol.”

According to Dr. Fred B. Charatan, all seven presidential assassins, including those who attempted assassinations, and the killers of Reverend Martin Luther King and Senator Robert Kennedy, were “lacking fathers through death, divorce, work schedule, or a very poor paternal relationship”:  Richard Lawrence — would-be assassin of Andrew Jackson; John Wilkes Booth — assassin of Abraham Lincoln; Charles J. Guiteau — assassin of James Garfield; Leon F. Czolgosz — assassin of William McKinley; John N. Schrank — would-be assassin of Theodore Roosevelt; Giuseppe Zangara — would-be assassin of Franklin D. Roosevelt; Lee Harvey Oswald — assassin of John F. Kennedy; James Earl Ray — killer of Martin Luther King; Sirhan Sirhan — killer of Robert F. Kennedy; Dean Corn, the Houston mass-murderer; Lynette Fromme — would-be assassin of Gerald Ford.

Assuming government continues regulating domestic relations, laws regarding formal marriage ought to be more restrictive than those regarding divorce, not the present illogical reversal.  As it stands, a marriage license is easier to get than a drivers’ license or a hunting license.  I won’t propose a mandatory minimum marriage age, but young aspirants ought to be discouraged.  China recognizes the proper, almost mandatory ages as 25 for women and 28 for men.  India’s divorce rate proves marriages arranged by adult parents work out better than those by hot-blooded 20-year-olds.

Marriage requires licensing, but having children does not.  The reverse would be more sensible; but of course the very idea is impracticable as well as fascistic.  Nevertheless, mandatory premarital counseling to include the legal, sexual, financial, and other aspects should be required.  It is preferable to have attorneys involved before a marriage rather than after.  Premarital contracts, presently honored by the courts only if the female litigant wishes them to be, should be more closely adhered to.

Marriage should include strong, legally binding agreements requiring, where there are young children, counseling in the event of marital problems and a waiting period prior to divorce.  Covenant marriages are advisable.  When two people bring children into the world, their primary responsibilities shift, or should, from themselves to their children.  Even the liberal (not neo-liberal) John Locke said that the state should make parents stay together until the children are raised.  Unless marriage is permanent and sacred, it becomes an increasingly vulnerable and embattled institution that collapses before every temptation and crisis.  Any contract, including formal marriage, should ensure that each party has a legal and moral right to expect the other to comply with its terms, and that violators suffer consequences.

Divorce laws have been modified so often they are practically unrecognizable.  When you have patched a tire too many times, you start thinking about getting a new tire.  Domestic relations are too important, dignified, and delicate to be administered in the present manner.  They must be protected from barratry, exploitation, and aggravation.  Family integrity can better be preserved by just and competent administration, using constructive, intelligent approaches.  High offices carry with them the responsibility of making reasonable decisions and measuring up to standards above the abilities of many judges.

Family Arbitration Centers (FACs) were proposed by early divorce reformers in the 1960’s to remove divorce from the butcherous arena of the courts, and place it under the jurisdiction of various professional experts.  Granted, judicial duties can be strenuous and unenviable.  As many hostilities are vented in divorce court as in a prison full of Black Panthers.  As our present political climate manifests, you can’t please everybody.  However, if faced with a choice between a prejudiced judge and a prejudiced psychologist or social worker, I’d prefer the judge.  Theoretically there’s opportunity to appeal judicial decisions.  Bad judges can sometimes be voted out of office.

The strongest opposition to FACs came from the legal profession which fought to protect the divorce racket.  Additionally, it was unable to garner sufficient signatures to be placed on the California election ballot, which left reformers with one major question: what should be the rationale for divorce — fault or No-fault?  The question becomes, which is the lesser of two evils?

Because the exclusively “No-fault” concept is even worse than the old fault system, over thirty years ago this writer devised a solution dubbed “fault option.”  The idea was to alleviate instead of inflame basic conflict where possible, while preserving moral and legal rights.  It resolved the dilemma, utilizing the best, and eschewing the worst, of both fault and no-fault modes.  Under it, legislatures need not choose for citizens between the fault and no-fault modes; it is presumptuous for them to do so.  Today’s citizens aren’t children; they have evolved sufficiently to participate, to some degree anyhow, in the conduct of their own lives.  My proposal would permit the principals themselves to decide under which mode to proceed.  It would work thusly:

A. The No-fault mode would allow couples to avoid the destructive, mud-slinging and expensive atmosphere of adversary courts, obtaining their divorce from a court clerk on mutually consented terms, much as they got married.  This mode would apply only if both parties agreed to it and to the terms.

B. If agreement couldn’t be reached, the fault mode would apply, and the parties could go to the mat in court.  This would preserve the constitutional right of injured parties to redress grievances in court.  Injury and culpability would be factors in determining financial and property awards.  Either party could demand this mode apply.

By thus removing a large percentage of divorces from the courts, judicial workload would be cut sufficiently to function properly.  The Minnesota Legislature ignored the proposal, but similar proposals may have gained traction in other legislatures recently.

Mediation is strongly recommended before proceeding to the law and lawyers.  The right to jury trial must be reexamined.  The European inquisitorial system, wherein the judge has far more latitude to seek out facts for himself, is another logical alternative to the adversary system for domestic relations.

