Welcome to adulthood Gen Z: advice for boys aging into men.

As reported by Reason.com (Welcome to adulthood Gen Z) Pew research has moved up the millennials (19 to 36 years old in 2017) to welcome the next generation into adulthood under the moniker “Gen Z” (born after 1998).  Now that you’re 18 you’ve probably researched the “important” stuff, night time driving privileges and the age you can legally consume alcohol but there is some stuff that impacts men which you are probably not aware of.  So this paternalistic baby boomer card carrying member of Friends of Protection For Men and the National Coalition For Men, and a Men’s Rights Activist will give you a few pointers. At 18 you are an adult and will be treated like an adult.  Mistakes made now can have life changing and long lasting effects on your future.

MEN – Life isn’t fair, be ready for it.  You’ve probably been fed a regular dose of men are privileged and women downtrodden.  Edgar Allen Poe advised that we should believe only half of what we see and nothing that we hear.   This applies to what you have learned about men and society.  When faced with a “truth” which doesn’t apply to our actions we often accept the “truth” but figure it must be the other guy.  As you begin to navigate in the adult world you’re going to find that many of your assumptions about how things work are wrong.  Part of growing up is learning your own truth’s and what works for you in an ever changing society.  Unfortunately, some things you do have serious consequences if you are wrong.  Knowledge is power, so don’t take any one piece of advice as factual (even mine here), question everything, verify everything.

First up is Selective Service.  As a male you need to sign up for the military draft and if you fail to do so there are multiple penalties at both the state and federal level, including being charged with a felony, fined, and jailed.  The government tells us, “If a draft is ever needed, it must be as fair as possible, and that fairness depends on having as many eligible men as possible registered.”  Missing from their information is HOW IS IT FAIR THAT MEN HAVE TO REGISTER AND NOT WOMEN?  Most people will point to combat roles, indeed, it was the exclusion from combat in the volunteer military which was used to exempt women from the draft in the first place.  This is a ludicrous excuse as it takes 2 to 3 people working to keep one man in combat.  So we’ll draft  men to work in finance, planning, as quartermasters but not require women to do the same?  Now that the military has opened combat roles to women this lame excuse  has no bearing on serving.  Either EVERYBODY needs to register or NOBODY needs to register.  I would direct you to put this question onto your Congressman’s twitter or web page and ask them direct, remind them that at 18 you are now a voting member of society.  More is here at NCFM.

16427267_10208354829173044_7017679524603929933_n

Second is reproductive rights.  As a man YOU HAVE NONE!  Again, understand that MEN HAVE NO REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS!  The NYS Court of Appeals has even ruled that “a man’s right to reproduction ends at ejaculation”.   This is true even if she pokes holes in your condom or steals your sperm from a used condom in the garbage (and even if not used on her!).   If a woman gets pregnant she can abort the child against your will and has no obligation to notify you of this.  If she decides to have the child she does NOT have to notify you of that.  She can ask, and will receive, child support even for a child you did not want (no male aborting allowed) and if she hid the child from you for years and then seeks you out for child support you will be assessed back to the time of birth!  What sage advice do I have for this?  PROTECT YOURSELF AT ALL TIMES!  Short of abstinence there is no 100% effective method to protect yourself.   Women CAN, and DO, lie about their reproductive status so WEAR A CONDOM!  I suggest, “How To Avoid “Getting Screwed” When Getting Laid” by RK Hendrick, Esq. for practical suggestions.  Get it, read it, abide by it.

51tgHjCvIvL._SX323_BO1,204,203,200_

Third up is False paternity.   Mommy’s baby is Daddy’s maybe.  If you are identified as the father of a child and you you accept paternity it can NOT be rescinded even if DNA testing later in life proves you are not the father.  There are many men paying child support for children that are not theirs (estimates run as high as 10%) and there are even legal instances where you can be named the father and have had no relations with the woman and are forced to pay anyway.  Women CAN, and DO lie about their reproductive status and the number of sexual partners and relations that they have.  Many are known to “Daddy shop”, naming a man who earns the most money as the father to maximize their child support even if they are not sure who the father is. The system is designed so you pay more for one child than for two so it is in a woman’s interest to have TWO baby daddy’s paying for “her” two kids instead of one paying for two.    Again, wear a condom, bring your own, and dispose of the used condom away from females. and ALWAYS get an at birth DNA test before admitting paternity!

10156030_758590387504789_4699544420193663268_n
Fourth is Consent for sex – and false allegations of sexual abuse and rape.   Everyone understands that no means no (and this should apply to MEN also) but here are 3 areas where YES MEANS NO; Age of consent, intoxication, and her regret the next day.  It is the biased perception that all sexual abuse is perpetrated by men towards women (all women “need” protection) which has made it so that normal legal protections, the right of due process and innocent until proven guilty,  have been thrown out when men are accused of rape or sexual abuse.   This applies to criminal charges but is even worse in some institutions such as at colleges and universities and at work, especially those needing professional licensing.  Even if adjudicated “not guilty” the allegation and the negative perceptions of you will follow you throughout your life.  And, except in rare circumstances, there are virtually NO repercussions for making false allegation.

10647065_763277577068347_28033987823971459_n

If you get intoxicated with a female the intoxication will be determined to remove her ability to consent to sex but it will NOT remove your responsibility for having sex with her.  If equally drunk or stoned there is a very good chance you will be charged with rape because you are male.  There are even circumstances where a third party reports the “rape” of a female having drunken and/or consensual sex and the male is investigated and charged civilly.  The federal government has pressured colleges, threatening to remove funding, if they do not combat “sexual abuse” by applying “affirmative consent” rules to private sexual relations between consenting adults.   These rules have undermined due process on colleges.  The best way to protect yourself is to NOT have drunken sex.   The issue of colleges, affirmative consent, and the loss of protections for the falsely accused is reported on by Reason Magazine here.

Find out the age of consent in the jurisdiction that you are in!  And understand that there are different rules in each and every state and that also there are federal rules and criminal penalties.  As an 18 years old you will be treated and tried as an adult if you are having sexual relations with a female who is statutorily determined to be a child by age.  Sexting is a big problem as the transmittal of  “child pornography” is a federal crime, and the transmission of a photo of an underage female in her underwear to a male can be construed to be “child pornography” and you can be arrested for a felony, tried and/or coerced into pleading guilty, and have to register as a “sex offender” for the rest of your life.    You can find coverage of an individual case here and Reason Magazine has a good overview of the overreach and over reaction here.  Stop any “underage” sex and NO SEXTING!

54QDT-Imgur

Regret reported as abuse will result in investigation and possibly criminal charges and civil actions.   The Duke Lacrosse case is a good example of the impact of false allegations.  People sometimes do regret the sexual situations they get themselves into, especially females, and especially if it is talked about or sent around on social media.  False allegations of rape and sexual abuse have been used by females to solicit sympathy and/or jealousy.  Allegations of sexual abuse can, and have, been made weeks and months after the incident and even if you are found to have not committed the act you can still suffer the stigma as the “Mattress girl” case shows.  Be careful not to put yourself into situations which could be construed as non consensual sex when looked at AFTER THE FACT!  You can get more information at SAVE-Stop Abusive and Violent Environments.

