Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Anti-Father Police State
MensNewsDaily.com ^ | December 23, 2003 | Stephen Baskerville

Posted on 12/25/2003 5:04:53 AM PST by RogerFGay

The Anti-Father Police State

December 23, 2003


by Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D.

Columnist Cathy Young is known for her even-handed attempts to cut through the pretensions of both the left and right. She has also shown considerable courage by delving into what for many journalists is a no-go zone: divorce and fathers' rights.

So it is a little awkward to find myself cast as one of her combatants, with my own views and others' whom I typify characterized as "extreme." In the December issue of Reason magazine, Young sorts out, with her customary balance, a debate between proponents of Clinton-Bush family engineering schemes and those of us who take a more laissez-faire attitude toward government intervention in family life.

Actually, it is not my positions that are extreme but my "rhetoric" – specifically, the words I use to describe how government is systematically destroying families and fathers. "Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible," wrote George Orwell. "Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism." If my language seems direct, it may be because euphemism currently obfuscates the most indefensible politics of our time.

That a writer as informed and astute as Young has difficulty grasping the larger trend at work here validates Orwell's observation about the power of language. Clichés about "divorce" and "custody" do not begin to convey the civil liberties disaster taking place. We are facing questions of who has primary authority over children, their parents or the state, and whether the state's penal apparatus can seize control over both the children and the private lives of citizens who have done nothing wrong. Rephrased, the question is, Is there any private sphere of life that remains off-limits to state intervention? Bryce Christensen of Southern Utah University (and not a fathers' rights activist, extreme or otherwise) has characterized fatherhood policies as creating a "police state."

Developments in only the last few days amount to government admissions of Christensen's charge. Under pressure from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, judge has just freed some 100 prisoners who had been incarcerated without due process for allegedly failing to pay child support. The fathers were sentenced with no notice given of their hearings and no opportunity to obtain legal representation. Fathers relate that hearings typically last between 30 seconds and two minutes, during which they are sentenced to months in prison. ACLU lawyer Malia Brink says courts across Pennsylvania routinely jail such men for civil contempt without proper notice or in time for them to get lawyers. Lawrence County was apparently jailing fathers with no hearings at all. Nothing indicates that Pennsylvania is unusual. After a decade of hysteria over "deadbeat dads," one hundred such prisoners in each of the America's 3,500 counties is by no means unlikely.

Also last week, a federal appeals court finally ruled unconstitutional the Elizabeth Morgan Act, a textbook bill of attainder whereby Congress legislatively separated father and child and "branded" as "a criminal child abuser" a father against whom no evidence was ever presented. "Congress violated the constitutional prohibition against bills of attainder by singling out plaintiff for legislative punishment," the court said. The very fact that a bill of attainder was used at all indicates something truly extreme is taking place. Bills of attainder are rare, draconian measures used for one purpose: to convict politically those who cannot be convicted with evidence.

So do these decisions demonstrate that justice eventually prevails? Hardly. In both cases, the damage is done. Foretich's daughter has been irreparably robbed of her childhood and estranged from her father. Moreover, millions of fathers continue to be permanently separated from their children and presumed guilty, even when no evidence exists against them.

The Pennsylvania men will fare worse. For many, the incarceration has already cost them their jobs and thus their ability to pay future child support. As a result, they will be returned to the penal system, from which they are unlikely ever to escape. Permanently insolvent, they are farmed out to trash companies and similar concerns, where they work 14–16 hour days. Most of their earnings are confiscated for child support, the costs of their incarceration, and mandatory drug testing.

This gulag recalls the description of the Soviet forced-labor system, described by Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski in their classic study of totalitarianism: "Not infrequently the secret police hired out its prisoners to local agencies for the purpose of carrying out some local project…. Elaborate contracts were drawn up…specifying all the details and setting the rates at which the secret police is to be paid. At the conclusion of their task, the prisoners, or more correctly the slaves, were returned to the custody of the secret police."