Application of the elementary behavioral principles – positive and negative motivation – is necessary for reform.  Presently, women initiate many divorces because they are positively motivated to do so by assurance of obtaining custody, alimony, support and the lion’s share of property, enforced by all the powers government can muster.  Conversely, men are coerced into supporting truant families by negative motivations.

A two track reversal of these motivational factors is necessary.  The first track provides positive motivations for men to carry out their genuine responsibilities.  The best positive motivations are guarantees of paternal rights and prohibition of unreasonable alimony and support.  The second track provides negative motivation for women to remain married by removing the positive motivations to divorce.  Wild horses couldn’t drag most women into divorce court if cases were judged solely on merit and they stood an equal chance of losing.

Proper use of motivation principles would result in:

·         many more fathers having child custody, drastically reducing the need for public assistance and support collections,

·         divorce itself being greatly reduced,

·         reduced juvenile delinquency and other aberrations due to reduced divorce and mother-custody rates,

·         those men without custody, but who lost fairly, being much more inclined to meet support obligations because they would pay only a fair amount of support and their visitation and other rights would be enforced, reducing even further the need for public assistance.

Nearly all needed reform measures fall into a common category – fairness to men – which admittedly relies heavily on interpretations of “fairness.”  Proper interpretation of fairness would require that:

·         because marriage is a lifetime contract, spouses aspiring to terminate it unilaterally without very good cause be prevented from absconding with the fruits of marriage,

·         merit, not sex, become the criterion for awarding custody, property and money,

·         responsibility for support be reasonably and equitably shared,

·         rights be enforced with equal vigor to that of responsibilities.

There are mighty few circumstances wherein an erstwhile mate planning to abscond, that is — leave without good and sufficient reason, has any moral right to take common assets with him or her, certainly not those owned by the other prior to marriage.  Some circumstances might justify a deferred, or post-marital, incremental settlement though.  An example is the case of a guiltless bride who sacrificed a career in order to work, thereby financing the husband’s education, which paid off handsomely.  Then it should not be called alimony, but her rightful share of a common investment, some of which hasn’t yet accrued.  Conversely, a divorced man might have something coming from a woman whose education or training he financed.  Property settlements should be flexible, taking into account such factors as premarital ownership, respective contributions to the estate, and – lastly – needs of the parties.

Because most temporary hearings are unnecessary, except in actual emergency situations (their real purpose is usually to order several hundred dollars – at least – to one or both lawyers), they should be allowed only in emergency situations.  To be Constitutional, rules of evidence must apply in evictions.  Otherwise there’s too much abuse of process.  Any party aspiring to shed a mate, and unable to prove that mate’s presence to be dangerous, ought to be the party removed at a temporary hearing.  If safety were the consideration, it would be more reasonable if the party feeling threatened voluntarily left.  The September, 1974, advice of Judge Archie Simonson of the Dane County Family Court, of Madison, Wisconsin, to cease routine ex parte removal of husbands, should be precedent for every court in the land.

Any state generous enough to provide for guardians ad litem should he required to pay the costs of such generosity.

Contrary to the ACLU and the Supreme Court, separation of church and state shouldn’t require rejection of all moral considerations.  Thomas Jefferson’s phrase, ‘wall between church and state,’ does not appear in the Constitution, and even if it did it would not require rejection of morality.  If the law can prohibit gambling, prostitution, and selling merchandise on Sunday, it can recognize moral turpitude as a factor in divorce and custody.  The legislation of morality is either prohibited by the First Amendment or it is not; we should not have a double standard.

While politicians are nearly all of the same sanctimonious mold when it comes to domestic reform, there are exceptions.  Some with both feet on the ground occasionally propose legislation to reform the system, but the incessant battering of opposing forces demolishes most reform proposals like pieces of china in a bull shop (as mentioned above in So. Dakota).  Iowa may set a good example for other states in national family politics.  Its shared parenting legislation may have national implications.  Though the Democrat party line had previously been against it, the bill passed the Iowa Senate unanimously, and was signed by Democrat Governor Thomas Vilsack.  Iowa Republican U.S. Senator Charles Grassley, original lead sponsor of the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act (PRRA), is reputed by many to be the most pro-family member of the US Senate.

The government must come to recognize the stability that a father brings to a family and society.  President George W. Bush has publicly acknowledged his belief in the importance of marriage.  His administration has called for $360 million a year to be spent on pro-marriage research and activities as part of welfare reform, but the legislation is tied up in a quarrelsome senate.

The following policy statement was adopted by the Conservative Party of Canada on March 19, 2005 at their convention in Montreal: “A Conservative government will make the necessary changes to the Divorce Act to ensure that in the event of a martial breakdown, the Divorce Act will allow both parents and all grandparents to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children and grandchildren, unless it is clearly demonstrated not to be in the best interests of the children.”  The policy was adopted with strong support and almost no opposition.

Courts can do right also; in May 2004 the California Supreme Court acted to give courts the power to restrain proposed move-aways by custodial parents that are harmful to children.

The concept of the inherently inferior male must be eliminated, in law as well as in society.  To change things, we must first understand them.  Simplistic suggestions for reform usually advocate changing “the law,” but most law is fair on its face.  What needs changing is biased application of the law.  Although the proposed Equal Rights Amendment theoretically guarantees equal rights to men, the interpretations of it have been so utterly unacceptable that it probably shouldn’t be adopted without amendments permitting the acknowledgment of reasonable distinction between the sexes. 