Fifth is Domestic violence, specifically disorderly incidents and false allegations by females.  IF YOU ARE A MAN YOU WILL BE TREATED AS THE PERPETRATOR OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EVEN IF IT IS MUTUAL, YOU ARE DEFENDING YOURSELF, OR YOU ARE THE VICTIM!  The fact of the matter is our response to domestic violence is a one sided affair which looks at men as perpetrators and women as victims.  What was designed as a shield to protect abused people is now a sword used regularly through false allegations.  Inversely, if you are a male victim there are almost no services available for you and most likely, if you are to report, you will end up being the one investigated.

Statutory protections and due process.  Every person is protected from assault by the penal code and if you are involved in an altercation with another person you can press charges or, in the case of a mutual disagreement or their being extenuating circumstances, decide to not press charges.  For the district attorney to prosecute they would require you to make a statement and then appear at trial.  If you declined to make a statement or appear then charges would not be pursued.  YOU decide to press charges, to make a statement, and to pursue a trial.  In cases of mutual combat between males (most often) charges would not be filed.  But remember, even in defense, most physical acts towards a female by a male will be viewed negatively and result in charges field against you.  However, the only recourse is through criminal court where you would need to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (high standard of proof).  But that’s not true for domestic “abuse”.

While domestic abuse laws used to apply only to those related by blood or marriage or those who had a child together they have now been expanded to persons in an “intimate relationship” (intimate partner).  Thus the domestic abuse laws now apply to heterosexual and same sex dating couples including teenagers which is YOU.  Worse, there is no definition of “intimate relationship” so if she says she’s in an intimate relationship with you, you will be treated as if she is even if you do not consider her so.

This is important because if you are an “intimate partner” then the domestic violence laws apply to you.  Now both criminal court AND family court have concurrent jurisdiction.  There is Mandatory Arrest for any injury and if there are injuries to both parties (such as a mutual spat) then the police have to determine the Primary Aggressor.  Being a certified police domestic violence trainer I can tell you that “Primary Aggressor” equals “arrest the man”.

You also lose control of what will be done.  Should you both say neither wants to make a statement a regarding a private matter, one will be put on file anyway (Domestic Incident Report-DIR).  Should she say it was mutual and doesn’t want to press charges, but has a mark on her, you will be arrested anyway based upon Primary Aggressor and Mandatory Arrest Laws.  If she tells the district attorney’s office that she will not make a statement and press charges, you will still be arrested, arraigned in front of a judge, and made to either post bail or spend the night in jail.  You will have to hire an attorney and show up for a trial date and submit a motion before the case is dismissed for lack of evidence.

Should a woman be mad at you for any reason she can claim to be an “intimate partner” and file for an order of protection.  As family court has concurrent jurisdiction she need not file any criminal charges as she can go direct to family court and request the order.  Temporary Orders of Protection (TOP) can be obtained based on ex parte testimony (her word alone) and for even slim allegations such as “I’m afraid of him” and “I feel threatened by him”.  Once issued you will be ordered to stay away from her, including if you go to school together, work together, or live in the same neighborhood, thus disrupting your life.  They will even seize any and all firearms that you own.

It will be months before you get into family court for a hearing on the need and validity of the TOP and unlike criminal courts high “reasonable doubt” standard it is the civil court standard of “a preponderance of evidence” (51%).  In a “he said, she said” the judge will believe her and rule favorably.  Should you inadvertently violate the TOP, even if it is found later to be without merit and thrown out, you will be charged with a misdemeanor (up to a year in jail) and a second violation is a felony!

MEN, If you are involved in a disorderly, harassing, or physical altercation of any kind DO NOT STATE YOU ARE IN AN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP WITH ANYONE, and if asked state it is a casual relationship only with any participants (the other party should do the same).  If it is determined to be a “domestic incident” the police lose all of their authority to use discretion in arresting and/or filling out a report.  You BOTH lose your right to NOT press charges or file a report.  If it was physical in any way state that you were trying to retreat and defending yourself from their attack and you do not (or do as the case may be) wish charges to be pressed against them AND MAKE NO OTHER STATEMENTS WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY.  There are severe repercussions for police NOT following domestic violence protocols so they are protecting their own interests and not yours and/or your friends.

I’ll close here with a welcome to the “life isn’t fair man’s world”.  I know this is a lot to consume, and in fact there is even more wrongs you’ll suffer as a man, high suicide rates, high work death rates,  DV victimization yourself, loss of access to your children post separation/divorce and punitive “child support” payments.  You can find more on these issues at the National Coalition For Men web site.   Domestic Violence and false allegations is covered at Stop Abusive and Violent Environments or Stop Abuse For Everyone.
12347857_10154394170763761_8188681311814992430_n
You can also find more on men’s and boys rights and issues on Facebook at Friends of the Protection For MenPFM/Boys Rights and Issues, PFM/College and University, PFM Men’s Human Rights Movement,  and PFM Men’s and Boy’s Health among others.  PFM was founded by RK Hendrick, the author of “How to Avoid “getting Screwed” When getting Laid” and you can reach him there.  Feel free to join the discussion.

 

I can be reached through Facebook on the PFM sites or at the “Coalition of Fathers and Families NY” Facebook site or at NY MAN.  Information used here is based on New York State and US Laws although much of it has practical applications in all jurisdictions. This is NOT legal advice and we direct you to seek competent counsel for your specific jurisdiction and circumstance.
232822-lead-2006 005
The author, Lt. James Hays (Ret.) is a recently retired NYS Law Enforcement Officer of  34 years, 9 as a supervisor.  I am also a 20 year plus men/father rights activist co-founder, past President and current Treasurer of the Coalition of Fathers and Families NY, Inc., (501c3 Educational and Advocacy Organization) and Director of the NY Men’s Action Network (Blog link), (a grass roots political action group founded in 1997.  The opinions expressed herein are those of Mr. Hays and are not necessarily the opinion of any organization or individual mentioned herein.

 

Boys will be … defined? Is nature (sex) v. nurture (gender) settled debate?

When I fill out paper forms I cross out “gender” and write “sex” next to it.  The PC police get mad at this, “it’s gender” they tell me and some even cross out “sex” and re-write in “gender”.  I can only wonder how it was over time a persons sex turned into gender in classifying the sexes.  Sex, defined, is the 2 main categories of humans based upon their reproductive functions (Sex organs).  Gender, defined, is the state of being male or female based upon social and cultural differences and not by biology.

