BlogWonks

What would happen, if one day the doors to family relations courthouses opened all across America, and black robed judges sat on their benches, bailiffs, court reporters and other court personnel manned their stations - - - but no one else ever again showed up in their courtrooms? Yes, that’s a very highly improbable scenario, given the sexual appetites of today’s men and women, but I can dream can‘t I?

It would indeed be an unusual day if such a scenario ever occurred, and if that scenario lasted a week, or a month, or a year, MY GOD, it could literally drive all the people who make a living off family relations court out of business. Imagine that.

Since I’ve had the audacity to hypothesize this improbable scenario, let me take it even a step further. How can a man facilitate the end of family relations courts? Warning: The sign post up ahead means you are about to enter, The Twilight of Family Law Zone.

#1  End all procreational sex

If you don’t have kids, you don’t pay child support, and child protective services can’t steal them.

Birth control, in my opinion, is the best option to ward off the possibility of parenthood, as I do not favor abortion (the killing of a viable human being). There are varieties of birth control devices on the market, none 100% effective, and none fool proof. There’s not an effective pill for men on the market, but research continues on that. Every man not now a parent should, in my opinion, take every precaution to avoid parenthood, given the monstrous atrocities that America’s family relations courts daily employ to destroy the lives of many good Fathers. What good is Fathering a lovely child, only to have it a very short time, then never, or rarely, see it again? Such is the very real possibility given the vast majority of rulings in family relations court, favoring Mothers as custodial parents. Needless to say, that’s the point at which Fathers often become nothing more than paychecks.

If only young men had men’s studies programs to the extent that women do, many young men could be taught the absolute imperative of avoiding unprotected reproductive sex. Such training could help them avoid the devastating effects of family dissolution and family relations court proceedings that many older men have gone through. Obviously, they would also be taught to avoid some really dangerous contacts with potentially deadly venereal diseases as well.

The beginning of reproductive choice for men begins with knowledge, and proceeds with wise use of that knowledge.

For those young men strong enough to abstain from sex, they are afforded the very safest protection from all of the maladies mentioned above, but life is a long road and it only takes one reproductive mishap to destroy a man’s life forever.

#2  End all involvement in marriage, or relationships that trigger common law marriage statutes

Marriage has long been an institution revered by societies, religions, families, etc., but have atrocities ensuing from family relations courts made the institution of marriage just too risky for men to be involved in?

# Ask a man who’s had to pay exorbitant alimony to a wife who decided to quit her job after marriage.

# Ask a man whose wife quit her job after marriage, then lies and claims her husband was abusively controlling the finances so she can get more money out of the divorce settlement.

# Ask a man whose wife cheated on him, then lied about it, then gave birth to a child that wasn’t his.

# Ask a man whose wife filed false accusations of domestic violence against him causing his arrest, humiliation, loss of employment, depression, etc. so she can game the legal system and get a leg up in the divorce proceedings.

In a previous article, I discussed whether marriage was too risky for a man to be involved in and my personal conclusion was, “Yes” from a number of perspectives.

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/08/11/is-it-unwise-for-a-man-to-marry-in-todays-climate-of-misandry/

Is It Unwise for a Man to Marry in a Climate of Misandry?

“Given the sorry state of affairs we find ourselves in today in family relations, in a nation of gender feminist laws, it is my opinion that it is extremely unwise for any man to marry.

Given the sorry state of affairs we find ourselves in today in family relations in a number of Churches and Synagogues across America, it is my opinion it is extremely unwise for any man to marry.”

and

“Put yourself totally at a woman’s mercy, get married.”

and

“Marriage is a social injustice where men incur all financial risks.”

#3 …

 Uh, there is no #3 that I can think of. Number 1 and number 2 should bring about the complete demise of the family relations courts and the massive industry that leeches off family dissolution and misery, including Child Support Services.

The personal misery that many men incur in their lives could further be abated by avoiding all contact whatsoever with the opposite sex, thereby destroying the domestic violence industry and the sexual harassment industry. The later may somehow manage to survive as I’ve heard speakers at sexual harassment workshops say that any behavior, avoiding contact with the opposite sex, for fear of being accused of sexual harassment, is sexual harassment. Still, covert avoidance of the opposite sex would at least make misandrist lawyers and politicians really have to stretch to continue their ruthless harvesting of Fathers’ and men’s financial assets.

Imagine how women’s studies programs would spin this new, insidious tactic of “Patriarchy” to (in their viewpoint) further oppress women through devious power and control guerilla tactics. I can hear their comments now, “Men are abusing women by withholding sex as punishment,” and “They’re denying women the children the have a right to demand in their bodies by choice.” Hmm, I guess they’ll have to revise history some more and destroy all the old women’s studies texts that said, “Heterosexual relations with men are oppression to women.”

Women’s commissions that endlessly propose policies to further the rights, privileges and pampering of women would no doubt vigorously confront this new, insidious tactic by Patriarchy to gain back “power and control.” If sperm supplies became totally unavailable, no doubt taxpayer’s money would have to fund research to find new ways to fertilize female eggs, or clone people. Politicians would have to find new ways to punitively tax men to support the research. New programs and services would have to be built for a brave new village of people who would develop and further new procreational methods, childcare facilities, etc. - but I digress.

No doubt there will never be and end to the war on Fathers and men, no matter how hard Fathers and men work to restore their rights. Gender feminist influence in law is a misandrist reality that will plague the lives of all males for the foreseeable future, in my opinion.

Men must innovate and look at every possible way in which they can hold off the onslaught of male destroying policies, legislation and gender feminist tyranny. Turning off one light switch can save a little electricity. One man’s effort to avoid the enormous negative consequences of association with the opposite sex, can save the destruction of one man‘s life in family relations court. If one man’s life can be spared the living hell so frequently visited on Fathers and men by family relations court, this article will have been worth more than the time and effort it took to write - much more.

To approach this messy topic in an open forum might just be like jumping into quicksand, but the quagmire of divorce does exist and that sucking sound you think you hear might just be the sound of men’s money being pulled unceasingly from their pockets.

If it was just the money being taken away from men the issue could be defined in a narrower context, but it is not.  Men’s own flesh and blood, their children, are all too often taken from them, some never, or rarely to be seen again.

Statistics vary, but by all indications, it is valid to say, “In the vast majority of divorces it is the biological Mother of the children who winds up with them.”  Concomitant with custodial parenthood following a divorce goes child support (if your a woman).  The federal government has created policies that incentavise the collection of child support at the state level, creating a system of local government agencies that profit the local government from the “harvesting” of Fathers’ assets. I did the best I could to verify this on the Internet, but alas I was only able to find documentation at The National Women’s Law Center, an organization wanting more incentives to harvest more money from more Fathers.

http://www.clasp.org/publications/012606_childsupportcuts.pdf

Oddly, I was unable to find a similar 501(c)(3) charity for Father’s or men. By all means, please post the link if someone finds it.

In the vast majority of divorces, the woman files for divorce, not the man. There are many reasons given as to why this is, but the fact remains, it is women who file for the vast majority of divorces.

http://www.pobronson.com/blog/2006/07/will-this-marriage-last-who-wants-out.html

“But comparing that data to survey responses of couples after their divorce, women were the ones who were saying that they wanted the divorce more than their husband wanted it.

How often was it that many more of women wanted the divorce more than the men?

2/3. The same as the amount responsible for divorce filings.  And yet another study of divorced couples found that the majority of divorced wives and husbands both agreed it was the wife who wanted out.”

