Save The Males

Save The Males: (the REAL ones) The Other Side of the Coin Common Sense on Gender and Law Promoting Masculinity and Family

4th Edition

By R. F. Doyle

Copyright © 2007 by Poor Richard’s Press Forest Lake, Minnesota

-i-

ISBN 978-1-4116-9633-4 (pbk) LCCN 2006903541 Website for this book: www.mensdefense.org

Other books by R. F. Doyle The Rape of the Male: Library of Congress #76-3141 (Out of print) The Men’s Manifesto: ISBN 0-917212-03-7 Divorce, What Everyone Should Know: ISBN 0-917212-02-9 The Men/Fathers Movement & Divorce Assistance Operations Manual

Epigraph “It’s Tommy this and Tommy that, an chuck him out, the brute!; But its savior of his country when the guns begin to shoot…”

— from Rudyard Kipling’s poem, Tommy.

- ii -

Table Of Contents Part I Why a Need to Save The Males............................................. 1 Gender Images/Indiscriminate Chivalry/Misandry ......................... 1 Androgny (Sex melding) ............................................................... 4 Employment, Quotas and Affirmative Action ................................... 10 Disparate Treatment of the Sexes ................................................... 13 Crime and Punishment ............................................................... 14 Inter-Gender Violence/Allegations ............................................... 22 Domestic Relations ......................................................................... 38 Marriage – The Ideal .................................................................... 38 Marriage –The Tender Trap......................................................... 40 Marriage –The Demise ................................................................ 40 Divorce Statistics ........................................................................ 41 Divorce Amerikan Style: The Rape of The Male ........................... 42 Pathology of Divorce .................................................................... 72 Health Issues ................................................................................. 102 Part II J’Accuse ............................................................................ 108 Politics, Government, Legalists ....................................................... 108 Law Makers................................................................................. 112 Law Interpreters.......................................................................... 113 Law Merchandisers ..................................................................... 118 Bureaucrats, Mercenaries & Culprits........................................... 122 Feminists ....................................................................................... 127 Über-feminist Voices ................................................................... 136 Big Media ....................................................................................... 140 Men Ourselves................................................................................ 143 Part III Reality, Sensibility, Amelioration...................................... 147 The Evolution of Civilization ........................................................... 147 The Sexes: Physical, Mental, Behavioral and Functional Differences149 The Accomplishment Curve ......................................................... 153 What Difference Do The Differences Make?.................................. 155 Sex Roles, Affirmative Action Rebutttal ........................................ 156 Women's Lib: Rebuttal and Compromise...................................... 166 Philosophic Issues .......................................................................... 171 Manhood, Fatherhood ................................................................. 171 Normal Man/Woman Relationships ............................................. 172 Meeting Half Way ........................................................................ 173 Apparent Dilemma Resolved ........................................................ 174

- iii -

Chivalry Trade-offs. The Double Standard Justified................... 175 Behavioral Issues........................................................................ 177 Arguments Against Divorce ......................................................... 178 Avoiding the Tender Trap ............................................................ 180 Law Reform.................................................................................... 183 Domestic Relations Reform ......................................................... 185 Punishing False Allegations ........................................................ 200 Welfare Reform ........................................................................... 201 Part IV Prospects for Saving the Males .......................................... 204 Appendix ....................................................................................... 205 Recommended Reading .................................................................. 205 Men’s/Fathers Organization Websites ............................................ 209 Index ............................................................................................. 210 Endnotes ....................................................................................... 213

- iv -

Dedication Dedicated to the millions of children devastated, if not altogether ruined, by unwise mother-custody in divorce – including my Granddaughter Katie (a second-generation victim), to my friends and mentors Charlie Metz1 and Prof. Daniel Amneus, giants of the men’s/fathers’ movement, (Requiescat in pace, both), to the most discriminated-against male I know – Will Hetherington.

The late professor Emeritus Daniel Amneus of the California State University, Los Angeles was, and remains, one of the most learned and eloquent observers of social behavior in our time. He was so far ahead of the times, some thought him to be behind them. His soul lives on in this book with many brilliant insights from his marvelous tome The Case for Father Custody. After this good man’s death, his daughter urged me to carry on his work, and his son shipped cartons of his notes to me. I will never forget the many times I accompanied Dan’l to the top of Mount Hollywood in Griffith Park in Los Angeles discussing many things. Professor Amneus instinctively understood, as all great philosophers do, what matters and what does not, what is right and what wrong for the survival of civilization. Because of his strong views, his detractors were many. As Thomas Aquinas would say, what is evident to the wise is not evident to all. Nor will I forget the happy hours spent listening to classical music in the home of the late, great Charlie Metz. I consider myself a disciple of these good men. We shall not see their likes again.

Acknowledgements to my wife, Ritzy, for her many years of unpaid work at the Men’s Defense Association. Thanks to computers, there was no need to type, re-type, and re-re-type this book as she did with my previous book The Rape of The Male.

I want to thank computer guru Lloyd Selberg for enormous technical help and editorial suggestions.

-v-

The Author Richard F. Doyle was born December 3, l930 in Rosemount, Minnesota. He attended St. John’s Prep. school, Collegeville, Minnesota; White Bear High School, White Bear Lake, Minnesota; and St. Thomas College St. Paul, Minnesota Heavily into athletics as a youth, Doyle served four years with the U.S. Air Force during the Korean War and three years with the Marine Corps Reserve, including a stint at officer training school in Quantico, Virginia. He was an air traffic controller for l7 years and an active commercial pilot and flight instructor for 3 years. He coached two U.S. Tug of War teams at the 1986 World Tournament in The Netherlands.

Divorced in l957, and now happily re-married, Doyle was shocked by the anti-male prejudice pervasive throughout the court system.

He formed the Men’s Rights Association (now Men’s Defense Association) in l972 and Men’s Equality Now (M.E.N.) International, an international coalition of similar organizations, in l977. He became an author and lecturer on gender issues, especially divorce. His best known work is The Rape of The Male (Poor Richard’s Press, l976.

Now out of print). He has appeared on national TV shows, as well as many local TV and radio programs throughout the country. From 1972 until 2004 he edited and published The Liberator, première monthly newsmagazine of the legitimate men’s/fathers’ movement with international circulation. A brief biography of Doyle can be found on the Wikipedia website.

Richard Doyle is the proud recipient of an award from the National Coalition of Free Men (NCFM) bearing this inscription, “With sincere gratitude for a lifetime of selfless service to the men’s and fathers’ rights movement. From your brothers at the National Coalition of Free Men.” “To Dick Doyle, who for years has been the backbone — & brain & muscle — of the Men’s Rights Movement… Dan Amneus” (From his autograph in the author’s copy of the Amneus book Back to Patriarchy

- vi -

Preface Many years ago the deadly web of divorce trapped me. In 1956 I returned from military service in Alaska during the Korean War to find that my misbegotten marriage no longer existed. It will serve no purpose to go into the sordid details here. I will say it was a shattering experience, but nothing compared to the bitter, lengthy, and financially devastating divorce and its aftermath that followed.

According to lawyers, there was nothing I could do; and if there had been I couldn’t afford it. I descended into a private Hell from which it took years to escape. Depression and the drink almost got me. I felt as if flung into the pit of God’s outhouse during an Almighty bout with diarrhea (OK, maybe I jumped in). Fearful that stress would affect my ability to control air traffic, I resigned from the FAA in December 1966.

Reinstated many years later, it was a financially costly sacrifice.

Accused of non-support, I had gone to the State Supreme Court in order to support my children – properly. My children became hopelessly alienated. Plans for that erstwhile family were cruelly dashed.

There’s more, but I won’t bore you with it. The situation created an undying resolve to save others from this fate. And it gave rise to this book, many years in the writing. Perhaps its lessons will save hundreds of other children.

Attending meetings in the early reform movement, and commiserating with other divorcing men, I discovered that they too experienced the same treatment as I. It was routine! Most new victims feel their cases are unique, precedent-setting landmarks that will shock the world. They’re not; they’re largely the same old sad story.

While early fathers groups organized in opposition to mistreatment in divorce, I came to recognize it as part of a broader pattern of discrimination against men per-se. I also concluded that the personal and philosophical isolation of reformers from each other must end. I began speaking and writing from those perspectives in 1970.

Demanding equal rights and dignity for men, seeking to preserve families and criticizing unreasonable perks for women, as this book does, are ideas whose time has come. I know just as surely as Einstein knew E=MC2 (some might say it’s as obvious as the theory of Intelligent Design, and more provable) that whatever gods there be must be on this side, that the eternal truths must ultimately prevail.

The fairness principle – if nothing else – demands airing of these views, however politically incorrect.

Many persons are so conditioned to the idea of universal female sainthood that anyone who challenges this notion or advocates a return to the traditional, nuclear family is labeled “anti-woman.” Long a lightening rod in the anti-male-slavery movement, my helmet remains on. In the mid-70s, the New York chapter of NOW dubbed me a “Male Chauvinist Pig,” and the Minneapolis chapter named me - vii -

“Male Chauvinist Sleaze of the Year.” I still have the letter. Such criticism I wear as a badge of honor. To a Feminist sympathizer, an extremist is someone with whom she or he disagrees. I’ve been accused of tilting at windmills; but the enemy isn’t Don Quixote’s windmill – it’s an honest-to-goodness many-headed dragon. Perhaps I am too strident or too simplistic for sophisticated taste and outside the mainstream of social consciousness, but that does not equate to being wrong.

I don’t pose as an intellectual, merely as an iconoclastic purveyor of common sense and unapologetic views, an unreconstructed male.

Judgmental? Hell yes, I’m judgmental! Approaching the end of my appointed days on earth, I have enough time in grade to make certain observations. Opposition to prejudice is not reverse prejudice, although one must be on guard against this. I admit only to being a nasty iconoclast, a social critic with the indelicacy to be candid, without punches pulled or regard for toes stepped on, and with the right enemies. A lot of this cultural criticism is personal opinion you may not agree with; everyone puts their own spin on things, but – what the hell – it’s my book!

Like the poet Edward Fitzgerald, I have great reverence for all things “manly, simple and true.” To quote Winston Churchill: “What is the use of living if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in after we are gone?”

Do not consider mine to be a holier-than-thou position. My advocacy of a decent lifestyle doesn’t imply I always lived so. I made many blunders in that depressed era after the divorce, beyond even horrible choices in women. I’ve always appreciated a well-turned ankle (and other feminine features). After my disastrous 1st marriage I fathered 2 sons who, against all odds, turned out great and gave me 5 “world class” grandchildren. I couldn’t be more proud of them.

Although perceptive of female (as well as male) fault, I am not misogynistic. I prefer several female political figures over their nominally male opponents. I acknowledge that there are many wonderful ladies out there. I have loved some, and love one very much now.

Thank God for my wonderful wife – Ritzy. Much more lift than drag, to use aeronautical terms; she is a Godsend – literally. My only regret is that it wasn’t she who bore my children.

- viii -

Introduction There is a great “to do” about the alleged problems women encounter by virtue of their gender. The problems of men, especially fathers, receive very little attention. In the last several generations of our feminized, lawyered-up society, the position of men has deteriorated significantly. The male of the species is under increasing attack — legally, politically, economically and culturally — causing many to become confused, helpless, and oppressed. Those who deny there is a problem are part of the problem.

That famous phrase from George Orwell’s Animal Farm, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” is apropos. To say that gender bias is present is to state the obvious (which is the first duty of intelligent men, according to Orwell). Dual discrimination, pro-female and anti-male, is pervasive. The dogs in the street know it. The bias is so institutionalized, it is taken for granted. There are few expectations of women and many expectations of men. Oversimplified, the cause of men’s sorry situation is a combination of misplaced chivalry (or more accurately a perversion of it) and misandry2, a near universal zeitgeist. This and the metastasizing of Feminism have severely damaged society. These strains interconnect the various parts of this book.

A large part of this tome is devoted to domestic relations because that is where males and society are most harmed. Therein lie vast social engineering schemes and prejudices working to the detriment of traditional men and traditional families. Bad as it is, divorce is but one facet of a general pattern of discrimination, a broad and sinister phenomenon whose tentacles reach throughout society. A double standard extends into nearly all areas of law and society beyond domestic relations, into crime punishment, employment, and affects men’s very image.

The threat to all things masculine is a virus to rival that from Jihadist hate and envy of the West, and much greater than that of “global warming” or cooling. One wonders whatever happened to common sense. The War Against Men is a battle which both men and women must take seriously.

Men are not better than women or always in the right; but women have the entire legal establishment oriented to help them, so I am no more overly concerned with women’s problems, however legitimate, than the NAACP is with white people’s problems. Admittedly, there are evil men and good, competent women, and some traces of discrimination against women may remain. But that which exists against men is vastly greater. The concept of equal rights for men, if not non-existent, is of a very low profile.

Luther once compared humanity to a drunkard who, after falling off his horse on the right, remounts and falls off again on the left.

- ix -

That’s an excellent analogy to sexism. In the past, many prejudices favored men over women. Today, that situation is reversed. Ours is almost a “Kill Bill” culture. To deny that misandry exists is like denying that a disproportionate amount of crime is committed by blacks. One has to have an agenda to deny both.

Many political agendas and players are involved in this “rape of the male.” I strive mightily herein to expose them, and to warn anyone who will listen of the dire consequences of anti-male attitudes.

The many restrictions placed upon men and manhood are analogous to the thousands of small ropes with which the fictional Lilliputians tied down the powerful Gulliver, a situation brilliantly depicted in the illustration in Part II herein. In The War Against Fathers, Dr. Richard Hise explains that men have been so preoccupied with work and family that they haven’t noticed the incremental losses of their liberties and the increasing amounts of disrespect toward our sex.

He compared it to a frog not noticing the slowly increasing temperature of the water he is in before being boiled to death.

Paul Craig Roberts puts it thusly, “The war against men is real. It requires men to exercise care in choosing an occupation and in choosing a woman. The risk-reward ratios have deteriorated both for marriage and for working for a corporation. A bad choice can leave a man wounded, maimed, bereft of property and children, and in prison on trumped-up charges.”

In 1945, faced with similar threats in a different country, Rev. Martin Niemoller said: First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for anyone.

It is irritating to be drawn into the victimization game, but I do not intend to let “Feminists”3 claim the high ground by default. This rail against the feminization of the West is a defensive action in the perceived battle of the sexes. It is not intended to drag women down to the level of treatment accorded men, but to bring men up to that accorded women. The purpose is to rescue men, not to denigrate women. Remember that as you read on.

Some may consider the situations mentioned herein to be exaggerated or mere anecdotes, but almost any divorcing man or jailed innocent will concur that they are ugly realities. If anecdotes are -x-

sufficient in number, they become probative statistics, however unscientific their collection.

This book is the result of decades of research, divorce counseling, divorce-reform organizational work, being blown about by the winds of chance and of culling the thoughts of better men than me. I interviewed noted professors and habitants of that boulevard of broken dreams — skid row.

Problems affecting males are addressed in early parts of this book, and revisited regarding solutions in later parts. Some of the references herein are old, but still valid; facts are stubborn things. Nit-pickers are bound to find something to criticize and will take many things out of context. They will find an error or two, and on that basis condemn the entire book, ignoring its 99.8% accuracy.

As many authors have discovered to their chagrin, traditional publishers – normally staffed with feminists – seldom if ever publish a book defending males or offending feminists. That phobia has applied to this book as well; I encountered nests of feminist gate-keepers. Hence the self-publishing route. A good aspect of that route’s print-on-demand capability is that the book can be constantly revised, hence the numerous editions (This is the 4th). It remains a work in progress.

Henry David Thoreau said “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” How true. This rearguard defense of traditional morality explores the realities of life, resurrects the old-fashioned concepts of right and wrong, and examines their eternal conflict in law and behavior. Claiming no expertise in these latter two fields but a great deal of experience therein, I submit that there are higher laws and an innate sense of direction superior to temporal dictums. Law degrees, black robes or Roman collars aren’t needed to perceive them. In fact, these trappings are often detrimental; a conscience is sufficient. Thomas Jefferson said “The greatest principles of right or wrong are legible to every reader; to pursue them requires not the aid of many counselors.”

It is time, beyond time actually, to apply garage logic to these issues, to speak out, especially for the common man – the guy working on a farm, in a factory, in a garage, driving a truck, or laying bricks — men without the time, talent, or inclination to sit behind desks manipulating facts and statistics favorable to our cause, as our more glib detractors do. Our type may be looked down upon by the ‘elite,’ but I believe that wisdom is composed of common sense and life experience as well as education.

This enormous reservoir of anti-male sentiment makes judicial and social reform incredibly difficult. I don’t expect this book to completely reverse gender favoritism; that would be akin to the earth ceasing to roll right and commence rolling left. No, it’s just a very small candle lit in a very dark night. It is an unconventional look at conventional subjects, classically liberal and socially conservative, a dissent- xi -

ing voice to received wisdom. Seeking to provide an understanding of the politics of gender, and hoping to give “think tanks” something worthwhile to think about, I try to make the case that restoration of men’s rights is the best route back to a civilized society.

This will be plain talk; no trendy jargon. Speaking truth to power, it is logic – cold, cruel, inexorable, and undeniable – with all the subtlety of a Panzer division. As Barry Goldwater said, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” This is not meant to be light-hearted entertainment. One cannot be humorous about the annual ruin of thousands of men, children, and families.

Like hitting a beehive with a stick, this book will be offensive to some, but how else can one deal with offensive subjects? The arguments herein will outrage chivalrous instincts, but such instincts are largely responsible for society’s problems. It might also be argued that the moral issues discussed are not germane to saving males, but they are germane as will become apparent.

History teaches us that all great truths began as heresies. To quote George Orwell, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” The whole question of men’s rights and of divorce is one that society would rather sweep under the rug. To most people it is inconvenient, embarrassing, politically incorrect or confusing. Certain subjects are offensive to many who would prefer not to face them, but their airing might prevent consequences far worse than ruffled feelings. The very idea of men’s rights is unpopular, and shocking. The anti-slavery cause was unpopular and shocking 150 years ago, as were earlier moral voices crying in the wilderness. Attacking popular misconceptions enrages elements in all social strata, as Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, Freud, even Jesus Christ can attest. Voltaire said “It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.”

Gender justice will benefit women as well as men. Decent women, though they may read this with one eyebrow raised, do not want sons, brothers, and loved ones to suffer injustice, or the institution of marriage to disappear. Children deserve a family — father and mother, an environment free from prejudice — ethnic and sexual, and a country safe for marriage.

R. F. Doyle

- xii -

Why a Need to Save The Males

Part I Why a Need to Save The Males Gender Images/Indiscriminate Chivalry/Misandry “Girls are made of sugar ΄n spice ΄n everything nice. Boys are made of snips ΄n snails ΄n puppy dog tails.” — Anon.

Listen to the experts: Esther Vilar, in her best seller The Manipulated Man, calls the American male “the most exploited, the most suppressed, the most manipulated man on the face of the earth;” Linda Bowles said “It isn’t even close, the most abused, vilified, and sexually harassed Americans are white, heterosexual males. I don’t know why they put up with it — and I wish they wouldn’t;” Cato said “And we who govern all men are ourselves governed by our women;” Blackstone said “Woman is the favorite of the law;” University of Wisconsin sociologist Professor Ersel E. LeMasters claimed that women are boss in most contemporary families.

Writer and TV personality Doug Giles says “Masculine values are vanishing from within our nation faster than a Chimichanga dipped in motor oil would zip through your digestive tract.” In many circles, opprobrium attaches to being pale and male – almost an ‘Original Sin.’ The phenomenon seems to have gotten into the drinking water.

Women are practically canonized by simple virtue of being female, long-suffering heroines all but gleaning coal from railroad yards.

Females must be condescended to like “special” children whose crayon drawings of flowers everyone must praise.

Two or three Fathers’ Days ago Kathleen Parker satirized the image of the “Three-D Dad: dumb, dorky and dispensable.” She says “It’s a wonder men still submit to the altar. If we did to motherhood what we have done to fatherhood, we’d all be wearing riot gear. That a father revolt is inevitable seems a matter of cultural physics and human nature. Human beings can withstand only so much contravening pressure against what is in their interest or necessary to their survival. Meanwhile, old-fashioned masculinity is demeaned as we celebrate ‘metrosexuals.’ Raising children without their fathers is simply another, unfortunately accepted, form of child neglect.”

Opponents of gender fairness falsify what everyone knows to be true and assert what everyone knows to be false. There was a joke about an imaginary headline in the New York Times, “Tidal Wave -1-

Save the Males Strikes New York. Women and Children Suffer Most.” Well, it’s no longer a joke; an AP story reported just that: Angie Daze, a program manager with a Canadian group called Reducing Vulnerability to Climate Change, said in a Dec. 6-17, 2004 conference “Severe weather caused by global warming can pose greater physical danger to women than men.” Other speakers said women in poor countries are particularly vulnerable to the effects of global warming, “Women are highly dependent on the environment for their family responsibilities in developing countries,” said one environmental worker based in Bangladesh, “Any type of environmental degradation impacts them more severely than men.”4 In warfare, men sacrifice life and limb in defense of women and children. Still, Marylin French in her recent The War Against Women claims most casualties in wars are women and children. I’m not kidding.

Female glorification, not of the fairy godmother type, is demonstrated by the, seriously taken, demand for a statue of a “combat woman” to be erected at the Vietnam War Memorial to specially and separately memorialize the eight women who died in Vietnam, only 1 by hostile fire, contrasted with 58,000 men who died there, most by hostile fire.

Men have never quite reached that level of sainthood. In fact are often depicted as knuckle-dragging abusers who beat their wives on Super Bowl Sunday. If a man cheats on his wife he is an unfaithful, philandering playboy. If a woman cheats on her husband she is searching for a meaningful, emotional relationship. Fearful of molesters, Air New Zealand and Qantas have a policy of moving men sitting next to unaccompanied children. Consider the situation of the Negro male; victim of prejudice in both dimensions, race and sex.

His demeanment has helped make the black family an infrequent, or at best matriarchal, arrangement.

The popular sport of male-bashing is ubitiqous. Advertisements and situation comedies denigrating males are still common in the big media. T-shirts sporting “Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them” are popular items. TV shows, even common gossip, make men out to be all types of bad guys; from litterbugs, through abandoners of pregnant women, to bloodthirsty killers. “Dead white males” are high on the list of Feminist bogymen. On TV it is considered comical to kick men in the testicles. In the “All in the Family” series, only Archie Bunker was ever heard flushing the toilet, to great laughter. Evidently ‘Saints’ Edith and Gloria never defecated.

The male qualities that protected and preserved the race down through the ages are largely shunned as undesirable in modern society. Words must conform to political correctness. We can’t say “policeman,” “fireman,” “mailman,” “foreman” “Congressman” or -2-

Why a Need to Save The Males “Chairman,” because the connotations are good (Must say “Chairperson,” etc.). But we can say “gunman,” “con man,” “garbage man,” and “Chairman Mao” because those connotations are bad. Then there’s “bad guy” and “manhunt.”

Liberator writer Max Friedman objects to the zeitgeist thusly, “The woman’s champion runner in this year’s marathon is getting $30,000 more than the male winner!

(Not to mention some $130,000 more than those few dozen men who will finish ahead of her, but will be paid zilch.) Men are too intimidated to complain.”

The federal government has conscientiously pursued, and rightly so, a course of eradicating discrimination based on race but has studiously ignored that based on sex (except for alleged anti-female discrimination). The very term, “men’s rights,” reeks of political incorrectness. It turns off neo-liberals and conservatives alike. While the situation has improved somewhat of late, such attitudes have become calcified in our culture. The attack on males and manhood may be a rebellion against authority, with which men are often identified, or were. Ironically these sentiments adversely affect women also, because attacks on manhood are attacks on all humanity – indeed on creation if you will.

How did this situation come about? To answer that we have to go back to the days of patriarchy, “once upon a time,” when man was king and woman was considered socially and legally to be inferior, mere chattel. Offsetting woman-protective ideas, laws, and practices were in vogue, many of which persist to this day. The famous writer Dr. Samuel Johnson in the 18th century observed that “Nature has given women so much power that the law has very wisely given them little.” Now the law gives them much, as will become apparent herein. These customs, which postulate the false planted axiom that all women are ladies, are commonly referred to as “chivalry.” Originating in the 12th and 13th centuries, chivalry was a quaint consideration, not unlike the bowling handicap, extended to ladies, as distinguished from all women, in deference to their feminine charm, their gentle and retiring ways, general physical weakness, as well as to their baby-making capability. Many privileges attached.

In pursuit of chivalry, men went to war, gave up their seats in lifeboats (“women and children first”), worked harder, placed ladies on pedestals, and offered a host of other considerations. Knightly gallantry was in vogue. The issue is further developed in Part III of this book. Chivalry Trade-offs: The Double Standard Justified.

Though classic chivalry is dead, thanks to Feminism (hoist on their own petard), perverted chivalry thrives. Greatly diluting its original intent, chivalry is generally extended to all females, most offensively by judicial Galahads few of whom can or do distinguish between ladies -3-

Save the Males and women. This, of course, gives all women the best of both ways of thinking. Lip service is paid to equality, but women are considered more equal (George Orwell, call your office). Many take advantage of their role, thanklessly and undeservedly expecting or demanding all sorts of considerations. Sometimes it arguably works to the good: his wife’s tears largely delivered confirmation to Justice Alito.

Androgny (Sex melding) A malignant infection is attacking the masculine and feminine images, especially the former. Like a child going through phases, the western world has recently experienced phenomena, considered by this writer at least to be unhealthy: a general subordination of male characteristics, innocent-appearing egalitarianism and intergender exchange of functions.

Sex distinctions are fading and unisex is on the rise. Adherents seem to consider normal sexual characteristics restrictive and to resent traditionally distinctive members of either gender. One can hardly distinguish sex by given names anymore. To tell the boys from the girls these days one has to check the sweaters; and that isn’t foolproof. More than once I’ve been made to feel like a pervert ogling the wrong sex. It’s becoming more appropriate to describe individuals as mostly male or mostly female; instead of man or woman, boy or girl; and to use the pronoun “it” instead of “he” or “she.” Government forms may list M, F and O (for other).

A large segment of the population seems to be at war with normal life. Some have mounted an ill-conceived move to rid us of all distinctions between men and women. They denounce masculinity as “macho,” and likewise denigrate true femininity. Rambo and John Wayne are bogeymen, except it’s OK for women to imitate them; witness the many actresses clumsily playing tough cops and other male roles. TV Kiddie Comics has “The Powderpuff Girls” as crime fighters.

Male actors and advertisement characters are models of neutered masculinity. A media fad is to portray women as smarter and tougher than husbands and male co-workers, or as martial arts experts beating up men. It is also popular to portray women as brilliant doctors and lawyers, mouthing lines usually written by men, in numbers out of proportion to their existence in real life (The same fad occurs with race, but that’s beyond the purview of this book.) In old movies we often saw two men performing all sorts of heroics, vying with each other over the favors of a beauty whose only contribution to anything was being the prize, but such scenarios were often more realistic than those in today’s movies.

Women are buying almost as many pants in department stores as -4-

Why a Need to Save The Males are men. Men are buying cosmetics, earrings and other female accoutrements. Female bartenders and waitresses wearing neckties look somehow out of place. For what it’s worth, Deut. 22:5 instructs us “A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel, neither shall a man use woman’s apparel; for he that does these things is abominable before God.” This phenomenon is too widespread to be attributed to a mix-up in hormones. Long a pet theory of the writer, these observations have been verified by a leading clinical psychologist, Dr. Fred Brown, head of the psychology department at New York’s Mt. Sinai Hospital.

Also by child psychiatrist Arthur Kornhaber, Dr. Ralph Greenson (Marilyn Monroe’s former psychiatrist) and child psychiatrist Thomas Johnson of San Diego.

Those families wherein women have assumed the male family functions of breadwinner and authoritarian, putting husbands to work in household chores, somehow seems unnatural, and is. If some persons choose to live otherwise, they have that right. They do not have the right to expect others to submit to their deviations.

This seems a good place to throw in a Scottish proverb, “It is a sad house where the hen crows louder than the cock.”

A bill pending in the California legislature (where else?), if it becomes law, would remove all references to gender in public schools.

According to the Capitol Resource Institute (CRI), the legislation sponsored by lesbian Sen. Sheila Kuehl, “could potentially require gender-neutral bathrooms in our schools and all references to ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ or ‘mom’ and ‘dad’ removed from school textbooks as the norm.” Another California bill, which has already passed in the state Assembly and is expected to be approved in the state Senate, gives the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction the power to withhold state funds from school districts that do not promote trans-sexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality.5 At a meeting of the United Nations’ Commission on the Status of Women, the focus was on the role of men and boys in achieving gender equality. The bottom line was clearly stated, “We must nurture boys into developing more feminine characteristics — gentleness, compassion and tenderness, among others — and train them away from the more typically male aggressive and competitive behaviors.”

The attempt to manipulate kids into opposite sex interests extends far beyond entertainment. The programming begins with very young children and continues through the school years, and even thereafter. Seventy five percent of primary and secondary schoolteachers are female, many of whom try to recondition boys to be more feminine, often medicating them with Ritalin. Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, -5-

Save the Males says there over 300 publications by the U.S. Department of Education promoting parity in education, none of which are designed to improve the situation of males. Federal funds can actually be cut off to a state which doesn’t advocate androgny in its school books. This borders on the unhinged.

Sex melders have almost completely achieved social integration.

Most high schools, colleges and universities in the U.S., including the military academies, have been forced or persuaded to integrate by sex. There are all sorts of federal legislation cutting off funds to states and institutions which drag their feet in melding the sexes and in persecuting males. Federal courts have declared sexually segregated schools to be unconstitutional, excepting women’s schools for all practical purposes. The privilege to elbow their way into women’s schools and clubs hasn’t been available to men. At this writing nineteen women’s colleges remain single-sex versus only 3 men’s colleges.6 In a pitifully small gesture of defiance I quit donating to my prep. school and college after they went co-educational.

A 1972 amendment to Title IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act has been (wrongly, I submit) interpreted by Feminists in the Department of Education and former President Clinton’s Office of Civil Rights to blindly enforce a proportionality quota system that blatantly discriminates against male athletic teams; and courts perform legalistic contortions to support such notions – contrary to the statement of Title IX’s author, Rep Edith Green, that “…the establishment of quotas would be prohibited.” Doing nothing for women, Title IX nonsense simply feeds the anti-masculine animus of Feminists.

The numbers game has resulted in the elimination of hundreds, perhaps thousands by now, of male teams: 171 colleges dropped wrestling, 37 colleges dropped football, 27 dropped outdoor track, 25 dropped swimming, and 10 abolished ice hockey. In some schools, men's track and field and gymnastics went by the boards. Title IX quotas killed the University of California’s Los Angeles swim team that spurred Mark Spitz to his records. Private swim clubs can still train champions, but other sports such as wrestling and track depend entirely on school-based competition. The promising baseball players at Howard University lost their chance to develop their skills and become stars. Our future Jesse Owenses have been replaced by less talented women who took an athletic scholarship to get free college tuition, not necessarily because they were keen on sports.

The act’s interpretation – the “proportionality test” – pushes girls into sports in which few are interested and many get hurt. Nevertheless, sports writers maintain the pretext of great importance for girls’ sports.

A few years ago only 200 U.S. high-school girls participated in ice -6-

Why a Need to Save The Males hockey nationwide7 (more probably play now). In Canada Brigitte LeBlanc, a 14-year-old Moncton girl, wasn’t satisfied playing hockey with the boys. She wanted more, so she petitioned the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission to grant her the right to use the boys’ locker room. Astonishingly, she won. Then there’s Robyn Waite, the Ontario high school girl who played quarterback on the boys’ football team. Before her, there was Justine Blainey and Hayley Wickenheiser, who fought for and won the right to skate with the boys. Coaches have aptly called this scheme “sheer idiocy.”

Of course, the door doesn’t swing both ways; female athletes continue to have the luxury of maintaining girls’ teams and girls’ clubs.

That guys do not have that right is discrimination. Surely, there are a few 14-year-old boys out there who wouldn’t mind gaining entry to the girls’ locker room. But you can bet that day will never come.

A woman can play on the men’s PGA golf tour, but a man can’t play on the women’s tour. The LPGA wasn’t good enough for Annika Sorenstam, so she decided to tee off with the men during a 2003 PGA tournament. One bright, shining exception to this nonsense is the success of Hootie Johnson, Chairman of the Augusta National Golf Club, home of the Masters golf tournament. The National Council of Women’s Organizations pressured major advertisers financing the Masters to require sexual integration of the tournament in 2003. They lost that battle when the tournament proceeded without advertising revenue.

That sham boxing match some years ago between a professional woman boxer (loaded with male hormones, no doubt) and a little man who had never won a fight is an example of the lengths to which people will go to hide gender differences. Ditto the decades-earlier tennis match between a young Billy Jean King and an old Bobby Riggs.

Until reform comes about, freedom of association will continue to be trampled on to promote less important rights. Author Steven E. Rhoads says, “Only when we begin to take sex differences seriously enough to see that men are intrinsically more attracted to sports — and need sports competition more than women do — will we be able to design public policies that are just, functional, and sensible.”8 The Bush administration has shown signs of recognizing the problem by authorizing rules allowing schools to use surveys to gage which sports students want to participate in, surveys which can provide evidence in defense of commonsense proportionality in providing gender-based sports activities.

On September 3, 1974, the Santa Cruz, California, Board of Supervisors, adopted an ordinance permitting women to sunbathe barebreasted. Their rationale was that the only constitutional alternative was to require men to wear brassieres. In March 2004 in Daytona -7-

Save the Males Beach Florida, Elizabeth Book was arrested when she exposed her breasts during Bike Week to protest laws that bar women from publicly going topless. Volusia County Judge David Beck agreed with Book’s contention that she was exercising constitutionally protected free-speech rights, and threw out the nudity charge. That Constitutional ‘right’ doesn’t apply to men who expose themselves.

A Seattle judge, Barbara Yanick, dismissed charges against two topless sun-bathers, declaring the city’s lewd conduct ordinance unconstitutional because a Washington school rule barring girls from playing football with and against boys was declared by the State Supreme Court to be unconstitutional (What else can you expect from the left coast?). Joseph L. Hess, Chairman of the Baltimore County Liquor Board, ordered a male go-go dancer to “wear a bra or something” because a local ordinance requires female employees of licensed establishments to “conceal their nipples and lower (parts of) breasts.” Rumor has it that the next legislative demand will be that men must squat to urinate. In Santa Cruz, Seattle or Baltimore County it might pass.

It’s bad enough that female prison guards can watch male prisoners at shower and toilet, and women reporters are allowed in male athletes’ locker rooms – not vice versa however. In The War Against Men Dr. Hise reports that Chris Gatling, a forward on the Toronto Raptors basketball team, was fined $10,000 and forced to apologize for joking about the situation.9 To quote Margaret Mead: “If any human society large or small, simple or complex, based on the most rudimentary hunting and fishing, or on the whole elaborate interchange of manufactured products is to survive, it must have a pattern of social life that comes to terms with the differences between the sexes.”10

If the androgynous trend continues, man as unequivocally male and masculine will become as rare as the definitely female and feminine woman. In his A History of Marriage and Family, Australian Professor Willystine Goodsell posits that the causes of modern western social decline are identical to those which caused the fall of the Roman Empire. Women took on non-traditional roles when men left to fight the Punic Wars, and remained in those roles after the wars.

This led to promiscuity, divorce and widespread demoralization.

One need not be a college professor to see the parallels; in many cases, occupying that profession seems to be a hindrance.

Referring to this situation in France, in 1831 Tocqueville said: It may readily be conceived that by thus attempting to make one sex equal to the other, both are degraded, and from so preposterous a medley of the works of nature nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly women.”11

-8-

Why a Need to Save The Males

Feminized Males Many men are being feminized into something resembling welldressed eunuchs. California Governor Swartznegger colorfully refers to them as “girlymen.” Human Events editor Wesley Pruden insightfully calls this “The Gelded Age.” Opponents of the concept of manhood have successfully imposed a perverted definition of manliness on American men. The Robert Bly school wants men to discover their feminine side. They want men to be sensitive and emotional.

They want to see men cry. Well, there is nothing more disgusting than a grown man blubbering and carrying on like a woman. It is demeaning and degrading. Men do it, under extreme circumstances.

But they don’t like it. And they would rather that no one was watching. Bly makes a lot out of the idea that men are warriors, yet he wants to see men cry. Warriors don’t cry. So, all this stuff about finding the feminine side is hogwash. It is meant to break the warrior in the man. When men act like women, they are rewarded.

When they act like warriors they are put in jail, properly so.

It was men like General Patton who preserved the very existence of this nation. Yet, contrast his popular appeal and remuneration with the non-masculinist likes of Liberace and Michael Jackson.

Really good people — athletes, scholars, and the like — take a back seat to all sorts of braying, gargling jackasses who make a fortune picking guitars and caterwauling. Imagine, $450 to see a Mick Jagger concert – and sold out! His ilk inherits the earth while better men die poor. However, this is more symptomatic of generally low values than it is of sex discrimination.

Boys outnumber girls three to one in children’s mental institutions.

Boston University Psychologist Pamela Cantor, in a study of the problem, found that the suicide rate of boys over girls is three to one in age bracket 14 to 21. One school says that these situations exist because of an aversion to having the male role thrust upon them, blithely ignoring a more probable cause – the suppression of natural male characteristics. Dr. Derek Miller of the University of Michigan is concerned about adolescents’ “role confusion” caused by Feminism.

When during a boy’s formative years his father is sabotaged and men in general are objects of judicial contempt and social disrespect, can there be any doubt why the boy would emulate women, especially assertive women? The pretense of male incompetence, propounded or believed by judges, social workers, and comedy and advertising writers, coupled with the influence of effeminate entertainers and other public personalities, is very emasculating. These subtle but powerful, mind-conditioning illusions can actually make males inferior; as they do other groups not inherently so. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

-9-

Save the Males

Employment, Quotas and Affirmative Action In the area of employment law, political correctness shoulders gender realities aside. Gender quotas in hiring and promoting employees – the politically correct term is “Affirmative Action” – are mandated by social levelers, ignoring traditional sex roles.

Thanks to Affirmative Action, males are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain employment and to gain admission to institutions of learning. If a well-qualified man applies for work or promotion in government or big business, and a woman applicant is even remotely qualified, it is likely she will get it; though it is usually the men who must bring home the bacon.

Male news anchors, for example, are becoming an endangered species. In the early days of Affirmative Action, C.B.S. Television made Sally Quinn into a major network news broadcaster when, according to her book, We’re Going to Make You a Star, she didn’t even know until some time later that the red light on top of a camera meant that it was active. The failed nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court was another example. Miers was chosen ahead of far more qualified men. I know from personal experience that for years the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) hired women and minorities who did not know the front end of an airplane from the back; and tried, largely unsuccessfully and at great expense, to train them as air traffic controllers and flight service specialists, while experienced male pilots were passed over.

“Affirmative Action” sex quotas became official quite by accident.

On June 19, 1963, President John F. Kennedy sent a Civil Rights Act (CRA) to Congress to counter racial discrimination in the work place. The Civil Rights Act, intended primarily to help blacks, met stiff political opposition from Southern politicians. On November 22, 1963, Kennedy was assassinated. His successor Lyndon B. Johnson proclaimed, “No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy’s memory than the earliest passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long.” But opposition was still stiff.

On February 8, 1964, Congressman Howard W. Smith of Virginia made a colossal miscalculation in the House of Representatives. In an attempt to block the CRA, he suggested inserting the word ‘sex’ after the word ‘religion’ whenever it appeared in Title VII, which guaranteed ‘fair’ employment practices. By tying it to the then controversial women’s movement, Smith hoped to kill the Civil Rights Act. - 10 -

Why a Need to Save The Males In his book Freedom Will Conquer Racism and Sexism, J. Edward Pawlick, comments on reaction in the House, “[T]he laughter became too great... and Congressman Smith had to stop.” Disingenuously, Smith assured the House that he was serious. The bluff backfired.

The Civil Rights Act passed, the U.S. Government threw itself into new areas of human endeavor, gates opened and Feminists ululated.

Incredible pressure is put upon government agencies, like NASA, to conform to affirmative action quotas. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) requested a budget of $310 million for fiscal year 2002. It certainly doesn’t take a budget like that or a staff of thousands to enforce the principle of equal opportunity. Their mission is largely to move women (and minorities) into certain positions and to force employers to accept them regardless of qualifications. The Labor Dept. sponsors symposiums designed to condition women to reject traditional patterns and to rely on government. Orwell’s Ministry of Truth is busily engaged.

This dangerous idea has done more harm than good. Its mandates have created dangerous, inefficient and bizarre results. Female police officers have often failed in violent situations. On March 11th 2005 at his trial Brian Nichols, an Atlanta rapist and 200pound former linebacker, disarmed a woman deputy, a 5-foot-tall 52-year-old grandmother, murdered four people, wounded one and made a getaway. The New York Times proclaimed the cause of this problem was insufficient government spending on courthouse security; it figures. During a phone interview I had on radio station WXYZ Detroit, the evening of 10/6/75, a policeman called in to relate the following incident: another Detroit policeman and his female partner, answering a domestic call, accosted a shotgun-toting angry man. Drawing his own revolver the policeman forced the man to lower the shotgun, after deadly serious confrontation. Looking around afterward he found the police-woman, who was supposed to be covering him, hiding behind the squad car. No action was taken against her. A man would have been summarily fired for cowardice.