The argument of nature versus nurture as impacting human behavior has been going on the my entire social science career of 40 years.    Except in rare circumstances people are born with either male or female reproductive functions and so throughout time we have identified people as either male or female.  For example,  you might be a heterosexual male or gay male but you were still identified by reproductive ability, male.  Your sexuality and sexual preferences were separate from your sex.

Enter Gender Feminist Theory which holds that the sexes are actually “genders” and the state of being male or female is based upon social and cultural differences entirely and not on biology in any amount.  The theory holds that your sex (defined by nature) has no bearing on how you act as a male or female, but that you are socially constructed to act a certain way.  Boys will be boys because they are taught to be boys by society, so the theory goes, ditto for girls.

I guess missed the “it’s settled science” memo and reports in peer reviewed scientific journals explaining that nurture won out totally.  I have seen no paper or report discussing that the issue of nature (reproductive function) over nurture (socially constructed) was settled science or that one had more weight than the other.  From what I had read and reviewed, forced gender identification opposite to your sex actually caused developmental problems.  A good example of biological sex holding over socialization is the case of David Reimer (Bruce at birth).

One of twin boys, Bruce, born in 1966 he had a botched circumcision which seriously damaged his penis.  His parents brought him to a psychologist who advocated for the theory of gender neutrality, socially constructed boys and girls, and convinced his parents he would be better off raised as a female, so Bruce had sex reassignment surgery (testes removed) and was to be socialized as a female, Brenda,  and given estrogen in adolescents for breast development.  But the socialization didn’t work and “Brenda” did not identify as a girl.  From 9 years old on “she” wasn’t acting the part and knew he was a boy.

At 14 years old “Brenda” had surgery (including a double mastectomy, testosterone injections and his penis reconstructed) and he changed his name to “David”.  The failure of the gender socialization was reported in medical circles by noted sexologist Dr. Milton Diamond debunking the blank slate social construct gender theory and to prevent this from occurring in the future.  The story was told in 1997 in the book “As nature made him: the boy who was raised as a girl”.

Even though the theory of a socially constructed “gender” was debunked prior to the turn of the century we still write “gender” on our forms and there are those who still see men and women as “socialized” beings, ignoring their biological sex.  Certainly nurture plays a role in how we develop, and there is great overlap in how male and female humans behave naturally.  But it is easy to see that it is the forced roles placed upon children which are bad, this whether you are forcing a boy into a traditional male role or are trying to force a boy into being a female.

We are beginning to see some people calling out the “gender” feminists for putting forth a socially constructed sex theory which is scientifically unproven and wrong and contrary to biology.  Dr. Barry Kuhle, an evolutionary psychologist speaks to this denial of science in his piece in Psychology Today entitled “Giving feminism a bad name”.  He points to the gender feminists radical response and denial of any science which contradicts their theories and beliefs.

Christina Hoff Sommers has also pointed to “gender” feminists theories undermining science most recently in a Dartmouth Review interview where she not only takes to task those who would distort the truth for their ideology, she points to how those who put the social construct theory into practice with their own toddlers soon learn of its fallacy.  A recent article in Intellectual Takeout, “Neuroscientist: Gender-neutral Parenting is Futile” quotes neuroscientist Debra Soh who cautions against treating children as blank slates with no biologically determined sex characteristics.  The articles author, Annie Holmquist asks the valid question, “Are we actually degrading both male and female by encouraging them to ignore scientific fact and abandon the natural differences between the two sexes?”

I would answer her, yes we are.  In my mind gender feminists are the sexists as they would define the behaviors of both male and female by their definition of acceptable behavior based upon unproven theory all the while ignoring science based avenues of study with proven outcomes.  Theirs is not a social science, it is a dogma to be followed with religious fervor.  And treating children as blank slates and forcing them into unnatural gender roles can be damaging to their development.

Boys will be boys, girls will be girls, with a little bit of nurture piled on top of that.  And it is our responsibility to ensure that each one, individually, is allowed many varied experiences and many opportunities so that they can decide what they enjoy and how to be for themselves.  The argument of the weight of nature versus nurture will go on unsettled as individuals don’t fit into any one category.  By definition nurture is to care for and encourage growth and development and I see in neither nature or nurture where it is beneficial to force upon or remove sex based roles upon a person.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What of men’s EQUAL right to reproductive choice?

Before we jump into the morality and start to discuss the “right” of a woman to get an abortion let’s accept the fact that it is now the law of the land. Let’s add the other “reproductive rights” of women to the discussion also.  She has the right of abstinence, to use birth control of her choosing prior to sex,  the “morning after” pill the next day, the right to carry a pregnancy to  term, the right to abandon the baby in a “safe” location without question, the right to place it for adoption, and no obligation to inform the father of any of her decisions.

And of men’s reproductive rights?  Abstinence, condoms, and trust in your partner to be telling the truth about her reproductive status.  As the NYS Court of Appeals has ruled, “a man has no right to reproduction post ejaculation”.  This unequal application of rights and responsibilities of many is codified in judicial opinion.   This is evidenced in multiple court decisions which held men FINANCIALLY responsible for children even where the female sabotaged the condom by putting pin holes in it, “stole” his sperm from a discarded condom or other means, and even when it is taken by means of rape such as a recent case shows us, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statutory-rape-victim-child-support/14953965/.   Men who claim they do not want the child of an unintended pregnancy are held responsible anyway, indeed, are even labelled ‘deadbeats” for not “standing up” and accepting paternity.

Recently a bill in the OK legislature has brought the issue of equal rights in reproductive choices to the forefront as the bill would require the approval of the father before a woman is allowed an abortion.  There was an immediate backlash from the left leaning women’s groups, the shout of “my body, my choice” resonating with posts spread all over social media to awake “women” to fight this “injustice”(http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2017/0214/Oklahoma-lawmakers-debate-bill-requiring-men-s-permission-for-abortion-video?cmpid=FB.).

I felt compelled to post on the CSM Article an opposing view in the form of a question: Do men have no reproductive rights?  We seem to be able to find a father when she wants child support.  So if a man says he doesn’t want to pay for a child of an unwanted pregnancy he is a “deadbeat” but if a women wants to abort that child she is exercising her rights?  A woman who has a child against a mans wishes is again exercising her rights, but a man who would ask that the pregnancy give him the child he wants he is then “forcing” her?  So we’ll just give all reproductive rights to women and disregard that their choices affect the father, the child, and society at large?  And can we say anything about responsibility for these “unwanted” pregnancies when women have so many means of birth control at their disposal?

In addition to the “my body, my choice” and the “women carry the baby” what also followed was a host of “men be responsible” comments, the “HE got HER pregnant” perspective which, ironically, failed to see the irresponsibility of women who find themselves in need of an abortion.   The argument was framed around “her rights” and “his responsibilities” and when pressed both sides of the argument dismissed a man’s reproductive rights as ending at ejaculation, where his responsibility begins for her choice.