Divorce is a subject on which numerous books have been written so an Internet article will never suffice to cover all aspects of the topic. I was able to find significant statistics on divorce on this web site, and I’m sure the reader(s) will be able to find more.

Finding the exact number of divorces in America is an almost impossible task as not every state tallies those numbers.  Below is a percentage estimation of divorces in America.

http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html

“…states that keep track of the number of divorces. California, Colorado, Indiana and Louisiana do not.”

and,

“The National Center for Health Statistics recently released a report which found that 43 percent of first marriages end in separation or divorce within 15 years.  The study is based on the National Survey of Family Growth, a nationally representative sample of women age 15 to 44 in 1995.  Bramlett, Matthew and William Mosher.  ”First marriage dissolution, divorce, and
remariage: United States,” Advance Data From Vital and Health Statistics; No.323. Hyattsville MD: National Center for Health Statistics: 2 1.

“Data in the Census report were collected from both men and women, age 15 and over, and a different methodology was used than in the NCHS report.

“About 50% of first marriages for men under age 45 may end in
divorce, and between 44 and 52% of women’s first marriages
may end in divorce for these age groups.

As recently as just yesterday, I received a phone call on the answering machine from a friend of a man alleging that he had been arrested numerous times on false allegations of domestic violence.  Each time the man was able to show his innocence to the police by corroborating his whereabouts with credible witness testimony, but I had to wonder how long before his luck runs out.  Yes, as the caller said, “The police keep rewarding her by arresting him.”

As I have wondered before, in situations like this, “How many false police reports of a felony against him, before the police arrest her on a misdemeanor for filing false police reports?”  It seems there is no limit.

If a state like California has no records of the number of divorces, do you think it has any records of the number of women filing false accusations of domestic violence?

As I have stated before in other articles there are over 50 women’s studies programs in California, and over 30 women’s commissions, all teaching and advocating for rights and privileges for women, but there are no men’s studies classes, or commissions for men anywhere.  Additionally, there is no counterpart to the Office of Women’s health in Los Angeles County and there is no counterpart to the Office of Violence Against Women in Washington, D.C.

To say that America is a “Jim Crow” nation in the area of gender relations would be grossly understating the point, in my opinion.  It’s much, much worse than that, in my opinion.  Men are not only denied equality, they are denied the right to have separate accommodations of equal status.  Just let “uppity” men try to have their own separate (men only) accommodations in the areas above and watch the lawsuits fly from gender feminist organizations - as they have in the past.

Given the above realities that exist in America today, I again ask the question that is the title of this article, “Is It Unwise for a man to Marry in Today’s Climate of Misandry?”

You will probably get a variety of answers from folks, depending on who you ask. Many secular Men’s Rights Activists will flat out say, “Yes, it’s very unwise for men to marry today,” and I would not disagree with them, given the perspective they are coming from.

It appears there are some in the religious community who still advocate for marriage, according to the formula laid out in Biblical text, and I do not contend with their right to practice their faith.  Historically, religions like Christianity and Judaism set forth a number of rules and guidelines for marriage, and it is alleged that God will prosper a Christian, or Jewish, marriage in those respective faiths.  Curiously, the rate of marriage failures is roughly the same in evangelical Christian communities as it is in the non-Christian world.

http://www.dbu.edu/jeanhumphreys/SocialPsych/evangelicalmind.htm

In a 1999 national survey, George Barna found that the percentage of born-again Christians who had experienced divorce was slightly higher (26 percent) than that of non-Christians (22 percent).⁷  In Barna’s polls since the mid-1990s, that number has remained about the same.⁸  In August 2001, a new poll found that the divorce rate was about the same for born-again Christians and the population as a whole; 33 percent of all born-again Christians had been divorced compared with 34 percent of non-born-again Americans—a statistically insignificant difference.  Barna also found in one study that 90 percent of all divorced born-again folk divorced after they accepted Christ.⁹

It appears the Jewish faith has been severely impacted by America’s divorce plague as well.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history_community/Jewish_World_Today/JewishFamily.htm

Jewish marriages are no more immune from divorce than any other group in North America, in which one of every two marriages dissolves.

Christian churches, especially those following the Calvinist tradition, in my experience, have been quick to point out that the man is the leader of the household so if a marriage fails, the leadership of the man is suspect.  Never mind that the legal system of “the world” is specifically targeting the leadership role of the man of the family (Patriarch) for vilification and persecution under today’s Violence Against Women Act.  Never mind that the courts view such a husband as a “power and control” abuser in a court of law.  And never mind that a number of Churches don’t want to involve themselves with American government, or corrupt laws like the Violence Against Women Act - except to support it.

In Jesus time, Jesus was very upset with the legalistic attitudes of Pharisaical leaders and the legalistic and financial encumbrances they put in the way of the valid spiritual needs of the community.  Jesus was outraged that Pharisaical leaders contemptuously treated the valid spiritual needs of the people with exploitive disrespect.  How much different are a number of today’s Church leaders from Pharisees, when they blame men for lacking leadership in families, then expect them to tithe from their purses (pilfered by government), then openly support the Violence against Women Act that undermines the leadership of men in their families?  How much different are a number of today’s legalistic, Church leaders from Pharisees, when they blame men for their lack of family leadership, then do not confront the evil legal system that works to destroy all vestiges of a man’s leadership position in the family, not to mention stealing his children and money in the process.

#1 In my opinion, a number of leaders of Churches (and Synagogues) in America need to first remove the logs from their own eyes, admit the abuses, yes abuses (sins), they have helped heap on good men for years through their overt negligence, overt ignorance, and overt irresponsibility, in confronting anti-family gender feminist laws and policies.

#2 In my opinion, a number of leaders of Churches in America need especially to confront the evils of government following the example of our Founding Fathers, most of whom were Christians.  This is America, not Caesar’s dictatorial Rome. When being tested by legalistic Pharisees/Herodians/spies who asked Jesus if it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, Jesus held up a coin and asked one of the leaders whose image was on the coin.  The answer was, “Caesar’s.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar…

The emporer at the time Pontius Pilate was Procurater of Judea was Tiberius, although an older coin might have portrayed the image of Augustus.

Tiberius Caesar Augustus

When Jesus held up a coin containing the image of “Caesar,” and said, “Render unto Caesar, the things which are Caesar‘s…” he was basically saying to obey the rules of government in the realm of government.  In this representative form of government it is “We the people” who are the ultimate rulers of America.  In my opinion, a number of Churches have not been following God’s command to “Render unto Caesar…” and do their duty as outlined by our Founding Fathers who, again, set up this form of government.  A number of Church leaders need to get off their posteriors and confront this government according to God’s command to “Render unto Caesar (government)…” in my opinion.

We already have a representative form of government in place so I’m not asking for nearly the sacrifice that this Christian leader (Reverend Peter Muhlenberg) gave to the establishment of America.  Today’s Church (and Synagogue) leaders need only use the peaceable means of government already in place, to confront and change the evil’s that spawned the current war against America’s Fathers and men - if they would but do that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Muhlenberg

Toward the end of 1775, Muhlenberg was authorized to raise and command as its Colonel the 8th Virginia Regiment of the Continental Army. After Washington personally asked him to accept this task, he agreed.

Given the sorry state of affairs we find ourselves in today in family relations, as a nation of gender feminist laws, it is my opinion that it is extremely unwise for any man to marry.

Given the sorry state of affairs we find ourselves in today in family relations in a number of Churches and Synagogues across America, it is my opinion it is extremely unwise for any man to marry.

