I’ve been driven out by misandry and, I’m so lonesome I could cry

At a recent American Psychological Association (APA) convention the topic of loneliness, and how it impact health was discussed.  Dr. Keith Ablow writes about it on Fox news lamenting “we still don’t have a plan to reduce it”.  In the article he points to social media as increasing loneliness in America. Emma Sepala, Ph.D. tells us it is the American Protestant work ethic and drive to get ahead.  But both the work ethic and media (newspapers, books, long travel times) have been with us in the U.S. for 300 years.  And what explains the rest of the world?

Here I think they miss the point entirely.  We have throughout time always had distractions from close physical social interactions with others and a Protestant work ethic in America but what is different now is misandry and the removal of fathers from families.  The demonization of men has impacted how men interact to form families and interact within families, specifically the nuclear family of husband (father), wife (mother) and children and how these families interact with other families and the extended family is the change which has occurred in industrial societies and worldwide these past 40 years.

The government regulated family based upon the misandric common portrayal of men as deadbeats at best, and the demonization of men as dangerous at worst is resulting in policies which are destroying parental rights, individual rights, and tearing families apart, and harming men, women, and children in the process.  These government family regulatory policies have resulted in a 50% divorce rate, 1/3 out of wedlock birth rate, and 40% of children living apart from their father.  And now a generation of this has fostered young people averse to getting married or having children and if they do so are doing it later in life, often with children born outside of marriage.

In 1970, and for 300 years before that, it was recognized that the nuclear family was the building block of a strong society and beneficial to men, women, and children.  A 6% rate of children living in a home absent their father and a divorce rate of 5-8% in 1970 was considered high and cause for worry.  It was societies expectation that both husband and wife would get, and stay together, to have children (and siblings to have the same biological parents) and to raise them.  Marriage was a contract between 2 people not to be broken without cause.  Parental rights were fundamental rights which would not be interfered with absent applying the legal standard of strict scrutiny.  Parents, both parents, knew best how to raise their children.  No school, court, or state welfare agency would think to tell parents how to parent nor to designate one a “non parent” without a showing of harm to the children.

The 1970’s saw first the “war on poverty” which was the beginning of government subsidized single mother homes.  As government subsidized them they grew in number and to fill the federal coffers for expenditures to “single mothers” the government built a federal child excise tax system on “non custodial” fathers giving it the government double speak name of “child support”.  These systems followed historical sex based parenting patterns of the mothers having custody of children and receiving subsidies based upon the number of children she had and the father being charged a percentage of income based upon the number of children assessed to him, an excise tax.  Worse, the financial contributions were separated from child access for “non custodial” fathers.  These systems, originally designed for out of wedlock families with children were over time, 1970’s-80’s, applied to ALL families.

With out of wedlock, divorced, and separated single mother homes being subsidized we saw a increase in both out of wedlock births and divorced families with children.  Who needs a husband if the government will provide.  Add to this a system which based itself on women having custody of children and men paying the government for the children we end up with a government system which defined men’s value only as what they could pay for a family which they were not allowed to be a part of.  Historically a fathers responsibility to provide for his family financially was balanced by his right to parent and raise his children in the same home as wife and child.   Government collects the “child support” a father paid, but does nothing to preserve his parental rights.  A father taxation without parental representation.

As divorces increased the difficulty in obtaining one was seen as a “problem”.  Pushed by Bar Associations, enter “no fault” divorce.  Previously we needed cause to break the marital contract (such as adultery or abandonment) but now we were going to allow divorce based upon one party desiring to terminate the contract.   Called “no fault” they were actually a unilateral divorce against the wishes of one of the parties.   In the 1990’s studies showed that it was women who filed the majority of divorces (about 80%) and the number one reason given for the divorce was “we grew apart”, in other words a divorce of convenience by women to the detriment of men and children became the norm.