Not a single person seems to want to address the issue of how can we say men and women have equal rights when we deny men rights which woman have.  Lost also in the discussion is RESPONSIBILITY for the decisions.  For we see a woman can give away her financial responsibility by giving the child up for adoption or even dropping it off anonymously.  A man suffering an unintended pregnancy is forced to pay for her decision.  Her choice is his being forced to 21 years of income execution, the sacrificing of his body at work without compensation.  A poor woman witt a child gets welfare, a poor man with a child gets a garnished.

Perhaps the worst part of the denial of men’s reproductive rights is the fact that most men don’t walk away from the responsibility of her choice.  Most are like Nick Olivas, our rape victim.  At 14 he was statutorily raped by a 20 year old.  Fast forward 6 years and Olivas learns he has a 6 year old child as he is served with child support papers demanding payments from the time of the child’s birth, even though he was not old enough to consent and was never informed of the existence of the child and allowed to decide to be a part of the child’s life.

Now, at 24 Olivas is trying to be a part of his child’s life stating, “I can’t leave her out there.  She deserves a Dad”.  Here he’s finding out that the state isn’t concerned with a fathers emotional support and raising his children for they consider the financial support as separate from access.  And as he is sure to find out, there are a multitude of means to collect, even incarceration into a debtor prison if he can’t pay.  But there are no avenues to help him with, much less guarantee, his time and emotional support for his child.

And what of a child’s rights?  Is there no right to both parents?  In going after Olivas for financial support the state says they are “doing it for the child”.  Really?  So why didn’t the state demand to know the father up front?  Isn’t a child the product of both parents and doesn’t a child have a right to know both sides of their family tree and both heritages?  Can someone from the state explain how it was in the child’s interest to be denied her father, his love and support, for 6 years, and then to collect retro dollars on her behalf?  I’m waiting for that response?  Why is a fathers dollars more important than his love and nurture?

In arguing for his legislation, Rep. Justin Humphrey stated he believes excluding the man out of these decisions is adding to the break down of society.  Once again a man’s rights and a child’s rights are lost in the discussion and the requirement for the mother to notify the doctor of the child’s father was more to make him responsible than to protect his rights.  His bill did do one thing, it exempted rape from the notification requirement, something we do not do for boys who are raped.

The bill was described as being opposed by “reproductive rights advocates” on unconstitutional grounds.  The regional director of planned parenthood stated that “Oklahoma should trust women to make the choices that are best for them”.  I suspect the choices are made easier when others bear the responsibility for your choices but have no choice themselves.   The article should clarify that the advocates are for a woman’s reproductive choices without regard for the father, child, or society.

But as I read the U.S. Constitution I see it guarantees God given rights to every individual equally.  And so I close with the question, What of men’s EQUAL right to reproductive choice?

 

Men in the middle

The bulk of us in the middle of the bell curve of male perspectives and issues regarding family are being shouted down by the din from the echo chambers on the right and left.  A polarized media spin which ignores the voices and opinions of men.  Regardless of liberal or conservative it is a cacophony of moral busybodies advocating for the “rights” of women while holding men responsible to pay for the choices made by others.  And unfortunately our perceptions and policies on men, father, boys, and families, are derived from the loud extreme ends and not from the needs, wants, and desires of men and boys in middle America as expressed by them.

Years back (2004) we at the Coalition of Fathers and Families NY, Inc. (FaFNY.org) complained to the Albany (NY) Times Union about sexual bias in reporting with them having more woman’s perspectives than men’s.  Of course they denied it.  So we did a content analysis over a 30 day period where we cut over 60 articles about women’s issues with none of them negative and 5 articles about men, 3 negative.  We met with the editorial board, they again denied being biased and we then plunked the paper articles on the table in front of them in 2 piles.  The long pregnant pause set over the room.  This, we said, shows great sexual bias in reporting against men, a regurgitation of the NY Times bias against men.

“We don’t see it that way” said the mostly male editorial board, flat-out denial of the evidence before them.  Perhaps our response to their continued head in the sand denial of bias was a little extreme when we gave them the “Pretty Pig Award” for 2004 as “You can put as much lipstick on a pig as you want but at the end of the day it’s still a … pig”.  We even offered to provide little votive boxes with pink ribbons to the male editors so they could carry their testicles around with them and put them safely away while at work.  It doesn’t hurt to burn a bridge that they won’t let you cross anyway.

One would have hoped over the next 10 plus years that social media and competing news outlets would have made things better, but it hasn’t.  At best it is the same, perhaps even worse with truth second to belief.  This past year I found the same NY Times regurgitation of anti male bias in the Schenectady (NY) Gazette online edition.  I complained to the editorial board that they had more NY Times content than local news, mostly anti-male.  I posted this opinion on their web-based comments section for each anti male article but when I didn’t even receive a form response to any of my inquiries I cancelled my subscription.

Over the past few days Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/07/better-sex-better-health-more-money-what-men-really-get-out-marriage.html#)          Science Daily (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170207135943.htm#.WJ9qHLLgizs.facebook),                                                                                  and National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444746/marriage-benefits-men-financial-health-sex-divorce-caveat?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=wolfinger) have had pieces advising men to get married for their own good.  This on the heels of a podcast by Prager University which resulted in an outpouring of negative “what planet are you on” responses by men.  All the articles are based on one recent study by a pro marriage sociologist that marriage is good for men resulting in “more sex, better health, and more money”.   Don’t be a selfish oaf going your own way they advise as there is obviously something wrong with men.  We see the echo regurgitation in multiple outlets of the “marriage” party line, even in the face of push back from men who point out the 50% divorce rate, the vast majority filed by women, which results in the destruction of many men.

This on top of a January NY Post hit piece on men, “How to make deadbeat dads do more to help out” (http://nypost.com/2016/12/21/how-to-make-deadbeat-dads-do-more-to-help-out/).   Even though the myth of the deadbeat dad was busted back in 1995 finding that the majority of men were beat dead, dead broke, and disenfranchised, they hold to the “deadbeat” label.  Recent studies have shown that the bulk of unpaid child support is due to poverty on the part of men.   Ironically the focus of the article is NOT how to get poor men out of poverty for their health and well-being, it is to try to get them to pay into federal coffers to reimburse for welfare and entitlement payments given to women.  In this day and age of “gender” equality one does wonder why we don’t hold mothers accountable for financially providing for their children and have developed a social safety net for women and children only.

In 1975 we had a divorce rate in single digits as was the rate of homes with children absent a father.  The echo chambers of right and left have pushed policies which caused a divorce rate of 50% and 40% of children living in homes absent a father.  Contrary to the din which would lay the blame on men and fathers as “abusive deadbeats who forego marriage” the result is from the negative consequences for men.  Over two-thirds of divorces are unilaterally filed by women against men, men lose custody of their children over 85% of the time, and they are then forced to pay for the children they aren’t allowed to raise.  There are no family violence programs for male victims of family violence nor are there any financial social safety nets for men.