Ultimately, the decision to marry (and accept the high risk of a divorce), or not, is up to each and every adult considering entering that institution.

All that being said, the Christian and Jewish religions do proclaim that the institution of marriage is a holy institution created by God, and that men and women were created in the image of God.  I recall some Christian theologians explaining that God intended men and women in Christian marriages to be the compliment of each other.  How far indeed we have fallen from the Garden of Eden.  I pray that this would cease to be the case, and I work against the evil government of America, that works for more money to further divide the heterosexual family so the “nanny state” can use its village to take, and raise, the children that should have both a Mommy and a Daddy, equally, in their lives.

 In our American, representative form of government (such as it is), it is ”We the people” who theoretically have the right to choose who will speak for us and who will not.

As we enter this Presidential campaign season, it is especially important that we critically and thoroughly examine the platforms of all the candidates to see if they honestly and truly represent us.

In our personal lives, it is no less important that we examine the position statements of people in lesser leadership positions, who claim to represent us and claim to lead us.

I’ve often wondered about men (and women) at all levels of leadership, who are so devoid of support for their own biased viewpoints that they can’t tolerate the opinions (and criticisms) of others.   Such people, in my opinion, are quick to attack and label others as deficient, using a host of logical fallacies, but are deficient in defending the weaknesses in their own positional statements.   Such people, in my opinion, are so obsessed with exclusively imposing their biased positions (power and control) that they have been known to resort to totalitarian tactics to defend their deficient viewpoints.   On websites such as this one (and others), in my opinion,  some have even resorted to tactics  like the deletion of valid posts and the turning off of comments to impose their biased viewpoints and restrict free speech.   It appears to me that the “freedom” of the Internet already has a number of  restrictions on free speech, thanks to totalitarian rhetoric coming from some tyrannical propagandists.

I would caution all people to be very, very, very wary of people who restrict their freedom of speech, escpecially those claiming to be leaders.   It is a sad, but revealing truth that those who trade freedom for the illusion of peace, in reality, have neither.

The suspect theories and opinions of people who claim to be leaders, but shield their viewpoints from open discussion are not, in my opinion, the leaders they claim to be.  The history of tyranny in the world is marked by a long trail of people claiming to be leaders, but in reality have been so deficient in leadership qualities, that they strip away the freedoms of a free society, one by one.   Sadly, as we have seen with gender feminists, one of the first freedoms to be attacked , regulated and eventually denied totally is the freedom of speech.  

 Are Men’s Rights Activist not human too, and being human are Men’s Rights Activists not capable of human failings and deficiencies?  Yes, we ALL are certainly less than perfect humans, and the beauty of free speech, gifted to us by our Founding Fathers, is that it affords us the beauty of a system of checks and balances, wherein even the lowliest among us has a voice to say, “I question that position, because…” or “I disagree, because…” or “I agree, because…” etc.

By all means, I invite everyone at Men’s News Daily and the entire Internet to discuss and criticize this article to their hearts content.  By all means, have at it.  If I can’t defend my viewpoints, or I seek to close comments, I suggest that my viewpoints are likely indefensible and should be viewed with great suspicion in part, or in whole.

As to my own leadership qualifications, the last time I submitted a resume’ for a job, the job application said, “Please submit all documentation that in any way could support your qualifications for this job.”  Without going into detail, let me just say, that I weighed the envelope before I mailed it.  It weighed exactly 16 ounces (one pound), and it was all education and training subsequent to High School.  Do I feel I have leadership qualifications?  Humbly, yes, and primarily in the participative style as described in business management texts. http://www.maxvalue.com/tip024.htm

This morning, as I was listening to the Presidential press conference, where British Prime Mister, Gordon Brown was appearing, I heard President Bush talk about the war on terror.  Certainly, that is not a new subject, and from my perspective, neither is the President’s disregard for America’s male victims of violence.

At one point, as the President was describing how the war on terror was an “asymmetrical war,” he went on to explain how terrorists specifically target “innocent women and children” (no mention of innocent men).  I guess the President has already forgotten the male victims of 9/11, or as I suspect from the history of his past policies, male victims of violence don’t really matter that much to him.

In our politically correct world, any mention of the military must include a mention of men, “and women.”  And even though women are less than 3% of combat deaths and injuries, I think that is a fair and reasonable inclusion.  Even though women are legally exempt from front line, ground combat, with full Presidential support, women are still serving honorably in many roles in the military and deserving of recognition for their work and sacrifice.  However, when men are 97+% of combat casualties and deaths, isn’t it just a little bit hypocritical that we don’t see gender feminists running to federally mandated, Title IX to “level that playing field.” 

 As President Bush is fully aware, it would be an egregious error to forget to mention the women serving in our military at any press conference or public speaking engagement. Women must be included in any mention of the military these days, but when it comes to mentioning “innocent” members of the civilian population who have died in the war on terror, it appears from today’s omission - NO MEN ALLOWED!  If civilian male victims can’t even get a mention, well then heaven forbid we specifically mention the military “victims” of the war on terror who are 97+% male.

Where is the “gender inclusivity” that great leaders and great politicians are supposed to practice?  Obviously, President Bush reinforces the “protection” of women from violence and the “disposability of males” to violence, both in his speech, and in his policy on the war on terror.   So much for equal protection under law, based on gender.

Given the overtly misandrist bigotry that is openly practiced at the highest levels of American government, it’s no wonder men are disproportionately the victims of violence, and literally 2nd class citizens in their own nation. When it comes to receiving services or even recognition, for the violence they endure in domestic relations, or other situations, it appears ”innocent” men (and boys) are a cast all to frequently unmentionable.

In the state in which I live (California), men are excluded by law from the same domestic violence services and protections women get.  Today, conceivably, a California man can serve in Afghanistan, or Iraq, get his legs blown off, come home, be sitting in his wheel chair in his home, get hit in the head with a frying pan by his wife, then legally be denied the same domestic violence protections and services that women get.  Veterans have been discriminated against by domestic violence laws in California, just for being male.

Given the freedom with which the highest elected official in America, panders to gender feminist, PC language, while openly disregarding male victims of violence, it is no wonder men (and boys) are held in such low regard by America’s government, societal institutions, and multi-billion dollar government programs like the misandrist Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

How much longer the good men (and women) of America will tolerate these abuses of government is a question I ask myself - frequently.  The silence is deafening.

Last night, as a member of the studio audience, I attended a taping of The Half Hour News Hour at FOX Studios on Pico Blvd. in West Los Angeles.

Humor, as many are aware, is a controversial and enigmatic phenomena of the human condition, wherein a built in defense mechanism in individuals resorts to laughter.  The laughter is often a reaction to the observation of a painful experience to another human being.

To say that humor is often insensitive and at the expense of someone’s feelings is stating the obvious to those familiar with “comedy.”

Tragically, the person unable to laugh at a certain joke is often the person experiencing the painful experience, or a person who has experienced a similar painful experience.

All that being said, during last nights taping, a segment depicted a male being hit in the groin area, not once, but three times. Audience members at the taping of the show were encouraged, and expected, to laugh at the jokes as they were staged and taped. Sadly, the joke depicting violence against a man was staged not once, but twice. Evidently, there was something wrong with the taping of the first take. During the taping of the retake, I sat with arms folded across my chest and not a chuckle or even a smile came from me.