During this time special interest feminist groups were looking for funding sources.  Using the unproven and unchallenged feminist theory of a “patriarchal” system pushed on college campuses in “women’s studies” programs, they seized upon battered and abused women  at the hands of men as an issue and the domestic violence industry was born.  What was originally designed as a shield against physical violence against women in families was turned into a sword to be used by unscrupulous women to gain power and control over men and curry standing in the increasing divorce, child “support” and custody battles.  “Temporary” Orders of Protection (TOP) based upon unsubstantiated ex parte statements to a judge, with no regard to perjury, became the norm.

In law enforcement, prosecutor, and judicial systems, biased enforcement of allegations and reports, with the view of men as perpetrators and women as victims, became the norm even in casual dating relationships.  A woman’s allegations are always believed and a man’s dismissed.  Mandatory arrest took away law enforcement’s discretion to arrest or not. Mandatory prosecution took away a district attorney’s discretion, and legal mandate, to NOT prosecute a case which can not be proven.  Mutual aggression was dismissed as being the man’s fault under “primary aggressor” statutes.  In cases of blatant assaults on men by women “abuse excuse” and “female impunity” is applied and actions by women which would result in arrest of a man were dismissed with a warning.

Police, prosecutors, and judges are not trained by legal experts in the tradition of Blackstone, but by “domestic violence experts”, often a minimally trained worker in a “battered women’s shelter” who spouts dogma as fact.  Act of abuse, even minor ones, are lumped together with “violence” and protections for the innocent are thrown out under the guise of “protecting women”.  Innocent until proven guilty is now guilty until you prove your innocence.  Men are charged with felonies and high misdemeanors which carry sentences of years in prison, and then offered minor fines and TOP’s if they admit their guilt, thus undermining the system for innocent men.

Feminist rhetoric of “men are bad” is forced on boys in our public education system.  Systems are designed to reward girls and how they learn and boys are lined up and medicated for “A.D.D.” when they act like boys do.  Boys are falling behind at all levels within our education system yet we have no “White House Council” to address the issues like we do for girls.  The boy crisis in education has gotten so bad that 65% of all college graduates are female and many colleges are looking to try to lure men to attend as girls complain of the lack of available boys.  “Girls go to college to get more knowledge, boys go to Jupiter to get more stupider” and we turn a blind eye to this sexist biased bullying of boys.

Predatory act of abuse by female pedophiles (often by a teacher or trusted woman in a position of authority) are dismissed with the “lucky stud” myth that “boys want it”.  Abuse excuse is applied to the actions of the female (she was abused herself, she’s lonely, etc.) and when she is charged with a crime she is given female impunity in sentencing, often given time served or probation and not having to plea to a sex offense nor be listed on sexual offender registries.  By definition we don’t consider force able compulsion of sex by a female on a male as rape.  There are no counseling centers for female on male rape and sexual abuse victims.  Sexual abuse of institutionalized delinquent boys at the hands of female counselors and guards occurs on a regular basis and there is no hue and cry to address it.

We consider a drunk woman as incapacitated and unable to consent to sex with no similar protection for men and don’t allow a man to claim drunkenness as a defense of sexual assault.  Drunk women get protection, drunk men get prosecuted.  We readily believe allegations of rape by a female and dismiss a defense of consensual, even when it is a “he said-she said” case and the allegations of abuse occur days, weeks, or months later.  Again, defenses for the innocent do not exist when allegations are against men.

Woman can, and do, lie about their reproductive status.  Even though perpetrating a fraud we hold men financially accountable for children they did not want.  Even when a woman steals his sperm a man is held accountable for the child, in NYS the high court ruling that a “man’s right to reproduction ends at ejaculation”. Once on the hook and named the father of a child we hold the man financially responsible even if DNA results show the man to not be the father.  Another instance of a fraud perpetrated on men by women with no accountability for the actions.

The social interactions between men and women and social institutions have gotten so hostile to men that they are avoiding them wholesale.  At first it was risk aversion, now it is a conscious decision to NOT enter into a situation where you will be judged and risk life, limb, and property.  A generation of men watched their grand fathers, fathers, uncles, brothers, and friends get cleaned out financially, removed from their homes, their family and their children, arrested and persecuted, abandoned.   Young men learned from their example.  Indeed it is now so hostile that many men espouse “M.G.T.O.W. – Men going Their Own Way, no committing to spouse and children due to the risk involved.