The enormous reservoir of anti-male sentiment makes judicial and social reform incredibly difficult.  Basic philosophy needs re-examination.  “Legal” and “illegal” must be made to more closely conform to right and wrong, not just in domestic relations but across the board.  Confused, contradictory law must be examined in light of the underlying moral issue.

Reason demands consistency of law application.  A crime is a crime.  One set of litigants must not receive different treatment than another.  All laws, including prohibitions against adultery and alienation of affection, ought to be strictly enforced.  If the laws are obsolete, change them.  Ulysses S. Grant said, “I know of no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution.”

In crime deterrence, the eye-for-an-eye principle may never be surpassed; but retribution must be sex-blind.  Actual sex offenders ought to be isolated and harshly treated; seven states and counting allow castration.  I have no objection if the subjects are actually guilty.  I’d like to see “BTK” killer Dennis Rader subjected to the same tortures he inflicted on his female victims.  The rub is that many so-called guilty men are actually innocent, or at least not proven guilty.

Even outside of domestic relations the adversary system can be a disservice.  Accused law violators can be mad-dog killers, innocent victims of circumstance, or something in-between.  Whichever they are, there is a lawyer trying his damndest to make them out to be the opposite, and he will prevail far too often.  As prosecutors say, ‘You can indict a ham sandwich.’  This system is claimed by those making a livelihood from it to be the lesser of two evils.  Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn’t.

On the bright side, DNA testing has been a boon to men.  With its advent many prisoners are being freed after wrongful convictions.  The pace of exonerations has jumped sharply, from about 12 a year through the early 1990s to an average of 43 a year since 2000 according to a study by the University of Michigan.  There have been at least 328 exonerations since 1989 and about half of those since 1999 were based on DNA evidence.  Innocence Projects – there are at least 41 – are constantly uncovering instances of wrongly imprisoned men, many having been incarcerated over 20 years.  The Cardozo School of Law’s Innocence Project, among other efforts, used DNA evidence to exonerate 163 innocent people (read men).  Newspapers and the internet abound with such stories.  As he left office in January 2003 Illinois Republican Governor, George Ryan, imposed a moratorium on executions in Illinois after DNA testing found that 13 prisoners on death row there were innocent.  Unfortunately, a move is afoot by ambitious prosecutors to greatly restrict the accuseds’ access to DNA testing.

Methods, such as public referendums, to bypass legislative self-interest groups might be advisable.  Veterans losing families in the service of their country ought to be compensated, just as if they had lost an eye or a limb (Full disclosure: I would personally benefit from such a measure.  I would rather have lost an arm or leg in the Korean War than my kids).  This also applies to bluenose DUI laws – aimed primarily at men.  The allowable blood-alcohol content of these laws is set so low it could almost obtain by walking past a saloon (To counter the Mothers Against Drunk Driving organization – MADD, I have considered founding DDAM – Drunk Drivers Against Mothers).

Shakespeare’s character, Dick the Butcher, said, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”  While that may be a little drastic, some form of control must be instituted.  If we can’t throw these moneychangers out of the temple, we must at least reform them.  Their license to steal must be revoked, even if some have to go back to peddling encyclopedias.  Lawyers must be servants, not masters, of justice.  The notion that the courts exist primarily for the benefit of lawyers must go, and ethics which really reject cheating must be implemented.  The Jail for Judges organization is hotly pursuing judicial corruption.  Their “Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.),” recently rejected by So. Dakota voters due to wording manipulation by state government officials, would have created a special grand jury for the purpose of determining whether judges civilly sued as a result of blatant judicial offences should be stripped of immunity and whether they should be indicted for criminal violations.

There is legitimate concern over the troubling conflict between parental rights and governmental authority, however it is important that the rights of citizens be respected.  William Pitt the Elder quotes Thomas Jefferson thusly: “The poorest man in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the crown.  It may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it, the storm may enter, the rain may enter, but the King of England cannot enter.  All of his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined cottage.”

To understand how society arrived at its present state, we have to go back in history — way back.  The early eons of human existence were savage.  The female mammalian kinship system, which originated in the Mesozoic Era when the dinosaurs were young, some two hundred million years ago, held sway.  “Families” were matriarchal, composed of females and children fathered by predatory, comparatively better provisioned males.

The sex urge, strongly inherent in both sexes and as yet uninhibited, meant promiscuity was rampant.  According to Feminist attorney Riane Eisler, prehistoric society was one vast sex cult.  “Puritanism,” says Alain Danielou, “is totally unknown in the primitive or natural world.”  That is why it is primitive and natural.

Each sex needed what the other had by nature; women could provide children, while men could provide food, shelter and protection.  Perceiving the advantages of mutual support and cooperation, probably around the Stone Age, the sexes gradually initiated exclusive relationships (much later formalized as marriages).