New repressive measures against fathers are enacted almost daily. Last week, Staten Island joined a nationwide trend when it opened a new "integrated domestic violence court." The purpose of these courts, says Chief Judge Judith Kaye, is not to dispense justice as such but to "make batterers and abusers take responsibility for their actions." In other words, to declare men guilty.

Anyone who doubts this need only look to Canada, where domestic violence courts are already empowered to seize the property, including the homes, of men accused of domestic violence, even though they are not necessarily convicted or even formally charged. Moreover, they may do so "ex parte," without the men being present to defend themselves. "This bill is classic police-state legislation," writes Robert Martin, of the University of Western Ontario. Walter Fox, a Toronto lawyer, describes these courts as "pre-fascist," and editor Dave Brown writes in the Ottawa Citizen, "Domestic violence courts…are designed to get around the protections of the Criminal Code. The burden of proof is reduced or removed, and there's no presumption of innocence."

Special courts to try special crimes that can only be committed by certain people are a familiar device totalitarian regimes adopted to replace established standards of justice with ideological justice. New courts created during the French Revolution led to the Reign of Terror and were consciously imitated in the Soviet Union. In Hitler's dreaded Volksgerichte or "people’s courts," write Friedrich and Brzezinski, "only expediency in terms of National Socialist standards served as a basis for judgment."

Even more astounding, legislation announced in Britain will require the police to consider fathers guilty of domestic violence, even after they have been acquitted in court. Fathers found "not guilty" are to be kept away from their children and treated as if they are guilty. As Melanie Phillips writes in the Daily Mail, "This measure will destroy the very concept of innocence itself."

These are only the most recent developments. Young herself has written eloquently on the practice of extracting coerced confessions from fathers like Massachusetts minister Harry Stewart. In Warren County, Pennsylvania, fathers like Robert Pessia are told they will be jailed unless they sign confessions stating, "I have physically and emotionally battered my partner." The father must then describe the violence, even if he insists he committed none. The documents require him to state, "I am responsible for the violence I used. My behavior was not provoked." Again, the words of Friedrich and Brzezinski are apposite: "Confessions are the key to this psychic coercion. The inmate is subjected to a constant barrage of propaganda and ever-repeated demands that he ‘confess his sins,’ that he ‘admit his shame.’"

G.K. Chesterton argued that the most enduring check on government tyranny is the family. Ideological correctness notwithstanding, little imagination is required to comprehend that the household member most likely to defend the family against the state is the father. Yet as Margaret Mead once pointed out, the father is also the family's weakest link. The easiest and surest way to destroy the family, therefore, is to remove the father. Is it extreme to wonder if government is quietly engaged in a search-and-destroy operation against the principal obstacle to the expansion of its power?

Stephen Baskerville

Originally published at LewRockwell.com
Dr. Baskerville teaches political science at Howard University in Washington, D.C. He earned his Ph.D. in political science from the London School of Economics. Visit his MND archive here. Visit his website here.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: alimony; child; divorce; fatherhood; marriage; marry; men; onetrickpony; stephenbaskerville; support; women
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

1 posted on 12/25/2003 5:04:54 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JimKalb; Free the USA; EdReform; realwoman; Orangedog; Lorianne; Outlaw76; balrog666; DNA Rules
ping
2 posted on 12/25/2003 5:06:20 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
Frightening to read.Cheaper to keep her!!
3 posted on 12/25/2003 5:10:15 AM PST by roostercogburn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
This form of feminaziism is in full swing in Ohio, under the Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) Domestic Relations court, and pro-gay man-hating Democrat Eric Fingerhut, candidate for Senate in 2004.
4 posted on 12/25/2003 6:28:09 AM PST by Ukiapah Heep (Shoes for Industry!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
We need to eliminate the whole concept of "child support". No adult should be forced to support a child who doesn't live with him/her. And no father should be expected to contribute to the support of biological child unless he was either married to the mother at the time of conception or signed a contract agreeing to provide support. Women would be a lot more careful who they had babies by, if they weren't relying on "the government will make him pay".
5 posted on 12/25/2003 7:05:37 AM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
And no father should be expected to contribute to the support of biological child unless he was either married to the mother at the time of conception or signed a contract agreeing to provide support.