It was absurd to put Lisa Nowak, that diaper-wearing, would-bemurderer astronaut, in a position to endanger others’ lives and billions of dollars worth of space equipment. In Detroit, during a reduction in force due to budget shortages and by court order, senior male policemen were laid off, but not newly hired female “policepersons,” understandably sparking a riot.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police ceased recruiting male officers until the number of female officers attained a politically correct percentage.12 Consider the female “firepersons” who are incapable of lifting a ladder or a two-hundred pound man or climbing a six-foot fence, and who prove their upper body strength by performing push-ups - 11 -

Save the Males from their knees rather than from their toes as men are required to do? Three Saint Paul Minnesota firemen called me to complain that their Department hiring policy, and probably those all across the nation, maintains two lists of firefighting applicants – one for men and one for women. They informed me that the top woman applicant can be hired before the top applicant on the men’s list, though her qualifying score would be equivalent to the 45th on the men’s list.

“Diversity (is maintained) at all costs,” one official ruefully explained.

While they can be good paramedics, it’s only a matter of time before female firepersons cause tragedies.

Norway has said it might close down companies that fail to meet proposed boardroom quotas for women. The new coalition government in Oslo said it was considering introducing a law which would require 40% of boardroom posts to be filled by women. As I write this, the Spanish Senate is expected to pass a reform to the nation's divorce laws that would require men to contribute as much as their wives to housework and dependent care. Nothing is included about requiring housewives to have outside jobs.

Affirmative Action is sometimes called “reverse” discrimination, but incorrectly so, because the original discrimination did not exist.

“Quota” is a more accurate term. Employment quotas, arguably based on law, are inefficient, dangerous and unfair; they hinder the functions of government and business.13 What if affirmative action/quotas were applied in the other direction? What if it were decreed that henceforth all children of divorce be placed with fathers until their numbers equal those placed with mothers, or that professional basketball teams must be composed of 70 percent Caucasians? I have no objection to quotas, per se, provided that said quotas mandate that favored parties are qualified.

Not all persons fit into, nor should they, traditional sex roles. I recall a very exceptional lady, one of my flight students with a dual personality. Sometimes she acted like a second mate and was better at business than most men; but when she wanted to be feminine she appeared highly attractive. Recently I flew on an airplane staffed by a male steward and a female First Officer. Neither exhibited outward signs of hormonal imbalance, but it might be interesting to peek inside their heads.

Reasonable sex roles are suggested, and affirmative action is rebutted in Part III,

- 12 -

Why a Need to Save The Males

Disparate Treatment of the Sexes The United States Constitution is the main basis of our law. Article XIV of its amendments provides, “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” In a manner that I suspect would astonish the Founders, these rights have been airbrushed out of the Constitution. These outrages make the British Crown’s “long train of abuses and usurpations” referred to in the Declaration of Independence look benign. In law there is very little equal treatment or due process for men. While the Supreme Court can discover emanations and penumbras in the Constitution to permit abortion and sexual perversions, it is blind to the blatantly unconstitutional treatment of men. What can you expect from a court that considers jihad terrorists to constitute a legitimate military force and to be deserving of treatment as such.

In its hot pursuit of women’s rights, society has looked the other way regarding men’s rights. We are the Dred Scotts of our day.

Disparate treatment is highly visible in crime punishment and domestic relations, discussed below. Most other areas pale in comparison, but I will mention a few.

The ACLU and other liberal organizations have actually called for the drug laws to be enforced differently for women. In the U.K, women may retire at age 60 while men must wait until they’re 65.

Educators have concentrated on girls at the expense of boys, who are now significantly behind academically,14 which bodes ill for this country’s standing in the worldwide scientific community. Nonlawyer women’s advocates, in Minnesota at least, can appear in court on behalf of women accusers in domestic violence matters, but non-lawyer men’s advocates are not permitted to appear with the accused. It seems women’s advocates are a law unto themselves. In Colorado they are exempted by law from prohibitions against suborning perjury.15 Only female “victims” and their advocates have this privilege (as do lawyers). No one considers it discrimination that poor men can’t afford lawyers or bail.

Males with a clean accident record often pay more for auto insurance than females with a bad record. Retirement programs, especially in their dependency requirement, survivor tax exemption laws,16 and dower/probate laws discriminate against men. Many schools and hospitals won’t release information on children to noncustodial fathers. The ankle-biting occurring against our president and his officials would never happen to women in their shoes (not that some of the Bush policies don’t defy logic).

- 13 -

Save the Males British Baroness Hale denounced the fact that women and girls are receiving “unequal treatment” because they were “punished in the same way as men and boys.”17 Great umbrage is taken by some women when they find the toilet seat up in a communal bathroom. Presumably half the users are male, so why should they leave the seat down in anticipation of the next user being female?

Crime and Punishment Society has lost its sense of proportion. It is a basic principle of law that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. However there is an a priori presumption to the contrary regarding males. On the other hand, if a woman is at fault there is a great closing of eyes and opening of hearts – legality be damned. Women are favored from decision to arrest, to amount of bail required, to guilt or innocence in judgment, to severity of sentence, to physical conditions of imprisonment, to release on parole. Women are charged fewer times than men for violent crime, convicted less when guilty of the same crimes as men, and are given shorter sentences or simply receive probation. Judges are reluctant to jail women; while men are arrested 4 times as often as women, they are imprisoned 24 times as often.18 A substantial percentage of all convicted male prisoners are actually innocent, scapegoated victims of ambitious, man-hating or Feminist-pandering prosecutors or judges. This large number attests to the blatant indifference toward justice for men, and the haste of prosecutors, judges and juries to convict men merely because of their sex.

In Darkness at Noon, Arthur Koestler wrote of the nightmarish world of the Stalinist Soviet secret police, wherein all accused were guilty, and protestations of innocence were acts of subversion.

Koestler describes how police power was used to extract confessions, and the way perfectly innocent men were manipulated into publicly declaring their crimes and their guilt.

Mark Wayne Rathbun raped 14 women around Long Beach California from 1997 to 2002. None died or were seriously physically harmed according to newspaper accounts. In September 2004 he was sentenced to 1,030 years plus 10 life terms. Contrast that with the sentences given Andrea Yates and Susan Smith for murder of their children by drowning (Yates – 5 children, Smith – 2). They each got one life sentence and, as everyone knows, will be home in a few years. Incredibly enough, on January 6, 2005, a 3-judge Appeals Court panel overturned Yates’ conviction because the prosecu- 14 -

Why a Need to Save The Males tion’s psychiatrist was confused regarding an episode of TV’s Law & Order. Out on bail, she will get a new trial or be allowed to plead down. Both Andrea’s husband and Susan’s ex-husband chivalrously ran to their defense.

A woman can murder a man and receive less punishment than a man who cannot pay his alimony or who urinates in the street.

Women who kill their spouse, even while not in immanent and immediate danger, need only murmur “brutality” and hearts begin bleeding. No rebuttal is possible; the victim is dead. It happens so often I no longer keep files on it.

In The Myth of Male Power, Warren Farrell outlined the 12 female-only defenses that let women off the hook for murder. Many who were found guilty have convinced governors of their states that such actions are acceptable and that they should be pardoned. A Milwaukee Journal writer, Beth Slocum, termed it “progressive” when a woman convicted of killing her husband spent only 12 hours in jail; then returned home to live with her children.

Jilted actress Claudine Longet, who killed live-in lover Spider Sabitch because he found a new girlfriend, was convicted and sentenced to 30 days, the same sentence a young Wisconsin lad served in l984 for playing hooky, and a Cheyenne, Wyo. man for violating a local ordinance by fishing with a worm instead of a fly.19 She served the time at her convenience in a specially redecorated cell.

Doris Keningale of Risca, South Wales, in the U.K., stabbed her husband to death with a eight-and-a-half-inch knife blade. Judge John Griffith Williams QC, of Cardiff Crown Court, was told the knife accidentally “entered her husband’s chest.” The chivalrous jurist sentenced her to three-years of community rehabilitation.20 In February 2005, Carisa Ashe, a 34-year-old Atlanta woman who had 8 children by 8 different men, plead guilty to brutally killing her five-week-old daughter. Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard agreed to a plea bargain that would allow the woman to avoid a murder trial and possible prison sentence if she would agree to be surgically sterilized. Such agreements are not uncommon.21 Some Georgians initiated a move to recall Howard from office.

Acquittal, token punishment or forgiveness of women who murder and maim men signals open season on men. This is a license to kill.

Women premeditate over half of the domestic murders they commit, and yet half of them claim self-defense quite successfully. They are convicted of between l5 and 26 percent of the homicides in this country, but suffer less than l percent of the executions, proportionately 50 times less than men in relation to their murder conviction rate. Between 1930 and 1995, 3,313 males have been executed and only 30 females.

- 15 -

Save the Males Men are assumed to deserve capital punishment and death because they are perceived to have less value than women. Thirty eight states and the Federal government have the death penalty.

While that penalty is eminently appropriate in many cases, because of the haste to condemn males to death perhaps it ought to be suspended unless and until justice prevails. Admittedly though, in recent years the lengthy appeals process has greatly minimized chances of executing the innocent.

In battered baby cases, guilty fathers are fined heavily or jailed.

Mothers, guilty of more and worse cruelty, are usually put on probation and ordered to get psychiatric help. In other words, if the father does it, he’s a criminal: if the mother does it, she is mentally ill and needs help.

Alba Ingrid Scarpelli, of Germantown, Alabama, was convicted of multiple counts of child abuse for tying up and torturing her 5-yearold son, Richard. Her sentence? 18 months on work release. The boy’s father, Alan Lee Holmes, merely stood by while girlfriend Scarpelli committed the abuse. His sentence? EIGHT YEARS in prison.

She does the crime; he does the time.

The Galahad that presided over both the Ashe (previous page) and Scarpelli cases, and perpetrated the outrages, was Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge DeLawrence Beard. His “reasoning” in the second case? Holmes was the father; he had a “higher duty” to protect his son. Quoth Beard, “You are going to receive a substantially more severe sentence because you were substantially more culpable… You were in a superior position to intervene and stop this.”22 Beard pointed to Holmes’s former job as a volunteer firefighter and certification as a medical technician as reasons the father should have seen the signs of abuse.

In Will County, Illinois, near Chicago, forty-four year old Fred M. Flynn and his thirty-four-year old wife, Rita, were convicted of selling their twelve-year-old daughter in 1972 for marriage to a wealthy man for $28,000. Although they both pled guilty to the identical charge, the man got a five-month jail sentence and the wife got probation.

Heiress Patty Hearst joined the Symbionese Liberation Army in 1974, become a gun-wielding revolutionary called Tania and held up banks. Bobbi Parker left her family and ran off with escaped convict and murderer Randolph Dial, helping him hide for 10 years. Lord knows how many similar stories exist. All with no penalty, because they were initially coerced.

In October of 2005 Lynndie England of Abu Ghraib fame was sentenced to 3 years for mistreating prisoners. Her equally guilty male co-operative, Pvt. Charles Graner Jr., is serving 10 years in Leavenworth.

- 16 -

Why a Need to Save The Males Male defenders of U.S. borders are treated more harshly than a female saboteur. Border agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alanso Compean shot and slightly wounded a drug smuggler fleeing back across the Mexican border. They were sentenced to 11 and 12 years respectively, despite their claim of self-defense. A woman in their shoes probably would have been hailed as a hero. In the same week, attorney Lynne Stewart, who smuggled messages from imprisoned terrorist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman to his co-conspirators in Egypt, had her wrist slapped with a 28 month sentence.23 Practically every time a man and woman get into a physical fight, regardless of who is the aggressor, the man is blamed. If married, police usually throw him out of his house. As 17-year Seattle family law attorney Lisa Scott explains: From top to bottom the current domestic violence system won't let women be anything but victims and can't see men as anything but batterers. And from the moment a 911 call is made there is practically no such thing as an innocent man. It doesn't matter that you're actually innocent. Or that she attacked you first. Or that you both went over the line and that both of you want to put it behind you and work it out. The system will prosecute you and persecute you until you've confessed your sins — even if you've none to confess. And you're not cured until they say you're cured — even if you were never sick to begin with.24

If a man is caught looking into a home in which a woman is undressing, he will be arrested for voyeurism. If a woman is looking, again the man will be arrested, this time for indecent exposure. It happened; the Mississippi Supreme Court rationalized the verdict, as did courts in Delaware County Pennsylvania and Portsmouth, Virginia. There are hundreds of such cases. Recently a man and woman were having sex in a car near the city park in my home town.

The man was issued a tag for disorderly conduct, but not the woman. Because there was no allegation of rape, the sex must have been consensual; we seem to have a sexist police department right here in River City.25 In Texas a man and woman violated a local ordinance by swimming in the nude; police arrested only the man.

There was great umbrage when Judge Edward Cashmen of Vermont handed down a mere 60-day sentence to Mark Hulett in January of 2006 for raping an 11-year-old girl; as well there should be.

But where is the umbrage when the sexes are reversed? 25 year-old Tampa Florida schoolteacher Debra Lafave pled guilty to repeated instances of sex with a 14-year old boy. Playboy pretty, her lawyer argued that she was “too pretty” to go to jail. Charges were dropped when the boy refused to testify.26 That is but one of many such instances. 43-year-old Pamela Diehl-Moore, a middle school teacher, had sex with a 13-year-old male student. Considering all the intense media coverage of male sexual predators victimizing female - 17 -

Save the Males children, one might expect a stiff prison term, accompanied by a withering rebuke. Not so; New Jersey Superior Court Judge Bruce A. Gaeta slapped her hand with five years probation, and all but suggested that sentence was too harsh. In yet another recent court case, U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten in Kansas also questioned whether sex with kids was really bad.27 Shades of Mary Kay Letourneau. Imagine the sentence if the sexes had been reversed.

In 1997 female B52 pilot Kelly Flinn committed adultery with the husband of an enlisted woman, lied to her superiors and refused to follow orders. She was allowed to resign from the Air Force instead of being court-marshaled as would have been the fate of any male officer.

Prostitution is another example of the double standard. It is the only transgression in which the buyers of an illegal commodity are considered as culpable as the sellers, or more so, because they are men. One might expect the prostitute to be a more socially undesirable creature than her customer; evidently not. In Sweden (does this surprise you?) the clients of prostitutes are prosecuted, but the prostitutes are not. Extending the logic of this nonsense makes buyers of stolen goods and of drugs as culpable as the fences and pushers, which might rationalize the consideration by prosecutors and the media that Rush Limbaugh was more culpable than his female supplier.

Police officers around the country dress as women or use policewomen to entrap men, then arrest those who respond (It might be interesting to attempt citizen's arrests of policewomen shills for soliciting). Yet a man who with a detective watched his wife have intercourse with another man was denied a divorce on grounds of adultery because of “entrapment.” The court rationalized he could have stopped her. In a 15 month study, men were defendants in 63 percent of prostitution cases prosecuted by the St. Paul, Minnesota City Attorney’s Office.28 Ponder this convoluted logic: some years ago Minnesota prostitution laws were held unconstitutional by Judges Ledbodott and Riley because they discriminate against women. Yet laws which explicitly punish only males for non-support have been held to be constitutional.29 A man stealing thousands of dollars is a felon. A woman defrauding the welfare department of the same amount is winked at. California’s “three strike law” incarcerates men for 25 years to life, with over half (57%) of its subjects guilty of non-violent offenses. In one case, Santo Reyes was sentenced to 26 years to life for trying to take the written portion of a driver’s license test for his illiterate cousin.

Previously, Reyes had a juvenile burglary conviction in 1981 and an adult robbery conviction in 1987. Kentucky’s “three-strike law,” which includes even minor offenses, increased their prison popula- 18 -

Why a Need to Save The Males tion by 600 percent.30 This writer was successful in obtaining the release of a perfectly normal man who was locked in a Minneapolis psychiatric ward at the request of a wife from whom he wanted a divorce. His “abnormality” was having a girl friend. The wife coaxed him to a purported marriage counselor, actually a psychiatrist, who, deeming his behavior to be “inappropriate,” signed commitment papers. One call from the Men’s Defense Association to that psychiatrist, and the man was released (BTW, The ungrateful SOB never paid his membership).

Can you imagine the jailing of an unfaithful wife?

Queens, New York Judge Duane Hart sentenced John Modica to 30 days in jail because Modica peacefully approached the judge in a parking lot asking for a continuance to attend his son’s soccer game.31 Evidently the right of an accused to have a speedy trial applies only to women; Charles Thomas Sell, once a successful dentist in St. Louis County Illinois who treated many indigent patients, was accused of Medicaid fraud in 1997. He has spent nearly eight years in prison without a trial. Although Sell has never hurt anyone, and a federal court held that he poses no danger to those around him, prison officials frequently placed him in solitary confinement for nearly two of those years.32 Mr. Sell is kept locked up under the pretense that his unwillingness to admit his guilt is evidence that he is mentally incompetent. Seventy-year-old Roy Chuster was confined for 30 years in a New York hospital for the criminally insane because he complained about jail corruption. U.S. Appeals Judge Irving Kaufman called it a “shocking story.”

If a man kills a fetus against the mother’s will he has murdered a human being. If her abortionist does it, it’s her “right” and the fetus loses human status, even if already 4/5ths out of her body. A glaring, example of this is the conviction and life sentence of 18-year-old Gerardo Flores of Lufkin, Texas. His pregnant 16-year-old girlfriend, Erica Basoria, tried unsuccessfully to induce miscarriage then asked Gerardo to kick her in the stomach, causing the death of their twins.

The equally guilty Basoria was not charged.33 Another example is the murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Connor. Her husband Scott was convicted of killing both – of 1st degree murder of Laci and of 2nd degree murder of Connor. He received the death penalty. Yet she and an abortionist could have killed Connor without danger of conviction. Women who damage their babies during pregnancy by fouling their bodies with poisons (nicotine, alcohol, dope, etc.) are seldom prosecuted.

If these were unusual situations, I would have little reason to write about crime and punishment, and could stick to my original concern about anti-male discrimination in divorce, which is more - 19 -

Save the Males prevalent if not more shocking. But the plight of such men isn’t unusual. Similar outrages are happening in courts across our land every day. If the objects of this pogrom were women, or even real criminals, any number of individuals and organizations would be loudly defending and inventing their rights and stretching the Constitution incredibly to protect same.

The Prison System The U.S. male prison system is one large Gulag Archipelago, “the tombs of modern society,” to borrow Chuck Colson’s phrase. No less an intellect than historian Henry Steele Commander said that the United States is in danger of becoming a garrison state.” Incarcerating men is big business. America’s publicly-operated prisons have to be fed with inmates in order to maintain the industry, and the privatized ones to maintain their profitability.

The U.S. Dept. of Justice states that over 7 million people (one in every 32 adults, mostly men) were incarcerated in Federal or State prisons, local jails or on parole as of December 2005, terribly overcrowding the system.34 This country, inhabited by only 5% of the globe’s population, accounts for fully 25% of the world’s prisoners.35 In a recently-published book, Thinking About Crime, Michael Tonry, a distinguished American law professor and director of Cambridge University’s Institute of Criminology, reports that of any country on earth the US has the highest percentage of its population in prison.

The US incarceration rate is as much as 12 times higher than that of European countries. Our rate of imprisoning citizens is approximately 600% higher than either China or Canada. We have more people in prison than live in Nevada, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nebraska, Maine, Idaho, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, or Wyoming. Prisons represent our 35th largest state.

The inmate population continued its rise despite a fall in the crime rate and many states’ efforts to reduce some sentences, especially for low-level drug offenders.36 Nearly twice as many black men in their early 30s have been to prison as have obtained a bachelor’s degree, according to the report by the non-profit Justice Policy Institute based in Washington, D.C. According to F.B.I. statistics, and the Institute for Juvenile Research, there are nearly as many actual, if not adjudicated, crimes committed by women as by men; yet ninety-four percent of prison inmates are male.37 A Pasco County, Florida, jail inmate report for the month of February through March 12, 1974, which is probably typical, showed an average of 85.5 male prisoners and an average of three female prisoners. According to a BJS report, one of every 109 - 20 -

Why a Need to Save The Males men is living in prison or jail (Another report states the figure is one of every 75 men). For women the figure is one in every 1,613. If 94 percent of prison inmates were female, the problem and the injustice would receive far more attention.

Conditions in some men’s prisons are themselves crimes as great as those committed by the inmates. Modern methods of imprisonment and rehabilitation neither precisely punish nor adequately rehabilitate. Nonviolent offenders are treated much like the violent ones. And men in jail are more likely to be raped than women on the outside. It is done brutally, often, and is permitted by prison authorities as a means of controlling the prison population – and condoned by the silence of society. One never hears rape crisis center entrepreneurs decrying male rapes in or out of jail. Much more umbrage is shown over the treatment of jihadists in Gitmo.

Guards in a Michigan prison watched while mentally ill prisoner Timothy Souder thirsted to death.38 Incarceration of men can continue even after death. A Sacramento, California prison kept under guard a brain-dead prisoner, Daniel Provencio, accidentally (?) shot by a guard with a foam pellet.39 John Murtari, a divorced ex-Air Force pilot, a fathers’ rights activists (founder of AKidsRight.org) and colleague of mine, was jailed in a New York prison for peacefully demonstrating against divorce injustice. Here are John’s words on conditions there, “I am happy to report the local sheriff is an Equal Opportunity Employer. They have a lot of female guards. They walk through our cage any time, even when we are using the litter box! They are even there when we are taking a shower.” Shades of Abu Ghraib! (More on John in Part IV). Imagine the outcry if women prisoners were humiliated as are males.

In contrast women’s prisons are more akin to college campuses with TV-equipped, furnished cottages. No male guards are present to observe showering. A “Women’s Spa Day” with pedicures, aromatherapy, and harp serenade was held on Aug. 21, 2004 at Grand Valley Institution for Women, a prison housing medium-and minimum-security inmates in Canada. Among the almost two dozen inmates at the Spa Day were a woman who killed a child, and a female sex offender. The Correctional Service of Canada defended the activities as a way to teach inmates how to cope with stress and other life lessons. “It’s an attempt to make them feel better about themselves,” an official said.40 The difference between men’s and women’s prisons are tacit admissions that there’s a difference between men and women. But we don’t see difference-denying Feminists complaining in this instance.

- 21 -

Save the Males

Inter-Gender Violence/Allegations ← The usual portrayal Like reversing magnetic poles, individuals of opposite gender seem to attract, then repel. Society, officialdom and the media are profoundly indignant regarding violence – against females only. It is a feminist mantra that domestic violence is a one-way street – something men do to women, fodder for bumper-stickers.

Since its inception in 1994, the domestic violence industry has had over twelve years to solve the problem of domestic violence in our society. Billions of dollars have been spent to create a fat, bloated bureaucracy that has done more harm than good. It recalls Jefferson’s dictum: “It is tyrannical to compel a man to pay for the promulgation of ideas with which he does not agree.”

Agencies systematically alter, conceal, or manipulate the results of scientific research in order to further a gender-based political agenda. The aim is to renew funding for an excrescence named the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), a massive expansion of federal police power that not only permits officials to trample Bill of Rights protections but provides generous financial incentives for them to do so.

VAWA “crimes” too often are defined not by their statutory illegality but by ideology. The definition of domestic “violence” can include verbal, mental, and emotional types. VAWA allows men to be arrested and prosecuted for “violence” that is not violent, “name-calling and constant criticizing, insulting, and belittling the victim, blaming the victim, ignoring, dismissing, or ridiculing the victim’s “needs.”

Slamming the door can be considered violence.

Phyllis Schlafly says: During the Clinton Administration, the feminists parlayed their hysteria that domestic violence is a national epidemic into the passage of the Violence Against Women Act. This created a gigantic gravy train of taxpayers’ money, known as feminist pork, that empowers pro-divorce, antimale activism.

Not satisfied with several billions from the U.S. Treasury, 67 feminist and liberal organizations supported a lawsuit to try to get private allegations of domestic abuse heard in federal courts so they could collect civil damages against men and institutions with deep pockets.

Billions of dollars have flowed from VAWA to the states to finance private

- 22 -

Why a Need to Save The Males victim-advocacy organizations, private domestic-violence coalitions, and the training of judges, prosecutors and police. This tax-funded network is, of course, staffed by radical feminists who teach the presumption of father guilt. A Justice Department-funded document published by the National Victim Assistance Academy established a widely accepted definition of ‘violence’ that includes such non-criminal acts as ‘degradation and humiliation’ and ‘name-calling and constant criticizing.’ The acts need not be illegal, physical, violent, or threatening; ‘domestic violence’ becomes whatever the woman says it is. Judges saddle fathers with restraining orders on the wife’s say-so without any investigation as to whether it is true or false.

Attorney Lisa Scott24 says: “What we really have is MAWA: Men Annoying Women Act. The government seems unable to define gender bias except as ‘bias against women.’ The program holds male victims of domestic violence responsible for women’s violence, even where the man is a saint. Any modern man not terrified of being in a relationship with a woman has not been paying attention.”

Trudy W. Schuett, an Arizona-based former contributor to The Liberator says: (Family violence) is a complex human issue; it cannot be addressed by any political ideology or simplistic government program. Ten years out, there is no evidence that and its myriad programs has been of benefit to anyone beyond those municipalities, organizations and individuals who are recipients of VAWA funding, or employed by VAWA-funded agencies.

Once in the program, she is bombarded with feminist ideology about being ‘empowered’ by her victimhood, signed up for whatever government programs are available, and helped to apply for an Order of Protection against her presumed offending spouse or significant other. Divorce is presented as the ultimate solution to her problems.

On January 5, 2005 President Bush signed into VAWA the following non-exclusionary wording in Section 40002(b)(8): “Nothing in this title shall be construed to prohibit male victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking from receiving benefits and services under this title.” The final version includes text that, for the first time, recognizes male victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Although the wording is weak and does not outline penalties for violation, it is better language than the previous law, which included no statement about male victims. This is a step in the right direction of a balanced approach to family violence — but only a cosmetic step.

Despite the foregoing language in the Act’s grant provisions and some official claims, VAWA still is not gender-neutral. The federal VAWA office was quoted on the Men’s Health Network site as having written that “states must fund only programs that focus on violence against women....”

VAWA, which was passed in 1994 and reauthorized in 2000 and - 23 -

Save the Males 2006, is funded with an obscene $3.9 billion.41 Even casino-owning Indian tribes get VAWA pork according to HumanEventsOnline.com.

Now that bureaucracy is asking for more money. Professor Stephen Baskerville asks “Why is $4 billion (with a “B”) in taxpayers’ money required to outlaw something that is already against the law?”

The Women’s Edge Coalition, in partnership with Amnesty International USA and the Family Violence Prevention Fund, has developed and is now campaigning to introduce to Congress in 2007 the International Violence Against Women Act (I-VAWA); this with the assistance of Democrat Senator Joe Biden. The purpose is to export radical feminism to many foreign countries via the World Health Organization and various U.N. feminist NGO’s. I-VAWA would create global-feminist socialism. Analyst David Usher says “I-VAWA would spend millions of federal dollars to create a ‘legal brigade’ — an army in excess of 100,000 lawyers trained to act as clones of the infamous Duke prosecutor Mike Nifong.”

Another political boondoggle is the nationwide craze for “battered women’s shelters.” These projects are a huge cash cow for Feminists, funded by politicians pandering to the women’s vote and rationalized by the false claim that most domestic violence is instigated by men against women. There are over 2,000 of these places for women and fewer than 10 providing services to men and their children.

Bonnie Tinker, founder of the Bradley-Angle “battered women’s” shelter in Portland Oregon, admitted: “We knew that foundations were not going to fund a house for a bunch of homeless bar dykes. We realized the language that would be understood was the language of battered women.” She now operates out of Denver.

Erin Pizzey, who began the shelter-for-battered-women movement in England in 1971, is among the most vocal of its critics. Lawsuits to limit funding were mounted by a fathers’ rights group in Minnesota,42 but political correctness prevailed; the suits were defeated at national and state levels by a combination of state government and a leftist judiciary.

Writer Carey Roberts says Mexico just passed a law that could put a man in jail simply because he became jealous.

George Orwell would love this: Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey has proposed an “Act Relative to Enhanced Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence.” Under this bill, any violator of a domestic restraining order could be required to wear a satellite tracking device similar to an electronic dog-collar. The device would signal authorities whenever the wearer came within range of certain exclusion zones, such as the complainant’s home or workplace.

The London Daily Mail reports that the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is backing a Church of England report that - 24 -

Why a Need to Save The Males claims viewing The Creator in masculine terms can validate “overbearing and ultimately violent patterns of behavior” in intimate relationships and “contributes to domestic abuse.” The document, entitled “Responding to Domestic Abuse, Guidelines for Pastoral Responsibility,” is a response to a motion passed by the church’s General Synod in July 2004 for guidelines to assist dioceses in working with other agencies and “speak[ing] out against the evil of domestic violence.”

The “Black eyed Susan” program, used to brainwash children in Canadian schools, is an example of the success that the anti-father movement has achieved. By making children play-act the role of a victimized mother and an abusive father they are sent subliminal messages about male violence against women. This program begins its indoctrination in kindergarten, and feeds teachers with the same statistics as Canada’s National Judicial Institute feeds judges.

Now let’s look at the facts, facts from unbiased scholars which prove in which direction violence actually moves.

An annotated bibliography examining 170 scholarly investigations – 134 empirical studies and 36 reviews and/or analyses – was created by Martin S. Fiebert of the Department of Psychology California State University, Long Beach, which demonstrated that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeded 152,500.43 Violence by women is increasing and by men is decreasing.44 Contrary to popular belief, the majority of domestic assaults, between 55 to 57 percent, are initiated by women, and not by men.

Researcher R. L. McNeeley said wives and female companions are as likely to initiate family violence or murder a husband as are husbands and male companions.45 According to Mother Jones magazine, “Women report using violence in their relationships more often than men.” “Women are doing the battering,” writes Feminist Betty Friedan, “as much or more than men.” Philip W. Cook has documented this extensively in Abused Men: The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence. It has been claimed that men are the victims of two to three times as much violence in this world as are women.46 Women are more dangerous because they use weapons more often.47 The data appearing on the next page is from pages 48 & 49 of Advancing the Federal Research Agenda on Violence Against Women by Candace Kruttschnitt, Brenda L. McLaughlin, and Carol V. Petrie, editors, available from The National Academies Press:

- 25 -

Save the Males

Nonfatal Intimate-Partner Violence Victims

Female

1985 National Survey of Family Violence

11.3% overall 3.0% severe

12.1% overall 4.4% severe

1992 National Alcohol and Family Violence Survey

9.1% overall 1.9% severe

9.5% overall 4.5% severe

2001 National Violence Against Women Survey

1.3%

0.9%

2001 National Crime Victimization Survey

0.43%

0.08%

1993-94 Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study

40.9%

47.4%

1992 National Youth Survey

20.2% overall 5.7% severe

34.1% overall 13.8% severe

Male

According to a U.S. Department of Justice study, there are approximately 835,000 domestic assaults against men annually. A more recent Bureau of Justice Statistics study reports that the number of male victims 12 years of age and older is nearly 1.6 million per year. DHHS reports estimate that as many as 4,000 children, mostly male, are killed or maimed every year, mostly by women.48 The British research firm, Dewar Research, found that from 1995 to 2004 reported domestic violence against men as a percentage of total inter-gender violence ranged from 19% to 34%. The key word is ‘reported.’ It is common knowledge that men are reluctant to report abuse. Statistics on gender violence are skewed by that reluctance,49 and by the fact that many reports are generated by “battered women’s” shelters, spawning grounds for all sorts of Feminist agitprop. A British government survey in roughly the same period revealed male victims to range from 39% to 49% of the total. In view of the skewed statistics, that survey may be more accurate. In England the demand for newly opened battered men’s shelters is greater than the supply.50 Ironically, a domestic violence shelter in Boulder, Colorado sponsors a publicly-funded “art exhibit” at a public library which features 21 ceramic severed penises hanging on a clothesline. “Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, nor hell a fury like a woman scorned.”51 Betty Friedan said “Perhaps it is the least understood fact of American political life — the enormous buried violence of women in this country today”52 (This old adversary died as I write today — February 4, 2006).

Women are as likely as men to use verbal and psychological aggression. Arguably, there are more psychologically battered men - 26 -

Why a Need to Save The Males than psychologically battered women. Psychological battery includes threats of eviction and estrangement from children, aspersions of impotence, etc. Former President Clinton told men they must never, ever raise their hand against a woman, which tells women they may be as provocative as they wish. For such reasons, Laura Petracek, Ph.D., psychologist and anger expert, was moved to write her book The Anger Workbook For Women.53 The most recent, well-documented treatise on the subject of intergender violence is Domestic Violence: The 12 Things You Aren’t Supposed to Know, by Thomas B. James J.D.54 His book absolutely demolishes any argument that men are more guilty than women of perpetrating inter-gender violence. Other definitive studies show husband-battering to be at least as prevalent as wife-battering, if not more so.55 Contrary to Feminist claims, self-defense is not the primary reason why women batter. Some women, under stress and impatient, will create an incident. Initiating a fight is common. When the exfather is goaded by his ex-wife, or his soon-to-be ex wife, about his inability to do anything about his treatment in the courts, he can become extremely and justifiably angry.

Marital infidelity does cause men to lose temper. By their very nature, it outrages husbands more than it does wives, understandably so. Dr. Charles E. Corry of the Equal Justice Foundation says: (A)t least 40% of the married men who contacted us about false allegations of domestic violence were charged after they found evidence their wives were having an affair. So the unintended consequence of draconian domestic violence laws is that they provide a perfect weapon for adulteresses. Today we punish the husband for his wife's adultery. Curiously, in the few cases we have heard of, the husband's anger was primarily directed towards his wife's lover.

I too am often mystified by the misdirected anger of cuckolded men toward their wives’ paramours. They almost invariably take revenge on the guy instead of the one who hurt them far more, the unfaithful wife. ‘Lover boy’ didn’t vow fidelity — wifey did.

GIs returning from overseas assignments to unfaithful wives and the prospect of losing their children – the very things they fought and sacrificed for – can be forgiven for harboring thoughts of murder (I sure did). In August 2002 four GIs returning to Fort Bragg from combat in Afghanistan did more than harbor such thoughts. They actually did the deed. Well aware that divorce courts reward, not punish, infidelity in wives, the Ft. Bragg soldiers evidently felt they had no choice but to take matters into their own hands. The counseling that the military provides to wives of GIs should include warnings of the possible consequences of infidelity.

- 27 -

Save the Males A Ferlin Husky song is apropos: I got back in town a day before I'd planned to I smiled and said I'll sure surprise my wife I don't think I'll phone I'll just head on home For I didn't know the cold hard facts of life I passed a little wine store on the corner I pictured pink champagne by candle light I stopped the car right then got out and hurried in My mind not on the cold hard facts of life A stranger stood there laughing by the counter He said I'll take two bottles of your best Her husband's out of town and there's a party He winkled as if to say you know the rest I left the store two steps behind the stranger From there to my house his car stayed in sight But it wasn't till he turned into my drive I learned I was witnessing the cold hard facts of life I drove around the block till I was dizzy each time the noise came louder from within And then I saw our bottle there beside me And I drank a fifth of courage and walked in Oh you should have seen their frantic faces They screamed and cried please put away that knife I guess I'll go to hell or rot here in the cell But who told who the cold hard facts of life Who told who the cold hard facts of life.

Granted, some men irrationally hate women and can be violent toward them. Nietzsche advised man never to forget their whip when they go to a woman. One wonders what drove them to such opinions. Despite the attention given to them, such men are few and far between. To fixate on violence against women only, and not on the equal or greater violence against men, requires a perverse form of sophistry. To put things in perspective, according to the “National Crime Survey,” less than one percent of men or women are victimized by spouses.56

Rape, Abuse, Harassment Claims False charges are self-generating; some people are eager to believe anything negative about others.

The 1990 ‘National Women’s Study,’ in a survey of 4,008 women, reported the incidence of rape is 683,000 per year. If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge in New York to sell you. The U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (NCS), in a 1990 survey of 50,000 women, reported 130,000 rapes in a year, and the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 1990 claimed 102,560.

As the saying goes, if a story is worth telling, it’s worth embellishing. Between 27 percent and 60 percent of rape allegations are false.57 The Royal Canadian Mounted Police found 80 percent of - 28 -

Why a Need to Save The Males rape complainants who take lie detector tests are lying. Prof. Neil Gilbert of the Univ. of Calif., Berkeley has shown that exaggeration is rampant and definitions of the term, “rape,” are highly dubious.58 Despite claims that as high as 37 percent of women have been “raped,” only 1/10 of one percent of women have reported rape.59 Like crying “Wolf!” too often, such accusations can backfire when it really happens.

Exaggerated rape allegation figures precipitated widespread rape shield laws which, combined with questionable – indeed illegal – interrogation methods, have unjustly convicted many men. These laws and language accept as gospel alleged rape victims’ versions of events usually with no opportunity for defense or cross-examination.

They encourage false accusations and convictions, and war with the presumption of innocence.

If a woman accuses a man of rape (spousal or otherwise), brutality or ‘sexual harassment,’ the man is routinely denied due process, not permitted to properly defend himself because it might insult the female complainant, regardless of truth. Where it is a man’s word against a woman’s, the woman’s is usually believed. As in all accusations by women against men, the burden is on the man to prove innocence, which is exceedingly difficult. The opposite maxim to our basic right of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ applies.

Rape doesn’t always live up to its involuntary connotation. Eighty percent of sentences are for statutory, not forcible, rape. A Philadelphia study by Menachem Amir, reported in the University of Chicago Press, found no violence in 87 percent of rapes. Prior and subsequent sexual liaisons bear on the likelihood of consent. Morningafter remorse precipitates many false rape accusations, as seemed to be the case with Kobe Bryant’s accuser. A woman can define a sexual event by how she ‘feels’ about it later. She can call it “rape” or not, and her word counts. The National Center For Men60 in New York and Dr. Roy Schenk have devised “consensual sex contracts” to protect men from women who after having consensual sex decide to charge their partners with rape.

Until recently in rape prosecutions it was customary for the judge to read Sir Matthew Hale’s admonition that the jury ought to “view the woman’s testimony with caution. Rape is an accusation easily to be made and hard to be proved and harder to be defended by the party accused though never so innocent.” No more. Feminists were furious at the suggestion that a woman might commit perjury, and the legal system, always their obedient servant, suppressed Sir Matthew Hale’s commonsense admonition.

The earliest false rape charge was reported in Biblical times. Potiphar, the Egyptian potentate to whom the Ishmaelites sold Joseph - 29 -

Save the Males (Gen. 39:1) was ‘Captain of the Guard.’ Joseph, though a foreigner, gradually gained his confidence, and became overseer over all his possessions. Potiphar’s wife attempted to seduce Joseph. When it failed, she accused him of rape. Believing the false accusation which his profligate wife brought against Joseph, Potiphar cast him into prison, where he remained for several years.

In Michigan, one of our MDA member’s wife ran off with a low-life boyfriend, leaving her husband with the children. When he filed for divorce and she realized he would obtain custody, she and her mother concocted a scheme to defeat him. She returned, feigning reconciliation, and persuaded him to go to bed with her, whereupon she jumped up screaming “rape.” An ambitious prosecutor obtained the 1st conviction under that state’s new Feminist-inspired “wife rape” law. With his money impounded by the divorce court, the poor man was unable to hire counsel, yet denied a public defender because technically he had money. Talk about a Catch 22 situation!

The prosecutor offered to ask the court for no further jail time than already served if he would plead guilty. Being innocent, he refused and pled ‘not guilty.’ The Feminist-pandering judge, Thomas Yeotis, then sentenced him to 15 to 30 years, twice the guidelines, declaring he was “sending a message” to wife-rapists. Most murderers who are actually guilty of something, certainly the female ones, receive lesser sentences. Even if he were guilty, which I believe he isn’t, he’s been incarcerated far too long. This innocent man has already served twenty one years, parole boards refusing to release him, despite his failing health – fearful of Feminist wrath. Would that he had joined the Men’s Defense Assoc. before his trial. I spoke to famous attorney Alan Dersowitz about this man. He blew me off.

A crime was committed; not by the prisoner, but by the State of Michigan in so persecuting this man. Every citizen of Michigan ought to be ashamed that this travesty was committed in his or her name.

Details of this travesty are available online at www.ncfm.org/. Click on William Hetherington. Every day of my life I think of him and the unspeakable injustice done to him. Phyllis Schlafly became interested in his case,61 but to date hasn’t been able to wangle a pardon out of the Michigan Governor, who is not of her political party.

William R. Strong, Jr. has been in a Virginia prison for a decade also on false charges of “wife rape.” Mr. Strong has been trying to get a DNA test, confident that the semen in the prosecution’s test is not his but that of the lover of his unfaithful wife. Prosecutors, ignoring their obligation to protect the rights of the innocent, argue that he has no right to the evidence, under the rationalization that Strong was convicted prior to the advent of DNA testing. The goal of the government should be to see justice done, not to win a case by - 30 -

Why a Need to Save The Males any means.

In April of 2006, the Duke University Lacrosse team hired a stripper with a criminal record to appear at a team party. Drunk, she passed out and accused several party-goers of raping her. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton joined left-leaning Duke professors righteously condemming the boys. Shades of Tawana Brawley.