I have been a men, boy, father, and family activist now for over 20 years with organizations like FaFNY (http://www.fafny.org/), the National Coalition For Men (http://ncfm.org/), NY Men’s Action Network (http://www.nymensactionnetwork.org/), and Friends for the Protection of Men (https://www.facebook.com/groups/protectionformen/).  Maybe it’s time you stopped telling us how to be men, fathers and families.  Maybe it’s time you stopped turning a blind eye to our problems. And maybe it’s time you stopped turning a deaf ear to our issues.  You could learn more with your mouth closed and your ears open.  That is my “Dad” advice, direct to you from my father.

Why did Hillary lose the election? Men’s issues.

Why did Hillary Clinton lose the election?  And let’s be clear, it was her election to be had and she lost it.  If you are a die hard pro-Clinton democrat you are sticking to the rhetoric that it is “racists and misogynists” who voted Trump into office.  And pre election the pollsters told us that Trump had only the support of “non college educated” (read “uneducated, not smart or informed”) white males, thus the racist and misogynist classification was reserved for men.

The Democratic Party used to stand for the blue collar working family, men and women, within the middle class, workers and labor unions.  This is not so today.  The Democratic Party of today is the party of the “victim”, victimized minorities, victimized immigrants, victimized women including white women like Hillary.  But more so than playing the victim card to define who they are, the Democratic Party has blamed men as the perpetrator of these injustices.

And I’m sure that if you hold a “progressive” political position you wonder why men “just don’t get it”.  How can these men, who perpetrate the injustices of the world against the rest of the “minorities”, not see these injustices?  Perhaps it is because the injustices don’t exist.  Perhaps the party of the ‘victim” needs to define itself as a victim with a defined perpetrator as a common enemy to bring the diverse minorities together against a common enemy, in this case men.  So the answer to how Hillary lost the election is she and the Democrats have turned into the party of the victim and in the process abandoned men, ALL men.  Worse, they have vilified them to the point they are driven out of the Democratic Party.

We need only look at Hillary’s concession speech to see proof of this anti-male perspective. She said; “And to all the women, and especially the young women, who put their faith in this campaign and in me: I want you to know that nothing has made me prouder than to be your champion.” and she went on,  “And to all of the little girls who are watching this, never doubt that you are valuable and powerful and deserving of every chance and opportunity in the world to pursue and achieve your own dreams.”

Men and boys need not apply.

Perhaps the greatest propaganda coup of the Democratic Party is the victimization of  women in America being perpetrated by men. In the face of the victimized and held back woman the reality is that American women have more opportunities and greater positive outcomes than any other class of individual on this planet throughout time.  They have more choices, less responsibilities, and more social safety nets across the board as opposed to everyone, even American men.

American Women have a life expectancy  greater than men for all races of women.  While men and women each has an equal vote towards representation in this Republic it is men who have the burden of protecting that right for both men and women as they are required to sign up for selective service as opposed to women being allowed to choose whether to serve or not, and in what capacity.  Even in the all volunteer military it is men who are disproportionately the casualties of war.  This contrary to Hillary’s exhortations that women are the primary victims of war as they have to “watch their fathers, husbands, and sons die”.

As the Democrats push for “equal pay for equal work” we are faced with unequal pay for equal work as college educated females earn 104% of college educated males for the same work.  And in access to educational opportunity, women are now 65% of college graduates. Worse, our colleges now operate under the myth of a “rape crisis” in which due process has been thrown out the window and where young men must attend mandatory classes to teach them to “not be abusers”, assumed guilty until indoctrinated.

While this Democratic administration touts an unemployment rate of under 5%, the reality is that if you add in the under employed and those that have just stopped trying to find work it is over 10%, of which the majority are men, young non college educated men.  Even for those employed the real middle class income has remained  stagnant for the past 15 years and in real buying power the middle class is losing it.  This is the blue collar working man who the Democrats have abandoned.  And should a man be one of the lucky ones to have full employment, he will suffer over 90% of work place injuries and fatalities as compared to women.

In the area of family and reproductive rights women hold the choices and men hold the responsibilities.  Women have the right to birth control of their choice as opposed to minimal choices for men.  Indeed, men can not even get a vasectomy without written permission from their wife.  A woman can choose to have an abortion as opposed to a man who is forced to work to provide for a child even if he doesn’t want it.  Should he desire to have a child it can be aborted against his will.  Her body her choice is his body his responsibility to sacrifice it and we see in the previous paragraph, the outcomes aren’t good for him economically.

The American dream of a family is dead for many men.  There is now a 50% divorce rate in America.  Over 80% are filed by women unilaterally with the number one reason being “we grew apart”.   Yet even though they are often the reason for the divorce, women receive custody of the children over 80% of the time.  With this the man is handed the financial responsibility and ordered to pay child support at levels which often leave him in  poverty to care for children he is allowed to visit 6 days a month.  And should he be among the few who gets custody chances are the child support to him will be minimal, if any at all.

We spend a billion dollars a year to fund the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).  The myth of male perpetrator and female victim as being the norm was shown through research to be untrue, and we know men account for 40% of domestic violence victims.  Yet given this we have no programs or safe houses designed to meet the needs of abused men.

In the area of incarceration we see by and far the vast majority are men.  We define the actions of men as criminal behavior while correspondingly forgiving the same behavior on the part of women.  Should a man not pay child support, the number one reason for not paying being shown to be poverty, we incarcerate him in debtors prison.  The mother who does not financially support her children correspondingly gets a myriad of social services.  And while we incarcerate adult men for pedophilia when we see the same actions on the part of a woman the media and society employs the “lucky stud coming of age” myth to excuse the abuse.  Indeed, even when in a position of authority, such as the female teachers we see weekly in the news abusing young boys, the headlines explain it away as a “sexual relationship”.

Donald Trump winning this election shows that the men’s vote is real and capable of swinging elections.  While it can be said that over these past 20 years the Republicans haven’t addressed men’s issues the Democrats have grown increasingly hostile to men’s issue driving them there.  So when Donald Trump came along the forsaken men willingly pulled the lever for him.  We aren’t racist misogynists, we are people with issues like everybody else.  If the Democrats want those votes in the future, and indeed, if the Republicans want to keep them, they will need to address the issues that men face on a daily basis and not dismiss us.

James Hays, Amsterdam, NY

The writer is a parental civil rights activist and co-founder, past President and current Treasurer of the Coalition of Fathers and Families NY, Inc. (https://www.facebook.com/groups/Fathers4Kids/) and is an Administrator with Friends for the Protection For Men (https://www.facebook.com/groups/protectionformen/)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A nightmare story of Mrs. Hays’s, and an ode of warning, alas take heed

I was sitting in my favorite recliner, the game on before me, and in the back of my mind I’m thinking, “what day is today?” as I drift off to sleep before the 7th inning stretch.  Time passes uncounted by me in slumber and I awake to darkness and an infomercial on the box advertising unhealthy pre processed one pot meals for lazy ones to feed their entire family with.  I’m thinking to get up and go to bed.  But isn’t this all Hallows’ eve?