The Myth of the “deadbeat dad” was debunked in the 1990’s with federal studies (see Sanford Bravers “Divorced dads: Shattering the Myth’s).  Studies over time have shown that women are as violent as men and the hidden problem within families is those with mutual violence or male victims, which are ignored.  The problem of female pedohiles is flat out ignored due to the “Lucky Stud” myth and female impunity in criminal prosecutions and in sentencing.  Drunken and stoned consensual sex and tawdry behavior which is later regretted results in him being arrested and her treated the victim.  In all these instances we blame men, arrest men, prosecute men, vilify men, ostracize men, and incarcerate men.

When men avoid the dangerous minefield of relationships we look to men as the problem.  We have “responsible fatherhood” programs which purport to teach men how to responsibly pay for children they are not allowed to raise.  We look to see what is wrong with men who don’t want to get married.  We wonder what is wrong with young men without families who seem happy to sit in mom’s basement and play video games all day.  We wonder what is wrong with young men who look to crime, gangs, and drugs and make our communities unsafe and try to get “mentoring” programs.  We look to find “father figures” for the boys who are growing up missing “male role models”.

Men are good. Men are not the problem.  Men are not problem.  Recognize this and we can then begin to address the misandric anti-male policies of the past 40 years.  If we address the hostile environments that men have to face we need do no more than remove the barriers and men will do the rest. (link to men’s/boy’s issues here)

If Ablow, Sepala and others in the APA want to address the underlying causes of loneliness, in addition to a myriad of other problems in America, perhaps they would look to debunk the myth of the patriarchy and abusive bad men and the anti family government policies (listed above) which have been developed based upon these myths.  And debunk the myth that men and women are the same and their differences “socialized into a gender” and recognize it it the differences and strength’s of men and women which fosters a strong family for the benefit of all.  And they need to recognize it is these policies which are hostile to men which are the problem, and stop blaming men for the hostile environment they now have to navigate in.

In the Hank Williams, Sr. classic, “I’m so lonesome I could cry” we get to the end of the ballad before we learn he is lonesome as he pines for another, lamenting, he “wonders where you are”.  “You” isn’t stated clearly but it is apparent that the loneliness will go when they are together again.  It’s not hard to imagine that he is apart due to work to provide for his family and it is his family which will solve his loneliness.  And it is not hard to imagine that without their husband/father they are also lonely.  Is anyone lonely when they have a family to come home to?

 

Megan Leavey: A movie review.

The movie Megan Leavey opens in theaters June 9 but as former military and an AT&T subscriber I was invited to an early screening of the movie on May 30 for free to mark National Military Appreciation Month.  In addition to being a U.S. Army Veteran (76-79) I was also an Army Brat to a career (43-70) US Army E.O.D. (Explosives Ordinance for non military) and am a dog lover also, so a movie about a bomb sniffing dog caught my attention as I was watching the trailers, announcements, and snippets of the plot line leading up to release.

I’m looking forward to it until I get a preview trailer which contains an interview with a male in the film where he says how wonderful it was to work on a film “with so many women” with “wonderful energy” (a women overcoming bias film, I’m sure).   The Director goes on to say there are many war films depicting male marines and few with women.  And this is where I go I go DUH.  Since the first Gulf War 97% of combat deaths and casualties have been men and they compose over 90% of US Veterans. And previously men fought all wars with very few female combatants.  Ironically I posted a piece about female specific services and the lack of MALE specific services in my memorial Day piece, “Do we support our troops”.  Now I’m thinking I’m headed to a PC “women overcoming adversity and hostile men” piece of work.

I was pleasantly surprised as I found the movie to be a nice piece of linear story telling which wasn’t in any form preachy or judgemental.  The movie opens to a young person (who just happens to be a female), from divorced parents, who is coming of age and wondering what to do with her life.  Deciding to enlist in the Marines she carries her bad habits with her until she finds the canine program, and this is where we meet the dog, “Rex”.  Here she encounters the reality of life, to achieve (anything) requires setting goals and objectives and a commitment to succeed.