An overeager prosecutor, Mike Nifong – as politically ambitious as the railroading prosecutor of Will Heatherington, required the entire 46 team members to submit to DNA testing, an action which violated hell out of Constitutional prohibitions against self-incrimination as well of as state statutes. Though all DNA tests proved negative, indeed that she had bedded others, a racist mob demanded Grand Jury indictments, and got two. Nifong was obviously trying to force a plea bargain. Later documents proved he and police, the S.O.B.s, withheld hordes of exculpatory evidence in seeking indictments.62 On April 11, 2007, over a year later, all charges against the boys were dropped. The stripper will not be tried because “She thinks it might have happened.” Ann Coulter said, “Stripper lied; white boys fried.” Meanwhile, the coach was fired, guilty for his innocent association ‘while being male.’

Dorothy Rabinowitz, in the Wall Street Journal writes: There is little that is new or strange about Mr. Nifong. We have seen the likes of this district attorney, uninterested in proofs of innocence, willing to suppress any he found, many times in the busy army of prosecutors claiming to have found evidence of rampant child abuse in nursery schools and other child-care centers around the country in the 1980s and throughout most of the ’90s.

The situation was so flagrant even the North Carolina Bar Assn. charged Nifong with violating a rule requiring prosecutors to “refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused,” and with engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

The North Carolina Attorney General called him a “rouge prosecutor.” It seems he might lose his license to practice law.

I hope the victimized boys sue the pants off everybody – Nifong, the school, the stripper, the newspapers, TV stations and anyone else involved.

(Watch misandrists take passages from this paragraph out of context): Some women seem to have a rape wish. Unarguably, women dress for attention, but then some scream bloody murder when the wrong men pay attention. If one is curiously attired, or un-attired, it follows that one is going to be the object of curiosity. For that reason, flirtatious women who go about in public only partially clothed, - 31 -

Save the Males whether or not in “style,” have little cause to complain about unwanted sexual advances, even vigorous ones, or yobos leering after them. Even though rape is a natural act, the prehistoric means of perpetuating the species, it is uncivilized in modern times, and must be severely punished — when proven. As with adultery, the urge is natural but succumbing to it is unacceptable behavior. Without in any way condoning actual rape, it must be said that it usually involves no physical harm and far less mental harm than that suffered by many men in divorce.

Practically anything a man does – you name it – can be considered sexual harassment, and get him in big trouble. The U.S. Government General Accounting Office in the early 1990s listed “comments that women did not belong in certain military units”63 as behavior that constitutes harassment. In other words, telling the truth is sexual harassment. Overheard jokes and private pin-ups have constituted harassment. Women have filed preposterous claims and won outlandish court awards or settlements for minor insults or leers. Slobs who make drunken passes at women can be practically hounded out of town as sex fiends.

The climate has gotten so crazy that sailors talking like sailors in the presence of delicate female navel personnel ears is a court marshal offense, as Lt. Bryan Black discovered.64 Fox TV’s commentator Bill O’Reilly was sued for $60 million by his former associate producer Andrea Mackris for sexual harassment by “phone sex.” The lawsuit was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount, perhaps answering the question of why this complainant or others similarly situated don’t just hang up. It is preposterous to pose the claim that tasteless remarks are worth $60 million, so what has the world come to when such suits are admitted into court?

Consider the “Tail hook” incident. Horny women cavorting with high-testosterone Navy fliers at a drinking party, like strippers performing before athletic young bucks, should know exactly what to expect. As the expression goes, “You mess with the bull and you get the horn.” The widespread credit given the ridiculous 10-year-old charges Anita Hill brought against Judge Clarence Thomas is another example. They were a blatantly political and spiteful attempt to deprive this patently decent man of a Supreme Court position.

An unbalanced woman’s unsubstantiated charge that she had a lengthy affair with her father-in-law, George C. Roach Jr., President of Hillsdale College, caused Roach’s resignation and disgrace. More recently, a University of New Hampshire school flyer was distributed indicating women students gained 10 to 15 pounds in their 1st year.

In response, student Timothy Garneau posted a flyer urging overweight freshwomen to lose weight by walking up stairs instead of - 32 -

Why a Need to Save The Males using the elevator. For his troubles, Garneau was evicted from his dormitory, forced to undergo psychological counseling and write a 3,000 word paper reflection about the counseling. The penalties were reduced somewhat after Garneau contacted the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)65 A study by the American Association of University Women found that “nearly two-thirds of college students experience sexual harassment at some point during college.” Just consider what the AAUW’s definition of sexual harassment is: unwanted or unwelcome sexual behavior that interferes with your life” For a male, there is no statute of limitations for molestation, as Bill Cosby can attest. Even in the unlikely case that his accuser was telling the truth, should the good man Cosby is now be punished for what this alleged groper may have done 30 years ago?

During Hurricane Katrina a team of Indiana firemen went to Atlanta to help rescue victims, instead federal bureaucrats instructed them to attend hours of courses on sexual harassment and equal employment opportunity, then hand out flyers. When CIA officer Robert Baer asked for Farsi speakers in Afghanistan, he was offered a sexual harassment team instead.

The hype began with Lin Farley’s book, Sexual Shakedown: The Sexual Harassment of Women on the Job, published in 1978. Later the book Sexual Harassment of Working Women (1979) by Catharine MacKinnon defined sexual harassment as a legal issue. Ellison v.

Brady introduced the “reasonable woman” standard into law. Conduct was no longer analyzed from the perspective of a “reasonable person,” but of a “reasonable woman,” from the perspective of the complainant, not of the defendant.

In line with their agenda of re-engineering our society to fit their theories, Feminists have expanded the definition of abuse. Under the term “psychological battery,” it now includes: “acts of lying, humiliation, withholding information, refusing help with child care or housework.” And bear in mind that it is only men who behave this way in the Feminist definition.

Illinois state Representative Robert Pritchard proposed a database of domestic violence “offenders” similar to the “Sex Offenders Registry.” Imagine the weapon false accusers would have if this passes.

Demonstrating how easily a woman can obtain a restraining order - 33 -

Save the Males against a man, a Santa Fe judge granted a temporary restraining order against TV talk show host David Letterman on behalf of an unbalanced woman who alleged Letterman mentally harassed her through his TV broadcasts.66 A Brockton, Massachusetts first-grader whose last name is Dorinvil was suspended for three days for sexual harassment after he put two fingers inside a classmate’s waistband to snap it after the girl touched him.67 Prosecutors claim Michael Wiley, a triple amputee attacked his wife, by shoving himself into her and causing her to knock over a lamp. Division Director Mike Halkitis has said he will push for the maximum sentence of five years for Wiley.68 In March of '06, U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney (D. Ga.) slugged a House of Representatives guard who had asked her for her credentials, then accused him of assaulting her because she’s a black female. As Dan Amneus would say, it out-chutzpahs chutzpah! The Grand Jury declined to indict her.

Child Abuse As with false rape and battering charges, false claims of child abuse against men have increased dramatically. The 1980’s and 90’s witnessed an epidemic of Salem witch-hunt type cause célèbres where child “protective” services with empires to build and maintain ran amok. From Jordan Minnesota to McMartin in California, to Kelly Michaels in New Jersey, to Amirault in Massachusetts, to Little Rascals in North Carolina and to Wenatchee in Washington, et al, America witnessed a feeding frenzy of false accusations. No other field provides greater opportunity for politicians to grandstand.

Janet Reno made her reputation (such as it was) and landed her position as Attorney General of the U.S. under President Clinton through questionable prosecutions of alleged child abusers in Florida.

Prosecutors hook men up to penile plethysmographs, devices to measure tumescence, in the expectation (naturally) that a positive reaction will occur while watching pornography, giving them an excuse for prosecution. Imagine hooking women up to similar devices, perhaps moisture-sensing? The very idea is repugnant. Why isn’t it equally repugnant regarding men?

It is becoming common for mothers to accuse fathers of child molestation to doubly ensure maternal custody or to deny them visitation. Judges and other officials take these allegations seriously, often removing or punishing men under the rationalization that even if their actions are wrong they prefer to “err on the side of caution.”

Hear Dean Tong, forensic legal consultant and author of the book - 34 -

Why a Need to Save The Males Elusive Innocence: Survival Guide For The Falsely Accused69, Without a doubt, the single-most devastating issue to men and fathers over the past 35 years has been that of false abuse accusations… The SAID (Sexual Allegations In Divorce) Syndrome has been coined ‘divorce’s atomic bomb’ – the ultimate weapon. Typically, men and fathers are on the recipient end of SAID allegations, and because child sex abuse is such a reprehensible crime when it does happen the same are presumed guilty… Of the 2.9 million reports of alleged child abuse and neglect in 2002, approximately 2 million of the same were unfounded or without foundation.

Douglas Besharov Ph.D. of the American Enterprise Institute, reports that 67% of all child abuse claims are unfounded. Most experts claim the percentage is much higher in divorce situations. Estimates are that between 90%70 and 77%71 of child abuse reports – over 700,000 in America each year, mostly divorce related72 – are untrue. Truth is – only one percent of alleged child abuse involves serious assaultive behavior the public regards as truly abusive.73 There are only a few lowlifes, the ilk of John Evander Couey who in March of 2005 killed little Jessica Lundsford, and of convicted sex offender Joseph Edward Duncan III who later that same year killed four in Utah in the process of abducting 8-year-old Shasta Groene.

Those few actually guilty lowlifes provide misandrists with fuel to fire the anti-male image, to tar most men with the same brush. The herd instinct takes over. Full of righteous indignation, politicians jump on the stump, shaking their fists. (Over-reaching drunkdriving laws are another example of this phenomenon).

The Child Abuse Prevention & Treatment Act (CAPTA), also known as the Mondale Act, charged CPS (Child Protective Services) to investigate complaints that are made anonymously and even reports that are made in bad faith. This is an open invitation to malicious slander. CAPTA immunized governmental child protection agencies from being sued for monetary damages, claiming sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment.

Actual perverts are habitual; so unless there are substantiated previous or subsequent complaints such allegations are probably lies. Unfortunately, few states mete out penalties for promulgating malicious false child abuse accusations.

Hear Freud’s skepticism of women’s reports of father incest, “Almost all of my women patients told me that they had been seduced by their father. I was driven to recognize in the end that these reports were untrue and so came to understand that the hysterical symptoms are derived from fantasies and not from real occurrences.”74 Some incest obviously occurs (perhaps 2% of the allegations). In the thousands of divorces I’ve dealt with, 2 men admitted sexually abusing their daughters, a couple more weren’t sincere - 35 -

Save the Males enough in my estimation.

Women are far more likely than men to abuse children, especially boys and the elderly, throughout history – not merely since receiving the preponderance of custody.75 The nasty, unmentioned truth is that 62 percent of child abusers are mothers.76

Divorce, though usually portrayed as a protection against domestic violence, is far more frequently a contributing cause.

While disproportionate even in two-parent homes, the amount of abuse increases enormously when the mother becomes single. Professor Urie Bronfenbrenner (RIP), speaking before a Congressional committee on child abuse, said, “The most severe injuries occurred in single-parent homes and were inflicted by the mother herself.”

According to Patrick Fagan77 and William Fitzgerald, “The person most likely to abuse a young child is the child’s own mother. The most dangerous place for a women and her child is an environment in which she is cohabiting with a boyfriend who is not the father of her children. The rate of child abuse may be as much as 33 times higher.”78 Maggie Gallagher says, “The person most likely to abuse a child physically is a single mother. The person most likely to abuse a child sexually is the mother’s boyfriend or second husband. Divorce, though usually portrayed as a protection against domestic violence, is far more frequently a contributing cause.”79 In Milwaukee County in 1989 there were 1,050 reported cases of child abuse. Eighty-three percent of these cases occurred in households receiving AFDC; in other words, in mostly female-headed households.80 According to Ronald Tansley, “In Oregon in 1994, 33 children were killed as a result of child abuse. Mothers were killers in 27 of these cases.”81 A Minnesota study of physical child abuse in 1967 showed the ratio of mother guilt to father guilt in such cases to be seventeen to seven. According to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, women are the most common abusers of children.82 While child custody provides financial benefits to mothers, it provides an even greater benefit – immunity from prosecution.

The person most likely to abuse a child sexually is the mother’s boyfriend or second husband…

The same holds true in England, according to Valerie Riches, Director of Family and Youth Concern, Oxford, “The fact is that the files of relevant government bodies are bulging with evidence that broken homes mean more battered children. Research has shown that it is 20 times more dangerous for a child if the natural parents cohabit rather than marry. It is 33 times more dangerous for a child - 36 -

Why a Need to Save The Males to live with its natural mother and her boyfriend than with the natural parents in a marriage relationship.”83 The fiction that fathers are the principal child abusers is promoted not only by Feminists, the media and politicians seeking the Feminist vote, but by otherwise respectable scholars. Thus Richard Gelles compares mothers not with fathers but with all males, lumping fathers with the second greatest abusers (after mothers), boyfriends of the mothers (who may become stepfathers): “But males, although they spend less time with children and have less overall responsibility for child care, are more likely than females to injure or kill children…” Later he admits, “A child’s mother is more likely to kill or injure him than his stepmother is. Male offenders tend to be more distantly related to their victims. A child’s stepfather or the boyfriend of his mother is more likely to kill or injure him than his father is.”84 Male offenders, in other words, tend not to be fathers — fathers tend not to be offenders. Gelles says (if the reader takes the trouble to winkle out the meaning) that the biological father is the child’s best protector, not only against the stepmother but against the mother, who is far more likely to abuse or kill the child than the father, and who is especially abusive and murderous if she becomes single — i.e., if she and the judge exile the child’s best protector, the father.85

- 37 -

Save the Males

Domestic Relations “The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” —Robert Briffault

Marriage – The Ideal Conjugal love is the most desirable and symbiotic relationship in the world, “The worldly hope men set their hearts upon” says Omar Khayyam (so terribly disappointed himself). It’s marvelous what a good woman can do for a man; I know first-hand.

Ever since high school I’ve admired Shakespeare’s Sonnet 116: Let me not to the marriage of true minds Admit impediment. Love is not love Which alters when it alteration finds, Or bends with the remover to remove; Oh no; it is an ever fixed mark, That looks on tempests, and is never shaken; it is the star to every wandering bark, Whose worth’s unknown, although its height be taken.

Love’s not time’s fool, though rosy lips and cheeks Within his bending sickle’s compass come; Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks, But bears it out even to the edge of doom.

If this be error, and upon me prov’d, I never writ, and no man ever lov’d.

The following is reproduced courtesy of D.A. Sears (a lady, by the way), Managing Editor – In Search Of Fatherhood(R) Forum For and About the Fathers of the World: Children are a man’s heart and soul. His children are his reason for being. They are the reason he rises early in the morning and heads off to a spirit-numbing, back-breaking and mind-bending job for eight, ten and sometimes twelve hours each day. And at the end of the workday, they are the reason he races home. Seeing their faces light up with a smile and hearing gleeful shrieks of “Daddy’s Home!” as his children run to greet him when he arrives home makes him forget how tired he is. He nurtures his children. He disciplines them. He mentors them. He inspires them and yes, there are moments, when his children inspire him.

He worries about the world his children will inherit when they reach adulthood. Will the world be a safer and peaceful place? He wonders — when it is time for his children to strike out on their own and carve a niche for themselves in the world, if they will remember the lessons of

- 38 -

Why a Need to Save The Males their childhood. He wonders if other fathers around the world have the same hopes and fears that he has. Their laughter and sense of wonderment warms his heart and energizes his soul.

Thus spake Amneus in The Case For Father Custody: A man wants a woman to marry him and he says to her, “If you will marry me, I will guarantee you that you will be the mother of your children.” He is offering her nothing, since it is impossible that a woman should not be the mother of her own children.

A woman wants a man to marry her and she says to him, “If you will marry me, I will guarantee you that you will be the father of my children.”

She is talking sense. She is offering him a family. A family is made possible by a woman’s agreement to share her reproductive life. The man’s reciprocal offer is to be a provider for her and for their children.

A nubile young woman fulfills her dream of marrying a powerful and high-achieving man and bestowing her love freely and joyously on him.

Each is accounted a winner if the marriage is stable. Society is a winner.

The man works for the benefit of his wife and children, and the wealth he creates circulates through the productive and creative portions of the economy… It is highly advantageous to a woman to be a sex object and for society to have her be, for it is thus that men are motivated to be achievers and to create wealth and social stability and to benefit their children — and their wives. But the advantages can best be derived from a husband whose stable motivation (and therefore work performance) is assured. But society can use the woman as a sex object to motivate a man to support a family, to pay taxes, to buy real estate, to create a stock portfolio — to contribute to society rather than disrupt it.

Katherine’s speech at the end of The Taming of the Shrew has this: He “cares for thee and for thy maintenance, commits his body to painful labor both by sea and land to watch the night in storms, the day in cold, whilst thou liest warm at home, secure and safe, and craves no other tribute at thy hands but love, fair looks, and true obedience, too little payment for so great a debt.”

The natural family is the fundamental social unit, the ‘cornerstone of society,’ inscribed in human nature, and centered on the union of a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage. I offer an analogy: picture a family as a three-legged stool upon which the larger society rests. The legs of the stool represent the mother, father and children, with the father the most vulnerable point in modern times. If any leg is removed or weakened society itself has a precarious perch.

- 39 -

Save the Males

Marriage –The Tender Trap Obviously marriage, as presently constituted, is a risky venture for men, financially and otherwise. The financial pressures are enormous. In many ways families are becoming more a liability than an asset. When the contributions of one partner, in terms of functions and responsibilities, exceed those of the other the undercontributor is somewhat of a pet, parasite, or prostitute. In old rural America wives and children helped produce. In this new urban world, they more often consume.

The Shakespearian Sonnet quoted above, though a beautiful sentiment, is highly visionary. The subsequent observations of later bards are more relevant to the current, real situation: “Man is for woman but a means” —Nietzsche.

“He that takes a wife takes care.” —Ben Franklin.

“Marriage is a trade union of women.”—George Bernard Shaw.

“No man, examining his marriage intelligently, can fail to observe that it is compounded, at least in part, of slavery; and that he is the slave.”

—H. L. Mencken.

“The wedding is never otherwise than a tragic event, and all present should be clothed in black- and upon the wedding bell should be written ‘A day is coming when one of these hearts shall break.’ ” —Mark Twain.

Most men ignore the dangers inherent in divorce. Psychologists call it “denial.” Logically, it seems foolish to marry; but if logic prevailed in this world, as someone said, men would ride sidesaddle.

Marriage –The Demise Sex and love are two different things. It would be better if they weren’t, but they are. And therein lies much of the trouble in this world. Although the returns of marriage are great, many do not appear able to pay the price. It’s not easy to live with another person.

Lincoln said “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Marriage compatibility comes with maturity.

Marriage partners are akin to a team of horses. If they are wellmatched, they can pull a tremendous load. But if one hangs back, the other has to pull not only the load but the laggard horse as well.

Marriage is also like a dance. In dancing, one leads while the other follows. If both try to lead, it becomes very clumsy. It takes two to make a marriage work, but takes only one to destroy it.

The American family, indeed families throughout western civilization, has become destabilized for four decades. Like the tip of an iceberg, divorce statistics reveal only obvious terminations. If some marriages are made in Heaven, others are made in hell. This great - 40 -

Why a Need to Save The Males American dream is often a nightmare. Marital unhappiness is far more prevalent than commonly realized. Many are technically wed, but emotionally divorced. A ten-year study by Dr. Clifford R. Adams revealed that only 17 percent of married people are really happy with each other. These were once passionate love affairs. Such a massive hemorrhage of good will is a shocking proposition.

Until fairly recently the modern family had been the means for imposing sexual discipline; but many women, seeing the family as their disciplinarian, their enemy, the creator of the hated patriarchal system, have opted out. Marriage is no longer premised on female dependence, lifetime expectations, fidelity and mutual economic advantage. Grandma considered it security. Today’s bride, often as not, considers it collateral. Husbands are a mere economic and social convenience.

Marriage, once called a sacrament, appears to be in serious jeopardy of being relegated to the realm of ritualism, chastity belts, and other things anachronistic. Legal and social notions have reduced it to the status of an experiment, one of the games people play. The vow, “…until death do us part” has become almost a fairy tale. “As long as our love shall last” has replaced it in some modern ceremonies. The odds of survival approach those in Russian roulette. You can buy “Congratulations on your divorce” cards at drug stores.

The serial polygamy commonly accepted nowadays is killing the traditional marital concept. Only 22 percent of households constitute traditional nuclear families. Families are composed of his kids, her kids, their kids, and Lord knows whose kids. Single-parent families are portrayed as “alternative life styles.” The ‘open marriage’ philosophy of the anthropologists O’Neill (authors of Open Marriage) is challenging the wisdom of the ages.

The news isn’t all bad; a panel of 140 respected observers found that marriage may be on the rebound, along with a drop in teen pregnancy.86 Also, “covenant” marriages are gaining ground. These prevent couples and judges from impulsively dissolving marriages without good cause. Long time married couples normally have too much of themselves (not to mention money) invested to even consider divorce.

Divorce Statistics Comprehensive, detailed statistics on marriage and divorce are difficult to determine. Coming from various sources, not all statistics agree with each other.

There was an accelerating curve of divorce from 7% of marriages in 1860 to the current expectation of around one-half. The rate in- 41 -

Save the Males creased 5.23 percent in the 100 years between 1867 and 196787 and 80 percent between 1960 and 1972.88 Although the rate has leveled off in recent years, the divorce escape is still popular. For every 100 U.S. marriages, 49 are aborted by divorce.89 According to the Centers for Disease Control, 43 percent of all first marriages end in divorce within 10 years. Wade Horn, Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, Children & Families (He resigned April 2, 2007) said 40 percent of 1st marriages now end in divorce, contrasted with 16 percent in 1960.90 In many areas, like San Mateo County, California, divorces consistently outpace marriages.

It is said that a divorce occurs every 27 seconds in the U.S. Life magazine claimed the U.S. divorce rate to be three times that of any other civilized country; however it has since been established that Sweden leads the U.S.A. Stanley Kurtz writes that marriage is already destroyed in Scandinavian countries, where half of all children are now born out of wedlock.91 Inese Šlesere, Secretary of the Latvian Parliament’s Human Rights Subcommittee, informs us that the divorce rate there is 60 percent.92 The U.S. census bureau reports that single-adult households have now replaced nuclear family households. In the year 2000, for every one hundred children born into this country, only forty reached maturity living with Mom and Dad.93 Thanks, Judge.

Now comes a very important statistic: Most divorces are initiated by, and granted to, women.94 Shere Hite says the wife is the instigator in seven out of eight divorces.95 Alan M. Parkman of the University of New Mexico finds a somewhat smaller percentage; he blames No-fault divorce laws.

Divorce Amerikan Style: The Rape of The Male Originally, common law was synonymous with Roman Law, which treated marriage and its dissolution as the product of the free will of the parties; not a matter of public or court concern. Governments did not have the inclination, necessity or audacity to interfere in family matters. Some Libertarians consider it arrogant of government to presume sufficient authority over citizens to issue marriage ‘licenses.’ They have a point. Yet alternatives like the claimed Muslim divorce ritual – saying “I divorce thee” 3 times – is not practical either.

Once upon a time, proprietary interest – largely benign and supportive – reposed largely in the male head of household, but eventually the favored-gender pendulum swung to the opposite direction – the extreme opposite direction. With that pendulum swing, and to - 42 -

Why a Need to Save The Males enforce it, arose the concept that the powers that be, government or ecclesiastic, are interested parties in marriage – the infernal triangle.

Government interference has eroded the father's position. Treatment of men in divorce became Kafkaesque. Examples are multitudinous; one such was a State of Wisconsin law ordering divorced men not to remarry without permission of ex-wives and the court (I believe that law was rescinded), and a 1968 decision decreeing that a husband and wife could not agree between themselves to modify alimony without the imprimatur of the court. The legal doctrine of Parens Patriae literally makes the State a father.

The marriage contract, in addition to having a certain sanctity (“What, therefore, God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

– Mark 10:9), is a legal instrument specifying fidelity, “for better or for worse.” But if the little woman wants out for even the poorest of reasons, that’s all that’s needed, fault or no fault. An unholy alliance of Feminist philosophy, government and the divorce system has been instrumental in relieving women of contract obligations, while assuring them of its advantages and denying them to men.

Perpend Amneus again: The husband’s major contribution to the marriage is irrevocable. It cannot be removed retroactively: he has supported his wife, paid her bills, given her a home, raised her standard of living by 73 percent.96 But the wife’s major contribution to the marriage, the gift of a family, is removed retroactively in over half of marriages and threatened with removal in all: She never really gave him the family which was the quid pro quo for his supporting her. The husband discovers in the divorce court that what motivated him to get married and to labor during the years of the marriage had no permanent existence — it was not a gift but only a loan backed by a woman’s promise — and un-backed by the law. He discovers that the law which must enforce contracts interprets the most basic contract as not binding on his wife, only on him, and therefore deems it just to deprive him of his most precious possession, his children, probably also of his home and his future income.

Although domestic relations laws are generally fair on their face, the administration of them – that is, their application and interpretation in disputed situations – varies primarily with the sex of the litigants. Out of some misbegotten sense of chivalry, “Up the woman” is the unstated major premise. While women can walk out of marriage at the drop of a whim, men are expected to stoically bear all sorts of faults in their wives; and male scoundrels who initiate divorce proceedings often incur the chivalrous wrath of the courts.

Any semblance of justification has become a national joke, unfunny to the victims.

A man is like a solitary pawn, face-to-face with the queen on a chess board. Like a black man in the South competing for a job 50 - 43 -

Save the Males years ago, he must be superior just to be considered equal. Everyday, in brutal violation of common sense and decency, domestic courts dignify the double-think satirized in the book Catch 22 into logic and law. Incredible and even contradictory judgments right out of Alice in Wonderland are the rule, not the exception. There is sufficient legal precedent on either side of most any issue to justify any decisions judges choose to make, even contradictory ones – anything to favor the woman.

Ordinary men are held in a legal headlock from which there is no escape. Adversary divorce proceedings are often conducted in the spirit of the Star Chamber or the Inquisition in courtrooms resembling a combination of brothel and mortuary. These Kabuki dances can be so stylized that only occasional, limited variations of issues and circumstances occur. Players in these hackneyed charades include the female plaintiff — damsel in distress; the plaintiff’s lawyer — her champion; the judge — ostensibly the force of righteousness, wisdom, and impartiality, but more often her champion’s advocate; the male defendant — the villain; and the defendant’s lawyer — the devil’s advocate.

There is sufficient legal precedent on either side of most any issue to justify any decisions judges choose to make, even contradictory ones – anything to favor the woman.

Divorce courts (euphemistically called domestic relations courts) enforce men’s responsibilities, but not their rights. Conversely, they enforce women’s rights, but not their responsibilities. Court customs and practices outrage not only traditional principles of justice, but basic human rights transcending the laws of the land. They openly violate Constitutional protections under color of law. For divorcing men there is no ‘due process’, no ‘equal protection.’ The Men’s Defense Association’s Sad Stories file, which got so large we discontinued it many years ago, had enough letters in it to sober a judge.

This double standard is quasi-legally possible because divorce courts are “courts of equity,” wherein ‘judgment’ is the primary basis of issue determination as opposed to ‘courts of law,’ where law, sometimes statute – sometimes case, is the primary basis of issue determination. So, protection of law is largely absent in domestic relations; and judges can do nearly as they wish, supported by no higher authority than that of their own rhetoric.

Appeal is a costly exercise in futility, and usually amounts only to availing oneself of a pool of prejudice. A dozen wrong men — all part of the same establishment and tradition — produce as little justice as one. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the constitution- 44 -

Why a Need to Save The Males ality of Georgia statutes allowing alimony only for women. Yet the federal courts have eagerly entered domestic matters for the benefit of women.97 Only the very rich and the very poor can afford divorce. It is most costly to the vast middle class. The wealthy, by writing it off already high taxes, are able to transfer the burden to Uncle Sam. The poor have nothing to lose. The more one examines the situation, the clearer it becomes that viable marriages exist as much in spite of the system as because of it.

Aspiring divorcees usually blow assets by running to attorneys, forcing partners to follow suit, instead of 1st attempting to reach mutually agreeable settlements. A wife can hire the most expensive lawyer in town to attack her husband, and, adding insult to injury, make hubby pay for it. In September 2006, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Robert A. Schnider ordered pop singer Michael Jackson to pay $60,000 in attorney fees for his ex-wife in a custody case (She had sought $195,000, and had already received an $8 million divorce settlement).98 Or, unlike husbands, wives can get help from quasi-governmental sources: the federal Legal Services Corporation and the Legal Aid Society. While indigent males sometimes obtain free counsel if the opponent is not a woman, it’s almost unheard of where the opponent is a woman. Legal Services Corporation’s free lawyers represented women (no men, to my knowledge) in 225,000 divorces in 1985 alone.99 Meanwhile, men’s rights must be pleaded for by hiring mercenaries. Into even more mischief, the LSC hands out grants to leftist lawyers to fund ideological lawsuits. Grantees have sued to keep criminals from being evicted from public housing, to help illegal immigrants get government benefits and to throw out election ballots of military personnel.

President Bush requested a budget of $363,809,000 for LSC for fiscal 2006, an increase of $33 million over 2005. Not one of his better moves.

Received wisdom is that many fathers “desert” families. George Gilder quaintly assumed that most marital breakdown results from “powerful men” abandoning the wives of their youth and lusting after their young secretaries.100 A moment’s reflection would convince him that there aren’t that many powerful men, and that high status men have a lower divorce rate than most other males. Do so-called “deadbeat dads” walk away or are they expelled? Mostly the latter.

In truth, a very large percentage of absent fathers have been evicted, either directly or indirectly.

Every man is but a guest in his own home, living there only at the forbearance of his wife. He is evictable at a moment’s notice if she tires of him and/or makes unsubstantiated allegations of abuse. At - 45 -

Save the Males the passing of a whim or a hot flash a married man can find himself removed from his home and literally imprisoned, sometimes at gun point. Mere allegations of abuse set in motion boilerplate ex parte (one-sided) orders that summarily and routinely evict husbands and ‘domestic partners.’ Many of these allegations are bogus. Some years ago, and probably to this day, in New Hampshire the process was so routine a form was used upon which the clerk of court stamped a judge’s name. Ipso facto, the deed was done.

Every man is but a guest in his own home.

An example of judges doing the Limbo on men’s constitutional rights is this: Municipal Court Judge Richard Russell at a judgetraining session in the Hughes Justice Complex in Trenton, New Jersey said “Your job is not to become concerned about all the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, ‘See ya around.’ ” Massachusetts courts issue around 40,000 domestic restraining orders each year. Researcher Steve Basile extensively documented the anti-male bias therein until Feminists in the Legislature, prevented further research.101 Attorney Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, wrote, “The facts have become irrelevant. Everyone knows that restraining orders…are granted to virtually all who apply… The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has acknowledged the problem by writing that we must “resist a culture of summarily issuing and extending these orders.”

Most violations of restraining orders are non-violent, such as placing a telephone call about a sick child. In many cases, allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage in divorce. True, abuse or the fear of it must be alleged but that’s often a subterfuge.

This ploy is resorted to in an astonishing number of cases. An Illinois lawyer called the practice “Divorce gamesmanship,” but dirty pool isn’t a game.

Such orders also require removed husbands to continue supporting wives and pay their attorneys — all without opportunity to protest. If that’s due process of law, I’ll eat my hat. As Thomas Paine observed generations ago, “and if being bound in that manner is not slavery, then there is not such a thing as slavery upon earth.” Terming these fathers “runaways” merely adds insult to injury. Beware!

It could happen to any married man reading this book – or not reading it.

Lord knows how many women were given divorces for frivolous reasons. One sixty-year-old California woman received a divorce on - 46 -

Why a Need to Save The Males grounds of cruelty because her husband did all the work around the house, wouldn’t even let her make the breakfast coffee. This, she told the judge, made her nervous and caused her “grievous mental suffering.” Other such absurdities have included the husband not taking the wife for auto rides, and getting home at 10 p.m., then keeping her awake by talking. Here’s a good one from the country of our judicial ancestry: in Durham, England, Mrs. Eva Hovell got a divorce on grounds of cruelty because she didn’t like the color her husband painted the house.

Even before the advent of “No-fault” divorce, men could be divorced for doing practically anything, or for not doing the same thing. They were damned if they did and damned if they didn’t. A sophistic curiosity called “constructive desertion” permitted a woman to leave a man under some pretext, and then divorce him on grounds of desertion. The New Jersey Superior Court for Union County decided that a wife could acquiesce in her husband’s departure and still charge him with desertion.”

Adultery, like perjury, is a crime in most states. Nowadays, it is a waste of time even bringing the matter to the attention of a judge (as your author knows from bitter experience). These crimes are being proved in divorce courts everyday by men who still have faith in justice. Prosecutions are not forthcoming. Who has ever heard of a recent conviction for any of these, anywhere? A married woman had a man other than her husband in her apartment from 9:30 p.m. to 5:30 a.m. They were both observed in the bathroom several times, nude or in nightclothes. The court believed her story that they were playing Chinese checkers, and the visitor was unable to leave due to illness — “Not guilty of adultery.”102 Women were, and still are, presumed innocent of wrongdoing.

Courts usually squelched attempts to prove them guilty of anything serious. One man found gathering evidence to this end was ordered to cease “bothering” her. The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that an order restraining an ex-wife from making false allegations is unconstitutional.103 Thumbing their noses at the law, women violate domestic court orders far more often than men do – and get away with it. The case of a former all-conference football star from the University of Kansas demonstrates this. This gentleman, whom I met while working at Charlie Metz’s A$DM in Elgin Illinois, and whose name I forget, developed a terminal disease – lateral sclerosis – whereupon his wife filed for divorce. She openly refused to comply with judicial instructions to honor the visitation portion of the divorce order, left the jurisdiction of the original court, and moved to Topeka, Kansas. The dying and immobile man spent thousands of dollars in unsuccessful - 47 -

Save the Males attempts to see his children. The Illinois and Kansas courts refused to enforce their own orders against the fugitive mother. Chief Kansas Judge Prager declared that it would be best for all if the man would hurry up and die.104 The prejudices of American courts are being taken advantage of even by foreigners. While the Dr. Rudolph Holeman’s family from Belgium was vacationing in the U.S. the wife filed for divorce and custody. A Philadelphia judge took jurisdiction and granted her petition. (Without visible means of support, she probably became another welfare customer.) The local Gestapo arrested this bewildered man and physically removed him from his children. Talk about ugly Americans! Citations could go on ad infinitum and won’t be further belabored here.

Deployed military personnel find it extremely difficult to contest false divorce, custody and paternity claims. Article VII of the Amendments to the Constitution provides that, “In suits at common law where the value in controversy shall exceed $20, the right to trial by jury shall be preserved.” Try to get a divorce-related jury trial in most states of the union. Presently the workload is so great that the right to juries is seldom recognized. In the few jurisdictions where a pretense is made to honor this portion of the Constitution, it is restricted to certain narrow issues only.

Public “servants” are paid good salaries by taxpayers who have voted laws into effect, which these servants arbitrarily choose to ignore. This not only encourages immorality and demeans law, but adversely affects the rights of decent people.

It is unfortunate that ostensibly altruistic or benevolent groups — most religions, the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Big Brothers Inc., certain philanthropic organizations, and so on — are placidly ignorant of, or disinterested in, these issues and their effect on the country; in effect, they have punted. They seem more interested in schemes to perpetuate and enrich themselves. Of course, the ACLU, composed of lawyers, doesn’t want to jeopardize the divorce racket (more on this later). Besides, the problems of noncommunist, straight, white males aren’t their usual cup of tea. The churches, of course, are above it all. Some religionists seem to feel that reform facilitates divorce, and that by blocking it they become the instruments of The Creator’s will. What would normally be substantial, direct beneficiaries from a reduction in the divorce rate — like the insurance industry, lending institutions, and taxpayers — ironically enough, demonstrate sublime indifference. Most people prefer to remain anonymously uncommitted. Their credo is, “We don’t want to get involved.” There is a veritable sea of public apathy, if not outright hostility, and one can drown in it. How long can the - 48 -

Why a Need to Save The Males world close its eyes, pretending that it just doesn’t see?

Why do I call divorce “The rape of the male?” To any reasonable person, being raped in the back seat of a car, as happens to very few women, is far preferable to being figuratively raped in divorce court, as happens to many men. The mental damage from rape can’t begin to compare with that suffered by men whose children are torn from them and alienated in divorce.

The folly of wrecking families by expelling fathers and then holding them responsible for their own victimization is readily apparent.

The theft of relationships to a man’s children and grandchildren is unforgivable, and the cause of much familial violence. Lest any skeptic think that these statements are exaggerations, or believe the current contention of lawyers that things are better now, let him go to the local courthouse and listen in on the sad divorce dramas, and smell the stench of some of the rulings.

Admittedly, not all men get a bad break in divorce, nor do all women get good breaks, but that is the common situation (There is good reason some men’s wives divorced them). A Texas District Attorney asked Clara Harris why she repeatedly ran over and killed her husband for having an affair, when she could do “like every other woman – get his house, car, kids, and make him wish he were dead.”

If the genders were reversed, women would not submit to what men now submit to. If judges did to women what they routinely do to men — if they deprived them of their children, their homes, their property, their role, and compelled them to work and share their income with their ex-husbands, those judges would be torn to pieces by mobs of frenzied women.

Samples of Criticism from Within the Court System Stewart A. Newblatt resigned his Michigan judgeship, giving as a reason, “I can no longer apply an archaic and cruel divorce law that prevents a court from properly performing in the best interests of the parties, the children, and the public.105 We leave kids with the mother when they ought not to be, because we have glorified the mother.”

Florida Circuit Court Judge Balaban said, “Divorce courts handle domestic relations in meat-cleaver fashion — dispense meat-axe justice: the handling of children’s welfare is the slaughter of the innocents.” As Chauncey M. Depuy, Chairman of the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Family Law section understates it, “To tolerate these conditions one must indeed have an elastic conscience.”

Attorney Samuel G. Kling, a Maryland divorce attorney for thirty - 49 -

Save the Males years declared, “The whole approach to divorce in America is uncivilized. There is no branch of law more fraught with hypocrisy, chicanery or fraud than the divorce laws and procedures.”

F. Lee Bailey said “Lawyers are not the people to be dealing with divorce problems; and neither are most judges. They’re not trained for it. A great many people who are involved in divorce need the help of psychiatrists, not lawyers.”

The Minnesota State Bar Association’s (MSBA) Family Law Section conducted a survey of its 830 members (including both public and private sector attorneys.)106 Here are some quotations from that article, all of which appear on page 32 of the report: “Two-thirds of the respondents stated directly, or clearly indicated, that there was gender bias present in the application of the law to family law cases. The most common remarks addressing bias had the stated perception that women received more favorable results when it came to contested issues involving custody, spousal maintenance, and obtaining Orders for Protection.”

“Again, common points raised in the responses were that women are generally receive better outcomes on the issue of custody, Orders for Protection...” [sic] “Suggested solutions or remedies for the issue of how to reduce or eliminate gender bias in the legal system on family law matters did not lend themselves to providing a common identifiable (solution), except perhaps to the extent that additional training of Judges was repeatedly suggested by many respondents.”

Dr. David R. Mace, of the American Association of Marriage Counselors said “America’s divorce statutes should be torn up, and more worthwhile employment should be found for the nation’s divorce attorneys ... Everybody is utterly sick of the divorce laws in America. They are a travesty of law, shot through with deception and dishonesty.”

Editor Gaeton J. Fonzi, in the Philadelphia Magazine wrote: Pennsylvania’s divorce laws and the administration of them here reek with inconsistencies and asininities. They corrupt the courts, foster hypocrisy and cynicism and just about demand fraud and perjury. Of all the areas of law none is so free of dignity and majesty of justice as that which concerns itself with the dissolution of marriage. The divorce system itself is an expensive, legally-condoned network crossed with lies and misrepresentations; degrading and insulting to those who are forced to use it, and a blotch on the judicial system which implements it.

Hear Robert H. Dierker, Jr., Chief Judge of Missouri Circuit Court, on the matter: If Social Security is the “third rail” of American politics, then sex is the third rail of American law. Anyone who touches it, except in the manner approved by the tyrants of tolerance, is fried. In this realm, the tyranny of tolerance is best described as rule by the radical feminist cadre of lib-

- 50 -

Why a Need to Save The Males eralism. Like the rest of the illiberal liberals, femifascists display singleminded devotion to imposing their tyranny on the American people — and will viciously punish those who resist.

Child custody and Visitation (Access) Hear how it used to be: “When divorce was rare, English common law automatically gave the children to the father.” — Lorraine Dusky.107 “The father also had a right of custody which was absolute as against the mother” — Jenny Teichman.

Any action whereby a father attempted to divest himself of the custody of his legitimate children in order to give custody to the mother was void as contrary to public policy. As Dusky herself said, divorce was rare under that philosophy In the ‘enlightened’ U.S., different philosophies evolved. Attorney Tom James J.D. of Cokato, Minnesota informs me that” [E]arly custody decisions were based on marital fault. Marital fault was supplanted by the ‘Best interests of the child’ test during the latter half of the 19th century. The Hauteville case, circa 1843, is the first one of which I am aware in which a court officially abandoned the marital fault principle in favor of the ‘best interests’ test. From there, it was only a short hop, skip and a jump to the maternal preference doctrine (the presumption that best interests are served by placing children with their mothers.)