I would add:

"Women who have claimed in court or in birth certificates that a man is the father when he is not, shall be prosecuted for perjury.

"A women who convinces a man he is the biological father of a child when later tests show he is not, shall be further charged with fraud and grand larceny if the amount of the support is greater than $5,000 ."

6 posted on 12/25/2003 7:23:44 AM PST by ikka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Here's one that'll blow your mind.

Father ordered to pay 15 years back support
7 posted on 12/25/2003 7:32:38 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
A Bill of Attainder? Isn't that from our "living Constitution"? The one where the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendment have been written out?

That Constitution? Looks like the judiciary needs to write out the Bill of Attainder provision also so we can finally have social justice.

8 posted on 12/25/2003 8:07:52 AM PST by Hardastarboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
Is there any wonder why birthrates continue to decline in "enlightened" Western societies and continue to explode in the Third World?

Child support laws and illegal immigration: the "one-two" punch that will destroy Western civilization.

9 posted on 12/25/2003 8:10:17 AM PST by bassmaner (Let's take the word "liberal" back from the commies!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hardastarboard
The one where the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendment have been written out?

The Eighth as well - if jailing men without due process isn't "cruel and unusual punishment", then I don't know what is.

10 posted on 12/25/2003 8:12:18 AM PST by bassmaner (Let's take the word "liberal" back from the commies!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Hardastarboard
Mega bump for a great article. (Still not enough by a long for me to rejoin the ACLU, however)
11 posted on 12/25/2003 10:08:03 AM PST by FormerACLUmember (A person is only as big as the dream they dare to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bassmaner
And the women who are so glad that this machinery is in place to exact revenge upon their ex husbands will be in for a big and unpleasant surprize in just a few short years. If the power is their to take kids away from one parent, then it can also take them from both parents. Do these fools seriously think that the foster care programs are being expanded for no reason? Those government agencies would love to be collecting "child" support from two parents to fund growth of it's head-count.
12 posted on 12/25/2003 10:26:05 AM PST by Orangedog (Remain calm...all is well! [/sarcasm])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: roostercogburn
Frightening to read.Cheaper to keep her!!

And smarter to not get involved with her in the first place. Marriage and family have become "risky schemes" for men to engage in.

14 posted on 12/25/2003 10:44:27 AM PST by Orangedog (Remain calm...all is well! [/sarcasm])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: RogerFGay
15 years back child support? Don't forget to add the accrued interest to that 85,000 figure.

A friend of my ex husband lived with us for years. Every so often he'd get a "love letter form Gil Garcetti (Steve Martin's evil twin). He was the DA for Los Angeles County. This friend made the mistake of giving his ex wife cash child support, with the stipulation that she wouldn't go on welfare. She left him for another woman, and legally changed her name to this other woman's last name. Under her former name she went on welfare, and under her NEW name and a new SSN, she got a job managing a pizza parlor. The friend constantly talked to welfare about the fraud, but they just weren't interested.

I don't know how much he's going to owe by the time he dies. He's never gotten an income tax return as long as we've known him. The driver's license was already gone for DUI's.

If anyone should be prosecuted for fraud, it's her. We lost track of him back in '95, so I don't know if they ever went after her.
17 posted on 12/25/2003 10:52:47 AM PST by TheSpottedOwl (Happy Iraqi Independence Day!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bon mots
Watch out, or else the Freeper Feminists will call you a childish whiner. A lot of the Freeper females love the current divorce system. If any of the men out there dare to complain about it, they'll just call you a jerk, immature, whiner, etc.
18 posted on 12/25/2003 11:08:46 AM PST by IDontLikeToPayTaxes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Bon mots
They should get vasectomies by the time they become sexually active. If they want kids later in life they can always have it reversed.
19 posted on 12/25/2003 11:09:32 AM PST by Orangedog (Remain calm...all is well! [/sarcasm])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

To: ikka
I would also mandate DNA for all out of wedlock births. I also would eliminate the presumption of paternity in marriage if during a divorce a paternity test proves the child is not the natural father.

