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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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!

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.

Memo in OPPOSITION to S4489/A6587 No Fault Divorce Bias towards “Victims of DV”

Many years back in the days before no fault divorce was the law of the land, yet being pushed by the NYS Bar Association, The Coalition of Fathers and Families NY, Inc. (FaFNY) and the New York Men’s Action Network (NY MAN) opposed no fault divorce unless the issues of sexual bias towards mother custody, arbitrarily high arbitrary and capricious child support awards, and the problems with false allegations of abuse (child and domestic violence) were addressed.

Eventually, no fault divorce passed, but as we know none of the issues we raised have been addressed.  Indeed, one Betty Little, Republican Senator from the Adirondack Region of NYS was in part responsible for the parliamentary maneuvers in the NYS Senate which derailed shared parenting legislation in committee.

Now, none other than Betty Little would put in a no fault divorce “repealer” for one class of people, that is “victims of domestic violence”, who would be able to declare no fault divorce null and void.  Knowing that both men and women are the victims of domestic violence in equal numbers, I can’t imagine a scenario where a victim would want to stop the process which would help free them from their abuser.   But, NYS Courts or the DV system don’t address male victims, so it is obviously pandering to “the women’s vote”, an action that will be beneficial to women only in a sexually baised system which serves females only.

And if passed I can only imagine that each and every recipient of a unilateral no fault divorce action will claim to be the victim of domestic violence as leverage in that action.  Indeed, every filer will need to file allegations of DV to protect themselves from a counter allegation.

It’s not hard to see who will benefit from this legislation, lawyers who need to address “these issues” will rack up billable hours.  And of course the politicians here would be able to point to this legislation in their pandering for the “women’s vote”.

Just another example of the NYS Legislature, the most corrupt and dysfunctional in the nation, doing unnecessary business as usual.

NY MAN has issued a memo in opposition to this legislation and is asking it be placed upon the official record in the bill jacket.  Feel free to cut, copy and paste this to these, and more importantly YOUR, legislators.   And in the process, ask them why shared parenting, which has the support of 80% of NYS population, has been stalled (and why are they in the pockets of the NYS Bar Association?).

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

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

Memo in OPPOSITION to S4489/A6587

Senator Betty Little
310 LOB Albany, NY 12247

Assemblywoman Sandra Galef
641 LOB Albany NY 12248

Dear Senator and Assemblyman;
The NY Mens Action Network, a statewide political action and grass roots lobby group is opposed to this legislation  S4489/A6587.
This is in effect a repealer of no fault divorce which flies in the face of the intent of that legislation, which was to not force a party into into a marriage which was broken down and place the parties in a situation of continuing conflict, which is what this legislation would do.  It creates a class of protected person such that any and all non filers of a divorce action will be able to claim victim status, and at a minimum delay proceedings for adjudication of the allegations.  Perjury and false allegations of abuse already run rampant in family and supreme courts in matrimonial, custody and support matters, and are used to gain leverage.  This legislation is only bound to add to that existing problem and one can envision filers making allegations of abuse to negate the non filers possible claim. (see http://www.saveservices.org/camp/faam-2011/research-on-false-allegations-of-abuse/ and also http://www.saveservices.org/key-facts/).
The NYS Courts already have great oversight authority over individuals when a divorce action is filed, including the issuance of protective and restraining orders, and orders over the dissipation of assets.  This legislation is unnecessary, would not protect victims of domestic violence, would endanger victims of domestic violence, would contribute to an already overworked system, and foster more false allegations to gain leverage.  As such we oppose this legislation and further request that this official opposition be placed upon the record (in the bill jacket).

Skidmore decision result of public pressure, not facts

Printed at http://www.troyrecord.com/opinion/20150412/letters-to-the-editor-april-12

I highly disagree with “Charlie’s Angle: Skidmore decision best of a bad situation” in the March 31 edition of The Record. I see an institution which acted on public pressure and not on facts. Indeed, I see in Kraebel’s writing a sexual bias towards men which fosters a “believe the woman, blame the man, women are victims and men perpetrators”, attitude which makes handling of these incidents nothing more than a lynch mob which undermines our justice systems, as occurred at Skidmore.

I want to say right up front that I don’t know if it is Kiefer or the “man” who is telling the truth in the matter of an alleged sexual assault on the Skidmore campus, I have no inside information into the facts and circumstances of that one incident. But what I do know, contrary to the photo of Kiefer holding up her hands with one finger on one hand and five on the other in a Saratogian article, in reference to the “one in five” statistic referenced for sexual assault on campus, is that one in five is a lie.

The one in five statistic references one study of sexual assault on campuses which has been reputed as highly flawed and inaccurate. Not only did the study look at only two campuses it broadly categorized sexual incidents in which the parties regretted it the next day as “rape”. Further the study failed to look at both false allegations and also male victims of sexual assault. Even though the study is flawed it has been used by politicians, such as our own Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.

It is written into sexual assault legislation that incapacitation by alcohol or drugs can remove a person’s ability to consent. It is also written that incapacitation by alcohol can not be used as a defense against charges of sexual abuse. This works fine when we apply the sexual bias that it is men who assault women but we now know through multiple studies that men also report many unwanted sexual encounters perpetrated by women. Further, the sexual bias inherent in this view was set aside many years ago. So how do we treat a couple who get incapacitated together, are equally unable to consent to sex, have an encounter and both regret the incident the next day? Apply sexual bias, label the man the perpetrator, run him into a one-sided campus system which will then bend to public pressure?