Then in an instant I feel myself falling backwards, down, down, into a cauldron in a burning ring of fire.  Am I to be a one pot meal, for what or whom??  Vertigo and fear engulf me at the same time!  I land in the tepid water and it tastes sweet and I think, “well not so bad”, but then the flames grow higher, alarmingly higher.  I hear a screech, a high pitched shrill voice – then two of them!  They seem familiar, until they stop, no noise save for the sound of the fiery ring and the bubble, bubble, boil and trouble I’m in in the hot soup of the cauldron.

The silence sits eerie upon me and then slowly I hear a siren song from two obviously fair maidens.  Would I hear the third siren song?  I felt just like a child, warm in the cauldron.  I feel our hearts meet and I am thinking to get out of the cauldron but here am now bound by desire.  But which one?  Who’s love, one or both? Love, love which is a burning thing that holds me in it’s spell?  I think the taste of love is so sweet, but then the fire went wild!

I come to my senses, but is it too late?  I am the proverbial boiling frog, content in ever warming water only soon to be boiled of all flesh.  The voices go shrill again and I see it is two witches, flying in a circle, opposite each other but unaware of each I believe as both stare at me intently to the exclusion of all else.   Yet they both narrate the same ditty:

I stripped you bare of kith and kin,
I drove you mad with a constant din,
I plundered all assets that you had,
Although you were good I labelled you bad.

I promised forever, till death do us part,
And I did my best to make you depart,
Alas you’re still here for me to see,
And you shall soon learn, you are never free.

I took all you had and left you alone,
And now I am back for the meat on your bone,
I’m entitled to you, though you thought it was over,
Give it to me, or I’ll ever flyover.

Alas it was bad, I envisioned the worst.  Then I see each in rhyme, casting a curse and behind them marches an army of zombie bureaucrats, judges, and well meaning omnipotent moral busybodies to do the bidding of witches for their cut of the soup which is me in the cauldron.  I am thinking all is done for, how can one man overcome such evil in the world?

But then a stroke of luck befalls me, fate I am sure.  For each witch had not seen the other and was acting alone in her narcissistic greed.  When each saw the other and realized they weren’t getting a full cut of me, and bound by the desire of their greed and not wanting to share the meat from my bones, they turned on each other.  Flying right at each other with a evil eye look to kill, and shouting curses and chants, they both in turn neglected to see the telephone pole placed before them by fate I am sure.  The splat was a horrendous sound heard throughout the valley, but to me it was a song of freedom.

 

I now had no trouble in turning the cauldron on its side and the soup I was in put out the mighty ring of fire allowing me to escape.  I did a Scottish victory dance and zombies, being the leeches they are, would not take on a man with muscle still attached to his bones, and here they retreated.

I was marching away from the madness, happy to escape with my skin and was thinking to myself that I had succumbed to the siren song of two, alas I am now smart enough to never hear the song of the third!  I then heard a thump and my chair hit the floor and awoke me for I had apparently leaned to far back in the recliner and weight distribution slowly let my head fall down.  I sat in wonder, was it a dream or was I in another nightmarish world?

I get up to go to bed but think to myself to pass along my misadventures as an example to others.  And this advice I give to young men everywhere;  beware the siren song of the first that you see, and the second in marriage will not set you free, and heed the words of the man in black, for once in the cauldron you can’t go back, and knowing the fate of those who went before you, beware the fiery ring.

I close with the immortal wisdom of the man in black https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhWJF35Q81k

Remove the Stench from the Bench!

14639889_10209942620258386_94289354037560844_n

The New York Men’s Action Network (NY MAN) and the Coalition of Fathers and Families NY, Inc. has for many years asked the parents the question, “are you happy with the system as it currently exists?”  If the answer was no we would encourage people to get involved in the political process and to make sure they registered in a party, vote in the primary and again in the general election. (find general advice on party affiliation, the NYS political process, and grass roots lobbying here http://nymensactionnetwork.org/advocacy-get-active.shtml)

The question would come up on who to vote for if both candidates were equally bad and we would advise to vote out the incumbent.  Or another option would be to write in a name, any name, as a protest vote.  This was especially important when you had only one candidate running and they were bad for men, fathers and families.

In the worst of the worst of political cronyism is when the two major parties would get together and cross endorse one candidate with a Democrat in one district and a Republican in the other, thus each party ensuring their hold on a position.  And in many districts the voter advantage for one party is so high that the other party doesn’t run a candidate and so the primary is the real election.  But here, party loyalty takes hold and most candidates won’t buck their own parties leadership.

Other than for Town Justice in New York State the “rules” limit the judicial positions to a member of the Bar Association.  So we not only have a one party monopoly, it is further limited to just attorneys who are forced to work not only in the party system but also in the court system, both of which would frown on a “maverick” stepping up to buck the system and tell the truth.

But this is family court, a court of equity and one dealing with people.  How is it that attorneys are more qualified to pass judgement on individuals?  Actually one would think that those in the medical or social science fields would be equally if not more so qualified.  And why would we rule out an everyday citizen?  We use a “jury of our peers” to ensure fairness in our criminal courts so why do we exclude these protections in our most important court, the one deciding the fate of our family and of ourselves?

So what’s a person to do?

14639889_10209942620258386_94289354037560844_n

Yes, one Doug Smith is running to remove the stench from the bench and we here at NY MAN are encouraging everyone who finds themselves with a one person “race” for Judge, or a two bad person race to write in Doug’s name.  Especially those in Saratoga County in NYS.

No more standing idly by and not voting because you don’t have a good choice or any choice at all.  If you are tired of the stench that the parties keep sending to the bench, let them know you want an open, honest election of qualified persons.

The New York Men’s Action Network has found NO race with an impartial qualified judge not beholden to the system.  As such we endorse DOUG SMITH to REMOVE THE STENCH FROM THE BENCH and ask that you write in his name for judicial positions this coming election day.  By writing in your vote for DOUG SMITH you are letting the NYS Court system that you are NOT happy with their biased and inefficient system which ;lunders family assets all the while tearing them apart.

14639889_10209942620258386_94289354037560844_n

If you wish to talk to Doug or to comment on the “REMOVE THE STENCH FROM THE BENCH” You can reach him, FaFNY, and NY MAN online at https://www.facebook.com/groups/Fathers4Kids/.

And remember VOTE for DOUG SMITH to REMOVE THE STENCH FROM THE BENCH!