In other words, infidelity and promiscuity SHALL have consequences.

Fatherhood is not fungible.
21 posted on 12/25/2003 11:20:56 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bon mots
Give me a break.
22 posted on 12/25/2003 11:30:23 AM PST by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
vasectomies should not be considered reversable. It is not just a matter of reconnecting the plumbing. The body also builds antibodies to the sperm after a vascectomy.

It is also supposed to be painful.
23 posted on 12/25/2003 11:33:58 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

There are several cheap and effective male contraceptives in clinical trials right now. I shudder to think what is going to happen to the birth rate in this country (and throughout the West) when these pills become available.

As bassmaner says in #9, these policies are ruinous. You can't just keep sticking it to people and expect them to roll over for it. There will be consequences to these policies, and they will eventually unhinge the whole society.


24 posted on 12/25/2003 11:39:10 AM PST by Nick Danger ( With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
I would also mandate DNA for all out of wedlock births. I also would eliminate the presumption of paternity in marriage if during a divorce a paternity test proves the child is not the natural father.

Not to mention lifting the time limit to obtain a DNA when some long lost kid "turns up".

In other words, infidelity and promiscuity SHALL have consequences.

But, but, but...that's morality! What about separation of church and state? /sarcasm

25 posted on 12/25/2003 11:40:44 AM PST by TheSpottedOwl (Happy Iraqi Independence Day!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
It is also supposed to be painful.

Not nearly as painful as a vengeful woman using your own kids and the full power of the government against you.

26 posted on 12/25/2003 12:08:56 PM PST by Orangedog (Remain calm...all is well! [/sarcasm])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
G.K. Chesterton argued that the most enduring check on government tyranny is the family.

...which explains the Nanny/Butch-government's war on the family.

sometimes a guy just wants to crawl into a hole...but no freakin' way.

27 posted on 12/25/2003 12:12:09 PM PST by the invisib1e hand (do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
Not nearly as painful as a vengeful woman using your own kids and the full power of the government against you.

...nods...

28 posted on 12/25/2003 12:13:15 PM PST by the invisib1e hand (do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
Good one!!!
29 posted on 12/25/2003 12:16:10 PM PST by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
What surprizes me is that we haven't had the usual "You can't do that...we'd either become extinct or over-run by foreigner!" argument thrown up at anyone who thinks opting out of this nonsence is just "stupid."

Most people go along with these laws and courts that screw fathers because they bought the lie that it would save them money in welfare. And they still keep believing it even though the government spends more and more money every year. The truth is, none of them will care until it happens to them.
30 posted on 12/25/2003 12:20:04 PM PST by Orangedog (Remain calm...all is well! [/sarcasm])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
The truth is, none of them will care until it happens to them.

By now, just about everyone either knows someone, or has a relative, that this has happened to. This thread is so different from what a comparable one would have been like ten years ago that I see tremendous progress.

What's happening here with the laws is a death spiral. If you map out the forces operating on it, you can quickly see that the only thing it can do is get worse. So the issue isn't how you turn that around, it's what you can do to warn younger men in time to keep them from getting caught up in it. I see a lot of progress there; all these articles we see about "why won't young men commit?" are evidence to me that the message is sinking in: "marriage and family" is not a safe thing to do with your life anymore. Men have zero rights, are guilty until proven innocent, and won't even get due process at that. So just stay away from it. Let the government have its fun with whomever they can suck into it, but men with brains should stay out of the target environment.

When these pills come out, that's going to be one more way to stay out of the target environment.

Yeah, we'll become extinct or the foreigners will take over. So what? A society that estranges fathers from their children on a wholesale basis collapses. If that comes as a surprise to anybody, it's because they either didn't really think of men as being human, or because they weren't thinking at all.