We follow her to her deployment in a war zone, having to face the unknown.  She has the “what did I get myself into” and “I’m not ready for this” thoughts that I’m sure every young person has when they first start to make their own decisions for themselves, then have to either suffer the consequences or reap the rewards of their decisions.  Here again the movie isn’t preachy but sticks to the story line presenting issues as the normal course of life.

The story line continues to post deployment where Leavey tries to arrange to have Rex evaluated to allow her to adopt him when he is no longer being used by the military.  Again there is no preaching and the story line shows all perspectives in why things are being done the way they are.  There is no glossing over the challenges she has to face, nor is there a demonization of the people who make decisions counter to her wishes.

I found the story line believable. The interactions of her and her family showed the stresses divorce play upon children and the and the actions and dialogue of parents believable.  The training and conduct of the military personnel was also believable, as were the war scenes, which showed the dangers of military deployment without being overly graphic.  The dangers, and rewards, of military service were portrayed factually.

If you are looking for a movie which speaks to the issue of women in the draft, women in combat, or the downtrodden female overcoming patriarchal adversity, this isn’t it so if you’re looking for a PC movie – stay home.  Also, it isn’t a “blockbuster” nor is it set to be a classic cleaning up the Oscars.  It is a nice little film with a good story line which you can take your teenagers to, enjoy together, and maybe open up some discussion about life itself and their decisions for their future.  If you are looking for a good coming of age war story with a dog as the co-star, this is it.   And if nothing else, you have to like the dog.

Megan Leavey Opens in theaters today, June 9, 2017.  More on “Rotten Tomato” here.

And at the end of the movie I say … 1304-royalty-free-content.jpg and 4 of 5 stars.

 

Do we support our Troops?

A common phrase which I hear a lot these days is “I support our troops”.  Good.  Regardless of personal political opinions we should recognize the sacrifice of the individual in the military who defends our freedoms here at home.  I expect “Troops” conjures up images in our mind such as the one below and others which can be found on the Department of Defense Web site of our Troops working towards goals and objectives to keep us safe.  Who wouldn’t support these fine young people sacrificing for our benefit.  Thank you for your service.

While it is important that we support our troops while on active duty our responsibility to support them doesn’t end there, it continues after they return home.  Unfortunately my experience as a father and family rights activist, Army Brat and Veteran, and member of the Critical Incident Management Team with a NYS law enforcement agency tell me that what we say is far different than what we do when we talk of supporting our veterans, more specifically our MALE Veterans.

A big part of the problem as I see it is men are treated at best as disposable members of society and at worst as  perpetrators of violence and abuse who we need to protect society from.  This bias against men works to foster the public perception that men don’t need any assistance with issues related to their service or due to their being males and in addition it is working to hinder men seeking the assistance they need by not providing male specific outreach and services.  We see this in the lack of programs and services directed towards the specific issues that men face, ignoring their problems.

First the stats:  Since the first Gulf War 97% of combat deaths and casualties have been men and they compose over 90% of US Veterans.  90% of homeless people are men and a large portion of that are veterans.  80% of suicides are men, and a large portion of them are also veterans. In 2016 males accounted for 86% of active duty enlisted personnel and 84.7% of officers.  If we look at longevity as a measure of overall health we find men have a life expectancy (76.2 years) 4.9 years younger than females (81.2 years).  White females life expectancy (81.4 years) eclipses black females (78.4 years), white males (76.7 years), and white females life expectancy is a whopping 14.1 years over black men (72.3 years).   It’s clear that there are many issues related to men which result in negative outcomes evidenced by life expectancy.