Text of todays Op Ed in Schenectady Gazette RE: Trump and the elections

I’m posting this here as an issue that I believe men’s and father’s rights activists need to get their hands around.  Neither party supporting big government has the interests of men, fathers, or families.  Until such time as men get political, and look to vote out incumbents in BOTH parties who do not support men/father/family issues we will keep getting sucked into the quagmire of the government regulated family.  It isn’t a Republican or a Democratic issue, It is a MEN’S ISSUE.  For more on party and politics go to http://nymensactionnetwork.org/advocacy-get-active.shtml

Link to Op Ed (requires subscription) http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2016/mar/30/0330_online/ “Voting for Trump in protest of elite in major parties”

Article as originally submitted (name was changed by the paper)

The Unholy Alliance

The unholy alliance, as spoken by Rand Paul is the big government liberals and the big government conservatives getting together to compromise to make government bigger.  So when I see Linda Chavez: By predicting violence, Trump encourages it (The Daily Gazette 3-22-16 Viewpoints) labelling the violence at Trump rallies as self fulfilling prophesies I see the unholy alliance at work.

You see, Linda Chavez has connections back to the republican party establishment working in the Reagan administration and being the nominee of then president George W. Bush for Secretary of Labor so it is no surprise to me that she would take the party elite position of trying to derail Trump’s nomination by preventing him enough delegates to win outright.

In a CNN Live interview the reported asked Bernie Sanders about the violence at Trump rallies in Chicago being caused by Sanders supporters and pointed out that the person who rushed Trump onstage was a Sanders supporter, Sanders responded (rightfully so) that he can’t be held responsible for the actions of individuals based solely upon their support for his candidacy.  It appears when it comes to Trump we have a double standard for laying blame.

A social media post by one Brandon Tatum reports on his experience at the Trump Rally in Arizona (I’ll not vouch for the validity, but believe it as much as other media sources).  In it he points out that it was the protestors who were “outrageous and out of control” with one wearing a KKK hat hollering F… Donald Trump, with many cussing and screaming.  And contrary to as it is being reported the trump supporters were calm and respectful, just looking to see the candidate speak, many like him an undecided voter looking to make up their minds based upon fact.  He reports that there were multiple announcements for Trump supporters to not react to protestors and let police handle any incidents.

Given the fact that it is protestors, supporters of democratic candidates, who are trying to disrupt Trump republican rallies with intimidation and threats of violence and prevent people from hearing what Trump has to say, I find Chavez exhortations about suffering the same in her public speaking events to support Trump and his efforts to speak to the voters and let them decide.  But instead she tries to label Trump the same as autocratic despots and blame Trump for the violence.  Her stance is without merit.

In the interest of full disclosure, I quit the democratic party after 30 years due to their increasingly intrusive big government spending policies and eventually joined the republican party in spite of their big government polices because of candidates like Rand Paul.  As parental civil rights and shared parenting advocate for 15 years I have seen this unholy alliance of republicans and democrats up close and personal in the NYS Legislature, one of the most corrupt and dysfunctional legislatures in the nation.  I don’t like it at the state level and I don’t like it at the national level.

Both Trump and Sanders have hit a nerve with the American people who are sick of the status quo of government NOT working in the interests of the people.  Unfortunately for Sanders and his supporters, the democratic party elites “super delegates” give the party standard bearer, Clinton, the nod.  Not so with the republicans which thankfully saved us from another party elite supported Bush as the republican nominee.

When Trump speaks of their being “riots in the streets‘ he is talking about the response of people like me who are tired of both parties and their elite giving me no option to vote for, at best choosing what I see as “the lesser of two evils” and I must admit to being so disgusted that I often just write in a protest vote for neither.  The “riot” he speaks of is non violent and will be the loss of my support for the republicans at the national level, the streets will be at the voting booth where I abandon them.  But perhaps that is what they want, perhaps the elite republicans would take a Clinton over a Trump.

I was, up to today, undecided on who I would vote for in the republican primary.  I should probably send a thank you note to Chavez for making up my mind, for the unholy alliance, “big government republican (Bush supporters) and democrat (Clinton supporters) elites” working together against Trump has just moved me to pull the lever for Donald Trump in the upcoming NY Republican primary.  And should the republicans abandon the choice of the people, I’ll still vote for Trump in the national election when he runs as an independent.

Jim Hays,
Amsterdam NY

 

TEN MYTH’S OF THE CURRENT “CHILD SUPPORT” SYSTEM

The Coalition of Fathers and Families NY, Inc.,  “Working to Keep Fathers and Families Together”, brings you;

 

TEN MYTHS OF THE CURRENT “CHILD SUPPORT” SYSTEM

1. Child support is for the children. [False]

Currently there is NO system of accountability by the custodial parent. Many parents can, and do, spend the money for the child on personal luxury items that have no bearing on child welfare. If we really wanted the children to have the financial support shouldn’t the custodial parent have to show how the money is spent?

2. Those “deadbeat dads” who have abandoned their children should pay for them. [True, but…]

There are very few parents who abandon their children. Actually most non-custodial parents were forced into being “non custodial” against their will as over 80% of divorces are against the wishes of the other parent. Over two thirds of divorces are filed by women and yet 90% of the time women “win” custody of the children even when they wanted out of the family. In New York State there is no SHARED PARENTING statute. No matter who files, one parent or the other will be forced into being a visitor and “non custodial”. The “winner” receives full control of the finances with no accountability. The overall vast majority of non-custodial parents did not abandon their children; they were forced away from them.

3. No matter who caused the divorce the child shouldn’t have to suffer financially. [True, but…]

Over 90% of parents who have shared parenting pay their financial child support on time and in full compared to under 70% for those with just visitation. Children of divorce fare better emotionally when they have TWO involved parents in their life. If policies promoted shared parenting for children they would receive both FINANCIAL AND EMOTIONAL SUPPORT FROM BOTH PARENTS. A win-win situation for all involved. If we want to ensure the child’s financial well being we need to promote both parents access to the children.

4. All that may be true for divorcing couples but, we need to get those “deadbeat dads” who are fathering these children out of wedlock and dumping them on welfare! [True, but…]

Studies have shown that over 80% of out of wedlock fathers are present in the maternity wards at the time of their children’s birth. Most acknowledge their paternity and are ready and willing to be financially and EMOTIONALLY involved in the upbringing of their child. And why aren’t these mothers equally financially responsible?

5. Fathers should accept their paternity and financial responsibilities! [True, but…]

Most fathers do accept their financial and EMOTIONAL responsibilities for their children but the system is gender biased labeling fathers as financial providers and discounting their emotional value to their children. The saying goes “mommy’s baby, daddies maybe”. Even in those cases where DNA evidence has found the man NOT to be the father HE IS HELD FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE ONCE HE ACCEPTS PATERNITY OR IS MARRIED AT THE TIME OF BIRTH. DNA testing facilities report that 50% of paternity tests come back negative. FALSE PATERNITY IS ESTIMATED AS HIGH AS 18% IN BOTH MARRIED AND OUT OF WEDLOCK BIRTHS! Don’t children have a right to know who their real father is? Fathers should accept responsibility for their children and mothers should be held responsible for telling the truth when it comes to paternity! Responsible fatherhood belongs to the biological father.