Obviously, there must be something wrong with my sense of humor, since the rest of the audience had no problem in laughing with great enthusiasm at the skit. I have my doubts there would have been that kind of laughter if it had been a woman who was sexually assaulted with a hit in the crotch, or to the breast.

I suspect depictions of similar hateful violence against women would draw immediate boos from any audience and loud protests in front of the studios main entrance. Unfortunately, there is no need for any “entertainment” studio to worry about any such protests over their depiction of violence against men. There is no taxpayer funded, multi-billion dollar budget concerned with violence against men as there is concerned with violence against women.

Sadly, as evidenced by what is considered acceptable humor, we witness the reinforcement of the disposability of males through all forms of socially accepted forms of violence. Men are over 97% of deaths and casualties in the current war in Iraq. Men are over 94% of Industrial deaths and accidents. Men are approximately 76% of all homicides. Men are 75% of the roughly 25,000 annual suicides.

It appears that men have long been acquiescent to the disposability expectations built into their male role as even health care (or lack thereof) reflects this cruel reality. According to the CDC, of the 15 leading causes of death by disease, men lead in 12 categories, are tied in 1, and trail women in only two.

Humor, as evidenced by the reaction of the audience to the depiction of the violent hate crime against a man, is indeed a mask for the pain and suffering endured by the entire male gender in America. As English poet George Gorden, Lord Byron once wrote, “and if I laugh at any mortal thing, ’tis that I may not weep.”

In my opinion, my sense of humor is not fit for the tawdry, male bashing humor widely broadcast on TV comedies like the one I saw being taped last night. You won’t find me in the audience of such trashy (in my opinion) TV comedies ever again. I do not mourn the loss, but will merely fill that time slot with more male life affirming choices.

Today, Fathers 4 Justice and the National Coalition of Free Men, Los Angeles sponsored their third in a series of picnic/rallies in the Van Nuys/Sherman Oaks Park.  A group of dedicated members assembled in the very welcome, surprisingly mild heat to assemble tents and tables, roast hot dogs and hamburgers, and answer questions from a steady stream of visitors. The picnic/rally ran from 9 A.M. to 1 P.M., but setup began early at 6:00 A. M., in order to get the location we wanted.

Here are just a few of the questions (and answers) we engaged in during the course of the day:

# What does the alienation in “parental alienation” mean?

This question was asked by a woman who was speaking with a very heavy accent. We explained how “parental alienation” was a form of abuse that occurred in some family relations, when one parent “bad mouths” the other, and how that hurts the child who is caught in the middle. We explained how the child is literally half the Dad and half the Mom so when either one says the other is bad, they are also criticizing the half of the child that is from that parent. “That’s child abuse,” we concluded.

# Why are there so few people in the Father’s movement, if Fathers really are oppressed and discriminated against?

We had to put our heads together to answer this question, but decided the men who weren’t be with us today, were dead from abuse or suicide, in prison, homeless, depressed, or had just given up all hope (among other reasons).

# What should you do about a judge who doesn’t listen to valid evidence?

We told the person asking this question to try to find a judicial review contact through the Internet, The State Bar Association, or other info source, and as always to contact a lawyer if they needed legal help. We wished that person, “good luck.”

# Why are the Dads so often driven out of their children’s lives?

Historically, in a nut shell, local governments profit from collection of child support by federal financial incentives, thereby local governments are incentivized to drive Dads from kids lives and saddle Dads with onerous child support payments.

# Why hasn’t anyone done this (Father’s movement) before?

We explained that Fathers groups have been around for some time - struggling. We explained some of the reasons given to the 2nd question above, then followed with the statement, “…but we’re here now,” and, “We plan on being here in the future.”

The most often heard comment of the day was, “Things really are bad for Fathers.”

As some of us were sitting in the shade and munching our burgers and chips, a woman stopped her car, got out, came up to the tent with the parental alienation sign and began complaining about our picnic/rally to the guy at that table. She said Fathers should be taking credit for the violence they commit against women (stereotyping all Fathers negatively with one broad brush stroke), and she complained that the signs calling attention to Fathers rights should be saying parental rights, among other complaints.

Our big signs read:

# CAN YOU GET ME BACK MY DADDY

# A FATHER’S LOVE IS IRREPLACEABLE

# REUNITE KIDS AND DADS

# PARENTAL ALIENATION IS CHILD ABUSE

Those were the only signs we had out all day, other than our small 8 1/2“ X 11“ table placards. The woman had two kids in the car, but left them there while she gripped at us. I guess she felt it was an outrage that Fathers/men were protesting their oppressions, demanding equality, and just having a nice picnic in the park in a peaceful manner. Hmmm.

On a more positive note, one of the people who saw us as they were driving by and stopped to talk was a Medical Doctor. He stated that Fathers, and men, do have a rough time of it these days, and he asked what he could do to help. I quickly reached for the Dr. Warren Farrell resources and was very glad I had stayed up late last night watching an old video of Dr. Warren Farrell, when he spoke to a Father’s group back in 2000 - during his California Gubernatorial run. I was very pleased to see this Doctor so interested in Father’s, and men’s, issues and encouraged him that we need the talents of more skilled professionals to be part of our efforts - along with all the other people who are trying to affect change. He thanked us for our time as he took our information and wished us well.

One Dad stopped by with his little girl in tow, and seemed only mildly interested at first, but then wound up talking with us for some time.

Amongst the people stopping by to ask questions, were some people who related very personal and heart wrenching, family law experiences. We were happy at those times that the big signs gave us extra privacy so those people were able to feel comfortable enough to share their experiences with us. One woman, along with her husband, brought a candle and a photo of her son, and told us of her child’s suffering, while in the “care” of Los Angeles County Child Protective Services. The photo she brought showed some of the abuse the child experienced while in foster care. The dysfunction in our societal institutions, supposedly working in the best interests of the children, is truly appalling. Due to the sensitive and personal nature of a number of our visitors family law stories, we refrained from taking definitive photos, that would have shown the true extent of our outreach today.

As one person honestly related, “This stuff is painful. It’s a real pain to talk about.” We acknowledged the truth in that statement, then shared that it was not in anyone’s best interest to perpetuate family dissolution pain, as the legal system is so want to do when it “adversarially” gets involved in peoples family relations. We acknowledged that it was often good to talk to a professional mental health worker about a painful family dissolution experience, or if that‘s impossible, a good friend. We also acknowledged that endlessly reliving the pain of past negative experiences was not in anyone’s best interest, but neither was living in denial that things are okay (when they‘re not), or will be okay, when in reality, America’s legal system is devastatingly destructive to Fathers, and geared to stay that way for the foreseeable future.

Hopefully, working proactively to publicize the abuses and corruption in America’s family law system will spur more Fathers (and other people), to come forward and join in the call for parental rights for Fathers who’ve been wronged by America’s chronically dysfunctional family law system. Father’s for Justice and the National Coalition of Free Men, Los Angeles are working for Father’s rights incrementally and with dedicated tenacity.

Fathers-4-Justice (F4J) and the National Coalition of Free Men, Los Angeles (NCFMLA) invite you to meet fellow grand parents, children, women and men who are joined together to stop the unfair practices of lawyers and family court.  Have lunch in the park with people like you who need to be heard and need to take action. Bring your story and join us for hot dogs, soft drinks and conversation. This is a great opportunity to meet new friends and realize that you are not alone in your experiences.

The protest rally and picnic will be held, July 22, 2007 (Sunday), from 9:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. at the Van Nuys/Sherman Oaks Park in Los Angeles County.

The picnic in the park will be located at the corner of Hazeltine and Huston (above) in the S.E. corner of the park, or if that spot is taken, 100 yards to the west in front of the Gymnasium (below).

Members of Fathers 4 Justice (F4J), Children’s Rights Initiative Sharing Parents Equally (CRISPE) and National Coalition of Free Men, Los Angeles (NCFMLA) met at the Family Relations Courthouse in Sacramento, California on Tuesday to protest laws, policies and decisions that deny parents (mostly Fathers) equal (50/50) shared parenting.

The protest began sharply at 8:00 A. M. at the William R. Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse on Power Inn Road, and lasted for several hours.  During that time, participants presented a number of signs for public viewing and demanded (via megaphone) equal (50/50) parenting rights.  Judging by the participation of passing motorists who honked their horns, there was widespread support for that position.  As always, Larry’s big CRISPE bus was a hit with one and all.

After several hours of protesting at the Family Relations Courthouse, most of the participants regrouped and headed for the State Capitol.  The State Capitol lawn was packed with people from another group, but we gathered in the southwest corner of the Capitol lawn and again presented our views to the public.  It was a hot day in Sacramento with temperatures over 90 degrees F. so after about an hour, we departed the Capitol lawn, each going our separate way.

For me, it had been a long drive up to Sacramento and it would be a long drive back, but the long trek was a necessary effort, because California does not honor the rights of parents (mostly Fathers) to be involved in their children’s lives. 

 The week before Father’s Day seemed an appropriate time to stage the Sacramento protest, but Father’s rights groups agree that no special day is needed to protest the egregious treatment of parents (mostly Fathers) by Family Relations Courts and CA lawmakers.  Given the overt misandry with which many Judges and lawmakers treat California’s Fathers, other gatherings to protest for 50/50, shared parenting are likely to occur.  When Father’s began to be treated equally by our courts and lawmakers, it truly will be a happy Father’s day.  :-)

I turned on FOX News this morning to hear that a Sheriff’s car was waiting outside Paris Hilton’s Hollywood hill’s mansion to make sure she got back to court today.  This, after Paris spent the night out of jail in obviously, ”more comfortable accommodations.”  On the subsequent video feed, I saw at least two black and whites and four uniformed L. A. County Sheriffs on the street outside the mansion.  A little while later I saw a couple of black and whites on the street, headed for the courthouse.  Great, I mused, “More traffic and smog as L. A. County taxpayers apparently shower pampering, special treatment on a member of the female sex.”

John Scott of FOX News appeared mildly outraged that the person of interest in the news coverage was getting special treatment because “she’s rich and white.”  Duh, did he ever think that sex (female) just might be a factor too?  Obviously, this FOX newscaster is unaware of the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department’s historical pattern of this kind of behavior, when it comes to female prisoners.

Several years back the Los Angeles Times did several articles on the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department policy of releasing women prisoners earlier than men for the same exact crimes.  Those stories are now deep in archive, but the liberal L.A. Times did not appear to be critical of that discriminating L. A. County Sheriff’s policy, IMO.  I was only able to find this comment, somewhat alluding to that discrimination, in this recent story in another news source.

http://www.dailynews.com/search/ci_5997115

“…the county has lobbied for state legislation that would make electronic monitoring mandatory in some cases. Officials hope that could reduce the number of female inmates, and the amount of jail space they would have to build for women.”

It appears from some of what I’ve found online, that in recent history (the last year) some women have actually stayed in prison longer than men, but historically it’s been men getting the disparate sentencing and hard time.

http://www.trueequality.com/booklet/#CriminalBias

“# Males Get Longer Sentences than Females for the Same Crime

# Men are 20 times more likely to receive the death penalty

# Gender is the most significant biasing factor in determining whether or not someone will be charged, prosecuted, indicted and sentenced, as well as determining the severity of the sentence.”

As I glance back at the TV coverage, showing numerous Sheriff’s Dept. employees and other public servants I can only wonder:

# “How many of my Los Angeles Country tax payer dollars, that could be going to help homeless men, or youthful gang members in trouble because of Fatherlessness, are wasted, paying Sheriff’s salaries and other legal costs as a result of this fiasco?”

# “How many males would be getting this kind of special treatment from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department?”

# “How many “Beatdead Dads,” behind on child support and driven from their children’s lives, currently sit rotting in Los Angeles County debtor’s prison as political prisoners of the misandrist family law system - without any of the perks this pampered, privileged female is getting?”

In light of all of the above, I dedicate the photos below to the Los Angeles Country Sheriff’s Department, for the way they’ve historically shown a pattern of releasing female prisoners sooner than males for the same identical crimes.  I dedicate the photos below to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for the historical ways that Dads and men’s needs are ignored, while women’s needs get privileged treatment. 

Shown in the first picture is the Los Angeles County, Constituent Service Center in the San Fernando Valley (about 8 to 10 miles from Hollywood):

Sorry I only have photos that just say “DADS,” but you get the idea, Los Angeles County, IMO, is sexist and hateful against Dads, and men.  Today’s events are merely one more indication of the fact, IMO.

Last Tuesday, May 22, 2007, Fathers 4 Justice, CRISPE, and the National Coalition of Free Men, Los Angeles staged a protest in front of the Family Relations Courthouse in Sacramento, California.The day preceding the courthouse protest, a couple of us (as private citizens accompanying another group) spent time in the state capitol, where we observed the functioning of our state government.

Sunday before last, May 20th, 2007, from 10 A.M. to 3 P.M. the Van Nuys/Sherman Oaks park was the site of a Father’s Rally and picnic as the National Coalition of Free men welcomed Fathers 4 Justice to Los Angeles.  In reality, the event more widely welcomed Fathers for Justice to California.  People came from as far away as Sacramento (to the north) and as far away as San Diego (to the south).

Recently, a series of exchanges was printed in a local Caribbean News outlet (Caribbean Net News), regarding domestic violence in the Caribbean.  At times, the exchange of perceptions was rather robust.  One local Caribbean domestic violence advocate even went so far as to say this about Mr. Marc Angelucci, local President of the National Coalition of Free Men, Los Angeles (NCFMLA):

“Mr Angelucci has sought to enter a discourse in a cultural context wherein he is out of his depth with little experience and knowledge. Mr Angelucci would be best advised to leave topics in this discourse to experts like Dr Spooner who have studied and understand the context of domestic violence in the English-speaking Caribbean states.”

Below are as many links as I could find, revealing the history of the aforementioned exchange of perceptions.  As you can see (below), I was fortunate enough to personally have a “Letter to the Editor” published.  It appears from what I could find, that Caribbean Net News graciously allowed me to have the last word in the matter:

“Today’s domestic violence industry, worldwide, follows (or advocates) a biased, gender feminist, domestic violence methodology, that systematically works to marginalize and exclude males. Anyone entering the domestic violence debate with only the knowledge provided by such biased, gender feminist propaganda is pathetically ignorant of the true dynamics of domestic violence to such an extent, that “misandrist” most precisely characterizes the junk science positions presented by them.

Domestic violence advocates in the Caribbean, or anywhere in the world, who base their positions on such corrupt, gender feminist, junk science as is so overwhelmingly present in the worldwide domestic violence industry today, can only have their position described as “so shallow they truly have no human depth at all,” in my opinion.”