31 posted on 12/25/2003 12:50:29 PM PST by Nick Danger ( With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
Yeah, we'll become extinct or the foreigners will take over. So what? A society that estranges fathers from their children on a wholesale basis collapses. If that comes as a surprise to anybody, it's because they either didn't really think of men as being human, or because they weren't thinking at all.

We agree totally on that. There are still plenty who, even knowing men that this has happened to, think that it will be different with them. A few weeks ago, one guy on another thread argued that men avoiding marriage was a "false trend" and wasn't really happening. It didn't sound like he could graduate from the School of the Bleeding-Obvious. The business of government is to grow. That means that BOTH parties have a vested interest in advancing the destruction of the family though demonizing fathers. When the pill for men hits the market, it will have an enormous impact on western society, particularly in the US. I wonder what lengths the government will go to in trying to stop it. At some point they would have to reccognize that this would cut into their ability to control tens of millions of men in the future.

32 posted on 12/25/2003 1:04:55 PM PST by Orangedog (Remain calm...all is well! [/sarcasm])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
I see a trend of men avoiding liberal women. In other words, look for more manless, childless 40 something women.
33 posted on 12/25/2003 1:12:43 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
And the women who are so glad that this machinery is in place to exact revenge upon their ex husbands will be in for a big and unpleasant surprize...

...when the state comes for their sons.

34 posted on 12/25/2003 1:46:13 PM PST by SoulStorms (The mind all logic is like the knife all blade. It cuts the hand that holds it. -- R. Tagore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
Easy answer to this one.

Guys:

Don't f**k.
Don't marry.

Yes, celibacy sucks. But, when "getting some" could very well cost you years of financial ruin and emotional turmoil, it becomes very easy to put into perspective.


35 posted on 12/25/2003 2:14:25 PM PST by FLAMING DEATH (Why do I carry a .45? Because they don't make a .46!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FLAMING DEATH; Nick Danger
So basically what you're saying is that the most reasonable solution to the problem is the demise of the human race. Since the partisans declared war on the family, we should surrender, have no children from now one -- and as a result there will be no partisans due to the fact that there will be no people. That'll work.
36 posted on 12/25/2003 2:26:54 PM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
So basically what you're saying is that the most reasonable solution to the problem is the demise of the human race.

Oh now, don't go getting emotional on us. Nobody said anything about ending the human race. The human race will be fine. The particular culture that chose badly will be wiped from the Earth. That's happened to a lot of cultures that went bad. It's nothing to get excited about; this is how Nature works.

It's no accident that every significant civilization on the planet, regardless of race, religion, or any other thing, practices lifelong pair-bonding. Ours used to. Now we don't. Now we get to find out why the only cultures left standing were the ones that practiced lifelong pair-bonding. Something happens to the other cultures. They go away for some reason. Just think... we'll get to see how it happens.

37 posted on 12/25/2003 2:44:31 PM PST by Nick Danger ( With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
Yep. It will.

If the market for men dries up, something will have to give, whether it is a change in the laws or perhaps women being more open to a prenuptual agreement. Most women aren't rabid feminists, and if they realize that the bitchy minority screwed things up for them, then things might begin to turn around. Until then, don't f**k and don't marry.

It is ALWAYS a bad idea to step into a boxing ring with both hands tied behind your back. You wouldn't take a monetary risk with such a high possiblitity of losing your money, your psychological well being, or even the right to see your own children. So, don't take an emotional risk like that, either.

Human race, shmooman race. That doesn't matter, and it won't happen anyway, since there will always be fools out there who don't care where they "dip their wick". Regardless, I'm not going to sacrifice my principles so I can be a cog in the wheel that keeps the human race moving "forward".

I'd like to have a family, but it's not worth the risk to me. That's not to say it won't happen, but I will be assured that I have my bases covered WELL before such an undertaking. But, the idea of a prenuptual agreement scares most women off, so the possiblity seems remote.