Theoretically, judicial decisions in matters regarding children should be made in their best interests. The courts and social services agencies are forever congratulating themselves on their concern in this area. In fact, an unbelievable amount of sin has been committed under the best interest of the children guise. Thomas Paine said, “The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.”

One might reasonably assume that the right to the care and proximity of one’s own children is among our “unalienable rights.” Indeed, these rights go beyond the Constitution; they’re God-given.

But that sentiment doesn’t square with the facts. There has been a change in attitude to fathering... Dr. Wade Horn said, “Fathers have become viewed as optional to parenting, kind of like a sunroof on a car. They are nice to have around sometimes, but they aren’t really necessary.” Worse yet, an actual father-phobia prevails at times and places.

King Solomon’s custody solution could be no worse than some we see in divorce courts. The prevailing idolatry of mothers results from an unexamined major premise, a holy maxim that women are ipso facto the preferred custodians of children in divorce, regardless of merit. Many divorcees want custody of their children for such base reasons as to have a meal ticket, because it’s expected, or to spite - 51 -

Save the Males the ex-husband. Men’s Defense Association files overflowed with cases and citations wherein undeserving mothers were given custody of children over more-deserving fathers. Fatherlessness is so widespread, it’s like a damn epidemic. If this is not evil, there is no such thing as evil.

Usually lip service is paid to justice in divorce court, and then the axe falls. Digest this one: “We agree with the defendant’s argument that under the modern and realistic trend of the law, the mother has no absolute or invariable right to be awarded the custody of the children; and that the father’s rights and interests are entitled to equal and just consideration. (Then 30 seconds later) “We think there is wisdom in the traditional patterns of thought that the roles of the mother and father in the family are such that the children should be in the care of their mother...; and that this may be true even where the divorce is granted to the father.”108

There are plenty of appropriate precedents to cite in defense of any chosen position. “At common law, and under some statutes, the primary right to the custody and care of minor children is generally in the father.”109 Yet, according to most interpretations, “Ordinarily where parents are divorced, the mother should have custody of children as against the father.”110 This latter “Bull” (in the ecclesiastic sense) is the regnant official canon or party line, as exemplified in Nye v. Nye111 and many similar citations. Florida has a law requiring courts to give fathers equal consideration in custody; yet that state‘s courts often apply their own prejudice or case law giving mothers preference, even if the mother is so bad she has to live with her parents and share custody with them in order to qualify.112 Recently in New York a domestic relations court gave custody of two four-year-old twin girls to their father because their mother had previously coached them to falsely accuse their father of sexually molesting them. An Appeals Court overturned the lower court’s ruling, proclaiming that the “appropriate response to the mother’s unacceptable conduct” was not to transfer custody away from her but to “treat her condition.”113 A Colorado Court of Appeals gave a nonbiological lesbian “psychological parent” 50-50 joint custody with her former partner of a young adopted daughter.114 How then can actual biological dads who were in married households deserve less?

When Army National Guard Spc. Joe McNeilly of Grand Ledge, Mich., came home after 15 months in Iraq, he found that a family court referee had taken away his joint custody of his 10-year-old son and gave full custody and control to the boy’s mother. For five years McNeilly had had a 50-50 custody arrangement with his ex-girlfriend Holly Erb. When called up to go to Iraq, he gave her temporary full custody while he was overseas. While he was gone, Erb persuaded a family court to make her full custody permanent. When McNeilly - 52 -

Why a Need to Save The Males protested, he was told that his year-long absence constituted abandonment and produced custody “points” against him. Michigan State Rep. Rick Jones became interested in this injustice. When he contacted the Judge Advocate General’s office, he discovered that there are 15 to 20 similar cases in Michigan and it is a common problem all over the United States.

Professor Amneus quotes and comments on an original case mentioned by the late Georgia reform activist Sonny Burmeister: A Georgia superior court judge named Robert Noland always gave custody of children to the mother when he tried a divorce case. He explained, “I ain’t never seen a calf following a bull. They always follow the cow. So I always give custody to the mamas.” The reason Judge Noland never saw a calf following a bull is that cattle don’t live in two-parent households. If we want to live like cattle, he has the right idea.

A judge may try a divorce case in the morning and place the children in the mother’s custody. He may try a criminal case in the afternoon and send a man to prison for robbing a liquor store. The chances are three out of four that the criminal he sends to prison grew up in a femaleheaded household just like the one he himself created that morning when he tried the divorce case. He saw no connection between the two cases.

He only did what he had always done and what most other judges do.

He saw that the biological link between the mother and the offspring is closer than that between the father and the offspring and that therefore the mother is the natural custodian of the children.

He’s right in a sense. Patriarchy is artificial like everything about civilization, a shaky structure only five thousand years old, built on the firm base of a two-hundred-million-year-old mother-headed reproductive unit shared by cattle. The cattle enjoy the blessings of nature. Judge Noland thought, as Margaret Mead thought, that the female role is a biological fact and that fatherhood is a social invention, man-made, artificial, fragile. When the social props it requires are withdrawn society reverts to matriarchy, the pattern of cattle and the ghettos. Because other judges think as Judge Noland thinks and because they nearly always create female-headed households in place of father-headed households when they try divorce cases, the larger society, as Senator Moynihan said, is coming to take on the pattern of the ghettos.

Judges like Robert Noland can’t grasp that fatherhood requires their support.

Let’s look at the figures: Statistics are difficult to arrive at, but around 90 percent of child custody awards are to mothers. Currently, Minnesota courts are granting Moms sole custody of children 94 percent of the time.115 In 1960 there were 10 million fatherdeprived homes in the US. In 1993, 24 million children lived without their real fathers.116 Between one and three million children are father deprived in the U.S. every year.117 In 2002 Maggie Gallagher said “This Father's Day, some 24 million American children will sleep - 53 -

Save the Males in (father-deprived) homes.”118 By 2003, this figure had climbed to 25 million. Another source claims there are 60,000,000 divorce orphans in the US.119 According to the Census Bureau, three out of five children born today will spend part of their childhood in a single parent home. Dr. Wade Horn says between 20 percent and 30 percent of households are now father-deprived.120 The National Father-hood Initiative says “Almost 40% of America’s children will go to sleep in a house where their biological father does not live. ← Figure 1 “Joint Legal Custody” is gaining in popularity, (See figure 1 for the Michigan statistics – a state wherein fathers seem to have more custody rights than others) but is largely meaningless, a sop to make fathers think they have an equal say in the care of their children. It’s a Hobson’s choice: take it or take nothing. Only joint residential custody is worthy of the name.

Children’s rights are violated when fathers’ rights are violated. If a child wants to live with his mother, however irrational the choice, his rights as a citizen to do so are usually upheld. If he wants to live with his father, they are often denied. Custodial discrimination can hurt women as well; many grandmothers have been cut off from grandchildren they loved.

The judge’s knowledge that the father is more likely to pay is one reason he gives the mother custody. If he gave custody to the fathers the mothers would contribute little or nothing, but with mother custody the children have a parent and a half, for most fathers will continue to subsidize Mom. True, few men fight for custody; not because they don’t want it, but because of the overwhelming odds against winning and because of the prohibitive costs. Benny Hill said, “Just because no one complains doesn’t mean all parachutes are perfect.”

The argument that mothers have more time to spend with children doesn’t hold up. In the year 2000, 62.8 percent of married women were in the work force.121 It must be admitted in fairness, some inadequate mothers may have demanded custody only because of society’s foolish expectations.

- 54 -

Why a Need to Save The Males Visitation. Divorce orders usually allow access (visitation) to fathers; but it can be reluctant. Hear Richard Hutter, former chief judge of the New York County [Manhattan] Family Court: You have never seen a bigger pain in the ass than the father who wants to get involved; he can be repulsive. He wants to meet the kid after school at three o’clock, take the kid out to dinner during the week, have the kid on his own birthday, talk to the kid on the phone every evening, go to every open school night, take the kid away for a whole weekend so they can be alone together. This type of involved father is pathological.

Robert Bork, dissenting in Franz v. United States, blazed new trails of misandry with this: “There is no substantive right to so tenuous a relationship as visitation by a non-custodial parent. ...I cannot agree that the Constitution of its own force establishes any such right for a non-custodial parent.” Such humbug is enough to blot out the sun.

Despite the undisputed fact that fathers are necessary in children’s lives and despite the clamor for “responsible fatherhood,” divorced fathers have been jailed for merely trying to contact their kids.

One judge in Belvedere, Illinois, granted newly-divorced Homer Von Behran three times as much visitation as the average exhusband gets. It was to visit with a dog which had been awarded his ex-wife. One might think children deserve as much consideration as a dog.

Joan Berlin Kelley and Judith Wallerstein, in Surviving the Break-Up,122 found that almost half of all mothers see no value in the father’s continued contact with his children following separation or divorce. Even when fathers do receive court-ordered access to their children, their attempts are often met with interference by the mothers. Such provisions are usually only as good as the inclination of mothers to comply. Sanford Braver, a University of Arizona psychologist, confirmed that up to 40% of mothers interfere with the dad’s relationship with his kids. Those who ignore the orders usually go unpunished.

The Fathers4Justice organization in England, mentioned in Part IV, got police and media attention by shutting down traffic in London and even disrupting Parliament in protest over inability to have access to their children. And some protest can be humorous: an East Chicago fireman, who was denied visitation for a year and a half, was brought into court on contempt charges when he made a $175 support payment in the form of pennies packed in grease.

- 55 -

Save the Males

Paternity Fraud One of the most significant, seldom-mentioned scandals in society concerns paternity fraud. Somewhere between 10% and 30% of children born in the U.S., and perhaps all of the western world, are not the biological progeny of the presumed father. Paternity fraud is a disservice not only to alleged fathers, but also to the children involved.

A study by the American Association of Blood Banks found that “the overall exclusion rate [of paternity on tested men] for 1999 was 28.2 percent for accredited labs.” The British Child Support Agency has had to refund hundreds of thousands of pounds in maintenance payments to more than 3,000 men after DNA tests revealed that they had been wrongly named by mothers in paternity suits. One in six men who took a DNA test to challenge claims by women that they were the fathers of their children were cleared by the results, according to official figures disclosed by the agency.123 These figures are undoubtedly higher than what would be found in a random sample of the general population, as men who request tests already have reason to question paternity. No one knows the real number.

The “Lord Mansfield” rule, applicable in most states, proclaims (in effect) that every child born to a married woman is fathered by her husband. Therefore he must support that child in event of divorce.

Countless men have thusly been ordered to pay child support for children probably or demonstrably not ours. As Mr. Bumble opined in Oliver Twist, “If the law supposes that, the law is a ass — a idiot.”

Carnell Smith of Atlanta Georgia was fraudulently led to believe he was father of his then-girlfriend’s child. He supported this child emotionally and financially for eleven years until a DNA test proved he was not the father. Smith appealed his case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 10, 2002, those worthies announced refusal to hear the case, demonstrating typical judicial indifference to the rights of men (More on Smith in Part III). More recently, a Missouri Appellate court ruled that Richard Carter of Kansas City, proven not to be the father of a 13-year-old, must pay support anyway. In late November ‘05 an appeals court upheld the Florida decision rejecting Parker’s claim for relief from child support after a DNA test proved the child he supported for 7 years was not his.124 Gulf War veteran Taron James, with the help of NCFM attorney Marc Angelucci, has been fighting a paternity fraud case in California regarding a child proven to be not his.

In Australia Liam Magill’s unfaithful wife, Meredith, falsely claimed two of their three children were his. Magill sued, and was awarded $70,000 in damages and costs by the Victorian County Court in November 2002. With strong financial backing from Aus- 56 -

Why a Need to Save The Males tralian Feminists, the former Mrs. Magill appealed the decision and won, obtaining a settlement of $40,000 from Liam. Justice Frank Callaway sophisized that there was no evidence on which the County Court judge could find Mrs. Magill intended her husband to rely on the birth certificates to establish his paternity.125 That judge needs to go lighter on the acid.

Decades ago, a New York court ruled that a Hauppauge man is legally responsible for at least one of the four children his wife conceived while he was serving 9 1/2 years in state prison for a robbery conviction. The man sued for divorce from his wife on ground of adultery, but the court denied the divorce, saying that the evidence that he had been in jail all the while and according to prison officials had never been visited by his wife “did not rule out the many possibilities of access.” In other words, he did not prove that his wife had not managed, somehow, to get into the jail, so there was still a possibility that the children were his. During his confinement, he said he kept getting news of his wife’s pregnancies. “Right along, I was finding out. Then her mother wrote and told me — while I was in prison.” He tried to file for divorce while in prison, but regulations prevented him from doing so. After his parole in April 1972, he was denied Legal Aid assistance. Two lawyers, who felt sorry for him, agreed to take his case pro bono. Because of a five year statute of limitations on adultery, the first three births could not be counted as valid grounds. That left the last birth in 1971 to be contested. Despite letters submitted by the warden to the court that the wife never visited the man during his entire confinement, the divorce was denied in a May 13th decision. The wife did not appear at the hearing to oppose the divorce. By telephone, the wife, now living in North Carolina, admitted that while her husband was in prison, she “did have kids — they’re going in his name, but they’re not his.”126 Reform proposals cause political demagogues to wring their hands. Democrat Senator Sheila Kuehl from the 23rd District of California told that state’s Senate Judiciary committee she supports laws that force falsely-identified men to pay alimony/support, based on past practices and “best interest of the child.” Demonstrating bipartisanship, Republican state Senator Steve Johnson of Colorado sponsored a bill, now law in that state, that forbids the use of DNA testing after a separation or divorce has been filed.

Despite clear wording of the U.S. Constitution to the contrary, 42 U.S.C. section 666(a)(5)(I) mandates that states deny jury trials in paternity actions. Failure to so violate the Constitution would make a state ineligible for the federal dole in TANF block grants by the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE). Attorney Tom James informs me that the website of the Legal Services of North Dakota contains the following statement, “There is no right to a jury trial for pa- 57 -

Save the Males ternity cases in North Dakota.”

Mr. James also pointed out the consequences of signing a Recognition of Paternity form (ROP). For example, a man who signs a ROP gives up the right to challenge paternity and demand blood tests, the right to an attorney, and so on. In return, he gains the right to start paying child support. The state will file a lawsuit to get him to start paying child support retroactive to the day the child was born. The state is not legally permitted to ask the court to enforce his right of access to the child however. That right will not begin unless and until the father rounds up enough money to hire a private attorney, file a lawsuit and persuade a judge that it would be safe to let him see the child. Meanwhile, the very same government funds public service ads urging unwed fathers to maintain strong relationships with their children.

A not-so-funny joke that circulated around the Internet follows: Today is my daughter’s 18th birthday. I’m so glad that this is my last child support payment. Month after month, year after year, those payments! I called my baby girl to come over to my house, and when she got here, I said to her, “Baby girl, I want you to take this last check over to your momma’s house; you tell her that this is the last check she’s ever going to get from me, then I want you to come back here and tell me the expression she had on her face.” So my baby girl took the check over to her. I was so anxious to hear what the witch had to say and what she looked like. As my baby girl walked though the door, I said, “Well now ... what did your momma have to say?” “She told me to tell you that you ain’t my daddy.”

On a brighter note, Illinois, Georgia, Maryland, Ohio and other states have enacted legislation that allows putative fathers adequate time and judicial flexibility in challenging paternity findings.

Property, Alimony and Child Support Awards Property transfers and Pre-nuptial agreements.

Divorce is an immense engine for transfer of wealth, moving more funds in America than will and probate. Redistribution of wealth, while frowned upon generally except by leftists, is widely accepted in divorce – from male to female, and is one of the biggest mischiefs governments engage in. Most other allegedly civilized countries are no better than the U.S. The whole transfer concept ignores the fact that the financially superior status of males that once justified it has all but evaporated, and that most women can and do work outside the home.

Colleagues in socialist Canada tell me that ‘what’s hers is hers and what’s his is hers too.’ Hear Dr. Charles Corry on a Canadian situation being introduced in Colorado: - 58 -

Why a Need to Save The Males In the fall of 2000, legislators in Ottawa, Canada introduced Bill 117 that provides that any woman could have a man restrained, imprisoned, and his property transferred to her all in the same day without any pretense of due process. Writing for the Ottawa Citizen, http://www.ukmm.org.uk/issues/storycanada.htm, columnist Dave Brown noted "The new legislation is based on the premise women in abusive relationships can't escape because they are economically dependent. The intent is to correct this by making it possible to immediately transfer all property to her.

Written into the scheme are ex parte applications. The alleged abuser doesn't have to be present when the order seizing his property is made.

Application for an Intervention Order can be made by anyone in a one-toone relationship, including dating. ...It will take precedence over any acquittal, dismissal or withdrawal of a criminal charge, or any order under any statute, including the Divorce Act.”

The popular cliché, “feminization of poverty,” coined to justify the transfer of male-earned funds to women, is phony because women already own approximately 70% of this nation’s wealth,127 and because with child custody awards go house and financial packages designed to maintain mothers and children, but not fathers, at or near their former level of affluence. Female poverty, where it exists, results chiefly from the feminization of custody.

Generally speaking, the principle that assets owned prior to marriage are not divisible in any subsequent divorce often doesn’t apply if it would be to the advantage of the wife to divide them.128 Property that men have inherited or built with their own hands has been awarded in lieu of alimony. Although women routinely receive greater property divisions than men because of lesser earning ability, a Texas Court of Appeals held that the reverse is illegal.129 Husbands’ earnings in community property states, except Texas, remain community property; wives earnings are their separate property.

Despite the “community property” law, women in California find it very easy to retain their separate assets. This principle is applied de facto in all states.

Although separation agreements making no provision for alimony to husbands are legal, the New York Supreme Court for New York County held that separation agreements making no provision for alimony to wives is “contrary to public policy,” therefore illegal.130 Shortly after its introduction, the Equal Rights Amendment (More on the ERA on page 107) was interpreted by a presidential panel as safeguarding women only (excluding equal rights for men, therefore), and as justifying increases in alimony.

Even prenuptial contracts can be dishonored to favor women.

Donna Austin and Craig Austin were married in May 1989, each for the second time, and divorced after 12 years. Despite a prenuptial - 59 -

Save the Males agreement in place containing a waiver of alimony and despite hundreds of thousands of dollars Donna realized in the division of property assets, an Appeals Court overturned the alimony waiver. The decision was contrary to precedent in the state’s 2002 “DeMatteo” decision, where the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld prenuptial agreements except in cases where one of the marital parties was left with an extreme hardship.131 A wife can sign a document acknowledging her husband’s ownership of property, later claim she didn’t know what she signed, and invalidate the document.

Some exceptions stand out. A Kentucky court allowed as how, “Such conduct of the ex-wife as shooting and killing the husband’s second wife, however, may be amply sufficient to warrant his refusal to make any payments from which she might in any way derive benefit.”132 Golden, Colorado, district Judge Roscoe Pile – a brave and unusual man – jailed Mrs. Virginia Ealy for defying a courtordered property settlement in a divorce case.

Alimony Alimony is a carryover from an obsolete type of limited divorce, a mensa et thoro, wherein the husband was still liable for the wife’s support; an early form of separate maintenance. It wasn’t applicable to absolute divorce, a vinculo matrimonii, but it is so in modern times. Its purpose before emancipation was to support destitute, incapacitated ex-wives. Now it has become corrupted into the notion that an ex-wife “has a right (in the words of one judge) to continue to live in the manner to which she has become accustomed” (by her husband)… It is considered to be “in the nature of a pension.” An argument for alimony is that husbands owe money to wives for ‘services rendered.’ This post facto service charge is, as the saying goes, “the screwing you get for the screwing you got.”

The claim that women give men the best years of their lives is nonsense. It’s a horse apiece; men give the same and don’t ask for stud fees when it’s over.

Eulogies have been prepared purporting to list the monetary value of a wife to a husband. According to Reuters Limited. an informal study conducted by Web site Salary.com shows that stay-athome moms would earn an average of $131,471 annually, including overtime, if they received a paycheck. Ridiculous, considering her husband may earn only $35,000 a year. Such preposterous claims assume that all the alleged benefits somehow accrue to the husband alone, an insult to the greatest recipients, women and children. Nowhere are there listings of her cost. Including reserve for alimony, it should come out about even. A great many are liabilities, not worth - 60 -

Why a Need to Save The Males their salt. Husbands’ services, including on the job, usually exceed in value those of wives. Looked at realistically, an average father raises his wife’s and children’s standard of living by 73 percent. His marriage motivates him to do so.

The difficulty of housework is greatly exaggerated. A competent housewife without kids can do normal daily tasks in a couple hours, with kids – a little longer, and have the balance of her time to lie around watching soap operas, reading True Romance, coffeeklatching, eating bon-bons, and complaining of overwork. That women have life easier is demonstrated by the fact that they live longer.

Automatic alimony/support awards are nails in the coffin of marriage. They ‘bribe’ women into initiating the vast majority of divorces.94 An open invitation to divorce and prosper, alimony often discourages women from the formality of legalizing new unions and, believe it or not, in some states does not necessarily terminate if they do. According to an Oklahoma appellate court, it isn’t necessarily terminable by death. It has even been awarded in voided marriages.

Divorce courts operate on the assumption that men’s sole function is to be a financial base upon which families can live and amuse themselves. But responsibility is not reciprocally applied. In the apparent opinion of the legal community, women’s only function is to exist and consume. Not having such immunity from responsibility, men are judiciously enjoined, under penalty of jail, to perform functions only implied in the marriage contract. Upon dissolution of marriage, men’s obligations continue to be enforced; yet no judge has ever ordered a woman to cook, clean and sew (OK, that last is an anachronism) for her ex-husband, not to mention an existing one.

Alimony has been awarded even to women with considerably greater assets than the ‘marks’ ordered to pay it. Even pension funds are subject to garnishment in domestic relations cases, despite local ordinances to the contrary.133 One New York judge, incensed about a man’s pre-marital promiscuity, ordered alimony payments in the amount of 105 percent of his income despite alimony’s non-punitive intent. A Stillwater, Minnesota judge told a member of the Men’s Defense Association to file bankruptcy in order to free up other obligations in order to support a lazy ex-wife who wouldn’t work.

As a famous judge said, “Alimony drones neither toil nor spin.”

Liquor lounge operators and most judges are probably the only segments of society which don’t despise alimony junkies. My previous book, The Rape of The Male was replete with citations of, inter alia, inordinate, mind-boggling citations of over-generous alimony/ support awards to women.

- 61 -

Save the Males While not altogether extraordinary, the following situation has received some welcome attention. Colonel Bob Stirm was a POW long imprisoned in North Viet Nam. People magazine featured a Pulitzer prize winning picture of Bob meeting his family after his release.

Unbeknownst to Bob, his wife had dissipated all of his salary while he was a POW and was planning divorce, having agreed to marry at least three different men while Stirm was a POW — including attorneys in Texas and California and a Naval officer in California. Now divorced, she still draws 42% of his retirement pay. Mat Eytan the famous San Francisco attorney has agreed to use the Stirm case in arguing, in the U.S. Supreme Court, to overturn the practice of awarding large portions of military pensions to divorced wives.

The irony of this situation was stated most poignantly by Colonel Stirm during an address to the American Retirees Association national convention, “During my six years as a prisoner of war, I was able to survive for one reason... by strong faith in God, my country and my family.”134 Hear the good Professor Amneus on alimony: Imagine an employee quitting her job and demanding to be paid for doing so... Why is the woman entitled to a pension? For bearing the man’s children and giving him a family? … She would have been entitled to a lifetime pension for maintaining rather than undermining his connection with his children and for preserving his family. This is the idea of marriage — why it is a lifetime contract.

So she is not giving him children and a family, she is taking them away from him — depriving him of most of what gives his life meaning. And for this she imagines herself entitled to a lifelong pension from the man she victimizes.

Child Support It is inherently unfair to take something away from people and then make them pay for it. Because the word alimony has fallen into justifiable disrepute, the courts are awarding de facto alimony under the guise of ‘child support’ by doubling or tripling (or more) the purported cost of children and ordering that amount in divorce decrees. This practice is worse than ordering unreasonable alimony because the obligation continues regardless of need until the children are emancipated.

In order to justify increased alimony/support awards, the Agriculture Dept. artificially bumped up the costs of raising children by an accounting trick called “proportional accounting,” which uses per capita costs instead of marginal costs. This scheme determines the total cost of a household, and then divides by the number of persons therein. This is illogical because the adults therein incur most of that cost with or without children, who add only marginally to the cost.

- 62 -

Why a Need to Save The Males Child support is, of course, almost automatically charged to the father, seldom to the mother. As with visitation, divorce orders may contain token amounts of support from the rare non-custodial mother; but these provisions are usually only as good as the inclination of mothers to comply. The federal Office of Income Security Policy found in 1991 that less than 30% of custodial fathers receive a child support award, whereas almost 80% of custodial mothers do.

And, about 47% of those mothers who are ordered to pay support totally default on their obligation. Census figures show only 57 percent of mothers required to pay child support pay some or all of the money they owe. That compares with 68 percent of dads who pay up.135 In Missouri in 2000, about 6% of divorced custodial fathers were awarded child support; mothers were awarded child support in 72% of the cases, and no support was awarded in 21% of the cases.

If a woman is arrested for non-support, it makes the news.

In (admittedly extreme, but not uncommon) examples, Diane Richie, aspiring ex-wife of Lionel Richie, filed for separation in October 2003 and divorce in January the next year, citing irreconcilable differences. In March of ΄04, she asked for $300,000 a month in child and spousal support to maintain the extraordinary extravagant lifestyle the couple had during their nearly seven years of marriage.

Stuart, Georgia attorney Willie Gary must pay $29,100 a month for 16 years, a total of more than $5.5 million, to Diane Gowins, an Atlanta woman, for the twins he fathered out of wedlock. Hip-hop music tycoon Sean “P. Diddy” Combs is battling to overturn record child support payments of more than $250,000 a year – the highest ever made in New York state – for 11-year-old Justin, his son by childhood sweetheart Misa Hylton-Brim. Then there are the requests of NBA star Jason Richardson’s ex-girlfriend to raise “child support” from $4,000 a month to over $45,000 (the judge gave her $7,000), and of Hollywood actor Viggo Mortensen’s ex-wife to a Los Angeles court to increase child support payments for their son from $3,000 to $18,000 a month.

In the early '90s Bobby Sherrill was a Lockheed employee and divorced father working in Kuwait when Iraq invaded. Sherrill was held captive by the Iraqis for five months. Upon his return to North Carolina, he was arrested for non-payment of $1,425 in alimony/support that accrued while he was a hostage.

Los Angeles Judge Kurland ordered a Donald Scott to pay child support to actress Corrine Calvet's adopted son, although he was never married to either her or to the child's natural mother. A more infamous case occurred in 1944 when Charlie Chaplin was ordered to pay child support to Joan Barry, for a child proven biologically impossible to have been his offspring. He understandably refused to live in the United States.

- 63 -

Save the Males A woman took her children to Germany, prevented visitation, agreed to a reduction of support for the inconvenience, then when her third mate couldn’t help her supplement the reduction, obtained increased support on the contention that the biological father could afford it because he bought a motorcycle. Another ex-husband was held in contempt of court for not paying $26,700 support on a child who was spirited away to Holland for eight years.

A Kansas father had to pay child support for a daughter who was in active military service. On Nov. 15, 2005 the So. Carolina State newspaper reported that the state Supreme Court ruled a Lexington County man must continue paying support for his 40-yearold mentally disabled daughter, despite the fact that she is selfsupporting (earning between $250 and $350 a week from her parttime job) and collects federal disability payments ($275 in Social Security benefits a month), and despite the fact that the legal deadline for the woman’s mother – the defendant’s ex-girlfriend – to bring the paternity action had expired.

Although the age of majority is 18 in most states, many courts force ex-fathers to continue supporting offspring until age 21, reasoning that age 21 was considered to be the age of majority at the time the divorce order was written. The logic is convoluted from that permitting ‘No-fault’ states to destroy without cause marriages entered prior to passage of no-fault legislation. A Wisconsin court found that state’s guidelines “result in a figure so far beyond the child’s needs as to be irrational.” When a court struck down Tennessee’s guidelines on similar grounds, the state Department of Human Services announced they would not abide by the ruling. Yet they jail fathers for violating court orders.

Child support payments accrue to the legal custodian, even if the child is living with the other parent, and continue until the court decides to modify the meaningless decree and order otherwise. Probably thousands of fathers who didn’t know this have paid double, been held in contempt, or jailed for non-support.

Support obligations can continue even after death of the father.

In Nebraska, Don Harriman died leaving 2nd wife Debra, their 14year-old daughter and two other daughters by a previous marriage.

Up until his death, Harriman never missed a child support payment.

Enter Nebraska statute 43-513.01, which states, “A judgment for child support shall not abate upon the death of the judgment debtor.” The government intercepted $1,867 of Debra’s tax refund, and was after more. Debra’s protests were in vain. Harriman had no assets, no property and no life insurance, so the state was attempting to collect from income after his death.136 The fraudulent and predatory nature of the child support system - 64 -

Why a Need to Save The Males has been documented in peer-reviewed publications by the Independent Institute, the National Center for Policy Analysis, the American Political Science Association, and repeatedly in Society.

Professor Amneus analogizes the argument that women and courts use to justify giving large alimony/support awards to divorcing women with the “Mutilated Beggar” phenomenon. In some large cities of the East there are begging rings headed by rascals who kidnap children and mutilate them for use as beggars. The more pitiable and grotesque the mutilations, the more the beggars earn. The alms go to the owners of the begging ring.137 As Civil war era clucking about runaway slaves (“unlawful”) postulated the planted axiom that slavery is acceptable (“lawful”), so too does the uproar over “deadbeat dads” postulate the false premise that child support orders are reasonable and that the whole process is fair to men.

In 1986, the Bradley Amendment (authored by former Democrat Senator Bill Bradley from New Jersey) was signed into federal law. It requires state courts to prohibit retroactive reduction of child support obligations. This ill-advised, iron clad prohibition has caused great hardship including prosecution and imprisonment of indigents, deprivation of driver’s licenses, revocation of passports and entry into poverty. Victims have had difficulties holding jobs, maintaining bank accounts or having any kind of meaningful access to the economy. By prohibiting obligors from retroactively reducing arrearages the Amendment has had the unintended consequence of preventing non-custodial parents from reaching a point in which they can satisfy the obligations imposed on them.

Nationally-known attorney Jeffrey Leving said “Child support orders cannot be retroactively modified, no matter how mistaken, misguided or ridiculous. Even men who fell behind on their child support because they had heart attacks, broken legs or cancer cannot have their arrearages eliminated.” On February 27, 2006, Phyllis Schlafly penned a brilliant criticism of the Bradley Amendment in Townhall.com.

Few people seem to know or care if most fathers can even afford to pay. In middle-class families there is seldom enough money left after divorce obligations for the father to live comfortably. An income just sufficient to support one household before divorce cannot be stretched to support two afterward. Men’s subsequent families have no standing regarding obligations to their first one. The exiled male doesn’t even get to claim head-of-household tax status, although financially maintaining the household. Talk about taxation without representation – the very cause of the Revolutionary War! The myth promulgated by Feminist Lenore Weitzman, based on - 65 -

Save the Males her contrived ‘studies,’ that an ex-husband’s standard of living skyrockets by 42% has been disproved by the scholarly attorney, Jed Abraham, JD138 and by Professor Amneus in The Case for Father Custody.

Bloviating about non-custodial parents who fail to support their children,” is immensely popular politically. Alan Keyes, an otherwise very astute political thinker, proclaimed that defaulting alimony/support debtors “should be horsewhipped.” “We will find you.

We will make you pay” threatened former President William Jefferson Clinton. “The government will say to absent parents who aren’t paying their child support: ‘If you’re not providing for your children, we’ll garnish your wages, suspend your license, track you across state lines and, if necessary, make some of you work off what you owe.’ People who bring children into this world cannot and must not walk away from them.” Clinton’s denouncement of such parents during his State of the Union Address met with the loudest cheers of any of his proposals that evening. California ex-Governor Wilson says, “If you abandon your responsibility to your child…you forfeit the freedoms and opportunities that come with being a responsible citizen… We cannot and will not tolerate parents who walk away from their children.”139 He means men who have been deprived of their children. This is like stabbing a man in the back and accusing him of carrying a concealed weapon.

The Office of Child Support Enforcement published a series of reports titled The Story Behind the Numbers. The 1st in the series, Who Owes the Child Support Debt? points out that the vast majority (70 percent) is owed by non-custodial parents with reported incomes of less than $10,000 per year, and 42 percent of the debt is owed by debtors with no reported income.140 Federal Child Support Director Sherri Heller acknowledged, during a meeting for African-American groups in Washington in August, 2004, that “about two-thirds of the [child support] debt is owed by people who earned less than $10,000 last year. Even new Office of Child Support Commissioner Margot Bean admits “a federally-funded study shows most arrears are highly concentrated among a relatively small number of noncustodial parents, and most arrears are owed by non-custodial parents with no or low reported wages.”141 According to state officials in New York, at least 35 percent is owed by men with income of $12,500 or less. Less than 4 percent is owed by men with incomes of more than $40,000. In other words, it appears that most of the debt is owed by extremely poor debtors.

Washington political analyst Stuart Miller explains: Of the 30% of child support payments not collected, a significant number are owed by fathers who are imprisoned. A high percentage of prisoners have child-support obligations, and as many as one-third of the inmates

- 66 -

Why a Need to Save The Males in many county jails are there in the first place because of child support noncompliance.

Many of the other delinquent fathers are addicts, alcoholics, disabled, mentally incapacitated, unemployed, or otherwise unable to pay pre-set child support amounts.142 The General Accounting Office found in 1992 that as many as 14% of fathers who owe child support “cannot afford to pay the amount ordered.” Others don’t even exist.

Collection Operating also under the guise and provisions of Title 4-D of the Social Security laws an entire bureaucracy has grown up around the collection of alimony, palimony, and child support. According to the 7 March 2005 issue of Time magazine, Choice Point, the nation’s largest data miner, is greedily tracking alimony/support debtors.

But the largest pursuers are government agencies, local and national. Local governments have turned into giant collection agencies for divorcees; it is one of their largest functions.

Overly-aggressive enforcement and draconian seizure methods are employed against men unable to meet alimony, palimony, and support orders. Men lose assets, including unemployment compensation, pensions, and even disability annuities. Morris Hursh, former Minnesota State Welfare Commissioner admitted in a newspaper interview “We know of cases where the welfare department has advised a wife to file criminal charges of non-support when the husband was out of work.”

For some men behind in alimony/support, their choice is jail or a vasectomy. In Kentucky, Family Court Judge D. Michael “Mickey” Foellger has given that option to several men. Beth Wilson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Kentucky, said the policy is questionable. Foellger said he had considered offering women accused of multiple instances of abuse or neglect the option of having a tubal ligation; but he rejected that saying it’s an invasive procedure that could have unknown consequences. The London Daily Telegraph of October 13, 2005 reports that British alimony/support debtors are not permitted to fly on airlines until they clear up the debt.

Putting these collection methods into practice makes it easier for wives to expel more fathers. What do these methods say to a wife getting bored with her husband? What do they say to a young man contemplating marriage and creation of a family?

Geoffrey Fisher of Auburn, Maine had a brief relationship with a woman seven years ago and believed her when she got pregnant and told him he was the father. He began paying child support but fell - 67 -

Save the Males behind over time. The girl was placed in foster care at age 3. When Fisher pushed for custody, the state ordered a paternity test, which proved he wasn’t the father. In the summer of 2001, the Department of Health and Human Services took him to court because of delinquent payments. A District Court judge ruled three years ago that he no longer had to pay child support for a child that wasn’t his. Later, the state sent him a letter seeking $11,450 in child support, even though officials knew that DNA tests proved he isn’t the father of the child in question. The court ordered him to pay up, and the state had his license suspended under the “deadbeat dad” law. It’s crazy; one branch of the human services department told him he could no longer see the girl because he wasn’t the father, while another said he owed over $10,000 and couldn’t have a driver’s license because he was the father.143 When implementing the Social Security program, Congress pledged to the American people that Social Security numbers would never be used for police purposes. Yet our governments, national and local, use them to track down ex-fathers for alleged violations of support laws under URESA (Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act). The procedure has been refined and federalized under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. Its application has been broadened to include collection of alimony.144 Not surprisingly, ‘secret’ government records have never been used to track down mothers absconding to frustrate the father’s (equally legal) visitation rights.

Due to national security concerns, demand is increasing for a “National Security Card.” Now comes Congress passing the so-called National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 (S.2845) – also called the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. The danger therein lies in its probable corruption of purpose to track alimony/support debtors. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has implemented Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System II (CAPPSII) to enhance airline security. TSA admits that, unlike with early broken promises about Social Security, it will be used for purposes other than detecting terrorists (namely looking for alimony/support debtors).145 In Society, Bryce Christensen writes, “The advocates of ever-more-aggressive measures for collecting child support… have moved us a dangerous step closer to a police state and have violated the rights of innocent and often impoverished fathers.” Benjamin Franklin’s words are coming back to haunt us, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Child support enforcement was originally federalized less to provide for abandoned children than to recover welfare costs, since no constitutional provision mandates federal involvement. Yet shortly after its creation in 1975, the machinery was dramatically expanded, - 68 -

Why a Need to Save The Males with no explanation, to all child support cases, including the vast majority not on welfare. Today, welfare cases, consisting mostly of unmarried parents, account for just 17% of all child-support cases, and the proportion is shrinking. The remaining 83% are non-welfare cases consisting largely of involuntarily divorced middle-class fathers with pockets to mine.

The welfare agency charged with the task of collecting alimony/support debts is the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE). Through sleight of hand this bureaucracy claims to collect $3.95 for every $1 it spends. The reality is they collect an estimated 20 cents for every $1 spent. Alimony/support collection costs were $17.8 billion in the year 2000.146 (Another source, un-cited, claims $4.5 billion for child support only.) Nothing is spent on visitation enforcement. True, some money has been spent on ‘demonstration programs’ for access, but they wind up being anti-father and putting limits on access.

Paige Biava of OCSE defines a “family” as the custodial parent and children. In response to a suggestion that it might be appropriate to include the non-custodial parent as well, she said The National Child Support Enforcement Strategic Plan 2005-2009 lists “our customers, partners, and stakeholders” as including children, custodians, child support enforcement agencies, courts, law enforcement agencies, employers, financial institutions, hospitals, departments of corrections, attorneys, prosecutors, interest groups, churches, and legislatures.

The list does not include non-custodial parents.

Back in 1984, OCSE paid The Urban Institute to perform a pilot study, called the Survey of Absent Parents (SOAP), on why ‘absent parents’ (code word for fathers) were “abandoning their children.”

This study was to be expanded nationally; but when the study showed that fathers weren’t abandoning their children and most child support wasn’t paid because the fathers didn’t have a job, hence the money – the study was abruptly cancelled with no explanation. OCSE has never attempted a similar study since. The SOAP study is an example of ‘results-oriented analysis,’ where a special interest group performs a study to validate their good work. If it shows otherwise, they cancel the study. More on OSCE in the chapter on welfare as a cause of civorce.

Recent research by the Urban Institute, a think tank in Washington, found that aggressive collection of debts played a crucial role in pushing low-income black men ages 25 to 34 out of lawful employment, the opposite effect policy makers might have desired. Given the documented connection between a father’s access to his children and the payment of child support, why does Washington prefer to punish fathers rather than support children?

- 69 -

Save the Males OSCE is a good example of unintended consequences. It encourages divorce by assuring mothers of an income. A program advertised as helping the children of broken homes has become an engine for creating more of them. So it too probably does more harm than good.

The entire alimony/support collection bureaucracy is like the Maginot Line, a mighty fortress with guns pointed in the wrong direction.

Jailing for Debt If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Human bondage isn’t dead; it simply has a new look. Men are routinely jailed for alimony/support debt – a profoundly unconstitutional practice.

Thousands of victims are in illegal debtors’ prisons for inability or refusal (God bless ‘em) to pay, thrown in simply to see if they can or will pay. New York’s version of debtor’s prison at 434 W. 37th St. has been widely known as alimony jail since the ΄20s. And we criticized the old Soviet Gulag!

Marriage is the only civil contract wherein unpaid debts result in imprisonment. Under a legalistic subterfuge known as “Orders to Show Cause why the accused should not be held in contempt of court” a man can be jailed until he does what the court orders him to do (pay the debt). Courts justify the practice by claiming the jailings are “non-criminal,” for “contempt of court,” a distinction without a difference (That’s like putting lipstick on a pig). But, according to University of Mich. law professor David L. Chamber, speaking at the National Dist. Attys. Assn Child Support Enforcement Conference in Arlington, Va. Oct. 1, 1975, such jailings are actually for debt,147 a violation of the presumption-of-innocence principle.

How many male prisoners are locked up for defaulting on alimony/support? Data is lacking. Government figures on that category do not exist. Wendy McElroy (mac@iFeminists.net) said, “(F)or almost 30 years, an army of civil servants and government officials have spent billions of dollars to track them down, yet even such basic and easily collected data as how many have been jailed is difficult to find.” Are officials too embarrassed to collect the information?

According to K.C. Wilson, author of Male Nurturing, The Multiple Scandals of Child Support and other e-books on family and men’s issues, there are an estimated 15,000 fathers in jail at any one time (100,000 a year) for this non-crime. The group, Hunger Strike for Justice, estimated the figure to be 250,000.