6. OK, some fathers may have gotten a raw deal but there are a lot of them who just refuse to pay child support to children who need it! [False…]

The number one reason given, by both custodial and non-custodial parents alike for non payment is inability to pay.  6% of those in default in a recent government study that was released to show “the arrears problem” were found to be dead. In fact women are found to be in default of child support payments at twice the rate of men. The vast majority of default on child support is due to inability to pay not a refusal to pay!

7. The important thing is children are financially cared for to keep them out of poverty. [True, but…]

The number one indicator of child poverty is coming from a single mother household. Over 54% of children in poverty come from single mother families as compared to 11.5% of children in married households. If we want to combat child poverty we need to develop policies that discourage single parenthood.

8. If non-custodial fathers or mothers can’t afford to pay they can just get their support reduced. [False…]

Support is based on a percentage of income at a fixed point in time based on ability to earn. Once the amount is set non-custodial parents are rarely, if ever, afforded a reduction. The “Bradley Amendment” states that child support arrears can NOT be reduced no matter what the reason for the arrears! Courts have even gone so far as to “impute” income, that is add on other income or assets for inclusion in child support payments. An example of this is a non-custodial parent who moves into a relative’s residence temporarily without paying rent. The fair market value of the “rent” not paid can be added to the non-custodial parent’s income in computing child support. Non custodial parents who suffer unexpected interruptions in their income are often penalized for being “in arrears”. An example of this is Bobby Sherrill, a Lockheed Employee and divorced father who was captured in the Gulf War in Kuwait and spent 5 months as an Iraqi hostage and prisoner of war. The night after his release he was arrested for being $1425.00 in arrears in child support. Non custodial parents are penalized including loss of driving privileges, suspension of automobile registrations, loss of hunting and fishing licenses, suspension of professional licenses even if needed to produce income, posting on public “wanted” posters, turned in as “bad” credit risks and arrested and incarcerated for six months at a time even if they can prove that payments were not made due to inability to pay! These same penalties are applied even when there are no arrears and the report is in error. Child support owed continues to build while the non-custodial parent suffers the above penalties, including while incarcerated.

9. These non-custodial parents are just trying to get their child support payments reduced. [False…]

The number one complaint by non-custodial parents is that they were forced to be non- custodial against their will. Of those who have accepted the non-custodial status the number one complaint is that there is no access (visitation) enforcement. Even when it is spelled out in a court order, there are no penalties for the custodial parent who denies the non custodial parent. Complaints of being labeled a paycheck and a visitor fall way behind access enforcement and lack of time with their children. Prior to separation both parents cared for their children financially without a child support unit.

10. Overall, child support payments are based on the needs of the children. [False…]
Child support payments are based on an arbitrary “ability to earn” income of the non-custodial parent. It has no actual basis in the costs to raise a child or even in the actual expenses paid towards the child. New York does not even have a proportional offset for non custodial parents who spend more time, or spend money directly, on the care of their children. Non custodial parents are assessed 17% of their gross income (35% of net) for one child and 25% of gross income (48% of net) for two children. This assessment is the same for a non-custodial parent who spends no time whatsoever with their children and the non-custodial parent who spends 49% of the time with their children with increased direct expenses for the children. The NY Court of Appeals has even gone so far as to rule that when two parents spend equal time (50%) with the children that the “custodial” parent can be determined for the purposes of child support by who makes more money, even when the financial needs of the children are being met in both households. The guidelines are strict application regardless of circumstance.

Conclusion:

The child support system is based on the premise that after divorce/separation one parent or the other will be the sole custodian of the children and the other parent will be the financial provider. This fails to address the real world where both parents are actively involved in the child’s emotional upbringing and share in the financial responsibilities to the family. Current policies reduce the value of one parent or the other to children and in fact contribute to child poverty by promoting single parent households. Not only are these single parent households financially distressing to children but they are also emotionally damaging to children in ways that are to numerous to mention in this short hand out.

In fact the system is actually causing problems and is destroying families and is fixing no problems.

Go To www.FaFNY.org, or find us on facebook at https://www.facebook.com/groups/Fathers4Kids/ for more information on this and other topics relative to “Non Custodial Parents”, children and families or to network and get help and advice from other parental rights activists.

Memo in OPPOSITION to S0309A

NYS Senator Kathy Marchionne, a “republican” working off the “1 in 5” campus hysteria, which is being debunked all across America, is fostering the same type of hysteria in NYS high schools.  Here in NY we have a domestic violence agency which only advocates for teen female victims of domestic violence as evidenced by their media campaigns which are directed at male perpetrators, with no similar campaign for female perpetrators, and relying on the “Duluth Model” which has also been debunked by many recent studies which show equal victimization rates.

“Republican” Senator Kathy Marchionne (“my” former Senator which I openly refer to as a RINO) has also pushed sexually biased legislation such as women’s equal pay legislation, which is counter to her own parties platform as that issue being “junk science”,  but in NYS it is important to pander to the “women’s vote”, even if you lose the “men’s vote”.  More on the lack of attention by democrat and republicans alike to men/father/family/children issues will be forthcoming in future posts.

For the purposes of the discussion here, as parents we should understand that this legislation will do nothing to protect our daughters and may in fact lead them to believe falsehoods which place them in harms way.  Our sons, and ironically often our daughters,  will be similarly be placed into a system that will criminalize their adolescent behavior.  I encourage all parents to cut, copy and paste this into correspondence to this, and THEIR, legislators.

*******************************************************************

NY MAN-The New York Men’s Action Network     jh@nymensactionnetwork.org   http://www.nymensactionnetwork.org

Memo in OPPOSITION to S0309A

Senator Kathy Marchionne
919 LOB Albany, NY 122

Dear Senator;
The NY Mens Action Network, a statewide political action and grass roots lobby group is opposed to this legislation, S0309A without assurance that male victims and false allegations of abuse are addressed.
Currently the NYS Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence is working with a flawed model (the Duluth Model) which shows domestic violence as a “pattern of control by men over women”.  Current research has, however, shown that men and women have generally equal victimization and perpetration rates (see http://menwebjournal.com/NISVS.htm, and http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020).
In the area of dating violence the myth’s surrounding sexual assault are running rampant, distorting policy and legislative decisions (see http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/myths/) and these decisions are undermining our due process protections (see http://www.saveservices.org/camp/false-allegations-on-campus/, and http://www.mediaradar.org/restore_civil_rights_to_dv_laws.php).

Even though there is equal victimization rates among men and women, including teens, there is no recognition of male victims and there are no services available for men (see http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10741752.htm?683).

Until such time as there are is a recognition of male victims, equal services available for male victims, the issues of false allegations are addressed including the erosion of civil rights and due process, I oppose this legislation.

Sites for Reference include http://www.saveservices.org/, http://www.mediaradar.org/index.php, and http://www.stopabuseforeveryone.org/.
Please place this in the bill jacket and make this opposition part of the record.