Besides, it is a good thing for men to be able to practice a little self control, and the words "child support" and "alimony" are as effective as any cold shower.
38 posted on 12/25/2003 2:48:53 PM PST by FLAMING DEATH (Why do I carry a .45? Because they don't make a .46!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: FLAMING DEATH
bttt
39 posted on 12/25/2003 3:20:46 PM PST by IDontLikeToPayTaxes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: FLAMING DEATH
If the market for men dries up, something will have to give, whether it is a change in the laws or perhaps women being more open to a prenuptual agreement.

If the market for men dries up? Now you're just talkin' crazy! Men are more valuable than ever. That's why we all need special laws that work like a security service. Walking around as if nothing has changed these days is like leaving diamonds on display in your front yard.
40 posted on 12/26/2003 2:34:35 PM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
true
41 posted on 12/26/2003 4:34:26 PM PST by FormerACLUmember (A person is only as big as the dream they dare to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay; FLAMING DEATH; Nick Danger
Since the partisans declared war on the family, we should surrender, have no children from now one -- and as a result there will be no partisans due to the fact that there will be no people. That'll work.

What men have been doing for the past 30 years is about as close to surrender as you can get. Let's go further into the war analogy: What kind of army keeps fighting on a battlefield and with tactics that constantly gets their troups mowed-down again and again?. That is the kind of army that is bound and determined to lose. Working in todays political arena as a battlefield is a losing tactic. The numbers of people who either want us subjigated or just plain don't care are staggering. Trying to organize political revolt hasn't worked and will not work in this environment. A wise man chooses the battlefield and tactics that plays to his strengths. We have no strength in either party at any level or branch of government. We WILL continue to lose on that battlefield. What we have to do is choose tactics that play to our strengths. After examining the possibilities, the only logical alternative is stop feeding the monster. We need to cut off it's air supply and force it to deal on OUR terms. When the number of marriages drop and when the new number of support cases is no longer sufficient to replace the old cases, then the industry will face it's first truely serious threat to it's existence. As the years go on, the weaker the government agencies will become. Eventually it will starve. Then we will be in a position to dictate terms to it, just like it has been dictating terms to us. You can't negotiate with a cancer. You cannot coexist with a cancer. It MUST be eliminated or it will kill you. Often the course of treatment puts that patient's life in jeopardy, but not taking that course will always result in death of that patient.

42 posted on 12/26/2003 5:32:51 PM PST by Orangedog (Remain calm...all is well! [/sarcasm])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
What really beats me is when I see male cops zealously crying for horrible women and giving dirty looks to men as a result. I dont get it, these are male cops who could be affected too. Why do they go along with the bias? Why do they hear, see and speak no evil in courts? They are the ones with the first hand experience of the travesty.
43 posted on 12/26/2003 5:45:59 PM PST by JudgemAll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
What men have been doing for the past 30 years is about as close to surrender as you can get.

Yep, you can say that too. Look at affirmative action benefiting women, for example. Yet go to any prosecution's office and it will crawl with feminazies and little men. As a man stepping in there to complain, it feels like a black is stepping in a KKK dominated prosecution's office. There is overt discrimination in the appointments of social workers and prosecutors and now even cops, but no one is speaking up.

44 posted on 12/26/2003 5:48:52 PM PST by JudgemAll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
It's true that men are more valuable than ever.

However perceptions point to the opposite. It used to be that having things like unrivaled nuke strength meant peace from a rioting terroristic world... yet, what do we do, we keep disarming because we fear hurting bad people. We all look for alibis to be alive and accepted instead of taking action regardless.

The current soft thinking in the US hates the concept of authoritative man. It's not marketable. It's too"bloody", too inconveniencing, too pointing at cowardice and too brave.

Also, as the author points out, companies like WalMart make a killing in low wage male labor as a result of these stupid laws. It sure brings little revenues to have legally castrated men walk around, but they dont care because when companies where you work hard seem to provide you more care than a family would, the economy roars alongside, at least for a while.