Philadelphia attorney H. Beatty Chadwick has been in prison since 1995, jailed nearly a decade for failing to obey a judge’s order - 70 -

Why a Need to Save The Males in a nasty divorce battle. Delaware County Judge Chad F. Kenney Sr. ruled that Chadwick owes his ex-wife $4.2 million. Chadwick has set a Pennsylvania record for the longest time a person has been imprisoned on a civil contempt charge. Chadwick has been undergoing treatments in prison for a recurrence of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a potentially fatal cancer. He has petitioned to be released from jail because of his health. “His doctor is basically of the opinion that he is on borrowed time,” his attorney Michael Malloy said.

“Even murderers go out on an electronic bracelet sometimes, and this guy can’t get out. He can’t get work release. He can’t get a Christmas furlough.”

In Knox County Illinois, Judge Harry Bulkeley found Berwick resident Douglas Alexander guilty of not paying alimony/support.

Bulkeley thundered “If it were up to me, I think I would have the word “deadbeat” branded on your forehead so that everybody would know what a louse you are,” and ordered Alexander to spend 364 days in jail, serving the time every weekend for the next 3½ years.

George J. Chiconine spent five years in the Windsor, Vermont, maximum security prison for not paying his ex-wife. He was sentenced without a jury trial.148 One husband was actually sentenced to life imprisonment for failure to post alimony bond.149 A Chicago dentist was accosted by police in his patient-filled office, handcuffed and thrown in jail until he posted a huge bond to assure alimony.

Why? Because his ex-wife told her lawyer, falsely, that he was going to Germany. Reportedly, he then abandoned dentistry and studied law.

The previously-mentioned John Murtari was recently released from a Syracuse, N.Y. jail, incarcerated this time for the crime of owing his ex-wife over $60,000. In protest, John went on a hunger strike for nearly 4 months, force-fed through a feeding tube. (More on John in Part IV) According to a Milwaukee newspaper, 57-year-old John L. Brayshaw of Washington County in Wisconsin owes $347,000 in alimony/support. The Washington County Sheriff’s Department requested charges of 18 counts of failure to pay support over 120 days for a period from Nov. 27, 1997 to the present. If convicted, he could face a maximum prison sentence of 90 years.150 A hapless Mississippi man who missed two $100 support payments due to illness was found guilty of criminal child neglect and sentenced to two years in the pen, commuted to five years probation.

Contrast these sentences with the 60 days Marc Cartner got for sexual assault against a 15-year-old girl,151 (the case Bill O’Reilly h for weeks).

John Hansen was a road equipment operator whose wife kicked - 71 -

Save the Males him out to make room for a paramour. Because his work was dependant upon the weather, he was often unemployed and unable to meet alimony/support payments. Whenever that occurred, Stearns and Morrison County, Minnesota Judges Willard Lorene and H. M. Braggans took delight in clapping him into jail until he borrowed enough money to ransom himself. The former judge told him to rob a bank if necessary. Finally, in utter frustration (and to get a little publicity on the matter), this writer issued a public challenge to Judge Lorene for a fist-fight. He didn’t accept.

Pathology of Divorce Divorce is a world of broken promises, shattered hopes, wounded egos and empty lives. In almost every marriage there are many good times. When the dreams and plans of a lifetime are cruelly, uncaringly wrenched from the realm of possibility, part of the person dies.

Although a marriage is buried, it is often buried alive. One-sided love is a tragic thing. Love is a great possession; its betrayal, a great catastrophe. Sincere partners dedicate their entire lives to each other. Greater commitment is hardly possible. Repaying this gift with treachery is extremely cruel. As the song goes, “A false-hearted lover is worse than a thief.”

Loss of motivation accompanies the loss of love; and people are just no good without motivation, the sparkplug of life. Life becomes meaningless. The loss, the pain corrodes the spirit and paralyzes the will. Lack of a nice family to come home to has induced many a man to wallow in self-pity. The shock of aborted love is difficult to measure, and to predict its results is impossible. Serene acceptance, if it can be achieved, can be a blessing. But a loved one's defection can't be simply shrugged off by anyone who was really in love.

Some marital trouble is natural, some may be ordained (“I will put enmity between you and the woman.” Gen. 3:15). Is the trouble human or institutional? This writer, believes that it is both; but mostly human, and that those who permit their marriage to atrophy largely entrap themselves in a tomb of their own making.

Internal Causes: Immaturity, Greed, Toxic Pop Culture, Low Moral Standards, Marital Disloyalty The times, they are a-changing. political barbarism. The fast-paced, are loosening the social, economic, held society and families together.

- 72 -

We live in an age of social and centrifugal forces of modernism and religious bonds that once Relationships are more easily

Why a Need to Save The Males made and broken than ever before. Disposal has become a syndrome. Everything is disposable, from food containers to families.

Divorce for-the-hell-of-it is not uncommon.

A major wifely complaint is that husbands devote too much time to work, and not enough time entertaining them. According to a Gallup poll, one out of four women claims to be unhappily married; while only one out of 10 men make this claim. A University of Michigan study corroborates this, finding that men are happier with marriage than women by a two-to-one margin. Amneus again: A man estimates his happiness in marriage relative to the eight hours he spends at a usually dull job. Coming home to be with his family is the high point of his day, after doing double entry bookkeeping, leaning over a drawing board or operating a jack-hammer. A woman has a steady diet of home and family and consequently estimates it lower. There is an optical illusion operating; just as someone who works at Disneyland finds it a rather tedious place, whereas someone who visits it only occasionally thinks it marvelous.

Greed is also an important cause of divorce. Most women would not divorce without the incentives of custody, property awards and subsidization by an ex-husband. The advice from Watergate applies, “Follow the money.”

Americans as a people seem to be losing their ability to distinguish right from wrong. Relativism is the dominant attitude toward morality in modern secular society. A letter to the editor from one Robert Tamasy in U.S. News & World Report magazine sums the situation up nicely, “Over the past several decades the United States has been drowning in a sea of moral relativism, with many people embracing the notion that there are no absolutes. Right and wrong exist only in the heart and mind of the individual, it seems. Now the seeds of this philosophy are producing a horrific harvest in our marriages.”

No longer is a person reasonably safe in assuming that marriage means fidelity. People who don’t believe in a set of rules dictated from a higher authority drop in and out of marriages on whims.

“Faithfulness has disappeared; the word itself is banished from their speech” –Jeremiah 7. Jeremiah was born about 650 BC. This timeless quote could have been written yesterday, with reference far beyond the transient Hollywood couplings. Bob Geldof, former angry young lead singer with a pop music band in the U.K. has aged into a mature moralist, now advocating domesticity. His criticism of the divorce mentality is prescient: “Perhaps a lot of it is down to an overblown sense of self. We imagine ourselves to be free people, but we should not be free to destroy others, especially children.”

Little girls can be the essence of sweetness. The fly in the ointment is that they grow into women, or at least physically mature, with a high probability of taking their turn at the altar of human - 73 -

Save the Males sacrifice. I come down heavier on women in this section, and justify it in Part III, because they report most marital unhappiness, they initiate divorce more and their unchastity is much more damaging.

The “new morality” isn’t new; it’s simply the old immorality. The general preoccupation with sensate pleasures and the equation of sex with love demonstrates a poor understanding of the important things in life. Leadership from the pulpit is sadly lacking in this area. The internet, if not TV itself, is awash with pornography. One entertainment television network actually offers "biographies" of famous porn stars. Pornography debases the concept of love. Muslims legitimately criticize the lax moral standards of western society, but the criticism is hypocritical because their overall moral standards – regarding murder, advocacy of same, etc. – are infinitely worse. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Romance died the day easy sex was born. The sexual revolution is especially harmful to marriage. As pleasurable as promiscuous sex may be, it endangers marriage – as well as the future of civilization. Monogamy and long term marriage may be difficult at times, and perhaps unnatural to our species, but necessary to civilization.

Speaking to the World Congress of Families in Mexico City on March 3, 2004, John Howard, Senior Fellow at the Howard Center in Rockford, Illinois, stated an important truism, “The family and sexual liberation cannot co-exist… They are mutually exclusive.”

One school of thought recommends that we get all adventurism out of our system before marriage. This would be a fine solution if it were possible. Regrettably, it seldom is. Granted, it is inadvisable to maintain virginity at the cost of dangerous complexes and inhibitions, but these don’t necessarily follow. There is no finer wedding present possible to give, and no greater insult than to deny it to a husband. Those who think more of diamonds and other baubles have an unenviable sense of values. Would anyone seriously prefer to honeymoon in the strip-mined hills of Appalachia, rather than in the pristine wilderness of Evangeline’s Nova Scotia? This is not to say that sex per se is immoral; but outside of a love context with some appreciable degree of permanence and commitment exists it is.

Women in general are considered, wrongly so, to be morally superior. Women are no more moral than men, even though some appear to be. Beauty does not equate to good. Forty six million legal and illegal abortions worldwide in 1995 alone152 ought to dispel any such notion. It’s often true that men are unfaithful, but not much more often than are women. I have found from bitter experience that women can be convincing liars, as some men can be also.

It is only logical to assume that women are involved in sexual activity as frequently as men. It takes two to tango, and one has to be - 74 -

Why a Need to Save The Males (or should be) a woman. Women can have as much sexual aggressiveness as men, although men are generally more honestly overt.

The myth of male promiscuity is shown by the anecdote about two sparrows. A male alighted beside a female and inquired as to her marital status. She replied that she was married, and blinkingly asked if he was. He said he was, and asked if she wanted to cheat.

Her very feminine response was, “No, but I’ll sit still while you cheat.”

I come down heavier on women in this section because they report most marital unhappiness, they initiate divorce more and their unchastity is much more damaging.

In days of yore, men would do a Herculean amount of work, like hewing timber in creation of a farm, to win a woman’s rare sexual favors. They still do, but now many women, not necessarily prostitutes, dispense those favors randomly. Some women with nothing else to offer consider sex to be their exclusive and most important function — a commodity to be doled out or traded for favors. They act as though figuratively sitting on a gold mine, by virtue of a sometimes overly vigorous demand for their special plumbing, however natural that demand.

Yesterday's sluts are today's healthy, empowered young women; today's sluts are celebrities. Single mothers have been elevated to the status of sainthood. I haven’t seen them, but from reviews I would say those silly TV series Desperate Housewives and Sex and the City exemplifies this genre. Suzanne Fields wrote an insightful column on this subject entitled “The lamentation of the slut.”

Women who have premarital sex have an eighty percent higher divorce rate. Formerly they would have been condemned as bad women and unsuitable marriage material. The Feminist revolution considers such condemnation to be “sexist,” hoping to obliterate the distinction between good and bad women. Today’s liberated women don’t apologize for their promiscuity, they flaunt it as a sacred right and glory in it as striking a blow for women’s independence from patriarchy. Feminist attorney Riane Eisler calls it “the reclamation of nothing less than woman’s ancient sexual power. This is being promoted by “a new genre of women’s writings about sex, writings that link sex with a full-bodied spirituality imbued with erotic pleasure.”153 Quite obviously, a liberated woman is likely to be a disloyal wife.

Many housewives think an affair will brighten up their humdrum existence. It may, but it may also destroy their marriage. Linda Wolfe, in preparing her book, Playing Around, interviewed 67 women having extramarital affairs. After a follow-up survey she reported, - 75 -

Save the Males “Their marriages were more often destroyed than enhanced.” Sociologist Robert Bell of Temple University estimates that the number of married women having extramarital affairs is 40 percent. This figure is almost as high as is Dr. Alfred Kinsey’s estimate for men, and is climbing rapidly.154 One survey showed that more young wives than young husbands are committing adultery.155 A 9 page spread in Newsweek (July 12, 2004) described, not un-approvingly I might add, the current epidemic of adultery by wives. Cindy Sheehan, that queen of anti-patriots, not only wrecked her marriage by infidelity, but reportedly tried very hard to break up the marriage of her paramour.156 I have little regard for women (or men) who would sacrifice the good of their children to satisfy their lust.

Divorce is especially common if occupation or ambition requires prolonged separation, as shown by the sharp peaks in divorce statistics after recent wars and among military personnel returning from overseas. Marital troubles can also start when the wife takes an outside job, because of increased independence and access to the opposite sex (familiarity breeds attempt!). Homes in which wives are financially independent have a higher than average rate of divorce.157 A study of Hawaiian divorces by Dr. Frances Cottington confirms this.

The incidence of infidelity of military wives while husbands are deployed overseas is staggering. I am told that Navy ships returning from sea duty earlier than expected lay offshore until the expected arrival date, in order that the sailors won’t catch their wives in compromising situations. Adultery is bad enough, but that committed by, or with, the wife of a G.I. serving overseas during time of war is beyond the pale. Society should condemn betrayal of those GIs who are risking lives to defend freedom. I believe that a disloyal military wife is the lowest form of life there is. Admittedly, I’m prejudiced.

Hillary Rodham Clinton said “[T]here has been an explosion in the number of children born out of wedlock, from one in twenty in 1960 to one in four today.” The latest figures are nearly four in ten.158 I admit, not proudly, to having contributed to this number. Between 1995 and 2000 the number of children living with never-married mothers surpassed the number of those living with divorced mothers.159 Half of all children in Sweden, and almost half in Denmark, are born out of wedlock. One in three children in once-religious Ireland is born to un-married mothers. Brainless women having fatherless children – bad setup.

Hayward Farrar, Ph.D. Associate Professor of History,160 said “Fatherhood is in crisis in today’s America, especially in the black community.” Many black women, have given up on having and raising children in a two parent situation, and are now using men as sperm - 76 -

Why a Need to Save The Males banks to provide them with babies that they will raise on their own.

Seven in 10 black babies are born to unwed mothers. The percentage of births to unmarried mothers in U.S. inner cities is estimated to be 80 percent. Few of these illegitimate mothers are victims of villainous male seducers.

Granted, men can be promiscuous – and petty as well; our wild Id-forces are certainly in need of discipline; the Playboy mentality is widespread. But the lowering of moral standards and sexual disloyalty in females is more destructive to marriage, incomparably more threatening and damaging to civilized society than men’s philandering. Double standard, you say? Definitely. I have dedicated an entire sub-chapter to justification of just that. See Chivalry Trade-Offs: the double standard justified in Part III. It is disheartening to reflect on previous generations who came here from the old countries, and worked so hard to establish a comfortable life for us; and then to observe the spoiled, pleasure-seeking women (and men) of recent generations who ruined much of it with their lack of ethics.

External Causes Judicial Incentives Divorce and its pathology arises primarily from personal failings, but other factors come into play. The crucial correlation that never seems to have been noticed is the increase in the number of divorces following the switchover from automatic father custody to virtually automatic mother custody.

The major factor by far is the indiscriminate assurance to divorcing women of the fruits of marriage, including children and financial sustenance (or the spoils of war) is a bribe to divorce, no doubt the greatest single external divorce-causing factor. It is a large factor in causing women to initiate about eighty percent of divorces.94 With such incentive is that any wonder? One shouldn’t put too much blame on low mentality women who are offered these incentives on a silver plate by the law, by judges and by their lawyers.

It must be a psychiatrist's nightmare to see judges, not qualified to diagnose a common cold, much less a neurosis, routinely place the lives, future, and fortune of entire families at the disposal of immature women in divorce court.

The supposition by the legal system in the U.S. and other western societies is that it ought to go along with the matriarchal program because it is more “natural.” Lawmakers and judges get things backwards; they suppose that a biological fact – motherhood – requires their services, and a social creation such as fatherhood does - 77 -

Save the Males not. Their mistake is why we have a fifty percent divorce rate, why our families are in ruins.

The cause and effect relationship of this situation must be obvious to them, but they have financial incentive to perpetuate divorce.

More on this later.

Misdirected Welfare From time immemorial, before welfare, women and children were naturally dependent on men for food and shelter, not on society. This dependency was reciprocal; men received in-kind benefits. The subject is addressed in this book because welfare is a major external cause of divorce, and divorce adversely affects men disproportionately.

Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards had it right when he embraced the leftist notion of a two-tiered society; but he misunderstood the two tiers. The actual tiers are, as Professor Amneus described them, “…an upper patriarchal tier whose men are higher achievers… and whose children grow up in stable two-parent nuclear families; and a lower matriarchal/plebeian tier whose… men and children live in, or are in danger of falling into, the female kinship system.” Welfare, which replaces fathers, and the legal system are the bulwarks of the lower tier.

Chapters could be written on the whole underclass culture, the eternal childhood of life in the welfare state, the over 30 separate handouts with no work requirements, the doling out of free Viagra to sex offenders and the morality of robbing Peter to pay Paul. As of this writing, almost $368 billion dollars will go for Medicaid,161 food stamps, family support assistance, supplemental security income, child nutrition programs, earned income tax credits, welfare payments, child-care payments (the purpose of which is to further Feminist intentions, getting women – mothers – out of the home and into the workplace), foster care/adoption assistance, and child health insurance payments to the states. Entitlements are projected to rise from 41 percent to over 60 percent of the federal budget. However, this section of the book will address only that aspect of welfare adversely affecting men from a gender standpoint, especially the aspiration of the social services empire to usurp traditional male roles and functions. Human imperfections, greed, and bureaucratic tendencies have mutated it into a device for the elimination of fathers.

It is claimed that AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependant Children)/TANF recipients are productive members of society — by virtue of having babies (in an already over-populated world as evidenced by crowded cities and traffic jams on our roadways), yet the only ‘work’ many child subsidy recipients perform is copulation and signing on the dotted line. AFDC was termed a “safety net” (actually - 78 -

Why a Need to Save The Males more of a hammock) by former President Johnson, to be relied upon when dismissed ex-husbands or boy friends could not or would not subsidize them. Paid to mothers, and not conditioned on repayment, it turned them into parasitic ‘brides of the state.’ Ronald Reagan spoke of “Welfare Queens.” Next we might see an HEW pamphlet entitled, “Raising Children for Fun and Profit.”

While AFDC regulations encouraged mothers to collect, they were (still are) biased against fathers. Eligibility is a “privilege” that isn’t extended equally to men — fortunately. Regulations permitted mothers, but not fathers, to receive benefits while working for pay.162 Men on AFDC with children under six were required to apply for work; whereas such women weren’t. Women on AFDC who became employed full time continued to receive a portion of their grant. Men did not.163 By guaranteeing even a modicum of comfort to mothers, welfare underwrote divorce. That it was hugely responsible for breakdown of the family was recognized by former President Reagan’s Task Force on the Family. According to researchers Lowell Galloway and Richard Vedder of the Univ. of Ohio, fifty percent of the increased divorce rate between l964 and l970 can be traced to the incentives provided by welfare growth.

Welfare, besides being a cause of divorce, is also a result. It’s a vicious circle. In his excellent book, Men & Marriage, George Gilder stated family dissolution in the modern world leads to “a welfare state to take care of the women and children and a police state to handle the teenaged boys.” When the proper, natural breadwinner is eliminated, expenditures for these services to be performed by father-substitute agencies skyrocket, much to the glee of the welfare empire, hence their mother-orientation.

Welfare also encourages and subsidizes illegitimacy. It has created ghettos and barrios by encouraging women to breed fatherdeprived children who are eight times more likely to become delinquent, to inherit the alley cat morals of their mothers (and fathers).

The AFDC program has been renamed TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families). Minnesota attorney Thomas James provides the following explanation: AFDC was the welfare package that, for several decades, was available to single/divorced parents for as long as they had minor or dependent children living with them. TANF came into being as part of the Welfare Reform Act, as a result of Charles Murray’s insightful book Losing Ground, during the Clinton administration (I believe it was 1998). It replaces the AFDC program, and is similar to it, but limits the duration of benefits to 2 years. It also contains a lot of work/education training provisions, child care assistance, etc. It should be noted that there are many loopholes in TANF – mothers attending school; battered women; emergency

- 79 -

Save the Males relief; the ‘generic’ (no explanation needed) state allowance, etc. — so it is not surprising, even today, to come across single/divorced mothers who have been on welfare for more than 2 years.

According to the Health and Human Services website, TANF spending alone for fiscal year 2003 was $25,666,827,352. This is the largest U.S. government budget item. Next is defense (which may since have outpaced TANF due to financing the global war on Western civilization), and next is interest on debt. Divorced and unmarried mothers are the largest group of recipients.

A great deal of fraud exists in the collection of welfare benefits.

David R. Usher former Legislative Analyst for the American Coalition for Fathers and Children says that: In 1991, Missouri State Auditor Margaret Kelly issued a stunning audit of the Missouri Department of Social Services.164 She reported that the State had collected $28 million in child support, but had given out $58m in welfare benefits to un-entitled recipients. To get benefits, mothers applied for welfare but failed to show the child support they were receiving on their applications. Social services did not crosscheck their own records for existing support orders, and gave benefits to mothers. Kelly ordered the CARS (Claims Action Restitution Service) to recover the monies. They promptly responded by filing AFDC collections against fathers, most of whom had paid child support while mom was “double dipping.”

More on the welfare bureaucracy in Part II.

No-fault Divorce There are two basic divorce criteria — fault and “no fault.” The latter, first implemented in the Prussian General Code, of 1791-94, has now been adopted in some form in all states of the U.S., according to NOLO Law. The reasons usually given are “growing apart” or “not feeling loved or appreciated.” Fault and No-fault criteria have both good and bad aspects, and generate many opinions both for and against, discussed below.

Fault divorce laws require a demonstration of fault against one of the parties. Even a couple whose only problem is incompatibility must maintain that “grounds” exist. The system permits, actually requires, one protagonist to seize upon and magnify often average human imperfections into an inventory of divorce-justifying bestiality, with unforgivable lies. Guilt, with “guilty” and “injured” parties, must be established or created. The claim is more important than its authenticity.

Divorce-bound persons, in need of an excuse to the courts, to themselves, to children, and to friends, are adept at invention and exaggeration. Obviously one shouldn’t believe everything derogatory one hears from a person in divorce about the other. It must be taken with a bushel of salt. Characteristically, when fault criteria - 80 -

Why a Need to Save The Males held sway men were almost universally considered the guilty parties and women the innocent parties, regardless of the facts. Dr. Jessie Bernard, in her book Remarriage, reported that many former wives invented tales of cruelty, eccentricity, or sexual foibles to blacken their ex-husband’s reputation.

Justice does not always require, nor dignity permit, the unnecessary ranging of individual against individual, making enemies of those who may not already be so. The presumption of fault, in the usual sense, can be wrong — terribly so. Dr. Levy, writing in, The Happy Family, said that he had never seen a case where the responsibility for conflict “could be laid exclusively, or even primarily, at the door to either partner.” Mr. Justice Hofstadter said, “Generally family break-ups are not due to specific acts of either spouse, legal fiction notwithstanding. They result rather from a general malaise to which both have contributed. Fault usually comes after malaise has set in. It is the symptom not the cause of domestic discord.

There are very few innocent parties to divorce. If nothing else, they are guilty of poor judgment. Often, one is actually more guilty of something than is the other; and often, but not more often, it is the male. Often the woman has been injured, but not more often than the man has been.

While the “No-fault” divorce basis was meant to eliminate unnecessary enmity, the airing of dirty linen and conflict, it could be even worse than the fault basis. A social catastrophe which amounts to divorce on demand, it gives blessing to much sin at the expense of innocent parties. Throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak, it would destroy Constitutional rights to petition the government for redress of grievances and would eliminate considerations of right and wrong. Hear Maggie Gallagher, “Marriage is one of the few contracts in which the law explicitly protects the defaulting party at the expense of his or her partner.”165 In Divorce Revolution, Lenore Weitzman alleges that “the state becomes an ally of the spouse who wants to get divorced.” This is true especially if that spouse is female.

In his exposé entitled Why No One Is Married, Ed Truncellito, JD describes marriages in the No-fault era as “registered cohabitation.”

Also, Judy Parejko, a Wisconsin author with professional experience in divorce mediation, has written an intriguing book on this subject, Stolen Vows: The Illusion of No-Fault Divorce and The Rise of the American Divorce Industry.

Fault grounds were implemented for the same reasons that fault was put into libel, slander, contracts, and other tort law: to protect both the injured and the injurer. As we frown on duels, vendettas, shooting of editors and ‘collecting my money out of your hide’ so do - 81 -

Save the Males we frown on outraged husbands killing adulterous wives and their lovers. We have laws, starting with the Constitution, which prohibit impairing the obligation of contracts. None may shed his contractual duties simply because he wants to. No business could operate without a well-defined law of contracts. Why should the marriage contract be less important? Violation of these contracts by divorce courts is undermining our very society. When one’s life and fortune have been premised on another’s sworn word, should there not be a penalty for defaulting?

“No-fault” divorce laws throughout the nation are responsible for depriving families of the legal protections once offered by the institution of marriage. Without consideration of right and wrong, the only criterion left upon which to discriminate is sex: woman equals custody, man equals bills. No-fault, for a man, is like going from the guillotine to the gas chamber; it becomes simpler and less messy to kill him. Under it, a person could lose an ancestral farm worked by his family for generations to a tramp mate of a few years and not even be permitted to raise the issue of her conduct in the marriage (I’ve seen it happen). There is even more incentive than before for women to divorce, and therefore more divorces.

There have been dramatic increases in divorce after passage of No-fault divorce statutes.166 In New Hampshire “irreconcilable differences” (No-fault) became a legal grounds for divorce on August 29, 1971. In the five-year period from 1969 to 1973 New Hampshire had a 740 percent increase in contested divorces without children, and a 187 percent increase in contested divorces with children. This is not what California Governor Ronald Reagan had in mind when he signed the first No-fault divorce bill into law. We now sit, dazed, at the bottom of that slippery slope. Talk about unintended consequences!

Re. complaints about ‘trapping women in abusive marriages,’ Professor Baskerville says: “The National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL) claims credit for No-fault divorce, which it describes as ‘the greatest project NAWL has ever undertaken.’ As early as 1947, the NAWL convention approved a No-fault bill. Working through the American Bar Association, NAWL convinced the National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) to produce the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act… ‘By 1977, the divorce portions had been adopted by nine states,’ NAWL proudly notes, and ‘the ideal of No-fault divorce became the guiding principle for reform of divorce laws in the majority of states.’ By 1985, every state had no-fault divorce.”

Canada’s National Post writer, George Jonas, had this to say: If divorce reform reduced marriage from something made in Heaven to something made on earth, it took the concept of “No-fault divorce” to re-

- 82 -

Why a Need to Save The Males move all value from it. When the law declared that it couldn’t judge matrimonial disputes and would henceforth treat spouses who kept their marriage vows the same as those who repudiated them, it put a oncesacramental institution on the legal footing of a gambling debt… The coup-de-grace was delivered by giving common-law unions virtually the same legal standing as marriage. This, in effect, abolished the institution. Where all couples are “married,” no couples are.

Unilateral No-fault divorce is not only a breech of (the marriage) contract, but is actually unconstitutional. Article one, Section Ten of the United States Constitution states, “No state shall pass any … law impairing the obligation of contracts.” A case might be made for no-fault divorce in marriages entered subsequent to enactment of no-fault laws, but certainly not those entered into before.

Even the Catholic Church got it wrong. Back in the ΄70s, this humble writer complained to officials in the Vatican and the Archdioceses of St. Paul/Minneapolis about their indifference regarding the damage done to marriage by No-fault divorce laws. Their lack of response indicates heads buried in the holy sand.

Some U.S. state officials are beginning to admit that they might have gone too fast in adopting No-fault, notably Los Angeles County California’s Superior Court Judge Nancy Wilson, as did the lobbyist for the St. Paul/Minneapolis Archdioceses privately to me. When moving in the wrong direction, any speed is too fast.

As long as No-fault divorce remains the law of the land and divorce-bound parents continue putting their own personal interests above the welfare of their children, the divorce rate will remain high.

Effects on Men At sea, no one can hear you scream.

This section is written in full understanding that divorce often adversely affects both sexes, and that often both partners share blame for the death of marriage.

Divorce orphans are pitiful, but adult males arguably are primary, more direct casualties, financially and emotionally. It has been this author’s impression that most of the books for both men and children on how to live with a divorce are largely psychobabble written by muddle-heads who would expect a lobster to be content with being boiled alive.

There seems to be a similarity between the price of procreation in human males and males of some lower species. The Praying Mantis and Black Widow spider discard the male after he has served his fertilization purpose – or kill him. This trait is not unknown in humanoids, figuratively speaking. His children are a man’s raison d’ être. Loss and probable estrangement of them are among the great- 83 -

Save the Males est injustices that can be visited upon a human being.

Extreme heartbreak can lead to “the death of a thousand cuts.”

According to Dr. John C. Cassel, department head at the University of North Carolina's School of Public Health, divorced men have a death rate three to five times higher than married men of the same age. Many good men have died of broken hearts, homeless on Skid Row. The death of John Fornica, while I worked at Charlie Metz’s A$DM, is a case in point. The DuPage County, Illinois, domestic court bears a great responsibility for it. This anti-male redoubt refused, except in token gestures, to enforce visitation provisions of his divorce decree. The daughter he loved too much became so brainwashed as a result that she screamed her hatred at this gentle man.

He died of a broken heart, too young, removing items from the room she had occupied in happier days.

Men without families who manage to survive are highly prone to various illnesses. They tend to suffer severe and chronic physical and emotional illnesses. According to a Danish study, divorced men contract tuberculosis more often than married men, ten times more often than married country-dwelling men, and five times more often than married city-dwelling men.

It has been said that divorced men are “road kill” on the highway of life. A grim scene is widespread behind rooming house walls: a cubicle furnished in early Salvation Army, an unmade bed, a bare bulb, a soup pan on the burner, a lonely man choking down meals of crackers and cheese, and a john down the hall. It’s dreary. Many of us are only an accident-of-chance away from such an ignominious end.

When they are not forlornly moving from place to place, the bitter, defeated flotsam and jetsam crowd jails and homeless shelters. ←Skid Row, Philadelphia, 1976 In interviewing the habitants of skid row this writer found that most are divorce casualties. The shroud of despair was everywhere apparent. One could cut it with a knife.

Liquor lounges reap a windfall from both divorced men and women, but the latter are seldom there to cry in their beer. Sad ex-husbands are holding down bar stools all across the country, indeed the world.

- 84 -

Why a Need to Save The Males Various forms of drugs become their hemlock, gradually dulling existence.

Despite appearances, some of these so-called bums are intelligent and philosophical. Interviewing them was enlightening, in a depressing way.

Men Driven Over the Edge Misandry engenders a wide range of social pathologies. Cavalier treatment of divorced men can have unintended consequences. The theft from fathers of those irrecoverable joys of sharing their children’s youth is difficult to accept. Imposition of exorbitant money demands, on top of the loss of family, compounds the intolerability.

These situations can cause otherwise intelligent persons to become irrational concerning their erstwhile mates and to behave out of character. Crime, behavioral aberrations, misery, and inefficiency consequently plague this vale of tears. It is easy to sympathize, even empathize, with the victims. Most are not the criminal type, but are forced by irrational court judgments to seek and conceal alternate incomes in order to live even a partially decent life.

Many of the unloved would rather be dead than alive in this world. If you hear about a man committing suicide, the odds are better than 2:1 that he is either divorced or in the process. The study Marital Status and Suicide in the National Longitudinal Mortality Study by Augustine J. Kposowa, Ph.D., at the University of California at Riverside showed divorced/separated men’s suicides to be 14,850 per year (including 2 of this writer’s relatives by marriage).

CBS News covered the report in detail. Dr. Robert Litman, a U.S.C. psychiatrist with the Los Angeles Suicide Prevention Center, maintains that a divorced man is twice as likely to commit suicide – some say 6 times more likely – as is a divorced woman, because he suffers more than she does. A few of their stories are related below: Last Will and Testament of A.T. Renouf of Canada (verbatim): “Last Friday my bank account was garnished. I was left with a total of $00.43 in the bank. At this time I have rent and bills to pay which would come to somewhere approaching $1,500 to $1,800. Since my last pay was direct deposited on Friday I now have no way of supporting myself. I have no money for food or for gas for my car to enable me to work...

“I have tried talking to the Family Support people... Their answer was: ‘we have a court order.’ I have tried talking to the welfare people in Markham, since I earned over $520 in the last month I am not eligible for assistance.

“I have had no contact with my daughter in approx. 4 years. I do not even know if she is alive and well... I have no family and no friends, very little food, no viable job and very poor future prospects. I have therefore decided that there is no further point in continuing my life. It is my in-

- 85 -

Save the Males tention to... feed the car exhaust into the car, take some sleeping pills...

“I would have preferred to die with more dignity.

“It is my last will and testament that this letter be published for all to see and read.”

A.T. Renouf signed his will on the day he committed suicide, Oct. 16, 1995.

James H. Romine, 44, of Middleton, Wisconsin, a suburb of Madison, immolated himself after being served divorce papers. Joe Fridel, from Avon, Minnesota, fatally shot himself in the head, according to the autopsy report, after being served divorce papers on his 23rd wedding anniversary — papers which summarily evicted him from home and family without a hearing.

When hatred replaces love, frustration and bitterness appear.

Good and evil become indistinguishable in the depths of despair.

Reaction to any form of brutality can be passive submission or active retaliation. The interest, compounded hourly, on the bitterness divorced men endure can drive, and has driven, men to extreme measures. If a court took your car from you and gave it to someone else, then the court made you make the payments, the insurance, the gasoline and maintenance costs of the car. What would you do?

What’s the proper response to a court that takes your children and makes you pay money to the very person who destroyed your family?

You'd probably be out in the streets rioting. Some do much worse.

Too many men have been driven beyond bitterness and suicide, to violence and murder by the unfairness of divorce to even begin to list them all. Because individuals vary, there is no telling who has been driven to the edge of, or beyond, his limits. Unstable minds are like unstable air; overheated elements expand adiabatically, feeding upon themselves until they can no longer contain their own frictional energy and must violently discharge like lightening. It's not safe to be in the vicinity. On the razor’s edge of existence, “estranged husbands” (as the newspapers like to describe them) are human time-bombs. Cornered animals naturally attack their attackers; but some of these poor devils make headlines by shooting up the town. Geronimo’s violence was triggered by the murder of his wife and two children.

Many calculated murders, hard to condemn, have been committed by men wanting only a fair divorce, but cognizant of the impossibility. These have included doctors, lawyers, and others in full control of their senses. Some have never been discovered. Several divorced men have even irrationally murdered their own children.

Minneapolis Judge Barbeau impoverished prospective Men’s Rights Association member Mr. Ray Oehler in a divorce, giving his ex-wife title to property he had spent a lifetime building. Limited in - 86 -

Why a Need to Save The Males understanding, he knew only that he had been done wrong, and was livid about it. As Judge Barbeau admitted to a newspaper reporter, this writer warned him three times about possible violence, but to no avail. Ray dispatched his wife with four shotgun blasts at close range. So it is obvious that even women can be ultimate victims of divorce, especially when courts go too far in their behalf.

While media commentators piously breast-beat about these men without understanding the cause, one can only speculate how many lives could have been saved if fairness existed in divorce court.

Some men take it better than others. A divorced friend of mine opened his house to other divorced friends. It was only half-jokingly dubbed “The Home for Unwed Fathers.” What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger – or should. Winston Churchill said, “If you’re going through hell, keep going.”

Effects on Children The child’s sob in the silence curses deeper than the strong man in his wrath. — Elizabeth Barrett Browning.

“Children’s rights” is a popular theme. But often lost in that clamor is the primary right they should have – to a complete family.

That happy state is fast disappearing; Mark I. Klein, an Oakland California psychiatrist, says “Soon, less than 20 % of American children will be raised in two parent households.” Divorce is the number one reason for father-deprivation.167 Parents breeding children out of wedlock is the number two reason. Judith Wallerstein is a psychologist and researcher who devoted 25 years to the study of the long-term effects of divorce. According to Wallerstein, when it comes to forming relationships in adult life, “it helps enormously to have imprinted on one’s emotional circuitry the patterning of a successful, enduring relationship between a man and a woman.” Committed loving fathers are needed to model proper behavior for their sons and demonstrate to their daughters the example of a loving and decent man. This is what most children of divorce lack.

Children have a very primitive, very real fear of being left on their own. A child’s immediate reaction to divorce, therefore, is fear.

When their family breaks up, they become psychologically crumpled; they feel vulnerable, for they fear that their lifeline is in danger of being cut. Children can find themselves cut off from contact with, and memories of, father and grandparents – or placed in foster care, or worse. Loss of kindred is a terrible thing. The sense of sadness and loss is profound. Yet children are routinely deprived of their right to even see fathers unable to make alimony/support payments.

In his book Twice Adopted (Broadman & Holman), Michael - 87 -

Save the Males Reagan tells how, as the child of divorced parents, he got to see his father, former President Ronald Reagan, only on alternating Saturdays. He wrote, “To an adult two weeks is just two weeks. But to a child, having to wait two weeks to see your father is like waiting forever.” I would say this to my kids (if I had a chance, and it weren’t too late), and to most other children of divorce: “Do you think your mother had a right to spuriously deprive you of a father for no good reason?” In the Winter 1990 edition of Policy Review, writer Nicholas Davidson wrote an excellent article titled Life Without Father: America’s Greatest Social Catastrophe. The destruction, theft actually, of children’s families is unforgivable. Men are in prison for much lesser crimes.

Feminists, of course, beg to differ. Peggy Drexler’s new book Raising Boys Without Men: How Maverick Moms Are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men contends that father-absent homes — particularly “single mother by choice” and lesbian homes — are the best environments for boys. Drexler told Good Morning America that boys do just fine without dads, and her “maverick moms” always seem to have a better way of handling their sons than dad would. While Raising Boys… may seem like a harmless, feel-good affirmation for these mothers, it could have a damaging impact on children by affecting both the choices women make and family law.

Products of Father Deprivation: Delinquency, Other Aberrations Divorce can spoil children; often they become selfish little monsters playing one affection-competing parent off against the other – being bought off with trips to Disneyland or the like. Those old enough to choose which parent will have custody are really in the driver’s seat. Many sell out to the highest bidder, which is usually Mom. Dad is forced to become a “Saturday Santa.” I have long referred to this heyday of a kid’s life as “Kawasaki time.” The great wisdom which accrues to those who have seen the leaves change 16 or 17 times begets attitudes strange enough without being further messed up in single-parent families.

Every relevant study indicates that children raised in single parent homes are more likely to exhibit pathological behavior than those who are not. The direct, irrefutable correlation between mothercustody and personal problems is presented in a policy brief released in September 2005 by the Washington-based Institute for Marriage and Public Policy,168 and massively documented in Prof. Amneus’ Garbage Generation, especially in the Annex to Chapter One. Loss of paternal stability and discipline is catastrophic. Most social aberrations – namely higher levels of youth suicide, low intellectual and educational performance, greater mental illness, violence and drug - 88 -

Why a Need to Save The Males abuse – are associated with father-deprived children.197 To these we can add, directly or indirectly, juvenile delinquency, dope addiction, prostitution, and a growing contempt for authority (poetic justice when directed toward the courts); hence, the Martianlike hippies slouching around conforming to a non-conformist image, tattooed and pierced young nihilists. We see it everywhere, from the “children’s rights” movement to the pushing, grabbing, sneering teenagers encountered in every city and town. Hence the title Amneus chose for his book mentioned in the previous paragraph. Tattooed girls; my God, won’t their grandchildren be proud! In Social Problems magazine, James Skipper, Jr. and Charles McCaghy report that almost 60 percent of strip teasers they interviewed had no father in the home. Media darling sexpots Marlyn Monroe and Anna Nicole Smith had no fathers There are more monkeys in juvenile court than in a zoo. For every one you see, you can bet there is an absent father. You will win far more bets than you will lose. The police spend a good deal of time with adolescents who do not live with both of their biological parents. The more serious property offenses are committed significantly more often by adolescents in single-mother families than by peers in intact families.169 Seventy-five percent of delinquents and most adult criminals are from broken homes.170 Three quarters of prisoners in our jails come from female-headed families.171 The same pattern is found among drug users. More than two-thirds of the criminal minors handled by the Florida Division of Youth Services are from broken homes. Baltimore, Maryland, found 60 percent of their juvenile criminals from broken homes. More than one in three children of broken families drop out of school.

Female-headed households are a minority of households, but they generate over seventy percent of the criminal class. A study made by the Bureau of Justice Statistics showed that 72 percent of incarcerated juvenile delinquents grew up in broken homes, mostly female headed; yet such single-parent homes are only 24 percent of all homes. The ratios of delinquency between father-headed homes and mother-headed homes show that it takes eight hundred and fifteen intact homes to generate as much delinquency as is generated by one hundred broken homes, mostly female headed.172 The distinctive criminality of teens from broken homes stands out clearly in a criminological study sponsored by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHHD), based on data collected from a nationally representative sample of more than 20,000 adolescents in grades 7 through 12. A 1990 survey from the National Center for Health Statistics found an ‘alarmingly high’ prevalence of emotional and behavioral problems among all children, - 89 -

Save the Males with rates two to three times higher for single-parent and stepparent families than for intact families.

The foregoing studies confirm earlier ones. Doctors Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck; (Harvard University) found the delinquency ratio of children living with mother only compared to living with father only to be about 3 to 1.173 According to University of Minnesota Sociology Professor Emeritus, Starke Hathaway, Author of Adolescent Personality and Behavior, the delinquency rate of children living with mothers to those living with fathers is 28.67 to .42 for boys and 18.19 to 0 for girls.174 Professor Hathaway told this writer that the statistics he quotes are adjusted to allow for the fact that many more children in broken homes live with the mother rather than the father. For further corroboration, see the findings of Dr. Clyde Vedder, Dr. Richard Gordon (New Jersey psychiatrist) and local juvenile authority reports. Knowing this, auto insurance companies charge far higher premiums for boys living with mothers than for those living with their fathers.