I go to the U.S Department of Veterans Affairs website under “Health” and “Conditions and Treatment” I find a link to “WOMEN’S HEALTH ISSUES”  which brings me to the “Office of Women’s Health Services” which links to a study to determine female veterans barriers to receiving care.  Even though men account for 85% of veterans there is no male (men) specific link to resources designed towards the needs of men.  A search of “America’s Male Veterans” returns hits to “Women’s health Issues”!   There is lacking any link to male specific health issues (showing the value the VA places on men), and there is no reference to male specific health issues available (showing the health field’s lack of attention to men)!  The links to “women’s healthcare” include “comprehensive primary care”, “reproductive health”, “child care”, “domestic violence”, “culture change”, and “Special Groups” which is “homeless female veterans”.  Which leads me to ask, DON’T MEN HAVE MALE SPECIFIC ISSUES IN THESE SAME CATEGORIES?

The VA classifies sexual assault and sexual harassment under the heading “Military Sexual Trauma” (MST) and when I look at the issue as portrayed by the VA I see “1 in 4 women and 1 in 100 men REPORT a history to the VA during screenings”.  For those of us who deal with male victims of domestic abuse, harassment, and sexual assault we understand the number one problem with male victims is their reluctance to report!  It is only when I dig through the materials do I find that almost HALF the victims in the program for MST are MALE!  One can only wonder, given the lack of male specific referrals and information, how many men are suffering in silence?

Usually when I author one of these truthful perspectives about the lack of male specific services I receive a ton of responses about being “anti-female”, to the point that I now include the (obvious) disclaimer that I am NOT promoting a reduction in services for females and/or female Veterans.  Indeed, to treat female Veterans like we now treat male Veterans woulds still be mistreating A VETERAN.  The VA (and US) should treat all Veterans equally based upon their individual needs understanding that their sex, race, religion, and national origin may require different outreaches and programs to achieve an equal outcome.  Veterans are not widgets, all the same, they are real people who have sacrificed for all of us and they deserve individual attention to their needs.

Men account for the vast majority of the homeless and the bulk of those men are MALE VETERAN’S.  Men account for the bulk of suicides and many of those are MALE VETERAN’S.  You can’t treat men as disposable members of society who don’t have male specific issues which require services and programs and then say “I support our Veteran’s” as the bulk of Veteran’s are MEN.  Disregarding the health issues of men is to disregard the health issues of Veteran’s.

If you would like to advocate for Veterans (feel free to cut and paste or send the link to this article) you can reach the VA here https://www.va.gov/landing2_contact.htm, and the White House is here https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact, The US Secretary of defense and the Joint Chiefs can be found here https://www.defense.gov/Resources/Contact-DoD/

They stood up for us, we should stand up for them.

When we memorialize those who gave all, in perspective http://prospect.org/article/american-war-dead-numbers the vast majority are men, and it is an issue for our younger generation that men still have to register for the draft (under penalty) and women don’t https://nymensactionnetwork.wordpress.com/2017/04/05/welcome-to-adulthood-gen-z-advice-for-boys-aging-into-men/.

Equal rights, equal responsibilities, equal access to services.

Happy birthday disenfranchised daughter, happy birthday to you, where ever you are.

I was thinking that maybe you (the electronic world) could do me a favor.  Now with social media blasting things all over for everyone to see I thought maybe if you know her you would pass along a happy birthday wish from me for my daughter.  You see, I fulfilled my “responsible father” parental duties, as defined by my government, years ago and we have no contact with each other for nigh on 20 years now.  So please, if you are blessed with knowing her do pass along my wishes for a good birthday and a happy year to follow.

CAH Circa 1989.jpeg

Birthday Party 1989

I suppose I should also here explain and make my apologies for her ending up a disenfranchised daughter to a beat dead, dead broke, disenfranchised dad (often referred to a “deadbeat dad” or “NCP – Non Custodial Parent”).  It certainly wasn’t my plan to be a disenfranchised dad, indeed I was actually a very involved dad and the primary care giving parent as her mother had returned to school and then work full time.   I didn’t plan my life this way, but life is the thing that happens to you while you are busy making plans.