It is irony that Islam is despised for its treatment of women, yet sometimes one wonders if a feminized talibanism is any better. I personaly think that a feminized talibanism is worse in the long run.

In any case, no society last very long as a civilization when restrictions become so arbitrary as to kill any will or ability to accomplish. Islam started by liberating men, their skills and their libidos from very restrictive and castrating forms of worships then. Later Islam sunk because it became negative. A freedom vacuum was filled in with despots.

The same thing can be said of the US in some ways.
45 posted on 12/26/2003 5:59:42 PM PST by JudgemAll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
Men ARE becoming more valuable than ever. When we're appreciated as such, and society RECOGNIZES that value, instead of punishing it, that's when I'll start dating again.

Let me tell you a little story. I went out on a limb to date a girl who already had a kid. The boy called me "dad", because I was really the only father figure he ever had. Well, she decided to split one day (I had fifteen minutes notice on this one). Now, I have no recourse to see him, despite the fact that I was effectively his father for a year and a half and loved him and cared for him like he was my own. Only later did I learn that if she had wanted to, his mother could have sought child support from me, and probably have gotten it, even though I wasn't his biological father.

I can only imagine how much worse that heartbreak could have been had the boy been my child, and I had been with him since birth. It was hard enough the way it was. That woke me up. Our society doesn't value fathers. It values monetary providers, and virtually any guy can be reduced to that at the drop of a hat, if you fall out of favor with Mommy. It certainly isn't worth the risk.

I don't wanna be a provider for kids I never get to see, so I'm doing the responsible thing and not making any. There ya go.

And I'm not walking around as if nothing changed. If I were, I'd probably have already been married and divorced by now. Believe me, I came close before I realized all of this...and I thank my lucky stars every day that it never worked out.
46 posted on 12/26/2003 6:52:39 PM PST by FLAMING DEATH (Why do I carry a .45? Because they don't make a .46!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
Tell it on the mountain.
47 posted on 12/26/2003 6:54:16 PM PST by FLAMING DEATH (Why do I carry a .45? Because they don't make a .46!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: FLAMING DEATH
Only later did I learn that if she had wanted to, his mother could have sought child support from me, and probably have gotten it, even though I wasn't his biological father.

Sounds like the same kind of idiotic laws I've heard about in Washington state, where just dating a woman with kids from another guy puts you on the hook.

For the life of me, I can't understand why men who hear about or have seen first hand the abuses going on and still think it can't happen to them. More than 50% of marriages end in divorce, and rare is the case where the man doesn't get reemed in the process. Picture this: someone comes up to a guy and the street and offers a wager on a coin toss. Heads, and he gets to go on with his life like nothing happened. Tails, he loses half, if not more, of everything he has worked for, a good chunk of his earnings in the future (which he must pay under threat of criminal sanction) and suffer emotional losses that no amount of money can ever replace. Most men that wouldn't punch the person offering that bet in the nose would laugh and walk away from such a sucker-bet. But every year, millions of men take that bet. Just as entertaining are the others who will mock and scoff at those who are smart enough not to gamble in that casino.

48 posted on 12/26/2003 7:13:50 PM PST by Orangedog (Remain calm...all is well! [/sarcasm])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
That won't work. Politicians will continue to get lots of women pregnant and they'll continue the policy of forcing other men at random to provide financial support for them. That'll create an entire new generation exclusively from the politician gene pool. It'll be like the end of Hitchhikers' guide to the galaxy when the accountants are all that's left.
49 posted on 12/27/2003 2:34:38 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: FLAMING DEATH
The media has been calling the random male role model "father" for a long time now. One of my articles mentions that every time a man abuses a child, the media labels him "father." And yes, they often do assign paternity for the purpose of ordering child support to men who are not fathers. There are a lot of guys who can't get such orders turned off even though they've proven non-paternity through DNA tests.
50 posted on 12/27/2003 2:37:19 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson