Wednesday, March 29, 2006

L is for the Love Whose Name is Imprisoned

Some have criticised me for keeping my identity secret. Certainly if I was fully 'out', I would be more visible, a greater force for men's rights. But then there are my children to think of, ("your daddy's a deadbeat", "Your daddy was in the paper", "Your daddy hates women" and the like) and my future. What employer wants to take on a major men's rights firebrand? Certainly my personal struggle for some semblance of freedom takes up time and mental energy, and with my men's-rights antennae fully erect, I might be considered a litigation risk. Also, someday, I hope to change careers again, to a human-centric career. Prospective employers in that area are often strongly feminist, and I would find myself fighting an uphill battle. Finally, things I have written in my personal life, intimating that the situation of men was akin to slavery, have shown up in court already, and I have been advised that these types of things further predjudice the court against me. (hm, is that possible?)

So I am distinctly grateful to those men who take the time, and make the sacrifice to 'out' themselves.

One such is brought to our attention by Wendy McElroy in this article for Fox.

Here a man was willing to write a book about the hatred the system has for men, and name names, including the name of the judge. Of course the judge 'impounded' it. Of course the court did it for the 'good of the children', just as he took them away from their father for their 'good'.

But the man continues to press his case, and assert his rights. "Exposing the Corruption in the Massachusetts Family Courts" is still being advertised online.

The father, author and victim in the case, Kevin Thompson, states:

"This book was written to gain justice in the court of public opinion because justice certainly does not occur behind closed doors in these 'winner takes all' courtrooms where absolute power has corrupted absolutely. The sanctimonious claim that the secrecy of family court cases protects the privacy of the litigants is a lie.
"The only interests that are protected are the interests of the racketeers and hypocrites who invade 'family privacy' by removing loving fathers from the lives of their children against their will and without just cause to fill their pockets."

Thompson also notes here that: “I’m not a woman-hater, but all constitutional rights are thrown out the window for fathers."

Wendy goes on to note that the judgements in family courts commonly include a permanent injuction on discussing specific aspects of the proceeding.

In my opinion, secrecy is paramount, because injustice is rampant.

Read the book posting, and especially the comments, and heck, buy one before the company offering it on the web gets cold feet and pulls it.

Some of the comments are brilliant:
After reading this book how can anyone working in any area of “family law” believe that it is in the best interest of anyone but themselves to remove a loving parent from a child’s life? Simple, some people can justify doing anything for a buck especial under the guise of the “best interest of children”. They could not possibly be doing something so inherently evil just to line their pockets with the assets of the children they are suppose to be looking out for, could they? Well, yes they are.
This is a MUST read for any father in divorce to prepare himself for the shocking truth before it is too late. Most men only realize the corruption and fixed system at their trial when even their own lawyer railroads them into whatever sexually biased decision the out-of-touch judge wants. The family court system is so corrupt that the judges basically break the law every 5-10 minutes to press their personal agenda. Mine has broken the law 23 times so far. This is an important work and model for revolution against the unconstitutional courts.
Until the laws and courts are reformed this should become required reading for the American man before he may get married.
What clearly has happened to Kevin Thompson's family is Legal Abuse Syndrome, whereby the state 'actors' of judges and attorneys, under the color of law, dictate the facts of the case, scorn fundamental liberties, and destroy a father-child relationship. Kevin, facing a 'ban' of this book, is right to 'never shut up'. Since there is no jury to check the judicial license, Kevin has experienced in effect an infamous English 'Star Chamber'. Any citizen with or without children should fear and protest what has occurred to Kevin Thompson [...]
This is exactly how things do go down, its like a guidebook of navigating the system as a father in Essex court. All the way down to how to refer to the child and not use the word "my" , been there ;)We probably have passed each other in the court in Salem ! The system is broken and the children are loosing out on having a much needed relationship with thier fathers. This is a wake up call to fathers to not tolerate anything less then what is best for your children. The bar can only be raised if we dont settle. I think we all would rather spend the money of their college then have to spend at least that much in court fighting just to share in thier life.
[...] as an attorney, I found the author's personal story the most fascinating section of the book because it gave substance to the "all-too-real" claims expressed in the early chapters. A piece of free legal advice, Mr. Thompson. If you haven't already done so, DO NOT pay the mother's attorney fees. I examined your briefs carefully and it is crystal clear that the appeals court committed fraud when they called your appeal "frivolous with no basis in law or fact." Since this shocking response is an egregious betrayal of public trust and the laws of the land that these justices have sworn to uphold, it is also an act of treason against the country. File for injunctive relief in federal court and good luck to you!
I am floored by the amount of work Kevin put into this endeavor. I had similar experiences with the family court and it was extremely therapeutic to read this book. I am going to use this book as a starting point to rally some support for changing the courts. Kevin Thompson has done what all Father’s wish they could do, articulate and SUBSTANTIATE the criminal behavior of the Family Court.
I had the "fortune" well prior to getting this book, of having experienced much of what he has had to go through and let me tell you. This stuff is all too real! It's unfathomable for those who have not had direct or indirect involvement that such injustices as described in this book are routinely delivered. Sadly it's more the norm than not in MA as well as in many other states throughout this country. Had I not experienced this first hand I would have scoffed at the author's claims but now I know, all too well, how bad it really is and I hope this book helps expose it all! Fatherlessness is a desease than can and should be reversed, our childrens future is hanging in the balance.

It is shocking and remarkable that the court routinely takes children from their fathers - granting them 'visitation', and revoking their parental rights. Their attempts to sweep their behavior under the rug are merely a symptom. Truly, fatherhood is today a prisoner.

My best to you in your struggles.


Technorati Links:

Friday, March 24, 2006

T is for Tragedy

Just Another Disenfranchised Father has been brilliant lately, and if you aren't visiting his blog, you are missing a lot of important stuff.

Today he tells us about a toddler who wandered away from her playgroup and drowned in a pond. A bricklayer saw the girl, off on her own, but did not dare to try to interfere with her and get her to a responsible person, for fear of being suspected of being an abductor/abuser.

What a wonderful world the gender-feminists, the VAWA-promoters, and divorce lawyers have created! Some would probably condemn the man for his inaction, and I myself feel that he should have gotten involved, but I also understand exactly where he was coming from.

I worked many years in the city, and many times came across a child, seemingly alone in the subway crowds. What to do? For me the solution was to stay near the child, and ask him or her to find their mom or dad. Usually someone would appear out of the crowd in a minute or two, often somewhat annoyed with their wee one for escaping. But even the small amount of interference I ran put me in the position of potentially being seen as a child-stealer.

The impact the misandrist view of men on our culture is wide-spread, and still spreading - examples:

I was recently discussing the lack of male role-model-teachers in the local elementary school with a female collegue - and she said: "A man would never take that job, with all the child-molestation scares around? He would never be able to be alone in a room with a student!"

Or how about this blast from the past - A man tries to assist a young woman who is stumbling drunk and wandering about on the street, and ends up being dragged through the courts on a false rape charge, that eventually get thrown out as the woman can't pick him out of a lineup (after nine months of prosecution). How did the police get him in the first place? They asked for people to come forward who might have seen the woman that evening to provide information.

From my post on this:

Doesn't this case have a chilling effect upon men who might ever consider assisting a [...]woman? Heaven forbid, women of the world, that you ever be in need and alone on the streets. No thinking man having heard of this case is going to come anywhere near you. They are going to go the other way. It will be the WRONG thing for them to do, but who can afford to spend 9 months of their life fighting a false rape charge, and be labeled 'rapist' for the rest of their life. Oh, but some of you may say 'but it turned out right in the end.' Riiight. He was Accused of Rape, Arrested, and suffered through 9 Months of Prosecution. I don't think that anyone has these on their 'to do' list, or even on their 'ok if it happens' list.
Think about that as you sip your coffee today. Would you EVER pick up a female looking lost and alone in your car[...]? Even pause to check to see if a passed-out woman is 'ok'. 'Don't do it' the law says. 'Call a cop, or an ambulance. They'll come -eventually.'

But these are situations where there is no ill-will. Statistics tell us that in far more cases accusations against men of molestation/abuse/rape are made by intimate parters - partners who have something to gain from portraying their soon-to-be ex as a beast. Something like - custody, a great income stream, the house, and half the assets. I don't think that these witnesses, with so much to gain, have much trouble identifying their victim in a line-up

My best to you in your struggles.

Thursday, March 16, 2006

D is for Dynamite

The following is based on this post at Richard's Midlife Crisis.

Imagine eight young people graduate, four girls and four boys.


Reasonably, their skill levels are different. Statistics on the variability of people's intelligence are available on the web, and most people understand that there is a 'bell curve' of abilities. Let's assume that our population of Boys and Girls is like this.

Lets also assume that the girls are just as effective in the workforce as boys.

Then let's say that our top performers are the kind who will test in about the 85th percentile (15% below perfect) and our bottom peformers will are 15% above the bottom - the 15th percentile. The middle two tiers we will make 65% and 35% - Just 15% on either side of the 50% average.

G(85%) B(85%)
G(65%) B(65%)
G(35%) B(35%)
G(15%) B(15%)

Now, we all know that there are only a few 'top jobs'. Affirmative Action for Women would mean that half of those jobs go to women. Let's say that half of our graduates can nail these jobs.

G(85%) B(85%)
G(65%) B(65%) Working at Top Job
G(35%) B(35%) Didn't get a Top Job
G(15%) B(15%)

Note that the full top job workforce contributes 300 percentile points to their employers.

Now, imagine that our top performers age - everyone does - and most women at some point decide to have children. What does this do to the equation? Well, obviously these women leave the workforce for some period of time. In the interim, their male ex-co-workers have to take up some of the slack. Additionally, the top jobs must be filled with other women to maintain the 50% quota:

G(35%) B(85%)
G(15%) B(65%) Working at Top Job
B(35%) Didn't get a Top Job
G(85%) Home with kids
Note that the full top job workforce now contributes 200 percentile points to their employers.

So, our average Girl-employee has a skill level in the 25th percentile,
-they contribute a total of 50 skill points.
Our average Boy-employee has a skill level in the 75th percentile, .
-they contribute a total of 150 skill points.

So with enforced full equality, effectively a man has to be three times (300%) as skillful, work three times as hard as a woman to compete for the same job.

If the corporate that has the top jobs actually requires those 300 percentile-based skill points to get the work done, then the men in the top jobs have to come up with, in addition to their current 150 points, an additional 100 points to make the corporate whole. That would bring the men's average output to 125%.

So to keep the corporates going, the men on the job have to put out an average performance that is five times (125%/25%) that of the women on the job. One might try and distribute some of this to the new women on the job, but remember, they are trainees, and have less skill to start with. Demanding an extra 25% from a worker who is starting at an average 25th percentile, and who is new on the job is just not going to make up the shortfall.

But perhaps you say 'well, eventually the women who left the workforce return.' Most of them don't, not until their kids are a few years into school, and when they do they generally do not choose jobs that are at the 'top firms', instead choosing jobs that are closer to home, require less hours, and the like.

The real losers are the men, who want to work, but can't compete for jobs that are slated for women. Every bit as skillful, or more skillful than the women who pick up those jobs, no, ENTITLEMENTS, these men sit on the sidelines, perhaps work retail, and learn how to ask if their clients would 'like fries with that'.

Also losers are those men who have the jobs, who have to work 500% as hard as their female counterparts. They never see their families, - if they can afford the time to build families.

As all of this sounds frighteningly familiar to me, let me add the next piece. Imagine one of the men has a family. Well, his wife gets tired of his not being around at all, and he finds himself divorced. Windfall for the wife, for she now gets half of his output from his job where he is putting in that 500% effort to make up the slack.

Of course he can't quit, he is now locked into the rat race, with the full weight of the US Government forcing him to continue slaving at his 500% effort job until he dies.
(A voluntary reduction in income is no grounds to reduce alimony or child support.)

- And his passing falls suprisingly at an age that for no apparent reason, is much younger on average than women die.

Gee, wonder why.

(All of this is assuming he doesn't just commit suicide.)

How very, very fair.