There has been a rash of school shootings of late. I don’t know if the shooters had fathers – the papers are largely silent on the subject – but my guess is they are mostly fatherless. Murder rates are increasing, largely attributable to the young.175 Jeff Weise, the Red Lake Indian Reservation killer of 9 fellow high school students in March of 2005, was father-deprived, as was serial killer Lee Boyd Malvo.176 More recently, the fatherless Sulejman Talovic shot five people and wounded four others in a Salt Lake City shopping mall.

It might appear that a parental (read paternal) responsibility law, such as enacted in several Michigan cities, is the answer to delinquency. Fifty years ago it would have been. Today it is so overdue that it may be too late, because it is based on the now false premise that parents (read fathers) still have authority. We are witnessing this advent of this chaotic reign of youth because evisceration of his authority has left the married father with little control, and the divorced father with practically none.

Former President Nixon blamed drug addiction among the young on defeatism. He was partly correct; the young men are defeated — by the “rape of the male.” The girls are naturally playing follow the leader; if the boys are defeated, so are they.

Fatherlessness and crime are linked not only due to a boy’s individual lack of a dad but also, more profoundly, due to his growing up in a neighborhood in which marriage is no longer the norm. The single best predictor of a community’s level of violence is the proportion of single-parent families. Remarkably, once family status is controlled for, neither race nor income has any effect on crime rate in a community.

- 90 -

Why a Need to Save The Males Generally, the female anti-sociality of one generation underlies the male anti-sociality of the next generation, the “vector” for it being the female-headed family. Hear Amneus: “Crime and delinquency are like hemophilia, manifested in males but carried and transmitted by females. The empirical data on juvenile delinquency caused by maternal custody just confirms common sense.” In the popular TV series, House, the ‘Cutty’ character, a single woman, planned to be impregnated by a sperm donor. It was portrayed as a perfectly normal thing to do. Odds are that would breed yet another juvenile criminal.

Juveniles are the fastest growing segment of the criminal population in the United States. Between 1982 and 1991, the rate at which children were arrested for murder increased 93 percent, for aggravated assault – 72 percent, for rape – 24 percent, and for automobile theft – 97 percent. The teen population is expected to grow by 20 percent over the next decade, and this is precisely the generation most likely to be reared without fathers. The prospect has led many sociologists, criminologists, and law enforcement agencies to conclude that soon we will see an adolescent crime wave the likes of which has never been seen before in this country. These kids are like time bombs ticking away. We had better come out of our lethargy before our canoe goes over the waterfall. One would have to be comatose to ignore the danger.

Amneus poses his ‘Safe Drunk Driver Argument’: Opponents of father-custody will argue that even though delinquents are eight times more likely to come from matriarchal homes, still most father-deprived children do not become delinquents, so there can be no objection to mother custody. Of course most father-deprived boys don’t grow up to rob liquor stores and most father-deprived girls don’t grow up to breed illegitimate children. Therefore what? Therefore we can ignore the increased probability that fatherlessness will create delinquency and illegitimacy? This might be called the “Safe Drunk Driver Argument”: Most drunk drivers do not get in accidents. The overwhelming majority get home safely and sleep it off.

Drunks are, however, overrepresented among those who do get in accidents; and for this reason society discourages drunk driving.

The Safe Drunk Driver Argument is identical with the anti-patriarchal argument which defends the creation of fatherless households: Most father-deprived children do not become delinquents; therefore creating father-deprived families is OK. Other social pathology has the same kind of correlation with femaleheaded households: Most father-deprived children do not become teenage suicides, but most teenage suicides are fatherless children.

Most father-deprived children do not become educational failures, but most educational failures are fatherless children.

- 91 -

Save the Males Most fatherless children do not become rapists, but most rapists were father-deprived children.

Most fatherless children do not become gang members, but most gang members are fatherless children.

Most fatherless children do not become child abusers or child molesters, but most child abusers and child molesters were fatherless children.

Most fatherless children do not become unwed parents, but most unwed parents were fatherless children.177 The high crime areas of every American city are those with the largest numbers of fatherless children. No exceptions — though most of the citizens living on any ghetto street are not criminals.

The Justice Department has estimated there are 21,400 gangs nationwide with 731,500 members. Gangs have become sort of a cancer in this country says FBI Special Agent David Bowdich. Becoming increasingly dangerous, gangs are into the drug trade and soon will be into terrorism. A new survey by the National Alliance of Gang Investigators Association finds there are now gangs in every state but Vermont.178 Gangs have been described as groups of boys who don’t know any men. The Washington Times reports that now with girls becoming increasingly feral, their gangs are on the rise.

Brenda Scott says “There are numerous reasons kids join gangs…

Most young people who join gangs come from homes without fathers or any significant role models to enforce discipline.”179 The phenomenon applies even to animals; in Africa when poachers killed off older bull elephants for their tusks, the young males went wild, ganging up like the kids in Lord of the Flies, and embarked on killing sprees targeting rhinos. When rangers discovered the problem they killed the young leader and flew in several bull elephants who soon restored order.

Regrettably, this element prejudices many people against all young persons, including the great many sincere, commendable ones.

Other cultures and countries. The consequences of fatherdeprivation in the U.S. are mirrored in other countries. Modern western attitudes toward fathers have contaminated even AsianAmerican communities, traditional abodes of unquestioned parental respect and one of the last vestiges of realistically-structured families. Consequently, these children also are joining the ranks of delinquents, a trend formerly unheard of in these or any maledominated communities.

A Canadian publication, Everyman: A Men’s Journal,180 gives the following information: “What Do We Know About Children from Single Mother Families?”

- 92 -

Why a Need to Save The Males Rates of [children’s] problems from single-mother vs. two parent families: Problem

Single mother

Two-parent

Relative Odds

Hyperactivity

15.6

9.6

1.74

Conduct disorder

17.2

8.1

2.36

Emotional disorder

15.0

7.5

2.18

Behavior problems

31.7

18.7

2.02

Repeated grade

11.2

4.7

2.56

School Problems

5.8

2.7

2.22

Social impairment

6.1

2.5

2.53

Social problems

40.6

23.6

2.21

A research team from the Toronto Wellesley Hospital found in a study of glue-sniffers, that only one in twenty-four had a meaningful relationship with his father, while all in the control group had a normal family life. According to a study conducted at Exeter University in the United Kingdom, children from broken homes, as well as children with step-parents, were “twice as likely as children from intact families to have problems in all area. Where the child experienced two or more divorces, the rate of problems rose exponentially.”181 A recent study, the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, in Bristol, England, concluded that fatherlessness is directly connected with behavioral problems.182 Adults. Compounding the problems, juvenile delinquents grow to be adult criminals — because, as William Wordsworth wrote in 1807, “The child is father to the man.” Measured by the FBI’s index, the crime rate has increased 158% since 1960. This is almost precisely the results to be expected from correlating the divorce rate with broken home/delinquency rates, proving that the roots develop in childhood. Dr. Shervert H Frazier, in a study of convicted murderers in Texas prisons and mental institutions, has this to say “...They are males with an absence of a father symbol.”

Saddam Hussein was fatherless.

According to Dr. Fred B. Charatan, all seven presidential assassins, including those who attempted assassinations, and the killers of Reverend Martin Luther King and Senator Robert Kennedy, were “lacking fathers through death, divorce, work schedule, or a very poor paternal relationship”: Richard Lawrence — would-be assassin of Andrew Jackson John Wilkes Booth — assassin of Abraham Lincoln Charles J. Guiteau — assassin of James Garfield Leon F. Czolgosz — assassin of William McKinley John N. Schrank — would-be assassin of Theodore Roosevelt- 93 -

Save the Males Giuseppe Zangara — would-be assassin of Franklin Roosevelt Lee Harvey Oswald — assassin of John F. Kennedy James Earl Ray — killer of Martin Luther King Sirhan Sirhan — killer of Robert F. Kennedy Dean Corn, the Houston mass-murderer Lynette Fromme — would-be assassin of Gerald Ford.

Testimony From Experts Dr. Wade Horn said, Boys from a female headed household had a 60 per cent greater chance of committing rape and a 75 per cent greater chance of committing murder. Most of the inmates in prison come from single parent families.

Children from such homes tended to under-perform in education, and many of them lived in poverty, and were themselves likely to end up in poverty.

David Blankenhorn: The Post cites a study by John Guidubaldi of Kent State University showing the harmful effects of fatherlessness. ‘Children of divorce are more likely than children in traditional, intact families to engage in drug abuse, violent behavior, suicide and out-of-wedlock childbearing.’183

Sociologist Henry Biller: Males who are father-deprived early in life are likely to engage later in rigidly over-compensatory masculine behaviors. The incidence of crimes against property and people, including child abuse and family violence, is relatively high in societies where the rearing of young children is considered to be an exclusively female endeavor.184

David Popenoe: Juvenile delinquency and violence are clearly generated disproportionately by youths in mother-only households and in other households where the biological father is not present…185 Fatherlessness is probably the single most important factor in the rising juvenile delinquency rate…

The negative consequences of fatherlessness are all around us. They affect children, women, and men. Evidence indicating damage to children has accumulated in near tidal-wave proportions. Fatherless children experience significantly more physical, emotional, and behavioral problems than do children growing up in intact families….[T]o reduce delinquency and violence, the child must be reared by a biological father.186

Maggie Gallagher cites George Rekers, professor of neuropsychiatry and behavioral science at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine, as follows on father absence: Both developmental and clinical studies have clearly established the general rule that the father’s positive presence in the home is, in the vast majority of cases, normally essential for the existence of family strength and child adjustment.

Research shows that children without fathers have lower academic per-

- 94 -

Why a Need to Save The Males formance, more cognitive and intellectual deficits, increased adjustment problems, and higher risks for psychosexual development problems.

And children from homes in which one or both parents are missing or frequently absent have higher rates of delinquent behavior, suicide, and homicide, along with poor academic performance. Among boys, father absence has been linked to greater effeminacy, and exaggerated aggressiveness. Girls, on the other hand, who lose their father to divorce tended to be overly responsive to men and become sexually active earlier.

They married younger, got pregnant out of wedlock more frequently and divorced or separated from their eventual husbands more frequently, perpetuating the cycle.187

Robert Rector: Children raised in single-parent families, when compared with those in intact families, are one-third more likely to exhibit behavioral problems such as hyperactivity, antisocial behavior, and anxiety. Children deprived of a two-parent home are two to three times more likely to need psychiatric care than those in two-parent families, and as teenagers they are more likely to commit suicide. Absence of a father increases the probability that a child will use drugs and engage in criminal activity.188

Armand M. Nicholi, Jr., M.D.: Several other recent studies bear on the absence or inaccessibility of the father, and all point to the same conclusions – a father absent for long periods contributes to (a) low motivation for achievement; (b) inability to defer immediate gratification for later rewards; (c) low self-esteem; and (d) susceptibility to group influence and to juvenile delinquency. The absent father tends to have passive, dependent sons, lacking in achievement, motivation, and independence… When we consult the scientific and medical literature, we find an impressive body of data based on carefully controlled experiments that corroborate the impression that a parent’s absence, whether through death, divorce, or time-demanding job, can exert a profound influence on a child’s emotional health. The magnitude of this research paints an unmistakably clear picture of the adverse effects of parental absence and emotional inaccessibility. Why has our society almost totally ignored this research? Why have even the professionals tended to ignore it? The answer is the same reason society ignored for scores of years sound data on the adverse effects of cigarette smoke. The data are simply unacceptable. We just don’t want to hear the facts because they demand a change in our lifestyle.

Because families provide the foundation of our lives as individuals, as well as the vital cells of our society, we can no longer afford to ignore this research on the family.189

Richard T. Sollenberger of Mt. Holyoke College, writing in the Journal of Social Psychology, essentially agrees with the above.

Barbara Dafoe Whitehead: Professionals who worked closely with children also offered a gloomier assessment of the impact of divorce on children. Judith Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee’s study rejected the idea that the vast majority of chil-

- 95 -

Save the Males dren bounce back quickly from their parents’ divorce. Five years after the divorce, more than a third of the children were experiencing moderate or severe depression. At ten years a significant number of the nowgrown young men and women appeared to be troubled, drifting, and underachieving. At the fifteen-year mark, many of the thirtyish adults were struggling to establish secure love relationships of their own. In short, far from making a speedy recovery from their parents’ divorce, a significant percentage of the young adults in the study were still suffering its effects. Cruelly, the experience of parental divorce damaged many young adults’ ability to forge strong attachments of their own, in both their work and their family lives. The emotional difficulties associated with divorce lasted much longer and involved a higher percentage of children of divorce than the first wave of thinking claimed.190

Andrew Payton Thomas: Single parents in general are far more likely, by the mere fact of that status, to raise children who have trouble obeying the law. Seventy percent of juvenile offenders come from single-parent homes. 17 percent of children raised by never-married mothers are suspended or expelled from school, 11 percent of children from divorced families draw the same sanctions.191

Samuel Osherson: The interviews I have had with men in their 30s and 40s convince me that the psychological or physical absence of fathers from their families is one of the great underestimated tragedies of our times.192

Douglas Smith and Roger Jarjoura: The percentage of single-parent households with children between the ages of twelve and twenty is significantly associated with rates violent crime and burglary.193

National Association of Elementary School Principals: One-parent children, on the whole, show lower achievement in school than their two-parent peers… Among all two-parent children, 30 percent were ranked as high achievers, compared with only 1 percent of oneparent children. At the other end of the scale, the situation is reversed.

Only 2 percent of two-parent children were low achievers—while fully 40 percent of one-parent children fell in that category… There were more clinic visits among one-parent students, and their absence rate runs far higher than for students with two parents, with one-parent students losing about 8 days more over the course of a year.

One-parent students were consistently more likely to be late, truant, and subject to disciplinary action by every criterion we examined, and at both the elementary and secondary levels… One parent children were more than twice as likely as two-parent children to give up on school altogether.194

Hillary Rodham Clinton: Children living with one parent or in stepfamilies are two to three times as likely to have emotional and behavioral problems as children living in

- 96 -

Why a Need to Save The Males two-parent families. Children of single-parent families are more likely to drop out of high school, become pregnant as teenagers, abuse drugs, behave violently, become entangled with the law. A parent’s remarriage often does not seem to better the odds.

Further, the rise in divorce and out-of-wedlock births has contributed heavily to the tragic increase in the number of American children in poverty, currently one in five.195

Philosopher James Q. Wilson recognizes fatherlessness as the proximate cause of social problems, but fails to understand that the ultimate cause is misdirected chivalry and misandry.

For more on the subject of harmful effects on children, see Arguments Against Divorce’ in Section III.

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is to have a thankless child.

Custodial mothers can easily brainwash children, if only subtly.

The Generation of Vipers Philip Wylie wrote of has materialized in countless father-hating children, many passing this sickness on to their children. If Mom is bitter at divorced Dad, children are insidiously turned against him, sometimes against the entire male sex.

They see their father through the distorting prism of their mother’s hostility. With Mom’s self-absolving encouragement, Dad is blamed even for his involuntary absence. The subconscious minds of these unwitting dupes wait for the least excuse, such as a spanking or less, with which to confirm what they have been conditioned to believe — Dad is bad. Children are hardly to blame, of course. They are on the horns of a dilemma: a conflict between their conditioning telling them Dad is a big ass, and their eyeballs telling them he is not.

It takes lengthy brainwashing to misdirect children’s understandable anger, to bring them to the point they throw rocks at Dad's car when he drives up to visit. That is when the support money goes grudgingly — if at all. Mothers (or fathers) teaching their children to hate their fathers (or mothers) in western countries are akin to Palestinians teaching children that Jews are pigs and monkeys. The 10-year-old son of Dr. Rick Lohstroh a Houston, Texas surgeon was so alienated by his mother after a contentious divorce, he shot and killed his father.196 To teach a child to hate half of his ancestry is to teach him to hate half of himself. Because the results of brainwashing are so catastrophic, I consider it more unforgivable than infidelity. If PAS persists into adulthood, it can become irreversible.

That’s the point at which fathers (and mothers) should consider writing their children off, and getting on with their lives.

- 97 -

Save the Males Dr. Richard Gardner, of Cresskill, NJ, a child psychologist, was one of the leading authorities on children of dysfunctional families.

According to Gardner, PAS is described as “a disturbance in which children are obsessively preoccupied with deprecation and/or criticism of a parent. In other words, denigration that is unjustified and/or exaggerated.” In effect, these children are taught to hate the Targeted Parent to the point of wanting to eliminate them from their lives. Dr. Gardner considers this to be psychological abuse and to be the only form of psychological abuse that has clear-cut unmistakable signs and symptoms and therefore the only psychological abuse that can be easily diagnosed.

Maine Gov. John E. Baldacci proclaimed April 25, 2006 to be "Parental Alienation Awareness Day."

Effects on Society and the Economy The divorce process has pauperized both men and women. Family breakdown is a huge cause of poverty (See chart below). Half of America’s seven million poor families are so because of divorce, separation or out-of-wedlock births. In contrast, of America’s 50.4 million intact families, only 7% are poor. Almost 75% of children in single-parent families will experience poverty before the age of eleven, contrasted with 20% in two-parent families.197 And ominously, it was predicted that more than half of the babies born in this country in the 1990s would spend at least part of their childhood in single-parent (read mother-only) homes.198 Not surprisingly, a recent Michigan University study, inter alia, reveals that divorce adversely affects both men and women financially. “Divorce almost always guarantees a woman severe financial hardship,” says the National NOW Times of Feb/Mar 1989. It is good that it does; it would be better if it guaranteed more hardship. To say that divorce hurts women is to say that marriage benefits women (as it does men). A primary purpose of marriage is to benefit women and children. The most important group of people for whom marriage is an asset psychologically and economically is children. Dan Quayle said, “And for those concerned about children growing up in poverty, we should know this: Marriage is probably the best antipoverty program of all. Among families headed by married couples today, there is a poverty rate of 5.7 percent. But 33.4 percent of families headed by a single mother are in poverty today.”199 Divorce burdens taxpayers with unacceptable welfare costs, gen- 98 -

Why a Need to Save The Males erated when dispossessed men haven’t the money – or refuse – to subsidize the destruction of their families. Bled dry, men who were formerly financial assets to the taxpaying and business communities become liabilities. The economic costs to the nation are staggering.

David Schramm of Utah State University estimates that divorce costs Americans $33.3 billion annually.

Hear Stephen Baskerville: “Writing in National Review Online, “Wade Horn describes the huge social costs of family breakdown and the benefits to children and society of marriage. He also points out that his agency spends $46 billion each year on programs, the need for [which] is either created or exacerbated by the breakup of families and marriages.”

Feminism and its attendant degeneration of morality has created, or at least perpetuated, the ghetto and is recreating the larger society in the image of the ghetto. Amneus aptly said, “In the ghettos, biological fathers seldom become sociological fathers, seldom amount to much, because Mom’s sexual promiscuity or disloyalty — her belief in what Feminists call a woman’s right to control her own sexuality — denies them the role of sociological fatherhood.” Consequently, we have an age similar to that which Shakespeare described as nothing but stealing and fighting and “getting of wenches with child.”

Consequently, crime is rampant in black communities. In the Washington D.C. ghetto, 42 percent of black men aged 18-35 are under criminal justice supervision or in jail, on probation or parole or out on bond or outstanding warrant. About 85 percent of Washington’s black men are arrested at some point in their lives.200 Now the black pattern is occurring in the white community. In 1998, 26 percent of all white births were out of wedlock (compared to 23 percent of blacks in 1963). Maggie Gallagher said “Today, the white family stands poised, eerily, almost exactly where the black family was twenty-five years ago, before its rapid descent into a postmarital world.”201 Robert I. Lerman supports the foregoing analyses in an excellent paper entitled “Impacts of Marital Status and Parental Presence on the Material Hardship of Families with Children”202 If present trends and circumstances persist, if static, blindlyreactionary inertia continues to impede reform, the ‘rape of men’ will continue and so will its casualties. Hundreds of thousands of future innocents will be sacrificed to the modern gods of inequity, taking their places besides the similar numbers of human sacrifices to the gods of old. Professor Amneus warned us in an excellent article entitled Gotterdammerung. In another article, he worried that “A single woman cannot jog in Central Park in safety. If she tries, she may - 99 -

Save the Males find herself beaten and gang-raped by a posse of fatherless punks who grew up in matriarchal homes.” His prophesy came true in 1989.203 Widespread looting and anarchy after disasters like Hurricane Katrina and the L.A. riots demonstrate a nihilistic reduction of human life in some areas to the merely biological level where it functioned during the half million years of human childhood known as the Stone Age. Because the very cornerstone of society is the family, and because society’s strength is historically proportional to family stability, our entire social structure is in danger of collapse. The family, as it has been known for untold generations, may crumble. Civilization is perilous; sociologists claim that the great civilizations of old — Rome, Greece, Persia, Babylonia, and others — became extinct as a result of family and moral breakdown. By the 5th century, Barbarians had sacked Rome. In Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed Jared Diamond maintains that societies fall without even sensing the causes. Arnold Toynbee said “Civilizations die from suicide, not murder.” Are modern day barbarians currently about to sack our civilization?

Dedicating the memorial at Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln said of America, “We are now engaged in a great Civil War, testing whether this nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure.” Those words are true again; we are engaged in a great cultural war, not between the sexes so much as between right and wrong, the damage of which approaches if not equals that of rabid Mid-Eastern, or Mid-Eastern-oriented, crazies. It is difficult to conceive that this is the condition to which the supposedly most advanced country in the world has devolved.

Quoth the Experts: In the pre-Feminist years, when families were stable, Joseph Satin said “Never had so many people, anywhere, been so well off.”

Of these years sociologist David Popenoe writes: For a short moment in history, fatherhood again became a defining identity for many men… For many American citizens, the fifties were an enormously peaceful and satisfying period. The future looked bright indeed… (But) As women went into the labor force, young men in large numbers rejected domesticity and even the masculine ideal. The laidback and family-rejecting hippie became a model for many men and all ‘rigid gender roles’ became something to be eschewed at all costs. Marriage fell out of fashion, replaced by the rapidly growing phenomenon of living together outside of marriage. After an historical moment of glory, the modern nuclear family came apart at the seams.”204

- 100 -

Why a Need to Save The Males Urie Bronfenbrenner: American families and their children are in trouble, trouble so deep and pervasive as to threaten the future of our nation.205

George Gilder: The key problem of the underclass — the crucible of crime, the source of violence, the root of poverty — is the utter failure of socialization of young men through marriage.206

In 1965, writing in The Negro Family: The Case for National Action, the late Assistant Secretary of Labor and Senator Daniel Moynihan saw the dynamic of family disintegration accelerating in the black community. Between 1960 and 1987 the percentage of black children born out of wedlock rose from 23 percent to 62 percent. He also observed that a huge percentage of black families were unstable because there were few fathers heading them, and young black men had no models for manliness. Moynihan predicted the situation would “feed on itself,” incubating a nightmarish brood of social problems. He later said “By 1983 the poverty rate reached its highest level in 18 years…

The principal correlate had been the change in family structure, the rise of the female-headed household.”207 Numerous subsequent studies proved the senator eminently correct. Instead of being recognized for his prescience, Moynihan was savagely attacked for his political incorrectness. Feminists and other socialist advocates were outraged. He was denounced as a racist by certain prominent blacks and leftist politicians eager to pander to them.

- 101 -

Save the Males

Health Issues Statistics and Disparate Expenditures Aaron Kipnis, psychologist and author of Knights Without Armor, says that males account for: 70% of all assault victims, 80% of all homicide victims, 85% of the homeless, 90% of persons with AIDS, and 93% of persons killed on the job. Consequently, men currently die on average four and a half to eight years (depending on your information source) earlier than women. My research shows that the average life expectancy for women is 80.1 years; for men – 74.8 years. Consequently, women are more likely to survive to collect social security than are men.

Despite the longevity statistics, there is an almost frantic obsession with women’s health. Men are largely excluded from national health initiatives. Medical research expenditures demonstrate a strong preference for women. Peruse the following article by Carey Roberts published in the March/April ΄99 Liberator (a Men’s Defense Assoc. publication). It’s old, but still valid.

Why are men dropping like flies? A look at the 10 leading causes of death in 1996 reveals the reasons for the life span gender gap.

Leading Causes of Death by gender: (Figures are age-adjusted rates per 100,000 population. Source: DHHS: Health, United States, 1998, Table 31.)

Cause of Death:

Men

Women

Excess Male Mortality

Heart disease

178.8

98.2

82.1%

Cancer

153.8

108.8

41.4%

Injuries

43.3

17.9

141.9%

Stroke

28.5

24.6

15.9%

Diabetes

14.9

12.5

19.2%

Pneumonia/flu

16.2

10.4

55.8%

HIV infection

18.1

4.2

331.0%

Suicide

18.0

4.0

350.0%

Homicide

13.3

3.6

269.4%

For every one of the 10 leading causes of disease, men are at higher risk than women. For heart disease, men have a risk 82% higher than women. For four causes of death-injuries, HIV infection, suicide, and homicide-men are at more than twice the risk.

Given the fact that men are at greater risk of dying for every one of the top leading causes of death, one might expect that national health programs would be mounting a vigorous campaign to improve the health of men. So what has been the response?

- 102 -

Why a Need to Save The Males

The Rise of the Women’s Health Movement.

Using the now-familiar “woman-as-the-greater-victim” strategy, Feminists alleged that women were being mistreated by the male-dominated medical establishment. In 1990, Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland accused the National Institutes of Health of “blatant discrimination” for spending only 13.5% of its research budget on women’s health. It was known at the time that NIH also devoted 6.5% of its research funds to afflictions unique to men, and the remainder of the money went to study diseases that affect both sexes. Why Senator Mikulski chose to ignore the later figures is unknown.

In 1991, Bernadine Healy, MD, the first female director of the National Institutes of Health, charged that “women have all too often been treated less than equally” in health care. That same year, 83,340 more men than women died in the United States.

By 1993, it had become the received wisdom that women were chronically short-changed in their healthcare. As President Clinton explained to a group of breast cancer advocates on October 18, 1993, “When it comes to healthcare research and delivery, women can no longer be treated as second-class citizens.”

Numerous research studies refuted the Feminists’ allegations. For example, an article by Andrew G. Kadar, MD in the August 1994 issue of The Atlantic Monthly debunked the sex-bias myth that healthcare services favored men. If anything, the reverse was true: Dr. Kadar pointed out that from 1981 onwards, research funding for breast cancer exceeded funding for prostate cancer by a ratio of about five to one.

As far as the “exclusion” of women from drug trials, this policy arose from the 1962 thalidomide disaster, in which armless babies were born to women who had ingested a dangerous drug during their pregnancy.

To claim that drug trials discriminated against women is akin to saying that women are discriminated against because they are not subject to the mandatory registration requirements of the Selective Service.

Which proves the point that a single false allegation can carry more weight than a hundred carefully-reasoned denials. To rectify the perceived mistreatment of women, a myriad of women’s health initiatives were spun out, four of which have grave implications for men: 1. PHS Office on Women’s Health. In 1993 the first Deputy Assistant Secretary for Women’s Health was appointed to direct the Office on Women’s Health. The Office was located in the fortress-like Hubert Humphrey Building in Washington, D.C. Five years later, the Office on Women’s Health could boast the establishment of the following initiatives in the U.S. Public Health Service: PHS Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health, Establishment of women’s health coordinators in each of the 10 DHHS regions, Federal Breast Cancer Coordinating Committee, Federal Task Force on Women’s Health and the Environment, Federal Multi-Agency Consortium on Imaging Technologies to Improve Women’s Health, Establishment of 12 National Centers of Excellence in Women’s Health, National Action Plan on Breast Cancer, Minority Women’s Health Initiative, Compendium of DHHS Activities on Women and HIV/AIDS,

- 103 -

Save the Males National Women’s Health Information Center, National Domestic Violence Hotline, National College Roundtables on Women’s Health, Girl Power! to promote girls’ self-esteem, Eating Disorders Task Force, National Osteoporosis Prevention Campaign, DHHS Resource Guide on Women’s Health, Women’s Health Curriculum, National Mentoring Program to promote women in academic medicine, National Directory of Women’s Health Residency and Fellowship, Opportunities in Medicine, Menopause Resource Guide, Participation in international programs, including the WHO Global Commission of Women’s Health, the Working Group on Women’s Health of the US-Mexico Bi-national Commission, the Canada-US Forum on Women’s Health, and the USA/Israeli Women’s Health Conference.

The price tag for these efforts: $4.4 billion in FY 1999.

Note, this list includes only the department-wide women’s health initiatives. Many other female-specific programs are found throughout the federal health bureaucracy. For example, the National Institutes of Health, which has it own Office of Research on Women’s Health, has devoted considerable sums to disease-specific research on women’s health, including breast cancer, cervical cancer, and reproductive health. The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) operates a Maternal and Child Health Bureau. The Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have both established Offices on Women’s Health. The U.S. Agency for International Development has devoted considerable resources to female reproductive control. The Department of Defense operates a major breast cancer research program.

The list goes on and on.

2. Healthy People 2010. Every 10 years the federal government takes the pulse of the nation’s health. Known as Healthy People, the gargantuan process includes a review of key health indicators and setting objectives for the upcoming decade. Healthy People serves as the blueprint for healthcare programs and funding.

In September 1999, DHHS Secretary Donna Shalala released the draft for the upcoming decade. Healthy People 2010, a four-pound paper behemoth, outlines health objectives for everything from food safety to tooth decay. And it has a great deal to say about women’s health. It highlights the fact, due to their longevity, women are more likely to suffer from arthritis, osteoporosis, and other disabling conditions.

But what about men’s health? Let’s just say it was aborted prematurely.

The Healthy People draft conveniently omits many key facts: • Men are still dying of heart disease at almost twice the rate as women.

• Men are victims of 94% of occupational deaths.

• Men represent 30-35% of persons who require medical attention as a result of domestic violence.

• Men in community settings, are raped at a rate of 2/10,000 each year, and the problem is much greater in correctional settings.

• Men are victims of aggravated assault far more often than women (32.8/1,000 vs. 19.4/1,000) • The 1.2 million men over 50 who suffer from osteoporosis need special attention because men are less likely to seek medical care

- 104 -

Why a Need to Save The Males In fact, of 38 gender-specific objectives, 36 are directed to women. Only two are devoted to men. Over and over again, Healthy People 2010 downplays and ignores men’s health.

3. American Association of Health Plans. The American Association of Health Plans is to healthcare what the American Medical Association is to physicians. The American Association of Health Plans (AAHP) represents the 1,000 health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and managed care plans that provide medical care to over 140 million Americans. And that number is steadily growing.

What is the AAHP doing to advance women’s health?

• Identification of exemplary models of women’s health care in the areas of breast cancer, obstetrics, prenatal care, hormone replacement therapy, and (of course!) domestic violence.

• Fact Sheet on “Access to Specialty Care: Women’s Experience in Health Plans” • Bright Futures, a five-year cooperative agreement with the federal Maternal and Child Health Bureau • Frequent articles in their monthly magazine on women’s health What is AAHP doing for men’s health? Nada The 4th initiative addressing Health Maintenance organizations was deleted for purposes of brevity. (This ends the Liberator article.)

The V.A. informs me that, due to budgetary restrictions, they will serve about 200,000 fewer veterans in 2007 than in the previous year. Meanwhile, expensive, taxpayer-funded cervical cancer shots are being proposed for all females age 9 and upward, so as to permit promiscuity without danger of cervical cancer.

Breast and prostate cancer kill almost equal numbers of men and women respectively. Yet, as Warren Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power documents, 660% more money is spent on breast cancer research — the one cancer that kills mostly women – than on prostate cancer research. The September ΄96 issue of Scientific American cited research showing just under 5 times as much money is spent for breast cancer research as for prostate cancer research. It is better in the U.K., where one forth of monies spent on breast cancer research is spent on prostate cancer research.208 The National Prostate Cancer Coalition209 informs us that the U.S. Senate is cutting prostate cancer research. This means less hope for the over 2 million men living with prostate cancer and their families and the 230,000+ men who will be diagnosed with prostate cancer this year.

Doctors tell us all men will get prostate cancer if they live long enough.

The crucial task is to develop a better test for prostate cancer – one that can distinguish between the slow-growing, non-threatening tumors and the more aggressive kind. On this score, there is good news. Scientists at the Institute of Cancer Research announced that they had identified a gene — E2F3 — that could be the answer.

- 105 -

Save the Males “Now we know that the E2F3 gene is key in determining how aggressive the [prostate] cancer is,” says Professor Cooper, “we hope to be able to develop such a test in the next five years.” It would help if the imbalance of research funds were eliminated or even reversed.

To devote ever-increasing resources to women’s health, when men are most vulnerable, is a violation of the basic public health principle of allocating limited resources to those at greatest risk. The lives of hundreds of thousands of men will continue to be threatened unless immediate action is taken to combat this growing crisis. The popular attitude is, ‘So what?’ If it were the other way around, the outcry would be deafening, countless studies would be undertaken, millions of dollars would be thrown at the disaster.

Genital circumcision is a barbaric, and according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, generally unnecessary procedure. When practiced on women in Africa it is looked upon with horror, but raises few eyebrows when done to infant boys in much greater numbers. It is primarily subscribed to by mothers too lazy to clean their sons’ genitals, and recommended by doctors to earn a few hundred extra dollars. At some sick psychological level, the practice may sometimes be directed at maleness per se.

Although welfare is an “entitlement,” veterans’ health care is not considered so. The Veterans Administration expects new restrictions will force 213,000 veterans out of the system. There is a move to cut federal expenditures on Viagra for the “needy” on Medicaid. OK, but what about contraceptives and breast implants for women?

Consider this July 20, 2005 Reuters report from Dresden, Germany: Bald men in Germany have no entitlement to state support for toupees, a court ruled on Wednesday. Throwing out a legal challenge by a bald 46year-old man, the court said the state was not discriminating against men even though health insurance covers the cost of wigs for women. ‘In contrast to women, the involuntary loss of hair among men is common and accepted as nothing out of the ordinary,’ the court ruled, rejecting the suit from the man who said he suffered because of his baldness.

Only very recently has men’s health become an issue in some circles. An initiative has started. Senator Mike Crapo and Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham, both Republicans, the former diagnosed with prostate cancer, introduced companion bills in the 109th Congress which will establish an Office of Men’s Health at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This office would mirror the work of the existing Office of Women’s Health, which has helped to save thousands of women’s lives and has improved the lives of many more. An Office of Men’s Health, styled after the Office of Women’s Health, would coordinate the fragmented men’s health awareness, prevention, and research efforts now being conducted by - 106 -

Why a Need to Save The Males federal and state government. It would be well-placed to coordinate outreach and awareness efforts on the federal and state levels, promote preventative health behaviors, and provide a vehicle whereby researchers on men’s health can network and share information and findings. It will be interesting to observe what opposition arises, and by whom.

Abortion In abortion, the rights of the mother and sometimes of the fetus only, are considered, seldom those of the father. Here, again, a double standard is in effect; if a woman wants an abortion, she is not required to notify the father, but if a man wants to get a vasectomy, he must get written permission from his wife, at least in many jurisdictions. A husband’s interest in a fetus, a U.S. Florida appeals court ruled, is “simply too attenuated to strip the woman of her fundamental right to privacy.”210 Men’s rights, or rather lack thereof, in abortion are examined in Family Law Review (FLR) 2555 and in 2 FLR 4001. The legal aspects are also covered in a (prejudiced) article

by Linda Roberson entitled Paternal Rights in the Decision to Terminate a Pregnancy. The only right to privacy men seem to have is in homosexual matters.

According to the Alan Guttmacher institute, Planned Parenthood’s affiliate, mothers abort almost 5,000 unborn children a day just in the U.S – over one quarter of all pregnancies here. Pat Robertson claims 1.5 million per year in the U.S.211 According to the Statistical Abstract of the U.S., in 1992 Washington, DC had an astounding 133.1% abortion rate. It was better in 2000, but still a disgraceful 68.1%. “The most dangerous place in America is a mother’s womb. Mom is responsible for all abortions and most infanticides. If the mother is unmarried, the risk of death to her infant more than doubles,” says Maggie Gallagher.212 Ironically, abortion is an area in which we should be concerned about Saving the Females. A study published in The Lancet showed 10 million fetuses were aborted in the last 20 years in India because they were female.213

- 107 -

Save the Males

Part II J’Accuse Artist Douglas Potter created this Gulliver-like illustration especially for publication here.

Those who would deny equal rights for men are not as numerous as the noise and influence they generate would indicate, but they are powerful and sit atop an enormous reservoir of anti-male sentiment.

Politics, Government, Legalists “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites…”

We have over 34 million laws and are still grinding them out; yet we haven’t improved on the 10 Commandments. James Madison observed “It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.” Modern law ought to be a science, but has become a hocus pocus quagmire, masquerading behind an elaborate sham in which nearly any preconceived opinion can be found, justified, or accommodated. Laws encircle us all; but, like locked doors, seem to be most effective against the honest; they are what the innocent abide by and the guilty manipulate.

The present level of government domination of private affairs violates the principles this country was founded upon. The historic proposition that people are the masters and government is the servant has been reversed. Dickens observed “the one great principle of the...law is to make business for itself.” William Thomas, in How Lawyers have Made a Racket out of Law, said “Law is a giant crap game played with loaded dice.” Only summary, or shotgun-justice, is typically found within it. The only difference between law and politics is the spelling.

As just one example, the Equal Rights Amendment (the newlyelected Democrat Congress is re-introducing it) sounds like a good idea, and it is; but bad law. It would apply, ratchet-like, in one direction only – to favor women, seldom in the direction of equality. Its - 108 -

J’Accuse effect in states that implemented it has been to eliminate all reasonable distinction between the sexes unless they favor women. Under its rationale, a proposal was made to ban father-son banquets as sexist. Requiring universities to provide athletic budgets for women equivalent to those for men is almost akin to requiring hospitals to provide paternity wards for men (OK, that’s an exaggeration). The ERA means just what most people think it means – equal rights for women. It would do more harm than good.

Big Brother is increasingly intruding into our lives. Government usurpation of family management, from dictating divorce terms to lavishing welfare benefits, exemplifies Alexis de Tocqueville’s term “Democratic Despotism” which he coined in the 1830s. Domestic law could not have reached the depths it has without shortcomings in the entire legal environment. Government has no interest in solving the divorce problem. Government largely caused the problem.

Existence of the problem is in government’s interest; it provides rationale for expanded government agencies to deal with the problem.

With all the goodwill of Hezbollah, legislative and judicial enablers have facilitated the destruction of the father-headed family and its replacement with the mother-headed matriarchy. The legal system has thereby betrayed civilization and the family and the social system which supports them, and in the process has disastrously disadvantaged children.

The intellectual seat of Feminism is portside. However, the world doesn’t work the way our leftist college professors say it does. The Ward Churchill episode at Colorado University confirms Professor Richard Rorty’s boast that universities are now “the power base for the Left in America.” Churchill’s Ethnic Studies, Women’s Studies, Gay and Lesbian Studies, and African American Studies are not merely studies or departments; they are university-financed “movements” of the Left. George Orwell wrote that some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals could believe them. Evidently too much education can constipate small minds. We seem to tack to starboard as we mature.

It’s a cliché of punditry that Republicans are the Daddy Party and Democrats are the Mommy Party. The December ΄04 and September ’06 issues of the British fathers’ rights magazine, Mankind, informs us that the British Conservative party favors fathers’ rights, and the Labour and Liberal parties oppose same. To their credit, conservatives traditionally argue for merit as a judgment criterion, as opposed to the neo-liberal214 tradition of preference for chosen groups (quotas, affirmative action, etc.). Hard-nosed conservatives within the men’s/fathers’ movement (more on this movement in Part III) claim that their philosophy more closely conforms to the basic evolutionary principle that has brought the human race to the pinnacle of - 109 -

Save the Males the animal kingdom – survival of the fittest (the dreaded “social Darwinism”); and that neo-liberalism/socialism, or survival of the weakest at the expense of the fittest, correlates with throwing husbands out and making them, or government in the alternative, support alienated families.

But in politics, neither neo-liberals nor conservatives have been friends of the male sex. Such an affinity is too politically incorrect.

Both fear Feminists; Democrats and Republicans outrun each other pandering to that vote. Most conservatives and neo-liberals have totally erroneous understandings of the problem of fatherlessness and its solution, conservatives suffering from misplaced chivalry, and neo-liberals from politically correct Feminist notions and economic theories – causing huge philosophic blind spots in both persuasions. Both have been bamboozled into thinking that fatherabsence is voluntary, which it seldom is. Such mind-sets have been occasions for massive demagoguery. When Pope John Paul II spoke out against divorce in January 2002, he was roundly attacked from the Right as well as the Left. National Review’s William Rusher was bitingly critical of my The Rape of The Male, but his boss, Bill Buckley, liked it. I have their remarks in my files.

Whatever their political persuasion, the difference between politicians on gender issues is like that between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee. Of the formal political parties, the one most philosophically aligned, theoretically, with the idea of men’s rights may be the Libertarian, even if many of them live in Never land. It wants government out of our lives (but until recently has been curiously silent when it comes to divorce).