Under this ages-old ‘Gender Contract ’ (if I may coin the term), each sex made necessary sacrifices to benefit the other: females gave fidelity; males gave hard work, often resulting in death, injury and shortened lives.  Females received security, and males received legitimate, inalienable children, and in its ideal form still do.  Our ascent from the cave began; permanent families were created, monogamous and patriarchal in nature.  Civilization was born – warlike though it often was.  Nevertheless, in some locations sexual promiscuity lasted even into Biblical times; Sodom and Gomorrah are examples.

While Professor Stephen Goldberg posits that the transition to civilized norms was inevitable, Margaret Mead and Professor Amneus looked further into the matter.  Unlike Judge Noland, they recognized the vitally important point that the earlier matriarchal relationships were natural, and the later patriarchal ones were artificial.

The female role, says Mead, “is a biological fact, the male role a mere social creation…”  Amneus agreed that the male role was contrived to prop up their weaker position, and carried Mead’s insight far beyond what other philosophers had considered.  He demonstrated that patriarchy, the male kinship system, relative prosperity and the dawn of civilization emerged simultaneously, and is quite obviously mutually dependent, that the male kinship system depends not on biological heredity but on social heredity.  He showed that the great discovery of patriarchy was that sex could be put to work to create civilization by allowing men to be sociological fathers that the very fabric of society depends on viability of this delicate structure – the Gender Contract.  Even today, men work exceedingly hard in exchange with women for sex and family.

Anthropologist Lewis Morgan’s theory of marital evolution generally agrees with that of Amneus.  He posits that among civilized people one finds monogamy built on patriarchal rule, and on chastity and fidelity among the women.  Cornelia Skinner said “Women’s virtue is man’s greatest invention.  She’s right; one might say civilization is premised upon women’s virtue.  Ronald Immerman of Case Western University agrees, in a 2003 issue of the journal Evolutionary Psychology.

Erosion of the Gender Contract began with the ascendance of the feminine, the advent of androgyny and misandry, and the modern sexual revolution.  Change was confused with progress, unmoored from reality. 

To this day, manageable society requires maintenance of the conditions of the pragmatic Gender Contract.  Where these conditions exist, society is stable and peaceful.  Where they don’t, they aren’t.  Crime statistics show that patriarchal countries like Japan and Switzerland, where fatherlessness is rare, have a crime rate only a fraction of that in matriarchal countries like the United States; and they’re outpacing, economically and educationally, countries that have embraced matriarchy.  The U.S. murder rate is 6 times that of Japan.  Plainly, patriarchal societies (with the qualified exception of the Middle-East) are civilized; matriarchal societies are less so.

The western patriarchal advantage may be difficult to comprehend in changing societies, because of institutionalized habit and the generations-long time lag.  That, for example, is why Sweden and Holland remain relatively civilized after rejecting Patriarchy.

There is an exception to the general beneficence of Patriarchy.  In the western world it was benign, and still is so – where it exists; but centuries ago it took a religion-based divergent path in Arabia, becoming un-benign practically to the point of lunacy.  The desperation of living in Muslim and communist countries negatively affects men and boys even more than it does females.  It is important that disillusioned young Islamic males be saved from the dangerous clutches of psychotic radicalism.  We can only pray that western society will not regress to its pre-civilized state, under siege not only from deterioration within but also from without.

Although the idea may be shocking to some, routine paternal custody in divorce would practically wipe out delinquency and eventually crime.  There is no better police force than millions of un-emasculated fathers.  Discipline is not normally a maternal quality.  Generally mothers are known to pamper children, while the father is the one person readily available who is physically, emotionally, and reasonably capable of maintaining order.

A poet once said “One father is a hundred schoolmasters.”  Because behavior patterns are formed in childhood, because authority and discipline are more vital to civilized development than most other conditions and more lacking in father-deprived families, because males naturally and more positively project these images and are generally less neurotic than females; therefore, in single-parent environments the paternal environment may be more important than the maternal.

Buttressing his ‘Drunk Driver’ argument, Professor Amneus made a compelling case for automatic father custody by citing our past more civilized society when such was the case.  Admittedly, his thesis presents new opportunity for abuse, but probably less than does present practice.  Evidently, he anticipated that men would rise to the challenge if this responsibility were thrust upon them.  Even if one could wave a magic wand and implement total father custody, it would take generations to undo the damage of past custodial practices.

A big advantage of paternal custody is that it motivates both parents against divorce.  Mothers don’t want to lose children, and fathers need a housekeeper.  According to Phyllis Chesler, “Divorce is especially rare among those tribes where custody is retained by fathers.”

Of course kids aren’t ‘nothing but money,’ however a father has to think of them that way in a divorce.  If he thinks emotionally, he will be even more likely to lose either custody or money or both, usually both.  Charlie Metz, God bless him, taught me that.

Sometimes one has to take matters into one’s own hands.  One method is “bicycle custody.”  Kids who are mature enough to know where they want to live, but ordered elsewhere by courts, can live where they darn well please despite the machinations of the entire legal system.  After all, what can they do with a kid who keeps jumping on his bicycle and pedaling off to Dad’s pad?  Damn little!  One caution – informing children of this right must be done very carefully, lest the court find out and charge the person doing so with “contempt” or some such crime.  Years ago when I was an active divorce counselor, Ramsey County Minnesota Family Court Referee Kubes became hysterical when a friend of mine brought his thirteen-and-one-half year old son to a temporary hearing to express his (ignored) preference for paternal custody.  Next day I picked the boy up in front of his mother’s house (He just “happened” to be out there hitchhiking) and delivered him to his father, where he remained into adulthood.  He’s now a well-adjusted man and good father.