Here is the list of links to that exchange:

Original “biased” (IMO) article on domestic violence by Dr. Spooner:

Commentary: Domestic violence is not women’s fault

Published on Monday, April 30, 2007

http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/news-1185–6-6–.html

Letter by Mr. Angelucci, responding to Dr. Spooner’s article:

Letter: Domestic violence article ignored male victims

Published on Friday, May 4, 2007

http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/letters/letters.php?news_id=1308&start=0&category_id=7

Response to Mr. Angelucci by Ms. James:

In response to Marc Angelucci’s letter

Published on Monday, May 7, 2007

http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/news-1356–7-7–.html

Letter by Mr. Angelucci, responding to Ms. James’s rebuttal:

Letter: In response to Salome James’ letter

Published on Tuesday, May 8, 2007

http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/news-1373–7-7–.html

Response by Mr. Blumhorst to Ms. James’s attack on Mr. Angelucci’s first response:

Letter: Domestic violence issue

Published on Friday, May 11, 2007

http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/news-1436–7-7–.html

I was very pleased to see Caribbean Net News include a working link to the story I wrote last year about the International Conference on Family Violence.  In that story I provided some detail about bias against men, present at that “International” Conference.  Thank you Wendy McElroy (Ifeminist), Mike LaSalle (Men’s News Daily) and all others who still having a working link to that story:

Men’s News Daily

http://tinyurl.com/2jc54o

Ifeminist

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/0927blumhorst.html

At the end of that story is a picture of Mr. Angelucci (and the rest of our group), just smiling away “in our depth,” in our booth, at the ICFV, amidst the “International” domestic violence community).   

A friend sent me an email a few days ago announcing, “The Kentucky Commission on Women (KCW) will present the 2007 Governor’s Conference on Kentucky’s Women July 13th at the Kentucky International Convention Center in downtown Louisville.”   He proceeded to ask, “Why is it that women’s issues have special conference and special speakers addressing ONLY the plight of W O M E N???”  That’s certainly a valid question considering there are over two hundred seventy (270) women’s commissions in Amerika, but only one (1) for men in New Hampshire - - - and it receives no government funding.  That’s certainly a valid question considering men’s list of historical (and present) ”oppressions” is as great or greater than women’s.

I was thinking just this afternoon about all the different perspectives on “women’s issues,” taken by different women’s factions in our society.  Most women’s issues seem to fall broadly under two categories. 

On the one hand we have the ”progressive” perspective, encompassing the spectrum of liberal women’s views, from the right to choose, to comparable (commie) worth, to special treatment under domestic violence and sexual harassment laws, etc. 

On the other hand we have the ”traditional” perspective, encompassing the spectrum of conservative (right wing) women’s views from the expectation of chivalrous treatment to an interpretation of “choice” that includes right to life, adoption, alimony, stay at home Motherhood, being a kept woman, etc., etc.

I really don’t see traditional women “street protesting” against the viewpoints and issues of liberal women, other than abortion, but leftist women tend to denigrate just about everything a conservative woman stands for.  Neither women’s camp is aggressive at shucking off the special privileges garnered on women, coming from the opposition women’s camp.  Again, abortion seems to be the most controversial issue dividing liberal and conservative women so what one considers a privilege, the other considers an oppression, ergo strong disagreement on that one issue.

Politicians seem quick to accommodate and very, very slow to condemn, the whole breadth of women’s topics from the most conservative to the most liberal.  As a result, IMO, American women today seem to be in an oddly win-win smorgasbord of politics, where every option and choice is on the table with no real penalties for hypocrisies.  After-all, it has always been a woman’s prerogative to change her mind. 

If any dare criticize the abundance of special privileges and pampering that American women enjoy today under nanny state programs, and chivalrous treatment, just trot out that tired old gender feminist propaganda about the historical oppression of women under Patriarchy and watch the dumb a$$ male politicians all line up like ducks in a row to salute, as that fallacious mantra of women’s politics is run up the flag pole.  You won’t find very many American women in the house, IMO, who will disavow how unfair life has been, according to their expectations of what life should be, or should have been.

I wonder what the outcry would be if the Governor of Kentucky got up to speak at the Women’s Commission gathering and the first words out of his mouth were “get tough or die?”  Conversely, I suspect Marines to this day are still taught to say that phrase to each other.

The hypocritical double standards between the way men are treated and women are treated in America today are numerous and stink to high heaven, yet we are considered equal - clearly separate, if in anyway equal.  I’d like to make that point at the next convening of the California Men’s Commission, except it doesn’t exist.  Oh, but there are at least 31 California Commissions for women.

Women will never be equal, until men have their (women’s) rights and privileges too.  

A Commission for Men in Los Angeles County would be a great place for California to begin to level the playing field.

Fathers-4-Justice (F4J) and the National Coalition of Free Men, Los Angeles (NCFMLA) invite you to meet fellow grand parents, children, women and men who are joined together to stop the unfair practices of lawyers and family court. Have lunch in the park with people like you who need to be heard and need to take action. Bring your story and join us for hot dogs, soft drinks and conversation. This is a great opportunity to meet new friends and realize that you are not alone in your experiences.

We have already received word that the Children’s Rights Initiative Sharing Parents Equally (CRISPE) will be coming to Sherman Oaks for this event.

The protest rally and picnic will be held, May 20, 2007 (Sunday), from 10:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. at the Van Nuys/Sherman Oaks Park in Los Angeles County.   The picnic in the park will be located at the corner of Hazeltine and Huston in the S.E. corner of the park.

The address of the park is:
14201 Huston Street
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423

Members of Father’s and men’s rights groups (CRISPE, F4J, and NCFMLA) protested today outside the  downtown, Los Angeles County Municipal Courthouse, that was hearing matters in the Baldwin-Basinger visitation dispute.

http://www.californiamenscenters.org/crispe.html

http://www.f4j.us/index.php?id=ca

http://www.ncfmla.org/

The protestors came from as far away as Sacramento and San Diego for a chance to express their opinions on “equal patenting” and other custody and visitation issues.

Approximately 25 to 30 protestors were present, although it was apparently difficult for the news media to determine crowd size. Some protestors walked around over a wide area, while a group of about twelve protested steadily in front of the West entrance to the L. A. County Municipal Court building at 110 N. Grand (near the intersection of Grand and 1 st. Street). Others protested across the street to the West and a few protested at the entrance were Kim Basinger is alleged to have entered the courthouse.

http://www.9news.com/life/entertainment/article.aspx?storyid=69321

While Associated Press (above) reported only “about a dozen people” in attendance, Reuters (below) was much close to the actual number, reporting:

http://www.reuters.com/article/peopleNews/idUSN0434898020070504?pageNumber=2

“about two dozen men, many of them divorced, noncustodial fathers, staged a demonstration in support of Baldwin, carrying signs with such slogans as “Parental alienation is child abuse” and “Los Angeles County abuses fathers.’”

According to sources closely associated with the demonstration, 25 people were in attendance (mostly concerned men, but also a significant number of concerned women).

In just a quick Google search of the web, I noticed stories containing the Reuters and Associated Press snippets, appearing in states around America from New Hampshire to Colorado, and around the world from Canada, to Scotland, to India. By early evening, all mention of protestors had disappeared from the AP stories I was finding on the web, although Reuters still carried mention of the protestors in its coverage.

The protest lasted from 6:45 A.M. to 11 A.M. Reports came in during the protest that video of the protest was airing on local news stations. When I got home shortly before Noon, I turned on the news and was able to videotape a news report about the Baldwin-Basinger visitation dispute, that showed: protestors, the mobile red white and blue protest sign, and a short interview with a “parents rights advocate.” By the time the 5 o’clock news rolled around the Basinger-Baldwin visitation dispute was still making all the local news channels, but the entire portion showing the “equal parenting “protest was edited out.