Conservatives generally uphold commonsense principles and are nominally pro-family, but are too naïve to grasp that misandry is antithetical to these principles, and on balance are only marginally less misandric. They have made some colossal blunders on gender issues, for example the Elián Gonzales matter. Poor Elián was nearly drowned when his mother and her boyfriend carelessly put him on a flimsy raft, crossing dangerous waters to spirit him away from a relationship with his father. Imagine the posturing in both political camps if Elián’s father had kidnapped him!

Arguing in favor of keeping Elián in Florida, jingoistic Republican politicians demagogued for the Cuban-American votes, while former President Clinton and his Attorney General Janet Reno, normally not friends of fathers, made more sense. Reno even called the father/child bond “sacred.” Her courageous, if precipitous, action saved Elián from the jurisdiction of the notoriously anti-father Florida domestic relations courts, which have no business in immigration matters anyway. Even the masses got this one right: Date- 110 -

J’Accuse line NBC (MSNBC) conducted an online poll on 1/17/99, asking viewers whether or not Elián should be sent home to Cuba. 86% said “Yes.” 14% said “No.” Reno was right; children belong with their fathers – even in Cuba.

A picture of Elián appeared in the August 9, ΄04 U.S. News & World Report showing a well-adjusted 10-year-old, and a subsequent TV show presented him likewise at age 12. Had he remained in Florida with relatives instead of returning with his father, no doubt he would have been a spoiled brat by now. In Cuba, Elián’s future fatherhood is more likely to be honored. Here he would have faced the sorry future of father-deprived children that his mother aspired for him had she not drowned. If he married here, he would be reduced to the status of all married men; and in the event of divorce would likely lose custody of his son. Certainly America is superior to Cuba in most ways, but not in domestic relations.

Aspiring Republican presidential candidate John McCain contemptuously dismissed fathers’ concerns over family law at a midday town hall meeting in Cedar Falls, Iowa on March 16, 2007.

Shared parenting activist Tony Taylor asked McCain if he “would be bold enough to address the issue of equal access to children for fathers that have gone through divorce.” McCain testily replied: “I’m sorry to disappoint you, I am not going to overturn divorce court decisions. That’s why we have courts and that’s why people go to court and get a divorce. If I as President of the United States said this decision has to be overturned without the proper appeals process then I would be disturbing our entire system of government... But for me to stand here before all these people and say that I’m going declare divorces invalid because someone feels that they weren’t treated fairly in court, we are getting into a, uh, uh, tar baby of enormous proportions.”

Voters recognize that Republicans can be equal opportunity crooks and slezemeisters, as the 2006 mid-term elections proved.

Still, conservatives might be the lesser of two evils. Liberal politicians especially seem to be Feminist sycophants, figuratively lactating for the women’s vote, not to mention trial lawyers’ money. The entire leftist zeitgeist is seminally opposed to that essence of manhood – rugged individualism. Their denial of sex distinctions seems unrealistic. The male qualities neo-liberals abhor are what make males male.

Neo-liberals are inclined to blame poverty for social ills. They are wrong; father-deprivation is a much more important cause. Fatherdeprivation occurs in two major and often overlapping communities: divorced households and never-married households. Conservatives realize that our generous welfare state practically mandates father- 111 -

Save the Males deprivation, but fail to realize that their support of mother custody and wealth redistribution in divorce is an incentive to divorce, more blameworthy than redistribution in welfare. The Conservative Canadian government has decided to close three-quarters of the regional offices of Status of Women Canada.215 It seems that while neo-liberals usually favor change, they are often unable to determine a sensible direction for change. They usually advocate guilt-free lifestyles, which have been shown to be inimical to marriage and family. When Spain's socialists came to power in 2004, their three domestic priorities were legalized abortion, same-sex marriage, and liberalized divorce. The left-oriented European Union required Turkey to withdraw a proposal to penalize adultery in order to gain acceptance, while divorce liberalization counted in its favor.

Ultimately, neither right nor left favor men in the struggle for fairness. There may be only an up or down in that struggle – up to equal rights and equal dignity for men, down to gender prejudice and immorality.

Law Makers Our scandal-ridden Congress has been described as the gang that couldn’t shoot straight, or a bunch of orators in search of an idea.

P. J. O’Rourke calls them “A Parliament of Whores.” Many are grandstanders who would enact any abomination a fad-conscious public desires – for votes, and consider sophistry to be a virtue.

Some defy national interests just to get elected or re-elected. State legislators are no better.

Hearing legislators and lawyers pontificate about honoring justice is like hearing Bill Clinton quote Scripture. Ask most any where he stands, and he will launch like a wind-up doll into a peroration on the sanctity of marriage, the welfare of children, and justice for all.

But watch the artful dodging and fancy footwork if challenged to do anything meaningful about them (See McCain, previous page).

Equating reform with anti-womanhood, they don’t want to appear opposed to what they are eternally engaged in upholding – motherhood and apple pie. Horrors! One such beacon of ignorance, Pennsylvania Democrat Representative Martin P. Mullen, while speaking against a divorce reform bill decades ago, unburdened himself of this observation, “A woman is born clean and decent; if she is bad it is because a man made her go wrong.” Another in the Alabama legislature much later mouthed the same platitude.

Congressional sycophants have made the Feminist agenda a federal matter. Republican Senator Biden sponsored the VAWA legisla- 112 -

J’Accuse tion (mentioned earlier) that – practically speaking – would address crime against women only, offering civil redress to only those crimes committed against women. Some can out-demagogue Jessie Jackson on the subject of child abuse. In the 1980s Elizabeth Morgan abandoned her husband and falsely accused him of child molestation. She absconded with their daughter to New Zealand after the court, aware it was she who had abused the child, awarded custody of their daughter to the father. The chivalrous New York legislature passed special legislation absolving her of defying the court. Conservative Senators Orrin Hatch and John Heinz, swooning over her, joined Democrats in defending Morgan’s actions. They were accompanied by Charles (Chuck) Colson, Dr. James Dobson and Oliver North – normally sensible persons.

In March of 2005 Congress and President George W. Bush fell all over each other to enact legislation restoring the feeding tube to Terri Schiavo, brain-dead for 15 years. Although Jessie Jackson barged in on cue, conservatives were the worst. The entire nation focused on this one woman’s plight; the media covered it wall-to-wall. This is not put forth to criticize the good intentions of feeding the poor woman, but to demonstrate the lengths to which politicians will go on behalf of women.

Betty Dick and her late husband, Fred, owned land in Rocky Mountain National Park, and signed a 25-year agreement with the Interior Department that allowed them to stay on part of it. The agreement expired July 16, 2005. Rep. Mark Udall, D-CO and Sen. Ken Salazar, D-CO submitted bills that allowed the widow to remain on the land indefinitely.216 It goes on and on.

Imagine the precedent and Constitutional can of worms these adventures set! Pundits go through contortions to explain the issues in terms of morality and law, blinded to the reality that the huge underlying issue in such matters is sex. Wanna bet politicians would engage in these acrobatics for a man? Politicians who know misandry is wrong can’t risk careers by opposing it.

Thomas Sowell aptly said, “I think every member of Congress should be paid at least (a million dollars). It's not because those turkeys in Washington deserve it. It's because we deserve a lot better people than we have in Congress.” The electorate, of course, is ultimately responsible for their low caliber.

Law Interpreters In Men in Black, Mark Levin shows that for two centuries now the courts have grabbed ever more authority over our society, that we are ruled by an oligarchy of judges. Marshaling an awesome amount - 113 -

Save the Males of data from history and contemporary court cases, he illustrates conclusively that judicial activists with their thumbs on the scales of justice are nothing short of radicals in robes, contemptuous of the rule of law, subverting the Constitution at will, re-writing it in some cases with pronouncements disconnected from reality. Using their public trust to impose their policy preferences on society, they have interpreted this majestic document both as prohibiting school prayer and as protecting obscenity and abortion.

Decisions depend more on judges’ personal beliefs than they do on abstract legal ‘science.’ Critical Legal Studies (CLS), a law society at Harvard and other elite law schools, has developed a school of thought holding that “judges decide in advance what they want, then excavate the Constitution and precedents for support to back up their preferences. Also holding that the entire judicial edifice which gives the impression of impartiality is a fraud.” They believe achieving true justice is impossible.217 Obviously, these are not simply the opinions of a few axegrinders. Hear high-profile experts: Harvard Law School’s Edmund Morgan was fond of saying that “There is no proposition so absurd but that some judge, sitting on some bench, has at some time solemnly proclaimed it to be the law.”218 In addition, the words of Federal Judge William J. Campbell at a Chicago judicial conference are instructive: “guilt or innocence no longer has much to do with justice, since legal technicalities take precedence in court procedure.”

Here’s Jack Anderson on judges, “Some are merely incompetent, others arrogant. In their puffed-up importance, they demand that all considerations must yield to the majesty of their courts. In their narrow circle of omnipotence…, etc.”

One shining exception is Robert H. Dierker, Jr., Chief Judge of Missouri Circuit Court, whose book The Tyranny of Tolerance appears in Recommended Reading in this book’s Appendix.

Divorce Court Judges In Compatible Divorce, Robert Sherwin states “... in many jurisdictions, these judges who are either aging ... or who are quite frankly inferior, are assigned to the unpopular divorce courts... Because of his age or inability... he is forced to accept the odious.” He notes that by a conservative estimate 50 percent of all U.S. judges are incompetent. Among divorce court judges the percentage of the incompetent is probably much higher.

Activist judges are destroying much more than the Constitution; they are also undermining marriage. With each other’s blessing and outright connivance, courts supported by peripheral government agencies routinely demolish twenty-year marriages and put asunder - 114 -

J’Accuse children. These worthies may in cold blood deliver their sentences of death to families, with less time and attention than they devote to contemplating their lunch menu.

Discrepancies between legality and morality are enormous and innumerable. The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits government-established religion.

Based only on this fact, and through some tortuous rationalization that would mystify the founding fathers, morality has become taboo in court. It is as though a lobotomy had been performed on the judicial sense of decency. Sexual morality is especially ignored in custodial determinations.

Marriage is a contract, and it is the responsibility of the legal system to enforce contracts. That’s what judges get paid for; but with this, the most important contract, that’s what they refuse to do.

Judges claim to be following dictates of society; yet their anti-male rulings may be caused instead by what they see other judges doing, a chicken/egg situation. Our alter-boy deference to them needs reexamination.

Momism is practically a judicial religion. For example, consider this eulogy worthy of a legislator: What a mother’s care means to her children has been so much romanticized and poetized that its substance has sometimes been lost in the flowers of rhetoric, in the aureole of song, and in the vivid color and glistening marble of painting and sculpture. A mother’s care means instruction in religion and morals, it means the inculcation of patriotism and love of country, it means the maintenance of a clean heart, it means the imparting of lessons on duties in citizenship, courtesy and good will to one’s fellow-man, it means the practical things of preparing healthful food and the mending and repair of clothing, it means ceaseless vigil and the balm of the healing, and when fever visits and the virus strikes — it means all these things and a million others, from all of which the child grows up resolved that he may never be unworthy of the lessons learned at the knee of his most loving companion, his best teacher, his most devoted defender, and his greatest inspiration for this and the life to come, his blessed mother.219

Christ! I could throw up.

The judicial favoring of female litigants is caused by an enmeshing of many, sometimes deep, motivations or psychological compulsions difficult to fathom. There are several theories. One is that male litigants are arbitrary scapegoats in an orgy of catharsis or overcompensation for past bias against and suppression of women.

Other explanations include barely concealed sadism, masochism, or jealousy of younger men still possessed of their virility. Judges apparently get an ‘ego-blast’ satisfying a primitive, self-aggrandizing sex urge or rooster instinct, which they have opportunity to exploit.

It has been demonstrated in research projects that this compulsion - 115 -

Save the Males is especially noticeable if the woman is attractive.

Women’s tears influence male judges more than does the law of the land. Most judges are probably convinced they’re doing something for poor, defenseless women, although these women are usually about as defenseless and cunningly aggressive as healthy lionesses.

Presumably, most judges had decent mothers or they wouldn’t have achieved such high office. A big cause of their prejudice, as I see it, is that they equate all women before them with their mothers. Big mistake! Even if they have led a very sheltered life oblivious to the inadequacies of single motherhood, many of their actions and pontifications are indefensible.

The Judge Nolands, mentioned earlier, of the world who systematically and spinelessly relegate children to the clutches, and fathers to the bondage, of unfit mothers scorn morality, family, and the welfare of children – the very principles they profess to uphold. Unable to differentiate between diseases and symptoms, they piously agonize over the breakdown of society’s moral fabric and the disintegration and disorganization of families, ignorant of the fact that these problems are merely symptoms of a disease that they themselves helped cause – father deprivation.

Because giving custody of children to unfit mothers is child abuse, divorce court judges are among the worst child abusers of all – moral, if not legal, criminals. They have ruined more children than Doctor Spock, and deserve to be punished under Sharia law. Yet little thought is given to punishment of the perpetrators – except among some militant divorce reform activists.

These criticisms do not constitute contempt of court, because they aren’t directed at our court system (essentially among the best in the world). It is the administration of that system that is sometimes corrupted, compromised, incompetent, and unjust — beneath contempt (I gave one judge apoplexy by placing these words in my divorce court file).

Female Judges Because women aren’t as chivalrous as men, at first glance one might think it good to have more women judges. At one time, yes; not any more. While male judges can be Jurassic, their distaff counterparts have become even worse after coming under the influence of Feminists.

From the July ΄97 Liberator, Frank Zepezauer reporting: In 3 Washington state counties, number of sole custody awards to mothers by female judges: 1107. By male judges: 399 Number of sole custody awards to fathers by female judges: 1. By male judges: 155.

- 116 -

J’Accuse Number of joint shared custody awards to mother’s residence by female judges: 126. By male judges: 83 Number of joint shared custody awards to fathers’ residence by female judges: 0. By male judges: 45 Here’s the conclusion offered by the compiler of these statistics, Paul Harris, who is working on his Masters of Public Administration at the University of Washington: “Based upon the data, discrimination against men is no myth in family court. It is most apparent among female judges. In 1,400 total cases, only one judge awarded one man custody; his ex was in prison. The child support order for men was significantly higher from female judges than male judges. Some of the female judges awarded twice the guideline allowed. The one man a female judge awarded custody (to) received no child support order. Even though women’s income averaged 10% higher than men’s, child support orders were more than twice as much as women’s.

Is the discrimination deliberate? Don’t know, but who cares? It is still discrimination. I’d have to say from the numbers it is very likely that female judges in Washington State deliberately discriminate against men.”

Here’s what Paul says about the research methods: “I studied divorce cases in Snohomish, King, and Pierce Counties of Washington, where 2.3 million live, over half the state population. Ten judges handle family court for these three counties; five for King County; three for Pierce County and two for Snohomish County. There were seven women and three men. I studied 200 cases for each judge over a six month period January through June 1996. Of the 2,000 divorce cases, 1,876 involved both custody and child support. I will post only to those cases.”

Paul also compiled data on child support decisions. For the 1,691 NCP (non-custodial parent) dads, male judges awarded 359 support orders (that is, orders to pay) and female judges awarded 1,332. On the other hand, for the 19 NCP moms, male judges ordered 18 support orders (which the moms were to pay), and female judges ordered one. Male judges awarded $155 in support orders to the NCP dads as compared to $482 awarded by their female counterparts (Evidently these were averages. RFD). Male judges awarded $217 in support orders to the NCP moms (i.e., required them to pay) as compared to zero awarded by the female judge.”

Here’s an exception: in Brampton, Ont Canada, Superior Court Justice Lorna-Lee Snowie found Nancy Cooper, 52, in civil contempt of court for repeatedly flouting court orders that required her to facilitate contact between her three daughters and their father, David Cooper, of Point Clark, Ont. Snowie fined Cooper $10,000 and threatened her with further fines and imprisonment in what is believed to be the harshest penalty yet imposed by a Canadian court for “parental alienation.” Mr. Cooper has been on disability leave for two years from his post as an airline captain with Air Canada, due to - 117 -

Save the Males a “major depression” that was partly caused by his estrangement from his daughters.220

Law Merchandisers With the evolution of civilization, power shifted from the old physical or might-is-right ways, to law. However, if the arena of power is in law, a theoretical good, the structure of power is in the legal profession, the top of the food chain – and therein lays the potential for mischief. Lawyers could be called this country’s Nomenklatura, and the rest of us the Proletariat. For hundreds of examples of lawyer shenanigans, check website <overlawyered.com.> Legal technicalities, maneuverings and mining the law frustrate justice.

Lawyers happily frolic about in this maze, erected largely to create employment for them.

Let’s talk about ethics and common sense. Some top-flight U.S. lawyers are representing the Guantanamo detainees pro bono.221 Some detainees may indeed be innocent goat farmers, but not many.

Yet these lawyers would free all of them. Among Saddam’s lawyers were several Americans, including former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark. (Wanna bet any of these legal heavyweights would represent men in a fight for gender justice, pro bono or not.

Hear Internet blogger Fred Reed: “Lawyers lounge under the lampposts of jurisprudence, in the moral equivalent of plastic miniskirts and fishnet stockings, breathing, "Oh, ba-a-a-aybee, I'll do anything for $250 an hour."

Although lawyers exploit many types of situations, domestic relations may be where they sin most. Easy fees draw lawyers to divorce like sharks to blood. It’s the same reason Willie Sutton said he robbed banks: “That‘s where the money is.” These bottom feeders share with wives the legalized plunder; it’s one of their biggest sources of income (“Thar’s gold in them thar hills.”) The divorce industry is a cash cow, comprising some 35% of civil litigation.222 According to old estimates, they rake in $800 million nationally each year from their family destruction efforts. This figure was probably doubled by post-decree and related actions. In 1988 Nolo Press of Berkley, Calif. estimated that lawyers generate about one billion, three hundred sixty four million annually in unnecessary fees, almost five hundred million in divorce alone. This is over and above their legitimate charges.223 Of course inflation will cause the figures to be higher now; they have been estimated as high as $5 billion or more.

Even non-contested actions (also called defaults), which most any eleventh grader could handle in an hour or two, are ridiculously ex- 118 -

J’Accuse pensive. Protracted cases can go into many thousands of dollars for a few more hours of sham. Every lawsuit is fundamentally the same: pleadings, proof, and procedures.

Arlington Virginia attorney John Crouch says, “Not counting what it does to the standard of living, and having to pay support, and the expenses of visitation, you can get (a divorce) for under $10,000 per spouse in lawyer fees if you’re lucky and if both the spouses and their lawyers are reasonable and fair. But you really can’t predict that. In fact, it is considered unethical for a divorce lawyer to even give a client an estimate, because it’s so out of control. Either side can pull all kinds of stuff in court that just makes both the lawyers waste time until one client runs out of money. I just finished one case where they settled, but then the husband had to spend $70,000 just to enforce the settlement agreement! A custody fight is more like $20,000 apiece.”

Wealthy clients especially can expect interminable litigation. L. S. Rosenstiel, former president of Schenley Distillers, and his wife spent well over $1.5 million during a twenty-year divorce. John Jacob Astor paid lawyer fees of $105,000 in only one year of a fouryear divorce, and that was over half a century ago. Others of similar high cost and duration are on record. A Fort Lauderdale heir to the Quaker Oats fortune, Mrs. Eleanor Ritchey, left $14 million to her 81 dogs. Lawyers argued about that for years, to the tune of $700,000.

Sometimes they work faster: The 80 year-old widow of real estate magnate Sylvan Lawrence sued the Graubard, Miller law firm in New York for $50 million in excess fees and gifts. The firm reportedly attempted to soak her further by getting her to sign a retainer agreement worth in excess of $67 million.224 In Muskegon, Michigan, Helen Below bequeathed $50,000 to two cats. Lawyers took $40,000 of it. Talk about milking situations!

In No-Fault Divorce and the Divorce Conundrum, Lynn D. Wardle states that “a divorce industry…of professional meddlers…make millions of dollars every year off marital turmoil, much of which they have a hand in creating themselves.” Chicago Judge Nathan M. Cohen says, “Lawyers’ fees lie in divorce, not reconciliation.” Further, they have an unwritten agreement to see to it that each gets in on the division of spoils, right or wrong, legal or not. This practice is called champerty. Bar Associations ‘recommend’ (wink, wink) minimum fees. This universal practice of price fixing violates hell out of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Apparently it’s O.K. if done by lawyers.

Like surgeons who operate unnecessarily, lawyers can be greater make-work artists than railroad firemen. In most states they are advocating “guardians ad litem.” This is a scheme to introduce yet another lawyer into divorces to represent children in contested custody situations (at papa’s expense, naturally). Obviously this would - 119 -

Save the Males compound an already bad situation. Another lawyer is needed like Dolly Parton needs falsies.

The California Assembly Judiciary Committee documents the lack of ethics or morals of the divorce lawyers in its 1965 report. It says, “For them divorce is their rent, their stenographer’s salary, their baby’s shoes, sometimes their solid-gold Cadillac… How unrealistic to expect them to forego anything like that for mere considerations of ethics or morals.” Diogenes will search long and hard to find his man in this bunch.

Most divorce lawyers would much rather be on the woman’s side of course. When unfortunate enough to be representing the man, they find it economically most practical to take his money, pick up the phone and sell him out to their counterpart representing the woman; and most do just that. This takes very little time. Really working for the man’s rights produces only a little more income and involves considerable time (better spent milking some other mark), effort, and antagonizing of judges, before whom they must practice again and again.

Courts act as glorified collection agencies for lawyers. They do this through the subterfuge of writing the fees into court orders, thus giving them the force and dignity of law. Failure to pay can be, and often is, construed as contempt of court — a jailable offense. An Illinois appellate court declared “Attorneys’ fees awarded in a divorce decree are in the nature of alimony and not dischargeable in bankruptcy... Spouses’ award in attorney fees should be treated with some legal significance as an allowance for money to buy food and groceries.”225 Often courts order claims against citizens’ property or withhold official records, or both, until lawyers’ claims are satisfied. Provisos have been written into court orders making visitation contingent upon payment of lawyers. In Chicago a reconciled couple tried to have the wife’s action for separate maintenance terminated. Her lawyer jacked the fee up far beyond the original quotation, refused to drop the action until paid, and ensnared them into reappearance in divorce court. There the judge refused to dismiss the action until the alleged debt was paid.226 Donald Cash was thrown into York County jail in Alfred, Maine, for not paying his wife’s lawyer. His salary was $60 a week, from which he paid $36 in support for three children and $25 for room and board. MDA member Lloyd Tourville, a 100 percent disabled veteran, now-deceased, languished in the Ramsey County, Minnesota, workhouse for refusal to sign over his veteran’s pension to his wife’s lawyers.227 This free, efficient collection service is run by judges for legal professional bedfellows at taxpayers’ expense. Any other businessmen - 120 -

J’Accuse having such privilege would warrant congressional investigation.

The Mafia must be envious.

Collusion goes beyond the monetary. Two men were actually arrested in New York for telling lawyer jokes. Waiting in a courthouse line, Harvey Kash asked Carl Lanzisera, both founders of a group called Americans for Legal Reform, “How do you tell when a lawyer is lying?” “His lips are moving,” they both said in unison. The men were charged with disorderly conduct.228 Even non-avaricious motives are questionable. Like social workers, the more unscrupulous have a virtual harem of pre- and postdecree divorcees, who are usually sex-starved and willing to do anything for favoritism and best efforts. Through half-closed eyes, the aspiring divorcee sees only an intrepid champion desirous and capable of tremendously improving her lot in life.

Priesthoods seldom initiate their reform. Because so much income is derived from the divorce racket, lawyers have a vested interest in perpetuating any system conducive to a high rate of divorce.

These custodians of the status quo jealously squelch all serious investigation into deficiencies of the system. Strangling reform legislation is simple because they control legislatures, especially the important judiciary committees. According to The Trouble With Lawyers, seventy-one percent of Congressmen are lawyers. The mere presence of “officers of the court” in the legislature, besides violating the principle of separation of governmental branches, is a conflict of interest. Considering legislation to remove a large source of their private income is doubly so. Voluntary reform will not spring from this quarter. If wolves got together to demand that farmers leave their hen house doors open at night, people would be outraged. But such foolishness is accepted without a murmur when the wolves stand erect and wear neckties.

This is not an indictment against all lawyers; many are honest and fine men, not a bunch of Wm. Kuntsler-type wild-haired, sandal-wearing misfits. A divorcing man will have to join a reform organization (some listed in the Appendix hereto) to get a referral to those good ones that exist. Several such lawyers successfully defended me against their brethren back in the ΄70s.

It began when the Minnesota State Bar Association (MBA), hoping to “silence the lambs,” commenced an inquisition. They sued several other Minnesota divorce reform organizations for “practicing law without a license.” The MBA was unhappy that groups like mine were interfering with the divorce racket. As we said in the Air Force, “When you’re getting flack, you’re over the target. I wrote a newspaper article daring the MBA to sue our Men’s Rights Association (also known as Divorce Assistance Ass’n., and now re-named the Men’s - 121 -

Save the Males Defense Association), essentially saying “I too am Spartacus.” The Bar Ass’n immediately sued my organization on the same charge and hired the most formidable prosecuting attorney in Minnesota, Tom Collins, to represent them. My primary defenders were referral attorneys in the MDA stable making good money litigating on behalf of MDA members; but they made an honest living at it (Any who failed to adequately represent members at reasonable rates were removed from the list). I am eternally grateful to civil libertarian Tom Burke, the main attorney that represented me at the initial level. The Minn.

Civil Liberties Union also filed an amicus curiae brief on my behalf.

We beat the MBA in state Supreme Court and forced them to pay all expenses.229 It was one of my most satisfying legal wins. The precedent that case set paved the way for persons and groups to assist in divorce counseling.

After my set-to with the MBA, and seeking to wreak revenge on them, I discovered that Bar Associations all over the country were in violation of postal regulations #s 134.52 and 134.53, by concealing their activities in order to qualify for the reduced rate mailing privilege available to non-lobbying groups. They were ripping off the taxpayers for perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in this manner, and probably still are. I intended to nail them for it, but, swamped with work, never got around to it.

Bureaucrats, Mercenaries & Culprits Condemning churls, knaves, blackgards, and others of invincible ignorance.

Citizens seem to blindly assume that officials are knowledgeable, competent, and endeavoring to properly resolve all problems besetting us. Those who don't suffer from this delusion consider the wrongs as more of the worldly disillusionment to which we must resign ourselves in oriental-like fatalism, and endure uncomplainingly (C' est la vie). The electorate has demonstrated itself to be so gullible in other ways, it's not surprising that they accept this.

Ideally, authority should be entrusted to those most responsible and competent. Unfortunately, such individuals are not often found in government. Plato’s Democracy may not produce the finest elected officials. Einstein said, “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”

Consequently, we have many ninth-rate men in first rate vestments making important judgments. Many functionaries are content to shuffle papers or fiddle while the country burns. Don’t be surprised to see a “Bureau of Bureaucracy.” Noted columnist, Jack Anderson, back in 1975 said “Officialdom, left to itself, will tend to do wrong, - 122 -

J’Accuse not right.”

In addition to judges, lawyers and legislators, our government includes a horde of other knights errant all sharing a near-identical genetic code. Existing in all areas of government, these grey mice constitute a square dance of assorted sycophants. Consider the twobit politicians and officials who trod underfoot the great moral and intellectual martyrs of the world; Socrates comes to mind. Throughout history, real intellectuals (as opposed to academics) have had sadly little influence on or authority over the affairs of man. Philosophers have been elbowed out by popinjays.

The US criminal justice system largely serves the ambitions of prosecutors. Prosecutors need high conviction rates to justify their budgets and to build their careers. It is noteworthy, that while defendants are sworn to tell the truth, prosecutors are not. In 1981 there were about 1,500 U.S. attorneys. Today there are more than 7,000, all trying to get ahead via their conviction records. I have no idea how many state and local prosecutors exist. Add to this a big industry of psychologists, custody evaluators, and domestic-violence agitators who make their living pursuing anti-male agendas.

The entire ‘divorce industry’ is a profitable interdependent cabal of those mentioned above and below, working to keep the profits rolling in. Cabal members aren’t by definition any more honest or dishonest than anyone else, but are in a position to capitalize on dishonesty, and the weak ones do.

Welfare and the mentality of its recipients were addressed in Part I; the motivations of administrators will be addressed here.

Welfare “do-gooders” likewise have a stake in divorce-created poverty. The Florence Nightingale/Santa Claus image of welfare “civil servants” is not accurate. The primary concerns of any bureaucracy are to justify its existence and expand its operation. Looking after and rehabilitating ‘helpless’ mothers is the biggest excuse for this bureaucracy’s existence. Without the empire built on these gals, most of them would be out of work, and male employees would have to pay for the sex some get free from ‘clients.’

These ‘public servants’ have become surrogate husbands and fathers, a self-appointed clerisy. It is their aspiration to replace the man in the family, assume responsibility for the needs of fatherless families they helped create, and control their lives. To maintain their jobs and perquisites, they usurp the male function, they encourage wives to kick husbands out and eagerly provide courts with supporting rationale for awarding maternal custody, to build case loads and ultimately their bureaucracy.

Welfare administrators lobby for ever harsher anti-male legislation, which only creates more need for them. They fear and sabotage - 123 -

Save the Males a society of morally and financially healthy families because they have so much to lose from it. They invariably oppose realistic reforms, such as tightening welfare eligibility and father custody, because their careers depend on existence of the support problem.

Their interests lie in creating and perpetuating situations to “work with.” Actually curing sociological problems is against their vested interests. This is nothing less than state-sponsored family abuse.

Surely many social “workers” began with high, altruistic ideals, but soon lose them in the crunch between the managers above and a multitude of often good-for-nothing clients below. Occasionally one reads about social workers cooperating in the removal of kids from single mothers, but only in cases where they had no choice, where mothers were caught doing something like prostituting their daughters – and that is not necessarily sufficient cause. Years ago one California welfare worker, Mrs. Belva Deltof, was threatened with dismissal for “conduct unbecoming a county employee” because she exposed hundreds of cases of welfare fraud.

To give the illusion of concern about fraud, welfare departments have periodic or continuing programs of investigating themselves.

To no one’s surprise, they always come up clean. It is amusing to see officials being questioned by the news media in an attempt to determine what is wrong with the system. This is like asking lawyers what is wrong with divorce. Neither will expose the causes of problems nor advocate an effective clean-up beyond the usual platitudes.

It is universally customary for welfare officials and prosecutors to transfer their own guilt for the welfare/fatherless mess to ex-father scapegoats by conjuring up an image of helpless children left to starve (Amneus’ “Mutilated Beggar” example). Regrettably, people are suckers for this dodge. Early in his career, before his more recent arguments against big government vindicated him, even former California Governor Ronald Reagan was taken in by it.

Then there are the child protective agencies.

“Truth or Fiction?” By Doug Henson, from The Liberator.

Preview of a fictional CPS Television Commercial.

The following is a Public Service Announcement from Child Protective Services (CPS).

The scene: A middle class home in suburbia, a Father and Mother are having a heart to heart talk with their 12 year old son, who got sent home from school for taking lunch money from the younger kids.

Dad (with raised voice): Billy, I don’t know what we’re going to do with you. We’ve tried talking, we’ve tried time outs, we’ve even tried grounding you, and it just doesn’t seem to work. Your Mother and I have discussed this and we’ve decided that you are going to be grounded indefinitely until you pay back every dime you took from those kids. You will

- 124 -

J’Accuse come home from school every day and perform a list of chores your Mother and I will draw up. Is that understood?

Billy: You can’t do that to me, I’ll call CPS and tell them you’re abusing me. I know my rights and you can’t do anything to me.

Dad to Mom: I told you we should have spanked him when he was younger. My Dad spanked me and I came out all right.

Mom to Dad: Now Bill, we discussed this before the kids were born, we swore we’d never spank them.

Dad to Billy: That’s it, go to your room right now, No supper for you tonight! And don’t think you can scare me with this CPS talk. I’m your Father and I can most definitely punish you and there’s nothing CPS can do.

Billy runs out of the room.

Three days later: There’s a knock on the door.

Dad (Opens door, to see a young woman; and three police officers standing on his front porch, with hands on their guns): Can I help you?

Young Woman: Mr. Johnson? I’m Liz Feminazi from Child Protective Services. We’ve had a complaint that you’re abusing your child.

Dad: What? That’s ridiculous, I’ve never laid a hand on my son! Who told you such a lie?

Liz Feminazi: That’s none of your business, now step aside and let us in, we’re here to interview your abused son, Billy.

Dad: No! I will not allow you into my home to interview my son about this. I have my Rights!

Policeman 1 (still with hand on gun): Sir, Step out of the way, immediately, or you’ll be placed under arrest for interfering with a government agent, in the performance of her job.

Dad: This is absurd, I’m calling my lawyer.

Dad starts to turn and close the door when the policeman pulls his weapon and yells: Policeman 1: FREEZE! Raise your hands and step out of the house, NOW! Turn around and lace your fingers behind your neck!

Liz Feminazi: You’re obviously a violent man Mr. Johnson. You have no business raising a child. We’re taking you in and we’re taking your children, Billy and Suzy, into protective custody. I’ll make sure you never see them again. We’ve got a lot of foster families looking for more income, who would just love to have another child to take care of.

ANOTHER ABUSIVE FATHER TAKEN OFF THE STREETS! CPS, WE’RE HERE TO HELP YOU! CALL: 1-800-NORIGHTS

This could very easily happen to you. It happens more often then you think.

While on the subject of officials, we mustn’t overlook the police.

Some are pigs, salivating for the opportunity to rescue damsels in distress and to impress the gals; they’d remind you of the night shift - 125 -

Save the Males at Abu Ghraib. But, it is a sadistic, crooked minority that defames a respectable majority of these front-line troops in the war against crime. It’s not their fault if they must enforce bad laws or stupid interpretations of them. They have to hold their nose and do their duty. Jailers are seldom interested in rehabilitation or education of prisoners. Perpetuation of their jobs is a greater concern.

Other charlatans and quacks can also be nuisances. So-called “expert” witnesses will usually testify any way they are paid to in courts, be it civil or criminal. Regarding custody matters, psychologist Sanford Braver calls their advice “little more than guesswork.”

For example, San Francisco Federal Judge Phyllis Hamilton chose abortion providers over abortion opponents as ‘expert’ witnesses in deciding whether partial birth abortion can be a necessary procedure.230 An investigator for Canada’s National Post reports “Assessors are not required by law to have any specialized training, pass any exams, or follow any particular rules.”231 Anti-male instinct is the cement of this entire cabal. Whether sex prejudice is inspired by the public or by officialdom is unimportant; public opinion is a consensus of the uninformed, and because the masses are made up of neither philosophers nor saints, the majority argument is not always valid. Majorities permitted such things as racial slavery, Hitler’s atrocities, and Christ’s crucifixion.

Besides money and empire, what else motivates them? As with judges, reasons range from indiscriminate chivalry – the Galahad fantasy – to self-aggrandizement, to fad. Eduard Bakalar, Ph.D. a scholar from the Czech Republic, attributes anti-male behavior in men, especially government officials, to an underlying subconscious mechanism desirous of women’s sexual favors. While many favor women in order that they may receive pats on the head from Feminists, others quake in fear of Feminist power, genuflect before it and shine the shoes of their female-pandering superiors.

- 126 -

J’Accuse

Feminists Riddle: Is Feminism a cure for which there is no disease, or a disease for which there is no cure?

Once upon a time, some women were sometimes discriminated against. In 1792 a few frustrated women organized to protest and eliminate ideas, laws, and practices perceived to be adverse to women. Later came Susan B. Anthony, the godmother of modern Feminism. They had a few male supporters. In 1906 Sir Arthur Conan Doyle founded the Divorce Law Reform Union in England to protect women (in those days, the pendulum of power in domestic relations favored men). Husbands or inheritances usually provided the leisure and funds to pursue their goals. One might say they were biting the hand that fed them. That thesis which helped inspire the early Feminist movement, John Stuart Mill’s 1869 book The Subjugation of Women, despite its fallacies, could be reprinted today with little more than interchanging the words “men” and “women,” certainly that portion of it concerning domestic relations; and it would be almost as accurate and contemporary as when published.

Picayunish railings and distortions were paramount in their platform; several considered homemaking wives to be parasites, proclaiming “Housework is shitwork.” Theodore Roosevelt termed most of them “fools.” Actually, in view of the advantages women had by virtue of chivalry, any disadvantages were of minor consequence; the sole exception being voting rights (and a damn good argument to the contrary has been made there). Back in 1831 the Frenchman, Alexis de Tocqueville, warned Americans that the new Feminist movement would result in the manufacture of “weak men and disorderly women.” His words have proven prophetic.

Like a tsunami in the Indian Ocean, the ‘postmodern’ Feminist ascendancy has swept over the western world. With no adult supervision Feminists get into all sorts of mischief, throwing giant jamborees in Mexican and African fever swamps. Here’s a listing of the present day outfits I’ve been able to dig up just in the US: Catholics for a Free Choice, Center for Reproductive Rights, Center for the Advancement of Women, Center For Women's Policy Studies, Feminist Majority Foundation, Freedom Socialist Party, Institute for Women’s Policy Research, League of Women Voters, Malia – Collective of Italian-American Women, NARAL Pro-Choice America (National Abortion Rights Action League), National Abortion Federation, National Council for Research on Women, National Council of Women's Organizations, National Organization for Women (NOW, the Feminist’s attack dog), National Women's Law Center, National Women's Political Cau- 127 -

Save the Males cus, Older Women’s League, Peace and Freedom Party, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Radical Women, Veteran Feminists of America, Women's Policy Inc., Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA). There are probably more here and certainly more in other countries.

Partially as a result of this phenomenon and partially due to the forces of modernism, the gender situation changed drastically. Their inordinate worldwide influence is akin to the tail wagging the dog.

As with a pendulum, the momentum carried sexual dominance to the opposite extreme, to an almost pathologically anti-male position.

Through a barrage of demonstrations, speeches, and publications, this juggernaut has become a veritable religion, widely and blindly accepted, much to the detriment of individuals, society and industry.

It is altering the male kinship system, largely explaining the social and sexual chaos of present society.

The Feminist movement is largely a façade; pull back the rhetorical curtain and there is little behind it. It is driven by non-rational, often anti-rational, sentiments and impulses. The essence is that gender is “socially constructed” by the patriarchy. The commonly accepted notion, the basic premise has long been that discrimination against women is greater than that against men. This is more than fashionable nonsense; it is a bizarre hoax. Indeed, a good case can be made that western women are the most pampered creatures on earth, sacred cows.

Feminism is a spectrum, ranging from the delusional, pursuing various schemes and fantasies, to the rational, if misguided – all advocating under the veil of rights for women. I reject the artificial distinction between “gender Feminists” and “equity Feminists” as an attempt to rationalize the latter, but admit a difference in degree (All Muslims aren’t radicals either, but too many of the gentler persuasions in both groupings fail to denounce their radicals). With Feminists, Teddy Roosevelt’s description “lunatic fringe” is reversed. The sane are the fringe. Writer David Usher says: The relatively small (but growing) cohort of equalitarian feminists (such as Kate O’Bierne, Christina Hoff Sommers, Wendy McElroy, Kathleen Parker, and Erin Pizzey) are the legitimate followers of suffragettes. They still seek reasonable social equality between the sexes, and strongly oppose the egregious destruction of marriage and men’s social rights caused by second-wave feminists. The prevailing second-wave feminist movement, steered by the National Organization for Women, predominantly applies ideological and statistical machinations to achieve women’s supremacy targets. It sees equalitarians as “anti-feminist” enemies and is constantly at battle with them for control at the helm of feminism.

- 128 -

J’Accuse Spokeswomen profess to seek equality but these are largely headfakes. They demand the advantages men have earned without the disadvantages, like having to earn them. Writer Jeffrey Jackson tells us that we are now seeing post-feminist “domestic divas” who seek the advantages of both the feminist and traditionalist worlds, as depicted in Desperate Housewives, i.e. the total equality feminism demands without the “drudgery” of housework.

They want equal employment with men, and equal pay for not necessarily equal ability or equal work. They demand equal representation in the boardrooms of industry, but not in the grubby jobs or among the burned out inhabitants of skid row. They consider women too fragile to be pinched in an office, but tough enough to engage in combat. That’s like wanting a one sided coin.

Someone, I forget who, said “The historical fact of women clamoring for the right to give orders to draftees (a.k.a. men) by virtue of being West Point graduates coupled with the absence of concomitant clamoring that they be draftees themselves leads me to conclude that well ... yeah, women pretty much demand and expect special privilege.”

Feminists want what it pleases them to call “abortion rights” on demand, divorce on demand, child custody on demand, and Lord knows what other demands. Some demands sound reasonable; but closer examination reveals that they want privilege upon privilege.

When it suits their purposes, Feminists consider the sexes both identical, e.g., in employment, and different, e.g., in child custody – a classic “have their cake and eat it too” situation. They want access to men’s clubs and organizations. Men-only clubs and lounges are considered sexist, but women-only clubs and lounges like the one at Boalt Hall and the law school of the University of California-Berkeley are “empowering.” They clamor for fifty women in the Senate, but not fifty percent of women in the cells of prisons and not fifty percent of military casualties or industrial accidents.

The Feminist position is that divorce should benefit the woman equally as does marriage. This makes divorce attractive for women.

Ponder this passage from the Declaration of Feminism: “The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands…” (November, 1971).

Feminists claim that it is discrimination that poor women can’t afford abortions, and government agrees. The Feminist catechism, while it rewrites and profanes church doctrine, has made abortion a sacrament, helping to convince mothers to slaughter 41 million of our babies since 1970. One is tempted to wish their mothers had opted to pursue the freedom-to-choose of which they are such hearty - 129 -

Save the Males advocates.