Although it will be anathema to sex-melders, there are givens in nature.  Males and females of most species are vastly different physically and anatomically, and – especially in the human species – emotionally and psychologically.  The differences – averages, I hasten to add – are biologically rooted, and for those who believe in The Creator, divinely ordained.

There are obvious, inherent natural male and female characteristics, “as any fool kin plainly see” (apologies to Li’l Abner).  To deny this is to deny science, behavioral and biological, as well as the evidence of one’s own powers of observation.  Jonathan Swift said “There is none so blind as they that won’t see.”  Even Betty Friedan has somersaulted, admitting “Women aren’t male clones.”

An enormous literature on sexual differences has been piling up for 30 years or more.  One would be hard pressed to find in biological literature an instance of identical behavior of the males and females of any species.  Sure, lionesses do most of the hunting and killing, but that relates to my wife doing the grocery shopping.  Lions still rule the pride.  Despite the five pound handicap in favor of fillies (female horses) racing against colts (male horses), only three fillies ever won the Kentucky Derby: Regret (1915), Genuine Risk (1980) and Winning Colors (1988).  The fact that these universals transcend divergent animal groups and human cultures suggests that there must be more than a cultural basis for these sex differences.  These distinctive, natural characteristics, predominant in each sex, are the result of eons of evolution, not of recent adverse sociological discrimination.

Adult men are on average 10 percent larger than women, with twice the muscle mass of women, and perform two to four times better in tests of strength.  Only the top 5 percent of women can perform at the male median.  The typical woman in her twenties has the aerobic capacity of a 50-year-old man.  Males grow facial hair.  Baby boys are usually larger and heavier than baby girls.  Additionally, men’s maximum oxygen intake is higher than women’s, and they bruise less easily.  On the other hand, women average 5 inches shorter, have half the upper body strength and lighter skeletons.  The primary reason for these differences lie in the male hormone, androgen.  “Frailty, woman is thy name.” said Shakespeare.  In view of these facts, and considering their proclivity to get pregnant, it makes little sense to use women in combat.

Women have more resistance to disease, possibly because of larger cortin-producing adrenal glands and to having two “X” sex chromosomes, instead of one X and one Y chromosome as do men.  Every cubic centimeter of women’s blood has a million-and-a-half fewer red blood corpuscles than men’s.  Women’s blood is 80 percent water; men’s blood is 75 percent water.  Women’s hearts (which average two ounces smaller) beat 😯 times a minute, men’s 72.  In relation to her size, a woman’s stomach is larger than a man’s, so she gets hungry more often.  According to Jennifer Virgas, writing for Discovery News on Aug. 2, 2004, men and women see colors differently.  Women are far less likely to be color-blind than men — one man out of 25 is color-blind, but only one woman in 250.  A smaller portion of men’s bodies than of women’s is erogenous.  Females’ tear ducts are almost twice as active as those of men; they cry more frequently and more easily than men.  Barton Goldsmith, Ph.D., MFT claims that women speak at a rate of 250 words per minute; men speak at 125.  Although men’s vocal chords are longer and thicker, women on average speak 25,000 words per day, contrasted with a man’s average 12,000 (perhaps that’s why they usually get the last word).

Men’s qualities are positive, overt, and easier to define.  Man is essentially active; woman essentially passive.  Women’s qualities are more subtle and intangible, but equally important.  The “feminine mystique” is a compendium of characteristics not nearly so undesirable as claimed by Betty Friedan XE “Friedan” .  Edythe Cudlipp admits that “men are the logical sex and women are the emotional sex.”  Writer Dennis Prager said “The emotionality of the women jurors in the Menendez brothers’ trials is exemplary: all six women jurors in the Erik Menendez trial voted to acquit him of the murder of his father (all six males voted guilty of murder).  A virtually identical breakdown by sex took place in brother Lyle Menendez’ trial for the murder of their mother.  The women all had compassion for the brothers despite their confessions to the shotgun murders of their parents.”  Prager continues, “Virtually every car I ever have seen display the bumper sticker ‘War is not the answer’ was driven by a woman.”  That sentiment embodies leftist feminine emotionality.  Ann Coulter – a brilliant political analyst – said, “This is what happens when you allow women to think about public policy.”

Researchers who have explored the subject of sex differences from every conceivable angle and organ say that, yes there are a host of discrepancies between men and women: in their average scores on tests of quantitative skills, in their attitudes toward math and science, in the architecture of their brains, in the way they metabolize medications, including those that affect the brain. Millions of men and relatively few women subscribe to sports magazines or watch athletic events on TV.

Experiments at Baltimore’s Johns Hopkins Hospital, and in Russia and Britain, summarized in a U.N.E.S.C.O. report, indicate that intelligence is a factor of the quantity of male sex hormones in the fetus.  Male testosterone provides extra aggression and drive, resulting in achievement.  The large mental difference between men and women is scientifically explained in the book Brain Sex, published by Michael Joseph in London, England.  The information therein was verified in the Sept. ’92 issue of Scientific American Special Issue-Mind and Brain…Sex…

The rhythms and compulsions of the sexes are dissimilar.  Men’s brains are more compartmentalized, designed for single-minded tasks such as hunting.  Author George Gilder says “… men need jobs, both for psychological affirmation and for socialization, far more than do women”.  Dr. Florence A. Ruderman, Assistant Professor of Sociology at Brooklyn College in New York, claimed that males, not females, have the greater psychological and biological needs to achieve and dominate.