While assembling this report, I listened to different TV news sources in the background to see if there may yet be some coverage of all the caring parents I saw today, working as a force for good. Alas, I heard nothing of those parents struggling to proactively further loving ties between parents and children.

Instead of responsible news coverage of the good I saw today, I heard different media outlets carry malevolent and sensationalistic news, of another Hollywood Actor allegedly being videotaped in a drunken stupor by his 16 year old daughter. Journalistic standards that determine what constitutes news, appear to me to be severely lacking any kind of moral or ethical balance, and are thereby an unbalanced reporting of what truly constitutes a truthful reflection of news worthy of reporting.

The “media beast” is indeed a ravenous beast. The media beast appears to be as much, or more, concerned with molding societies perception of what it thinks news is, as it is concerned with fairly conveying a true and balanced reflection of what actually is the news.

CRISPE, F4J, and NCFMLA are certainly working hard to change that as it regards issues of parenting (and other Father’s/men’s issues) in America.

Today is May Day, traditionally a day to celebrate the coming of Spring, but alas another cultural event now co-opted by Marxist toadies for their own purposes.   Around the world, in commie countries, and commie leaning countries like Amerika, May day is now a day to celebrate and promote political dogma, based on the ever failing ideology of Karl Marx.   

Although many interpret today’s rallies and celebrations as primarily a promotion of illegal immigration, I see the events as more generally, a typical May 1st celebration like  communists annually engage in.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Day#The_Soviet_Union

“May Day was an important official holiday in the former Soviet Union, celebrated with elaborate popular parade in the centre of the major cities. It was first openly celebrated on May 1, 1917. The biggest celebration was traditionally ogranized on the Red Square, where the General Secretary of the CPSU and other party and government leaders were greeting the crowds form the Lenin’s Mausoleum.”

America has come a long way down to get to such big celebrations of this evil day, where we see such large support for communists, cultural Marxists and other step children of Marx‘s corrupt ideology. 

Today the news media abounds with stories about May Day celebrations in major leftist cities across Amerika.   Ten’s of thousands are marching in Los Angeles alone.   Thousands, or tens of thousands more, supporting cultural Marxist corruption, take to the streets in cities like Chicago, Boston, New York, Washington, and San Francisco.

Such celebrations add fuel to the candidacy of Presidential candidates and cultural Marxist darlings like Hillary Clinton, who support the communist concept of “comparable worth,” as well as other cultural Marxist doctrines of “The Nanny State.”

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/13.aspx

Stories promoting the gender fascist fallacy of “the wage gap” have recently taken on mythic status in mainstream media with that “big lie,” being repeated over and over again in newspapers and television media outlets across the western world.   Joseph Goebbels would be proud of the lack of journalistic fact checking behind the promulgation and dissemination of that “big lie” propaganda weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

The level of hype surrounding mythic, wage gap MsInformation has reached such a level of hype, it has gone off the hype meter and NOW circles planet earth in a newly discovered ring of gases known as the “ludicrous sphere” (roughly the equivalent of that area above earth carrying the waves (signals) broadcast by our mass media outlets).   The latest contribution to the “ludicrous sphere” is a proposal calling for a “man tax,” based on the flawed communist model known as “comparable worth,” which itself was used to establish the infamous wage gap propaganda.

  http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1149212.html

“Taxing women less: Gender pay equity?”

 Comparable worth is, yet again, co-opting noble sounding words, but yet again using methodology based on flawed, cultural Marxist dogma.   Yet again, the results of such corruption and dishonesty are nothing less than a proposition for tyranny.  I can hardly believe anyone would have the temerity to propose such an outrageous and irresponsible proposition as a “man tax.”   What could be more appropriate to say today, about such an unAmerican, and unequal rights propostion as a ”man tax,” other than “HAPPY MAY FOOLS DAY?”

Of course, the MsInformation being broadcast by irresponsible mainstream media does not exist in a vacuum, nor did it come about without the aid and assistance of the leftist bases of indoctrination know as Amerika’s colleges and universities.   ”Get ‘em while their young,” has always been the motto of communist, red diaper toting, leaders everywhere so even elementary schools are not so sacred of a place that Amerika’s cultural Marxists are kept from spewing their vile indoctrination to America’s youngest citizens.   To see the extent of this plague, infesting Amerika’s educational institutions, one need only visit the book store at a college or university campus in one of Amerika’s major cities, then check out the textbook offerings for subjects such as:   Sociology, Political Science, Women’s Studies, Psychology, English, etc., etc.

As I write this careful consideration of today‘s cultural Marxist, “May day” events, intermittent shots of foolish marchers flash across the TV, promoting the propaganda of Amerika’s cultural Marxists.   I am both saddened and disgusted to see the depraved, corrupt level our once great nation has sunken to.  

This is quoted from the AAUW “wage gap” study previously mentioned in Part I of this series:

http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/jobseeker/tools/ept/careerArticlesPost.html?post=103

Another site alleges this explanation of comparable worth:

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v3n2/comparable.html

http://www.hillaryc linton.com/ video/13. aspx

When I turned my computer on this afternoon, this Yahoo news story, originally from AP, was the first thing to come up.

http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/jobseeker/tools/ept/careerArticlesPost.html?post=103

“NEW YORK, April 23 — Women make only 80 percent of the salaries their male peers do one year after college; after 10 years in the work force, the gap between their pay widens further, according to a study released Monday.

The study, by the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, found that 10 years after college, women earn only 69 percent of what men earn.

Even after controlling for hours, occupation, parenthood, and other factors known to affect earnings, the study found that one-quarter of the pay gap remains unexplained. The group said that portion of the gap is “likely due to sex discrimination.’”

This latest gender feminist wage gap propaganda appears to me to be yet another gender feminist, myth-making attempt, taking shape before my very eyes.  One can only wonder if we’re seeing, yet again, the gender feminist process, where gender feminist propaganda is repeated, again and again and again, until it becomes unquestionable in the public consciousness (grows legs and runs).

The timing of this report is curious, coming, as it does so coincidentally close to Hillary Clinton’s promotion of this same gender feminist, “wage gap” propaganda.

http://www.hillaryc linton.com/ video/13. aspx

Let’s not forget FOX News contributor, Lis Wiehl’s contribution to this issue.  She just released a new book that apparently parrots this same gender feminist propaganda.  One editorial review attributes to the book, “A woman earns seventy-three cents for every dollar a man makes.”

http://tinyurl.com/2oxgzg

The 51% Minority: How Women Still Are Not Equal and What You Can Do About It

Warren Farrell in his book, Why Men Earn More, refutes the wage gap myth in a scholarly manner so I’m a little surprised to see the same old gender feminist propaganda being recycled, and put forth, yet again.

http://tinyurl.com/yp48nf

Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap — and What Women Can Do About It

Before Warren Farrell wrote on this subject, the Independent Women’s Forum debunked the “wage gap myth,” and has veritably been debunking the “wage gap myth” from the beginning of the new millennia.

http://www.iwf.org/issues/issues_detail.asp?ArticleID=515

http://www.iwf.org/issues/issues_list.asp?sType=73

IWF provides a succinct refutation to the Wage Gap Myth here:

http://www.iwf.org/issues/issues_print.asp?ArticleID=117

Myth #1: Women earn 72 cents for every dollar that men earn.
If this myth were true, employers would be eager to replace their male workers with cheaper (and better) female workers, and thus increase their profits. But the “72 cents” claim is misleading because it only refers to the median wages of all men and all women in the work force, without regard to age, education, occupation, experience or working hours — factors that even the NCPE admits are valid explanations for different pay rates.  When those key factors enter the equation, the “wage gap” disappears. Studies based on data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, taking into account these key variables, reveal that among people ages 27-33 who have never had a child, women’s earnings are actually 98 percent of men’s.

Myth #2: The “wage gap” is the result of discrimination.
Remember, such discrimination has been unlawful since 1963. You would not be surprised to know that bosses earn more than their assistants or that full time workers are paid more than their part-time colleagues.  Market forces and common sense dictate that some people earn more than others because of their education and skills, their experience, the demand for their services, or their willingness to work longer, harder or under more difficult conditions. Differing wages exist for many reasons and are not in themselves an indication of discrimination.

Myth #3: Women are funneled into low-paying jobs by a sexist society.
The NCPE claims that certain jobs (like sales, clerical and service work) are paid less because they are held by women, and they say that any earnings differences not explained by differences in education, experience or time in the work force are “proof” of discrimination. But the NCPE is overlooking some important facts. First, the value of a job is determined by the supply and demand of able and willing workers.  Women who might be able to hold a better-paying job often choose a job that pays less but provides more flexibility.  This is not discrimination

From an even earlier time, “Diana Furchtgott-Roth and Christine Stolba” as one Amazon.com reviewer comments, “’explain with tons of data why the “wage gap” and “glass ceiling” are myths based on bad statistics and a less than thorough investigation of the facts.’”

http://tinyurl.com/2hsgpk

Women’s Figures: An Illustrated Guide to the Economic Progress of Women in America

I am left to wonder, “’Who in America will exert the lobbying power of a Hillary Clinton, to bring to America’s attention, the “real” truth about men’s and women’s wages?’”  I mentioned that Hillary Clinton is actively promoting the “wage gap myth” as fact in her campaign, but did I mention that she is actively calling for legislation to remedy it?  Who in America’s pantheon of politics will counter her fallacious and biased legislative proposal?

http://www.nysun.com/article/49942

As I blogged this afternoon, I found the comments of a certain Dr. E of the Stand Your Ground blog to be of particular interest, concerning the AAUW study.  He appears to be pointing out that the AAUW is misreporting the results of their own study.

http://standyourground.com/forums/index.php?topic=13018.0

He writes: “From the AAUW study (bottom of page 40 of a 45 page paper, buried in the methodology section):

“Overall, the regression analysis of earnings one year after graduation suggests that a 5 percent pay gap between women and men remains after accounting for all variables known to affect earnings.  Women who choose male-dominated occupations appear to earn more than do other women. Undergraduate majors in business and management, engineering, health professions, or public affairs and social services enhance both women’s and men’s earnings.”

I wasn’t content with taking just the information Dr. E provided as proof that something suspicious is afoot so I did a little online, background research on the AAUW and found some interesting “herstory.”

http://www.amazon.com/WAR-AGAINST-BOYS-Misguided-Feminism/dp/product-description/0684849577

or

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/sommers-war.html

From Christina Hoff Sommers, The War Against Boys,

http://tinyurl.com/245la2

“Chapter One

In 1990, Carol Gilligan announced to the world that America’s adolescent girls were in crisis. In her words, “As the river of a girl’s life flows into the sea of Western culture, she is in danger of drowning or disappearing.”  Gilligan offered little in the way of conventional evidence to support this alarming finding.  Indeed, it is hard to imagine what sort of empirical research could establish so large a claim.  But Gilligan quickly attracted powerful allies.”

and

“Gilligan’s ideas had special resonance in women’s groups already committed to the proposition that our society is unsympathetic to women.  Such organizations were naturally receptive to bad news about girls.  The interest of the venerable and politically influential American Association of University Women (AAUW), in particular, was piqued.  Officers at the AAUW were reported to be “intrigued and alarmed” by Gilligan’s findings. “Wanting to know more,” they commissioned a polling firm to study whether American schoolgirls were being drained of their self-confidence.

In 1991, the AAUW announced the disturbing results: “Most [girls] emerge from adolescence with a poor self-image.”  Anne Bryant, then executive director of the AAUW and an expert in public relations, organized a media campaign to spread the word that “an unacknowledged American tragedy” had been uncovered.  Newspapers and magazines around the country carried the bleak tidings that girls were being adversely affected by gender bias that eroded their self-esteem. Susan Schuster, at the time president of the AAUW, candidly explained to The New York Times why the AAUW had undertaken the research in the first place:  “We wanted to put some factual data behind our belief that girls are getting shortchanged in the classroom.”

At the time the AAUW’s self-esteem results were making headlines, a little-known journal called Science News, which has been supplying information on scientific and technical developments to interested newspapers since 1922, quoted leading adolescent psychologists who questioned the validity of the self-esteem poll.  But somehow the doubts of the experts were not reported in the hundreds of news stories the AAUW study generated.

The AAUW quickly commissioned a second study, How Schools Shortchange Girls. This new study, carried out by the Wellesley College Center for Research on Women and released in 1992, asserted a direct causal relationship between girls’ (alleged) second-class status in the nation’s schools and deficiencies in their level of self-esteem.  Carol Gilligan’s psychological girl crisis was thus transformed into a pressing civil rights issue: girls w…”

I dug further to find out what university Carol Gilligan has been affiliated with and found this.
http://gseweb.harvard.edu/news/features/gilliganchair09101997.html
 

“Harvard
September 10, 1997 CONTACTS:
Ariadne Valsamis, 617-496-1895
Carol Gilligan Named to Chair in Gender Studies “

An additional hit brought up this information:
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/gilligan.html

“There has been criticism of Gilligan’s work and much of it has come from Christina Hoff Sommers, PhD.  She says that Gilligan has failed to produce the data for her research.  She condemns the fact that Gilligan used anecdotal evidence, that researchers have not been able to duplicate her work, and that the samples used were too small.  She thinks the field of gender studies needs to be put to the test of people from fields such as neuroscience or evolutionary psychology rather than from the area of education.  She feels strongly that promoting an anti-male agenda hurts both males and females.  Public policy and funding has been allocated based on Gilligan’s data, which Sommers says is not publicly available.”

At this point in time, after considering all of the above information, I must say that I’m very highly suspicious of the reported findings of the AAUW study.  I would forthwith call on scholars of high integrity and good will everywhere, to peer review the findings of the AAUW study and publicly report their findings, but I’m aware of the lobbying efforts of gender feminist, women’s studies departments to integrate women’s studies curriculum (propaganda) into all other college and university disciplines.

http://tinyurl.com/2qldgu

Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women’s Studies

I‘ve also just read a sizeable portion of David Horowitz‘s new book,

Indoctrination U: The Left’s War Against Academic Freedom

http://tinyurl.com/3aznwm

Consequently, I’ve lost all confidence in our American educational institution’s ability to do an unbiased peer review, let alone an objective, scholarly study on a perceived “wage gap” (or any other topic for that matter), devoid of gender feminist prejudices and propaganda.

No wonder some people feel compelled to protest the activities of university pedagogy.

Do Only the Female Victims of the Virginia Tech Shootings Count?  In coverage of the Virginia Tech shootings, night before last on FOX News’s Hannity and Colmes, I heard Jennifer Pozner of Women in Media and News (WIMN) say, “Violence against women is at the heart of it,” and :