You see, in the 1980’s we (me and her mother) believed that men and women should both share in providing for their children emotionally and financially.  Unfortunately, unbeknownst to me (and most other people out there), the system has defined “responsible fatherhood” as a father who pays his “child support” on time and in full, regardless of his ability to pay the government assessed amount or the needs of the child.  What I had been led to believe about society working “in the child’s best interest” and about fathers should be active and involved, “responsible”, I was soon to learn was not true.  I now believe only half of what I see and nothing that I hear.

In looking back I wonder if I would have been better off not trying to be an active nurturing participating father.  I could have accepted the “Standard NY Order” of every other weekend and Wednesday after school for 4 hour “visitations”.  I expect though that given the circumstances and the system that the disenfranchisement would have occurred just the same.  Indeed, I have come to learn that it is the hands-on active father who fights the hardest to be in their child’s life, and it is he who is often the one disenfranchised the most, an “inverse correlation”.  Of course, hind sight is 20-20 and nobody knew then what they know now.

I find some consolation in that I fought very hard to stay in my children’s life, over 3 years of litigation in multiple courts.  I was penalized financially for fighting “to hard”  and not accepting the “standard order” and made to pay attorneys and fees in addition to “child support”.  I was told to just “shut up and pay and you can visit your kids”.  I likened “visiting” on a regular schedule to being in jail.  I wanted more.  Alas, there was no avenue in which I would be allowed to be an active father in raising them.  The harder I fought, the worse I was penalized.  I had to define fatherhood as I saw it, not as another thought to make me be.  Unfortunately, Life isn’t fair, it was their way or nothing.

I think I did exceptionally well given I was fighting a government system with unlimited resources which was also plundering mine to pay to remove me from my children.  It was only after many years when I was ultimately arrested and suspended from work and lost all income that I capitulated.  I was bankrupt, facing incarceration, and a lifetime court order keeping me from my children or I could take a “deal”, return to work, pay my (extorted) “child support”, and rely on their custodial mothers good graces for any continued access to them.  I chose the latter as the lesser of two evils, she had no use for me.  In life you don’t always get what you want.

I did fault myself at times for “not fighting hard enough” or inversely, for not capitulating and accepting “visitor” status.  But in addition to be a father by my own heritage and definition I had to ask myself, “fatherhood at what cost”?   The entire system was designed to remove my parental right to raise my children, and so it did. I had no choice than to pay the “child support” extortion and it left me at maximum garnishment and I had to live on 35% of my income for 10 years (no bank account, no credit card, no home, no car).  When you add in the cost of “visitation” (denial of access, more false allegations and incarceration, loss of work, more jail for not paying the “support”) the cost of being a father wasn’t there, much less being a “visitor”.  My door is always open, I never denied any family member access the choice to not come to my door was not mine, and that’s cold hard fact.

When I tell people my now grown children haven’t called, emailed, or even been to “visit” me for 20 years they ask why or “who’s fault is it” (obviously I did SOMETHING to cause it).  It’s nobody’s I think, and EVERYBODY’S.  It’s “Parental Alienation” and a government system which encourages and rewards it, a system which most turn a bit of a blind eye to which is why it continues now for over 30 years.  To hide their discomfort most people will give the “maybe they’ll come back some day”, as if 20 years of acting a way will just change overnight.  Pffft is what I say back.  I certainly don’t expect them to crash my threshold, but I will stay true and never turn them away should they do so.

Photo on 12-20-16 at 5.03 PM.jpg

2017

This is a computer selfie of me in 2017.  I used to look for an unattended camera and snap a “selfie”, this in the days before smart phones and the term “selfie”.  So more than one person has had film developed (and then digitally downloaded) to find a photo of me smiling at them.  Of course I recruited my kids as accomplices when they were old enough.  I thought perhaps they would be interested in how I look now.  Perhaps.  Their choice now.

A lot has been taken away from me by this government system, more so my children.  They took a good active involved father from two children who deserved better.  What they can’t take away is me being a DadSometimes you fight the good fight, and lose.  Such is life.  The sun will come up tomorrow and God willing you get a new day.  So in keeping with still being a Dad I say to my daughter, the doors open if you desire.  I wish you a happy birthday and a good year to follow.  Love, Dad.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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