Normal men desire to mate with beautiful women (I will tip a pretty waitress much more than my wife will), while normal women desire to mate with rich, powerful men.  Dr. Paul Cameron, a Maryland psychologist, reported to the Midwestern Psychological Association that, based on his exhaustive research, “Men like sex a lot more than women do.”  Mating with beautiful women has pitfalls, however.  While some can be intelligent, they are in the minority.  We men are fools for beauty.  Though one must admire The Creator’s handiwork, pretty women without the intelligence to handle those looks are like kids with loaded guns – very dangerous.  Getting by on looks alone, many have escaped the need to develop intelligence.  The man whose wife is a shrew deserves her, just as citizens deserve their corrupt officials.

Differences between the sexes have also been scientifically established by two well-qualified female researchers, Professor Eleanor Emmons Maccoby, Chairman of Psychology Department at Stanford University, and Carol Nagy Jacklin, Research Associate at Stanford University.

Although the Stanford tests were restricted to children, where the differences are slighter, the findings were that boys are more aggressive than girls, girls have greater verbal ability than boys, boys excel in visual-spatial ability and in mathematical ability, boys are more active, boys are more competitive, boys are more dominant, and girls are more compliant.

The Denver-based Education Commission of the States conducted a government-financed study known as the National Assessment of Educational Progress.  After analyzing tests given to nearly 900,000 students and young adults across the U.S., the commission’s researchers concluded that men have a clear edge over women in most areas of academic achievement.

Like some other studies, the commission’s report shows that in science, mathematics, social studies and citizenship — four of the eight areas studied — the sexes are roughly equal at age 9.  But by age 13, girls fall behind in these areas of study in a relative decline that continues through adolescence and into adulthood.  In reading ability and knowledge of literature, girls are ahead of boys until about age 17, but the same pattern of relative decline shows up as they grow older.  The National Assessment finds the “male lead in mathematics ‘overwhelming.’  Nine-year-old girls do as well as boys in basic arithmetic but lag later in geometry and exercises dealing with measurement.  Strangely, though girls can match boys in arithmetic and are better than boys at reading, they do worse on “word problems” involving simple computations, such as determining the lowest per-ounce price for a box of rice …”

Only in writing ability and music do females outperform males in later years.  Liberator writer Muldoon X joked that if women were as intelligent as men they wouldn’t need affirmative action.  Such jokes, and that’s all they are, are not well-received.

There is persistent finding that men tend to prefer working with ‘things,’ avoiding fields with a high social component, while women tend to prefer working with people and in fields with a high social dimension.  The entire anthropological record offers not a single notable example of a society in which women have better spatial-reasoning skills and men the better verbal skills, in which females are fixated on objects and how to manipulate them and men on feelings and sensibilities.

A simple experiment should end any speculation that hand/eye coordination differences between the sexes is a learned thing would be to have a dozen male and a dozen female basketball players line up at a free-throw line, and each take a dozen shots at the basket.  Better yet, use non-basketball-players.  I think you’ll find that the males score more often.

Some excellent works prove the distinctions: As Nature Made Him by John Colapinto (HarperCollins), Taking Sex Differences Seriously by Steven E. Rhoads (Encounter Books), The Biological Basis for Gender-Specific Behavior by Gregg Johnson a Professor of Biology at Bethel College in Minnesota, and Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood.

Even less desirable human behaviors such as rape, violence, and warfare, are often mere extremes or mutations of our very sexual essence.  Johnson tells us that “Among most higher social mammals, males are more aggressive than females and take dominant leadership roles in social groups.  Males are more territorial.  Males tend to build hierarchical social order.  Females of most groups studied are not as driven by competitive, territorial or hierarchical urges… [and are] less confrontive and combative and more interested in building and maintaining social bonds.  They are peacemakers and conformists to group expectations.  Anthropologists find similar kinds of universal sex-specific behaviors among human cultures.  Of two hundred fifty cultures studied, males dominate in almost all.”  These differences are natural, “hard-wired,” and fundamental to the survival and progress of the human race.  It is only logical that there be separate functions determined by these differences.

The biological polarity between the sexes is essential to life itself.  Indeed past civilizations that lost these distinctions have ceased to exist.  In a survey of 2,000 different cultures Charles Winick, Professor of Anthropology and Sociology at the City University of New York, found that some fifty-five were characterized by sexual ambiguity.  Not one of those cultures has survived.  This is further corroborated by studies of eighty primitive and civilized societies conducted by Oxford Professor J. D. Umuin, and by the studies of Harvard Professor Emeritus Carle Zimmerman.

Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family in his best seller Bringing up Boys writes:

The unisex movement prevailed until the late 1980s when it fell victim to medical technology.  The development of magnetic resonance imaging and PET (positron emission tomography) scans allowed physicians and physiologists to examine the functioning of the human brain in much greater detail.  What they found totally destroyed the assertions of Feminists.  Men’s and women’s brains looked very distinct when examined in a laboratory.  Under proper stimulation they “lit up” different areas, revealing unique neurological processes.  It turns out that male and female brains are ‘hardwired’ differently, which along with hormonal factors accounts for behavioral and attitudinal characteristics associated traditionally with masculinity and femininity…  Unfortunately, the ideas that were spawned in the seventies and perpetuated in a different form today are deeply ingrained in the culture, even though they have never made sense.  Many parents are reluctant or ill-equipped to teach their boys how they are different from girls or what their masculinity really means.  There is also a new source of confusion emanating from the powerful ‘gay’ lobby.

Feminists, mod/libs and homosexuals to the contrary, the sexes are not interchangeable.  Androgyny is abnormal.  Granted, some persons are mentally or hormonally of the opposite sex.  On the rare occasion when a woman does become a high achiever she usually almost reaches masculinity, losing her femininity.  It is because of her loss of femininity that men do not feel attracted to such a woman.  It has nothing to do with the fact that she is successful.  As mentioned earlier in Part I Sex Roles…, some women can out-lift some men.  Others can meet the rigid qualifications of an airline pilot.  Astronaut Eileen Collins seems to be such a woman; yet I’ll bet my bottom dollar there were better qualified male candidates available when she was picked for the job.  Even she cut short her career to return to hearth and home.

This is not to insist that all humans exhibit these differences.  Stereotypes aren’t always valid.  There are exceptions to every rule which make strict adherence to norms an oversimplified and unfair solution.  Because some women can match some men in some respects, it is illogical – reasoning from the specific to the general – to claim or imply that all women can do so.

Incredible pressure is put upon government agencies, like NASA, to conform to affirmative action quotas.  I recall a very exceptional lady, one of my flight students with a dual personality.  Sometimes she acted like a second mate and was better at business than most men; but when she wanted to be feminine she appeared highly attractive.  Recently I flew on an airplane staffed by a male steward and a female First Officer.  Neither exhibited outward signs of hormonal imbalance, but it might be interesting to peek inside their heads.

A couple other personal anecdotes regarding gender perceptions may be instructive.  An airline stewardess friend of mine says that stewardesses are much more amenable to taking orders from a male steward than from other stewardesses.  As a member of the local American Legion Honor Guard, I once attended an elementary school patriotic program.  Female teachers had some minor difficulty controlling a few kids, who settled down immediately when a male teacher approached.

Male dominance is universal, and most women want their men to be more dominant, not less.  According to the psychologist Karl Menninger, for every woman who complains to her shrink that her man is a brute there are a dozen who complain that he is a wimp — incapable of acting like a father who takes charge, accepts responsibility and gets things done.  Surveys have shown that most college women prefer dominant and aggressive men.  Oh, for the days when men were men and women were glad of it!

Genesis 1:27 says “male and female he created them.”  I submit that homosexuality is unnatural, antithetical to manhood and marriage, and a hallmark of the deterioration of societies (although it’s impolite to point that out).  It is for these reasons the subject is germane to the men’s/fathers’ movement.  While the terms, true men and manhood, are highly subjective and do not necessarily imply the deer-slayer type, they definitely exclude homosexuals (According to homosexual lore, this exclusion would attach to Walt Whitman, Frederick the Great, arguably to Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar, as well as Napoleon).

No longer “the love that dare not speak its name,” this perversion is out of the closet with a vengeance.  It’s a sign of the times.  Probably the most cognizant, articulate spokesman for that sector is Andrew Sullivan.  Paul Popenoe, President of the American Institute of Family Relations, says “Homosexuality has increased to almost epidemic proportions.”  On the other hand, despite the publicity surrounding morally defective priests buggering altar boys, less than 5% of the population is homosexual or bisexual.  Obviously therefore, the homosexual influence is far beyond what their numbers would justify. 

Such deviant sexual appetites have become cause for celebration, and critics are castigated as bigots.  Criticism is politically incorrect, usually termed “homophobia.”  But that term is a misnomer because its denotation is fear of homosexuals.  The feeling that homosexuality is wrong is not a phobia, it’s an opinion.  No one fears homosexuals; decent people are simply revolted by their disgusting sexual practices.  In writing about Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, the New Oxford Review had this to say, “Sticking your you-know-what up someone’s rectum is ugly, gross, smelly, unhygienic, and nauseating…”  When they do it in the streets and frighten the horses, it’s time to call a halt.  Their predilection toward pedophilia is equally disgusting.  To dignify such behavior as an “alternate life style” is like equating bestiality with kindness to animals, and to say that homosexuals “fall in love” is to grossly distort the meaning of the word “love.”

Public schools indoctrinate children on the ‘normality’ of homosexuality.  In November 2004, Congress approved a $388.4-billion budget laden with ‘pork.’  One of the more offensive items was $80,000 for the ‘San Diego Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Community Center.’  This at the behest of Rep Susan A, Davis (D. – Calif).  The budget also included a National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) grant of  $15,000 for the Iris Feminist Collective in Berkley, California.  These are just some of the many federal expenditures for nonsense causes that do more harm than good.  Occidental College in Los Angeles offers a range of nauseating claptrap including “phallologocentrism.”