The campus judicial system, like most judicial systems, works on a “preponderance of evidence”, meaning that you only need 51 percent proof to find one way or the other. But, as Kraebel stated, often these cases fall down to one person’s word against the other. As we know, it is common practice for college attendees to drink and take intoxicants and engage in sex. Absent independent witnesses, it is impossible to determine if one person or the other is telling the truth. And what they are reviewing is not whether there was sexual assault, but rather did the conduct violate the school’s misconduct policy. As such, sexual bias that holds men as perpetrators and women as victims would make it so his word against hers was enough to find he violated the policy by having sex with her while she was incapacitated by alcohol. Kraebel’s doubts that Skidmore would have suspended him without evidence fails to take into account the difference in campus judicial and criminal proceedings.

Even though the criminal system requires proof beyond a shadow of a doubt to convict, to charge a person only requires that reasonable cause exist that a person committed a crime. Thus, the lack of arrest or presentation to the grand jury by the DA’s office is an indication that there was in fact no evidence of a crime. I suspect the police and DA remain silent fearing that they too will fall prey to the lynch mob which would publicly shame any not seeing things their way. We only need to go back to the Duke lacrosse team fiasco of persecution by the DA based upon false allegations to see that this in fact occurs.

Kraebel speaks to his biases when he talks of having experience in this area, but having one female relative victimized does not correlate to a fact that all victims are female. However, this bias is evident when he states that these occurrences are OK if “efforts prevent one woman from enduring what she has,” thus ignoring male victims, false allegations and the protections which are in place to protect innocent people from being charged. I suspect it is these biases which has the paper printing the “one in five lie” without fact checking, or looking for an opposing opinion.

Affirmative consent on college campuses, a cause taken up by Governor Cuomo and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, are based upon the one in five lie. Gillibrand used a story in Rolling Stone about a fraternity gang rape at the University of Virginia and a “rape culture at UVA” to support affirmative consent and “one in five.” The problem was that the story fell apart under scrutiny by the Washington Post and other media outlets and an investigation by the Charlottesville Police resulting in a finding of “no evidence” to support the allegations. It has been reported that the story was made up, complete with a fictional perpetrator and faked e-mails and text messages so the “victim” could curry favor with a romantic interest to whom she reported the “incident”.

Even in the face of an obviously false story with more holes than Swiss cheese, Gillibrand stated we shouldn’t resort to “victim blaming” and that sanctions against her would be “inappropriate”. I do agree with Kraebel on one thing he said, that he “knows how hard it is for victims to recover.” Just ask the Duke lacrosse team or the UVA fraternity, or maybe the “Skidmore man” how hard it is to recover from the lynching and persecution caused by false allegations. I would ask Gillibrand how it is that ignoring false allegations and perjury isn’t “victim blaming?”

I’ll close stating, I don’t know who is telling the truth, but neither do Gillibrand, Kraebel or any of the others who gathered for the protest or covered the incident in the media. The difference is, I didn’t base my assumptions on flawed policies based upon junk science and then run a lynch mob, hanging due process, justice, and the Constitutional right to be treated innocent until PROVEN guilty.

James Hays Petersburg, NY

There is no slam dunk win for father’s rights

Like most, I got involved in the “Fathers Rights” movement way back in 1995 after getting dragged into family court myself.  As AL Gore hadn’t invented the internet yet fathers had to get together in person and meet about the issues.  The meetings had three main components to them.  First was the “pity party”, that being where everyone would share their horror stories of abuse at the hands of the courts.  Second was the “Pro Se” discussion which centered around men who had exhausted all financial resources and were fighting the court as their own attorney.  The third component was the discussion, “What are we going to do to change the system and make it fair.”

When it came to the what are we going to do to change the system ideas abounded, “dismantle family court”, “fire all the lawyers” and other ideas which would immediately make it all better were bandied about.  Even “if the legislature just passed shared parenting” was put forth as the end all for injustices in family court.  Yes, “if” this happens it will all end.  I’m sorry to say, that just isn’t so.

For many of us, the assault on parental rights opened our eyes to other injustices.  When we began to look at these issues in depth we learned that there were injustice a plenty.  The assault on parental rights, fathers, and men all occurred at the same time.  And the issues have been building since the 1970’s, fostered by policies, laws and practices put into place by both Democratic and Republican Administrations in all levels of government in all branches of government.

The issues are many and complicated.  I would direct you to the website http://www.trueequality.com/booklet/ for a nice overview of the advocacy areas we need to address.  If you review all of the issues (Mens health, Circumcision, Domestic Violence, Paternity Fraud, Selective Service, Family Courts, Education, Criminal Bias, False Accusations, Reproductive Rights and the Wage Gap Myth) you will see that the one theme that abounds is that the bulk of the problems caused for men and boys is the result of government interference in our lives unnecessarily and also with bias towards us as men.

And so here I am, 20 year an advocate for change.  I am often confronted by people going through the injustices of family court and they look at me and say, “what have you done, what have you accomplished?”  But the reality is that I, and many others advocates for families, fathers and men have actually done a lot.  Yes, it did used to be worse, and yes we are making headway daily.  Not by leaps and bounds, but by small incremental steps.  There are many who are looking for change for their own circumstance, but that isn’t how it works.  There is nothing that will fix it now, there is no slam dunk that will make it all good, right and proper.

So if you joined in the fight for a slam dunk, hope I “win” and my case is fixed, you are bound to be disappointed.  But if you are interested in equal and just laws, rules and regulations applied to all persons then you are in the right movement.  There will be no slam dunk, just a bunch of hard working, giving advocates who day in and day out work to make things better for people in little ways.

 

Next up, “What will be effective?”