The Boy Scouts of America’s creed requires boys to be “morally straight” and refers to The Creator.  They oppose homosexual scoutmasters, not out of discrimination but in protection of boys.  This offends homosexuals, atheists and the ACLU who have been attacking the Scouts for over a decade.  Fortunately, the Supreme Court upheld the Scouts’ right to free association.  But, frightened by warnings from the ACLU, the Pentagon has warned military bases not to sponsor the Scouts.  Now, it is revealed, the Pentagon is considering a legal change to its definition of sodomy.  The office of the general counsel has proposed decriminalizing consensual sodomy among adults, changing a 55-year-old policy (It seems we have cowards in charge of protecting the country).

Fortunately, the Scouts have friends demanding a return to sensibility; on February 9, 2005, the U.S. House passed by an almost unanimous vote, 418-7, a resolution (H. Con. Res. 6) urging the Defense Department to continue its long standing support of the Scouts (the 7 nay-sayers: Earl Blumenauer, D-OR; Barney Frank, D-MA; Dennis Kucinich, D-OH; Barbara Lee, D-CA; Jim McDermott, D-WA; Pete Stark, D-CA; Lynn Woolsey, D-CA).  The American Legion, of which I am a proud member, has also taken up the cause of the Scouts.

The term “gay” is another misnomer, a desperate cover-up for a sad situation.  Most homosexuals live lives of quiet desperation and self-hatred; in equating American Christian patriots with terrorists, lesbian Rosie O’Donnell seems to have projected her self-hatred onto the whole country.  Multiple studies have shown they are at a high risk of suicide.  Research also indicates very high levels of violence in relationships and of sexually-transmitted disease.  A recent report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says that from 2000 to 2003 new HIV and AIDS diagnoses, the “wages of sin,” rose 11 percent among homosexual and bisexual men, the largest victim categories (Talk about a “terrible swift sword”).  This worldwide concern is over-concern I dare say.

Like Feminists, homosexuals have hijacked the civil rights cause.  It is disingenuous to compare civil rights for homosexuals to those for minorities.  Voluntarily deviant behavior does not deserve the same considerations as involuntary skin color.  Promoting perversion as a civil right is obscene.    

It is a self-evident concept that marriage be between a man and a woman.  This principle was upheld by passage of many state referendums to that effect in the national elections of November 2004.  Demanding to have homosexual couplings afforded the dignity of marriage is to expect social approval equivalent to that between two persons of opposite sex – the Good Housekeeping seal of approval.  Their world is a state of hyper–sexuality not conducive to relationships which marriage is intended to foster; the institution is denigrated.  If such marriages become accepted the floodgates will open.  Polygamy, inter-alia, would be next.  Then Katie bar the door.  The ACLU and Libertarians are already aboard.  Further, the increasingly popular fad of homosexual parenting operates to the clear detriment of society. I’m admittedly no expert on the cause/s of homosexuality (who is?), and I have had friends, colleagues and relatives, victims of this malady.  Almost without exception, they seem to come from dysfunctional families — either an overbearing mother or father, or no father, certainly not a normal, attentive father; and almost always there is an unnatural fixation on their mothers.  It wouldn’t surprise me if lesbians likewise had either a strong attraction or revulsion toward their fathers.

The undeniable talent of many homosexuals’ may be a reaction to, or compensation for, unpleasant childhood.  Like interracial marriages, their affliction might also be caused partially by rebellion against parents, or society, or both.  Therefore it would appear that homosexuality can either be a “choice” or not.  Either way, psychiatry may be the cure.

No doubt, these words will be interpreted as “hating” homosexuals.  On the contrary, I feel sorry for them and deplore the environment that caused their affliction.  One of my favorite writers is a lesbian and I suspect a political heroine is latently so.

The men’s rights movement is often dismissed as a “bunch of angry men.”  Of course we’re angry, and justifiably so, just as Jews are angry about their treatment at the hands of Nazis.  The men’s/fathers’ movement, the struggle for men’s rights, is positive, not a reaction to women’s lib, though it’s true we must drain the Feminist swamp.  The prevailing level of discourse on the subject of men’s defense, especially by newly divorced men, was and still is comparable to that of illiterate 14th century peasants speculating on the cause of plague.

To many men it might seem that they don’t have a dog in this fight, but they do; read Martin Niemoller’s admonition in the introduction to Save the Males.  Reform sympathizers are many but relatively silent.  Victims of the ‘rape of the male’ cry out only when their ox is being gored, almost never before or after.  Quoting the greats: Edmund Burke, an 18th century Irish philosopher and statesman remembered principally for his criticism of the French Revolution, said “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”  Ronald Reagan (The man who fired me in the PATCO massacre) said “If not us, who?  If not now, when?”

“My country right or wrong” is often nonsense; to accept things as they are requires more puerility than patriotism.  And outright condemnation, though easy, is equally wrong.  Muttering to each other on poker night is insufficient.  Barstool philosophy is rampant, but ineffective.  Many changes must be made before this country again deserves the title “Land of the Free.”  “Love it or leave it” are not the only alternatives.  It will be one of the most intense and difficult confrontations of our lifetime, a responsibility of biblical proportions – yet absolutely unavoidable if we are going to restore equal rights and dignity for men.