Railing against their feminine nature as if it were a congenital defect, the sisterhood seems to have a running argument with life itself. They preach that women’s accomplishments lie in rivaling males in creativity and external accomplishments. They would meld us into a unisex society by eliminating sexual distinctions and traditional functions based upon them. In one cause du jour, Barbara Mapes, former student senate vice president, and Sally Hughes, former student senator, and others at the Minneapolis Metropolitan Community College, demanded access to men’s toilets.

Feminists’ complaints about male dominance and about imaginary grievances, like getting fewer Nobel Prizes or less subsidization for women’s athletic teams, are fodder for lucrative lawsuits. Low seniority employees are traditionally sent on errands such as to get coffee. When it happens to women, the libbers cry “discrimination.”

They’re strangely silent about men being sent to shovel snow, unload trucks and do other heavy or dirty work, more undesirable than making coffee. Connecticut libbers, still in diapers, threw fits when the state canine license carried the shape of a miniature fire hydrant. They felt it discriminated against female dogs. The Cleveland Chapter of NOW. “Girlcotted” Cleveland Indian baseball games because there were no “bat girls.” Has anyone else noticed that many women drivers seem obliged to pass every male driver on the road?

(I believe that suggestion appears on page 3 of the N.O.W. Assertiveness Manual.)

It is those women not placed on pedestals who complain so bitterly about the idea of pedestals for ladies. Most of those who would sacrifice the pedestals of all for their own imagined advantage, and who would push their way in where they aren’t invited, have suspect motives. Some are misanthropes, female chauvinist pigs — to hurl a horribly-overworked epithet back across the fence, usually rejectedin-romance or lesbian (Kate Millet confesses to be a “queer.” Her own mother and cousins tried to have her committed for psychiatric care). That women’s lib members are largely lesbian can be verified by identifying the targets of classified ads in Ms. Magazine.

Feminists have mounted a massive and insidious campaign to propagandize children, and have subverted almost the entire school and public TV systems into espousing their “philosophy.” Many other public institutions provide facilities for the dissemination of their gibberish and accommodation of their huddlings. In the early 1970’s, the Ford Foundation granted the Women’s Action Alliance $95,370 to develop a nonsexist curriculum for preschool children in child care centers.

Max Friedman, a Liberator writer from Brooklyn, says “A fifth- 130 -

J’Accuse grade test … had been expunged, under Feminist pressure, of such names as Bach, Napoleon and Mozart to make room for the likes of Phyllis Wheatley” (Don’t be embarrassed; I never heard of her, either). In addition to eliminating books depicting sex roles, there is a concentrated effort by this faction to eliminate differentiated boys’ toys and girls’ toys. It has also made many inroads into the Girl Scouts (Betty Friedan has been named honorary member to the National Board of Girl Scouts — with voting privileges).

Feminist intellectuals (the term itself is an oxymoron) educated beyond their capacity, regurgitate Feminist agitprop “herstory” and advocate female “empowerment” to vacuous college students at many institutional sand boxes throughout the country. Instead of being unceremoniously dumped, these hate-mongers get grants and raises to pursue their “courageous” and “important” research.”

Feminist books have about as much credibility as The Da Vinci Code.

Phyllis Schlafly says, “College textbooks portray marriage as especially bleak and dreary for women. Assigned readings are preoccupied with domestic violence, battering, abuse, marital rape, and divorce.” It seems the term “rape” is open to definition; lesbian Feminists consider all heterosexual intercourse to be rape (In point of fact, less than 2% of the male population commits 100% of the actual male-on-female rapes in America).

Libbers are often shocked – shocked! – about the “exploitation” of women in nudie magazines, claiming it reduces women to sex symbols. Such complaints are wrongly directed at men, obviously realizing the futility in expecting women to have the good sense and decency to keep their clothes on. Voyeurism is at least as attributable to the exhibitionists as it is to the opportunists. Since brainless men commenced posing nude for women’s magazines, one doesn’t hear these complaints as often. And they hate beauty contests. Little wonder – no one would hire them to jump out of a cake.

Strident Feminists are marching across campuses chanting obscene words and selling reproductive organ shaped lollipops to students. Feminist Students United (FSU) of the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill scheduled a sex party for November 10th, 2005 to include "pin the finger on the clitoris" and “locate the g-spot” games followed by contests to see how quickly and properly people of both sexes can put condoms on bananas, with “lots of information on masturbation, orgasm and contraception, orgasm – how to have better ones, or how to help your girlfriend.”

Libbers decry pornography, hypocritically ignoring that their own literature is among the most foul and pornographic. Their idea of high art/drama seems to be “The Vagina Monologues.” V-Day has - 131 -

Save the Males now replaced Valentine’s Day on more than 500 college campuses (including Catholic ones), while some of these same institutions ban the Bible. When College Republicans at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island rained on the celebrations of V-Day with a reductio ad absurdum by inaugurating Penis Day and staging a satire called The Penis Monologues, the official reaction was horror. Participants were ordered to cease and desist.

In Academe, anti-male orthodoxy is rampant and, despite proclamations of diversity, diverse opinion is not countenanced. To paraphrase Ann Coulter, feminists are constantly rushing in with their rule book about what can and cannot be said. Camille Paglia, Professor of Humanities and Media Studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, is of like mind. Christina Hoff Sommers describes the intellectual climate of today’s candy-curricula academy: “Rigid social constructionism so remains the dominant dogma in American humanities and social-sciences departments that to question it even an iota brings the thought police out in shrieking mobs to your door.”

Obvious differences between the sexes are like an elephant in the living room. But nobody dares notice it or their careers are in danger. The low estate of intellectual freedom on campus was exemplified when Lawrence H. Summers, president of Harvard University and former Treasury Secretary who once adjudicated questions of the world’s financial system affecting billions on the planet, suggested at an economic conference that innate differences between the sexes could help explain why fewer women succeed in science and math careers.232 Feminists who didn’t have fainting spells tantrumed at the blasphemy. Political correctness ran amok. The galvanized Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences’ Standing Committee on Women sent Summers a sharp letter of censure; alumnae threatened to suspend donations; students mobilized and Summers was barraged by protests from distraught Harvard co-eds who say they felt betrayed and diminished by his words. Writer Amity Shlaes said it was enough to bring the entire educational establishment down upon Mr. Summers’ head. MIT biology professor Nancy Hopkins developed a case of the vapors. Upon hearing Summers, she “felt I was going to be sick. My heart was pounding and my breath was shallow.” And, “I just couldn’t breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill.”

She said that if she had not bolted from the room, “I would’ve either blacked out or thrown up.” Evidently this hysteric isn’t the typical tough broad most Feminists like to portray themselves as. She’d have one helluva time in combat!

Columnist Suzanne Fields likened the hullabaloo to the abuse - 132 -

J’Accuse that Galileo took in the 17th century when he questioned the notion, politically correct for his day, that the earth was the center of the universe. Christina Hoff Sommers defended Summers thusly, “It could explain why there are more men at the extremes of success and failure, more male CEOs, more males in maximum-security prisons.”

Nancy Pftotenhauer, president of the Independent Women’s Forum, also defended Summers.

Attempting to demonstrate his meaning, Summers said “The data will, I am confident, reveal that Catholics are substantially underrepresented in investment banking…that white men are very substantially underrepresented in the National Basketball Association, and that Jews are very substantially underrepresented in farming.”

Nevertheless, because he sinned against ideological conformity, Summers was forced to drink the hemlock, to grovel and apologize not once but three times. He later resigned.

Duke University Chaplin Robert Young and his students attempted to rewrite the Bible, eliminating references to gender. U.S. News & World Report Editor John Leo called these courses “part therapy group, part training grounds for Feminist cadres to fight the patriarchy.”233 These courses give new meaning to the expression “theater of the absurd.”

In an e-mail to Feminists at Appalachian State University, Writer Mike S. Adams hoists them thusly: “According to the examples of sexual harassment listed on the ASU website, you have clearly sexually harassed me and, in fact, every other man who has logged on to the Women’s Center website. For example, ASU claims that ‘telling racist, sexist, homophobic jokes that demean people because of their protected class membership’ is sexual harassment.” Hell, in view of the above, Adams – indeed all of us – could sue!

Academic reformer David Horowitz has devised an Academic Bill of Rights intended to introduce more politically rational and diverse thinking and hiring into academe. He has garnered 36 Congressional sponsors so far. More power to him!

Modern Feminists have piggy-backed their cause onto that of the much more legitimate civil rights movement, as subsequently did the homosexual element. Their propagandists employ clever reversals of reality. They cruise in with claims of comparable grievance, which are positively obscene from the perspective of slavery and segregation. The situation of straight males is more nearly comparable.

Feminist lobbyists, amateur and professional, are literally swarming in state capitols across the nation, influencing government policy and spewing anti-male messages before Congressional committees.

These gender warriors have enormous political power. Government and philanthropic organizations throw vast sums of money at their - 133 -

Save the Males crock-pot of programs and office holders. For example, “Battered women’s” shelters serve as headquarters primarily to pursue Feminist agendas and only secondarily to help these alleged victims.

Every state has generously funded a network of commissions on the status of women, despite the fact women in general are financially as well off as men.234 In times of shortage, government budget cuts are imposed, but funding for Feminist programs are sacrosanct; no one dares challenge them. Even though the current levels of funding provide women's advocacy programs nearly a billion dollars per year, NOW is instructing their members to ask for still more programs.

Women’s lib is a ‘ladies’ auxiliary of the anti-American left. Their strange theories, empirically falsifiable claims and Oprah-land pityparties percolate in a narrow leftist culture where they are reinforced through repetition by like-minded persons, with all the thoughtfulness of a rap message. The hard core embraces Marxism, although Gloria Steinem will admit only to being socialist. James Bowman said, “Ideological Feminism… adapted Marxist class analysis to the domestic sphere and so interpreted love and loyalty in terms of power relationships.” Prime purposes of Feminism are “to establish a lesbian-socialist republic and to dismantle the family unit.”235 Someone, I forget who, said: “Feminism as we know it is the direct ideological and political descendant of the Women’s Ku Klux Klan (WKKK).”

Maybe you can’t fool all the people all the time as Lincoln said, but you can fool enough of them with lopsided factoids to ruin a country. This is explained by a founder of modern psychology, William James, who noted that, “There is nothing so absurd that, if it is repeated often enough, will not become accepted.” Josef Goebbels, the infamous propaganda minister of the Nazis, well understood this truism.

Hear Paul Craig Roberts: Feminism is the intellectual organization of gender hatred, just as Marxism was the intellectual organization of class hatred. The feminist aim is to overthrow ‘patriarchal tyranny.’ In this undertaking, the male’s civil rights count for no more than those of the bourgeoisie in Soviet Russia or the Jews in National Socialist Germany.236

Feminists are pinning their hope now on forcing the U.S. to sign the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) treaty and promoting the new Millennium Declaration goals as a means of slipping in their pet causes. They are turning to the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) to “promote political, economic and social empowerment of women.”

- 134 -

J’Accuse Hear what Phyllis Schlafly has to say about CEDAW:237 (F)eminists are now trying to give us an even more dangerous ERA through ratification of a UN Treaty on Women enforced by busybody bureaucrats from foreign countries. This treaty has the pretentious label of United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Signed by Jimmy Carter in 1980, and repeatedly promoted by Bill and Hillary Clinton, the U.S. Senate has wisely never ratified it.

The notion is downright ridiculous that American women (the most fortunate class of people who ever lived) should submit to a treaty that dictates uniform rules for 185 other nations, all of which treat women far worse than the United States. Ratification of CEDAW would be craven kowtowing to the radical feminists, exceeded only by the treaty’s unlimited capacity for legal mischief.

Article 1 purports to abolish discrimination against women “in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.” What other Fields do the feminists have in mind?

Article 2 reiterates that the treaty would eliminate discrimination against women by any person, organization or enterprise,” including “laws, regulations, customs and practices. Our “customs” should be none of our government’s business, much less the business of the United Nations.

Article 3 would require us to pass new federal laws not only in political but also in “social, economic and cultural fields.”

Article 5 would require us “to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women” and to “ensure that we are following United Nations dictates about “family education.”

Article 10 would make it a federal responsibility to ensure “the elimination of any stereotyped concept of the role of men and women at all levels and in all forms of education. . . by the revision or textbooks and . . . teaching methods. We certainly don’t want the UN to revise our textbooks! Remember, the feminists consider it a “stereotype” that children should be raised by a mother and father married to each other.

Article 11 would chain us to the feminist goal that wages should be paid on discredited notions of “equal value” (i.e., the discredited notion of “comparable worth”) rather than on the free market or on U.S. legal standards of equal pay for equal work. It would also require us to “establish” another long-time feminist goal, a federal “network of child-care facilities.”

The article cites numerous other outrages, but you get the picture.

In Sweden, there is talk of establishing a Feminist political party.

Headed by Gudrun Schyman, it seems to be gaining traction.

Feminist-inspired politics are not only nonsensical, they can be positively dangerous. An anecdote from Robert Baer’s, memoir, See No Evil illustrates the problem. When W. Baer was the CIA station chief in Tajikstan in 1994, he asked CIA headquarters to send him officers who spoke Dari and Pashtun, the principal languages of Af- 135 -

Save the Males ghanistan, so they could interview the thousands of refugees pouring across the border. Mr. Baer was told no Dari or Pashtun linguists were available, but Langley would send out a four-member team to brief on the CIA’s new sexual harassment policy.

Feminists begrudge veterans’ benefits, conveniently ignoring the sacrifices of veterans, including the thousands of acres of graves of men killed defending the very existence of this country. These women are alive while many of their contemporary men are dead – killed in wars defending them. Their wild demands would not be possible without these sacrifices. Too many of our fighting men have been killed and injured in battle protecting our way of life to lose that way of life in outlandish pursuits.

While pockets of bias against women may remain, their straightfaced clamor for equality comes from an overall already superior position, even if artificially so. May whatever gods there be grant the descent they clamor for. But the price must be paid. Further demands must topple existing favoritism.

By defining between men and women in terms of power and competition instead of reciprocity and cooperation, the movement tore apart the most basic and fragile contract in human society. This distorts the true perspective of male/female relationships and upsets the laws of nature with undesirable consequences.

The term “Feminism” is a misnomer because essentially the zeitgeist is to destroy all traces of femininity. The term properly belongs in quotes, but that is ponderous. It is difficult to know what to call members of this movement. They object to the title “ladies” (appropriately so). The term “women’s lib” has pretty much gone out of style. Hitting the bull in the eye, Stu Miller says: “If feminism was really about ‘equality and creating a better world for everyone,’ why is it called ‘feminism’ and not ‘equalism?’ (It is probably for the same reason the Violence Against Women Act is not called the ‘Domestic Violence Prevention Act’).” Calling them “anti-feminists” would be more accurate.

Trying to argue rationally with radical gender feminists is like giving a bobcat a prostate exam. You can’t do it. Because of their utter lack of logic, they usually refuse debate. It’s not that they would lose the argument; they have none. Disagree libbers? I’ll put up a team of three masculinists against any three of yours. Make my day!

Über-feminist Voices The irrational segment is composed of covens of feminoid hate mongers and hard core sex-melders, the wound-too-tight “hairy armpit dykes” Stu Miller speaks of. The passion of radical Feminists - 136 -

J’Accuse with no tether to reality overwhelms reason to the point they can’t be taken seriously. Moving in these circles seems to have sent them barking mad. Some are seemingly infected with Mad Cow disease, permanent PMS. With about as much credibility as Rosie O’Donnell, they and their littermates hide in a Twilight Zone where logic and common sense cannot penetrate. Mounting a jihad against men, their poutings and screamings, their Strum und Drang amount to little more than a witches’ brew of victimization, insecurity, and resentment. This habitually offended community wallows in hyperbole and rhetoric about female victimization.

The mentality of these would-be ball-breakers is best summed up with “I am woman, hear me whine.” Methinks they doth whine too much. They believe all men are guilty of being men, an original sin no amount of virtue can erase, that men are good for three things: donating sperm, changing the oil, and paying alimony/support.

Really sick radicals consider all men to be white-slavers and rapists, those under 13 only potentially so. One of their favorite sophisms is to pick out faults characteristic of a few males, distort them and proclaim them to be characteristic of all males. Radicals hallucinate that all men and women who are happy in their sexuality and functional roles suffer from lowered consciousness or sensitivity. In their campaign against men, many emasculate their own sons, and would castrate the rest of us. Rudyard Kipling’s instructive poem The Female of The Species warns they are “more deadly than the male.”

Their voices are vitriolic, bizarre and unpersuasive – to borrow Whitman’s term, “one long barbaric yawp.” Hey, these people really exist; they’re serious. Their culture of misandry is akin to the radical Muslim hatred of western society, and equally grounded in nonsense. In full cry, the following quotes – among others in the dogpile – sum up the attitude toward men and traditional standards of decency: Robin Morgan, MS. Magazine editor: “I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to classhatred against the class that is oppressing them.”

Ingrid Bengis: “I thought again of my castration fantasy, of the slaughtered masses that my imagination had laid out on Fifth Avenue as sacrifices to my fury.”

In a speech at the Stanford University Law School on April 14, 2005, Catharine MacKinnon, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, delivered herself of the opinion that all men are in a millennialong war against all women.

Marilyn French, Author of The Women’s Room: “All men are rapists and that’s all they are.”

Susan Griffin, author of Rape: The All-American Crime: “And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosex-

- 137 -

Save the Males ual it may be mainly a quantitative difference.”

Typical Feminist author, Susan Brownmiller, informs us that ALL men will rape at least one woman during their lives.

Andrea Dworkin (Known as a “fat dyke.” Her main connection to sanity was her – overly radical – anti-porn campaign. She assumed room temperature in April of ΄05): “Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies.” And “Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.”

Ti-Grace Atkinson adds to Dworkin’s nonsense in Amazon Odyssey (p.

86): “The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-Feminist.”

Feminist Lynette Triere provides rationale for divorcing women: “There is no reason that a woman should be bound for life to a mistaken choice she made at age eighteen, twenty-four, thirty-three or forty-one. It is an unreasonable demand….[T]he issue of freedom is important for women.

There is joy in freedom….Perhaps a woman should take seriously the philosophic truism that she is endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For many women, the act of leaving is truly a declaration of independence.238” Betty Friedan: “The right of every woman to control her own reproductive life….The right, the inalienable right, to control our own body….To create new social institutions that are needed to free women, not from childbearing or love or sex or even marriage, but from the intolerable agony and burden those become when women are chained to them.”239 Mary Daly: “Marriage is a male institution and serves male interests…

Sisterhood means revolution.”240 Elizabeth Cady Stanton: “The true enemy of woman skulks behind the altar. The Bible is not the word of God. The Bible is the act of men written to keep women subordinate, [and] written out of his love of domination.”241 Suzie Leather (Britain): “The view that a child needs a father is a social anachronism.”

Unknown Feminist Leader: “A woman’s right to have a baby without having the father around is what Feminism is all about.”242 Shere Hite: “If the mother-child family was prevalent in pre-history, and indeed is a flourishing form of family in our own societies today, this is something of which we can be proud, not terrified.

Marie Enckendorff: “If ever there was a first and individual woman who…went voluntarily to the man and said: ‘Protect me from the enemy and from hunger and let me believe in your gods, and I will serve you, bear your children, and you shall be my master’ — If that woman ever existed, who, out of fear of life and its inward and outward experiences, was glad to give herself, body and soul, to a fellow-creature, and bequeathed this position to her sex — she was in truth the mother of sin…243 Phyllis Chesler: “Any father who puts a child and his mother through the

- 138 -

J’Accuse pain of a custody battle or who attempts to separate them from each other is by definition an unfit father.”244 Karen DeCrow, former president of NOW, in Moscow, Russia: “We are trying to get rid of all distinctions between men and women.”

Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan: “I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it.”

Gloria Steinem, the dashboard saint of Feminism (Give it a few more years, and she may be on a U.S. postage stamp): “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” And “The patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself.”

Glory Hole Steinem (a penname): “Every male should spend the ages of 15 through 30 in prison on a conviction of ‘Potential Rapist.’ ”

Feminist Carolyn Shaw Bell actually proposes taxing all men to subsidize all women. Similarly, Feminist Martha Sawyer proposes the subsidization of women by “the most advantaged class in society, white males.”

Maureen Dowd, the professional spinster columnist of the New York Times wrote a book called Are Men Necessary? claiming that men are intimidated by powerful women, a category in which she places herself. Wrong! Men prefer feminine women, few of whom are “powerful” in the business sense. Apparently men have not found her necessary.

When Mother Teresa died, Germaine Greer, whose spacemobile remains in high orbit, wrote a snippy, catty critique of Mother T. because she opposed abortion. Eleanor Smeal and Kate Michelman added similar comment later.

Around twenty one years ago Feminists circulated a myth that the expression “Rule of thumb” refers to a prohibition in law that a man could beat his wife only with a rod no wider than his thumb.

Actually, that saying referred to a carpenters’ measure of approximately one inch; it was quicker than going for a ruler.

The Feminist Action League (FAL) at the University of New Hampshire (UNH) are in the forefront of the aluminum-foil-hat crowd. In March 2005 they organized an on-campus event, which featured poetry readings, skits, monologues and an open microphone. Members of FAL said they wanted to share experiences of oppression in a “comfortable setting.” One member of FAL was quoted as saying that “Ninety-nine percent of sexual perpetrators are men. They are the root cause of the rape and oppression against women.” One FAL member’s monologue follows: “Hello, my name is ‘Mary-Man-HatingIs-Fun…’ I hate men because they are men, because I see them for what they are: misogynistic, sexist, oppressive and absurdly pathetic - 139 -

Save the Males beings who only serve to pollute and contaminate this world with war, abuse, oppression and rape.” Other members of the FAL wore scissors around their necks and sang a song about castration.

This is the fruit of Feminism! Writer Carey Roberts’ remarked “Can you imagine some sweaty working stiff taking a smoke break, and suddenly becoming inspired to enlighten his buddies with that kind of narcissistic drivel?” Such women prove the adage that genius has its limitations, but stupidity is boundless.

Not that male radicals aren’t “stuck on stupid” as well; witness the black race hustlers. But that’s a whole ‘nother issue. Masculinists also holler at Feminists, but there are far more of the latter hollering.

Big Media I define the “big media,” also referred to as “old media,” as that part of the mainstream or established media, electronic and printed, together with libraries and bookstores that controls the cathedral of journalism or what Lenin used to call “the commanding heights of the culture,” as opposed to the newer bloggers, cable TV, and other broader-minded outlets. Mark Twain said “If you don’t read the newspapers, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you are misinformed.” Bad news drives out good news. Movies and TV appeal to society’s lowest common denominator. The hype over, and awards won by, 3rd rate film “Brokeback Mountain” featuring two bisexual shepherds (their occupation itself should be a clue) is exemplary.

Legal theory holds that suspects are presumed innocent; in reality the presumption of guilt automatically attaches to males, and the status of victim to female accusers. Use of the term “victim” before it has been established that a crime has been committed is prejudicial and patently unfair. Due process and reliable conclusions demand more than summary pronouncements of guilt as with the Queen of Hearts in “Alice in Wonderland.”

In pursuit of sensationalism, pack journalists breathlessly hyperventilate on allegations of rape, child abuse, etc., barking and pushing all the buttons and braying like CNN’s Nancy Grace. Fixating on male suspects, they seem willing to believe the worst of, and to sensationalize, any man who is accused of any sexual misconduct, be he politician, actor, priest or athlete. Columnist Michael Barone wrote that the New York Times and Durham Herald-Sun “seemed to have a powerful emotional need to believe” (in the guilt of the falselyaccused Duke Lacrosse players). Actually-convicted women seldom receive such publicity.

- 140 -

J’Accuse A PBS program Breaking the Silence in late 2005 was filled with incredible distortions blaming men exclusively for domestic violence.

One of the mothers portrayed as a victim turned out to be a serial child abuser. Two ombudsmen at the Public Broadcasting Service itself, Ken Bode and Michael Getler, charged that Breaking the Silence claims were “slanted” against fathers, “incendiary,” and “plain wrong,” that “there was no recognition of opposing views,” and concluded the show was an “advocacy or point-of-view presentation.”

Further, that it “has been a launching pad for a very partisan effort to drive public policy and the law.” Sleeping with the Enemy, a misandric film implying wife-beating is ubiquitous, runs seemingly non-stop on cable TV. Lifetime Movie Network is a treadmill of hatefilled, anti-male screeds.

Men are the victims of about 80% of the assaults and murders in America; yet from media reporting, one would think that sexual assault and rape are the major violent crimes. The reality is that these latter are a small percentage of violent crime in America. Sixty-two percent of child-killers are men. While very few of them are fathers, the media frequently lumps these ordained villains in with mothers’ boyfriends and other caregivers, thus supporting arguments for mother custody.245 For fatuous minds, facts do not matter.

Consider the media umbrage and fixation over the murders of such cause célèbre΄s as the pretty young North Dakota co-ed Dru Sjodin in May of 2004, over Natalee Holoway in Aruba in May and June 2005 (That practically became a new TV series), and over 17year old Taylor Behl in September of 2005 (The conservative FOX TV network was the worst offender). Remember the Princess Diana Festival of Grief several years ago?

In contrast, don’t expect to see this headline: “The disappearance of an ordinary-looking, middle-aged black man has riveted the nation’s attention.” Relatively little concern is shown over the murder of men repeatedly driven over by the cars of angry wives or by the lingering death of the man impaled in a woman’s windshield and intentionally left to die an excruciating death.

In domestic assaults and rape allegations, the media and even the police routinely release names of alleged perpetrators, but never those of alleged victims, presumably because the former are primarily male and the latter primarily female (Remember, I said “alleged” victims and perps). U.S. News & World Report dismissed the lying, morally-deficient accuser of the Duke Lacrosse player as a “troubled young black woman.” “Deadbeat Dads” is another favorite media hobby horse.

There are exceptions: in the Kobe Bryant Colorado case the accuser was eventually named, but not until after the criminal case - 141 -

Save the Males was dropped. It was dropped because the charge couldn’t be proved, and because the accuser apologized to the police for lying about details of the “rape.” In Alaska, Kim Tran, 35, was charged with firstdegree assault, domestic violence and tampering with evidence.

Tran had cut off her boyfriend’s penis and flushed it down the toilet after he decided to leave her. In an unusual application of tradition, the male victim’s name was not revealed.246 ‘Bout time.

Feminist spokeswomen are on the speed-dial of all TV producers, and their propaganda infests the public airwaves. Stampeded by Feminists, the mainstream media are as obsequious to them as lawyers are to judges. Pandering to the common bias, they follow the script, promoting and parroting it as if prophetic, functioning practically as its bulletin board. The zeitgeist is to push women and minorities forward as high achievers, fighters, etc., beyond what’s real, manufacturing this image more than mirroring it. Mona Charen said “Whole forests have given their lives so that the complaints of middle class young women could be enumerated, analyzed, deplored, and sulked about.”

It’s hard to tell if they cover Feminist doings or sponsor them.

Blinkered and taking at face value as received opinion most anything Feminists say, these acolytes seldom ask for the source to determine if the claim can be substantiated; dissenters have to disprove it.

Male writers hump the legs of Feminists and are as guilty as female colleagues. Media personnel not on the Feminist payroll are getting gypped. In his best-selling book Bias and Arrogance, former CBS news correspondent Bernard Goldberg generally agreed with the foregoing assessments.

The Pew Research Center, a non-partisan organization, recently conducted a study of 547 journalists, 247 of whom worked at national-level outlets. The conclusion: five times more journalists say they are liberal (read Feminist-oriented) than say they are conservative. Only 7 percent of national journalists admit being conservative.

An important reason the public is little aware of men’s issues is that men’s gripes and arguments, though more legitimate than Feminists’, are censored or denigrated (I’ve taken my share of cheap shots). Consequently, I’m very cautious about interviews on gender issues these days. For instance, years ago I appeared on Tom Snyder’s Tomorrow Show. The best parts were left on the cutting room floor, and a file of evidentiary clippings I loaned the producers became “lost.” Balance is feigned by publication of writings from antimale male authors, arguably on the philosophical fringe of our movement, under the guise of “masculinist” material. They are purported to seemingly outnumber legitimate defenders of men and fathers.

- 142 -

J’Accuse

Men Ourselves Can male victims be blamed for our plight? Damn right we can!

We let it happen. It’s easy to say that the system failed. Not completely so; we failed the system. Like helpless animals caught in car headlights, we stood by while our rights and responsibilities were taken away. We meekly accepted false accusations and rolled over like submissive dogs before anti-male hysteria. The decline and fall of the male has been far too voluntary and justified — made so by the vast majority of near-normal males who have simply and quietly abdicated their own trousers.

The average layman is conditioned to peace, to old-fashioned honesty and fair play, as incapable of fighting back as Little Bo Peep. He lies down and takes a screwing in court just to make some official think he’s a good boy. He labors under the naiveté that he will avoid the rape simply by virtue of a pure heart. Bunk! A man like that is at a disadvantage more than at an advantage in this practical, everyday world; especially in court. The allegorical significance, if nothing else, of the crucifixion is undeniable. That’s what happens to good guys. There’s just no demand. Leo Durocher’s observation that “Nice guys finish last” couldn’t be more appropriate. Many men, not necessarily stupid ones, create a psychological block against responding to summons for divorce or other domestic relations issues. That’s like putting a loaded gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger. I’ve counseled many of them after they signed whatever papers their divorcing wife’s lawyer put in front of them. I could have choked them if they hadn’t been hurting so much – almost in shock.

Feminists and their sycophants are correct in a sense – there is something wrong with men; we seldom support one another in confrontations with women, even when in the right. I refer not just to government officials and Feminist camp-followers, but to most average “Joes.” It seems that male characteristics are also liabilities; the qualities that cause us to excel – ego, rugged individualism – prevent us from cooperating in our defense. At times the technically superior, white-collar men hold themselves above their often more masculine blue-collar brothers. Failure to cooperate with other men amounts to sawing off our own testicles.

Feminism has its useful idiots, to borrow Lenin’s term. I refer to organizations, some nominally supportive of men and fathers, that seldom if ever advocate equal rights for men. Many ‘Responsible Fatherhood’ types fit into this category.

The “National Fatherhood Initiative” holds rallies with celebrities, - 143 -

Save the Males sells souvenirs and tells fathers how to have fun with their children.

The “Promise Keepers” organization operates under the illusion that only men abandon families. Following PK’s lead, David Blankenhorn at the outset of his otherwise admirable book, Fatherless America, makes an unsubstantiated assertion that lies at the heart of his claim to be an authority on the fatherhood crisis. On page 1 he writes “Never before in this country have so many children been voluntarily abandoned by their fathers.” And on pages 22 and 23: “Today, the principal cause of fatherlessness is paternal choice...the rising rate of paternal abandonment.” Blankenhorn cites no source and evinces no evidence for these assertions. Aside from the question of how he can be privy to the volition of other people, this statement represents an odd abdication of the scholar’s critical function. He seems to take it at face value that because children do not live with their fathers, therefore their fathers have abandoned them.

This does not necessarily follow. It seldom does.

In fact, Blankenhorn’s statements have been called into serious question by in-depth investigations on precisely this subject. Research published in refereed journals by respected scholars like Stephen Baskerville, Sanford Braver, Margaret Brinig, Douglas Allen, Ilene Wolcott, Jody Hughes, Judith Wallerstein, and Sandra Blakeslee, and corroborated by the professional experience of authors as ideologically diverse as Constance Ahrons, Shere Hite, David Chambers, Robert Seidenberg, and Rosalind Miles, indicates that paternal abandonment cannot account for widespread fatherlessness. Even the normally astute U.S. News & World Report editor, Mortimer Zuckerman, in his 10/25/04 editorial bemoaned “fathers abandoning their families.” (What can you expect from a former suitor of Gloria Steinem?).

Nearly 24 centuries ago, Plato warned not to confuse innate artistic skill with education or intelligence. Someone said Hollywood is so far out, you need a passport to enter. Many of today’s airhead entertainers, long on talent but short on intellect, have clambered aboard the Feminist/leftist bandwagon. Actors Alan Alda, (who once called testosterone a male poison) and Ed Asner, along with other celebs, prove Plato’s wisdom.

Media mogul Ted Turner, Jane Fonda’s former husband, says men should be prohibited from elective office worldwide. He may have been serious.

Unburdened by any serious grasp of reality and stuck in permanent adolescence, SNAGs (sensitive, new age guys) meet at “warrior weekends,” where they seek salvation in male bonding, navel-gazing introspection, drumming and mythopoetry. These thumb suckers cry a lot, and grope at each other in “consciousness raising” sessions, presided over by charlatans selling paraphernalia, conducting seminars, giving “massages,” reading poetry and generally doing - 144 -

J’Accuse their schtick. Their philosophical gurus spout naïve, platitudinous blatherings, imagining them to be of utmost importance or relevance to all men. From their publications, it is evident that they have a lot of anger. No wonder; all that repression of normality and masculinity is enough to anger anyone. Even lesbian Tammy Bruce recognizes this phenomenon. True masculinists reject this element like a body rejects transplants.

In the last few decades, a faux “men’s movement” has come into existence. Many of its adherents, sponsored by NOW, bleat the Feminist party line. Made up of pop sociologists, sex-melders and reluctant males of mixed sexual persuasion, they are thoroughlydomesticated, housebroken creatures who hold their manhood cheap — apologetically in fact. They denounce masculinity, convinced there is something wrong with the traditional male image which they derisively term “macho.” One group called the National Organization for Men Against Sexism (NOMAS) is especially notorious for disparaging normal men. Many of these capons are homosexual. Echoing Ward Churchill, anti-male spokesman and Gender Studies professor Dr. Hugo Schwyzer, Ph.D., who teaches Gay and Lesbian history and Western Civ. at Pasadena California City College, says “the men’s rights movement is a reactionary expression of deep-seated societal misogyny and homophobia.” At the University of New Hampshire Feminist Action League confab mentioned above in Über-feminist Voices, Rob Wolff of Men Against Patriarchy said the following, “I hope men are confronted. That's what it's going to take.

Events like this are the beginning of a women's revolution.” One blogger called these types “the American castratti.” Some of these eunuchs actually have surgical castrations.

My amateur psychoanalysis of such people is that they project self-aversion onto all men, and – in the case of anti-patriots – onto the country. Newspaper writer Dennis Prager wrote an article about self-haters projecting animosity onto their own group, specifically radical Jews denigrating their nationality. He used the example of Marx, Trotsky, Chomsky and George Soros. This phenomenon also applies to anti-male males.

Another possible motivation for those who happen to be heterosexual is the prospect of easy sex from the amoral libbers (It’s probably not worth having however).

Presumptuously masquerading under the banner of “Men’s Liberation,” these traitors would liberate us all right, from our manhood! Men don’t need to be liberated from being men; we need liberation to be men. True men’s liberationists were around long before these types ever felt the urge to slip into a pair of panties.

Female misandrists are overt and honest about it. I grudgingly - 145 -

Save the Males respect that. Head-on assaults are easily defended against. I am more concerned with attacks from the rear.

Granted, some severely wounded egos and men driven nearly insane gravitate to the legitimate menâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s/fathersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; movement, and use it as a platform from which to denigrate all women (Schopenhauer, despite other insight, may belong in this category). Like men who kick dogs, they are an embarrassment. Our cause is not served well by these radicals. Very few belong in this category; however our opponents find one or two, and paint us all with the same brush.

- 146 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation

Part III Reality, Sensibility, Amelioration The Evolution of Civilization To understand how society arrived at its present state, we have to go back in history — way back. The early eons of human existence were savage. The female mammalian kinship system, which originated in the Mesozoic Era when the dinosaurs were young, some two hundred million years ago, held sway. “Families” were matriarchal, composed of females and children fathered by predatory, comparatively better provisioned males.

The sex urge, strongly inherent in both sexes and as yet uninhibited, meant promiscuity was rampant. According to Feminist attorney Riane Eisler, prehistoric society was one vast sex cult. “Puritanism,” says Alain Danielou, “is totally unknown in the primitive or natural world.”247 That is why it is primitive and natural.

Each sex needed what the other had by nature; women could provide children, while men could provide food, shelter and protection. Perceiving the advantages of mutual support and cooperation, probably around the Stone Age, the sexes gradually initiated exclusive relationships (much later formalized as marriages).

Under this ages-old ‘Gender Contract’ (if I may coin the term), each sex made necessary sacrifices to benefit the other: females gave fidelity; males gave hard work, often resulting in death, injury and shortened lives. Females received security, and males received legitimate, inalienable children, and in its ideal form still do. Our ascent from the cave began; permanent families were created, monogamous and patriarchal in nature. Civilization was born – warlike though it often was. Nevertheless, in some locations sexual promiscuity lasted even into Biblical times; Sodom and Gomorrah are examples.

While Professor Stephen Goldberg posits that the transition to civilized norms was inevitable,248 Margaret Mead and Professor Amneus looked further into the matter. Unlike Judge Noland, they recognized the vitally important point that the earlier matriarchal relationships were natural, and the later patriarchal ones were artificial.

The female role, says Mead, “is a biological fact, the male role a mere social creation…” Amneus agreed that the male role was contrived to prop up their weaker position, and carried Mead’s insight far beyond what other philosophers had considered. He demonstrated that patriarchy, the male kinship system, relative prosperity - 147 -

Save the Males and the dawn of civilization emerged simultaneously, and are quite obviously mutually dependent, that the male kinship system depends not on biological heredity but on social heredity. He showed that the great discovery of patriarchy was that sex could be put to work to create civilization by allowing men to be sociological fathers, that the very fabric of society depends on viability of this delicate structure – the Gender Contract. Even today, men work exceedingly hard in exchange with women for sex and family.

Anthropologist Lewis Morgan’s theory of marital evolution generally agrees with that of Amneus. He posits that among civilized people one finds monogamy built on patriarchal rule, and on chastity and fidelity among the women. Cornelia Skinner said “Women’s virtue is man’s greatest invention. She’s right; one might say civilization is premised upon women’s virtue. Ronald Immerman of Case Western University agrees, in a 2003 issue of the journal Evolutionary Psychology.

Erosion of the Gender Contract began with the ascendance of the feminine, the advent of androgyny and misandry, and the modern sexual revolution. Change was confused with progress, unmoored from reality.

To this day, manageable society requires maintenance of the conditions of the pragmatic Gender Contract. Where these conditions exist, society is stable and peaceful. Where they don’t, they aren’t.

Crime statistics show that patriarchal countries like Japan and Switzerland, where fatherlessness is rare, have a crime rate only a fraction of that in matriarchal countries like the United States; and they’re outpacing, economically and educationally, countries that have embraced matriarchy. The U.S. murder rate is 6 times that of Japan.249 Plainly, patriarchal societies (with the qualified exception of the Middle-East) are civilized; matriarchal societies are less so.

The western patriarchal advantage may be difficult to comprehend in changing societies, because of institutionalized habit and the generations-long time lag. That, for example, is why Sweden and Holland remain relatively civilized after rejecting Patriarchy.

There is an exception to the general beneficence of Patriarchy. In the western world it was benign, and still is so – where it exists; but centuries ago it took a religion-based divergent path in Arabia, becoming un-benign practically to the point of lunacy. The desperation of living in Muslim and communist countries negatively affects men and boys even more than it does females. It is important that disillusioned young Islamic males be saved from the dangerous clutches of psychotic radicalism. We can only pray that western society will not regress to its pre-civilized state, under siege not only from deterioration within but also from without.

- 148 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation

The Sexes: Physical, Mental, Behavioral and Functional Differences Although it will be anathema to androgyny advocates, there are givens in nature. Males and females of most species are vastly different physically and anatomically, and – especially in the human species – emotionally and psychologically. The differences, averages I hasten to add – not all humans exhibit them, are biologically rooted, and for those who believe in The Creator, divinely ordained.

There are obvious, inherent natural male and female characteristics, “as any fool kin plainly see” (apologies to Li’l Abner). To deny this is to deny science, behavioral and biological, as well as the evidence of one’s own powers of observation. Even Betty Friedan has somersaulted, admitting “Women aren’t male clones.”

An enormous literature on sexual differences has been piling up for 30 years or more. Adult men are on average 10 percent larger than women, with twice the muscle mass of women, and perform two to four times better in tests of strength. Only the top 5 percent of women can perform at the male median. The typical woman in her twenties has the aerobic capacity of a 50-year-old man. Males grow facial hair. Baby boys are usually larger and heavier than baby girls. Additionally, men’s maximum oxygen intake is higher than women’s, and they bruise less easily. On the other hand, women average 5 inches shorter, have half the upper body strength and lighter skeletons. The primary reason for these differences lies in the male hormones androgen and testosterone. “Frailty, woman is thy name.” said Shakespeare.

Women have more resistance to disease, possibly because of larger cortin-producing adrenal glands and to having two “X” sex chromosomes, instead of one X and one Y chromosome as do men.

Every cubic centimeter of women’s blood has a million-and-a-half fewer red blood corpuscles than men’s. Women’s blood is 80 percent water; men’s blood is 75 percent water. Women’s hearts (which average two ounces smaller) beat 8O times a minute, men’s 72. In relation to her size, a woman’s stomach is larger than a man’s, so she gets hungry more often. According to Jennifer Virgas, writing for Discovery News on Aug. 2, 2004, men and women see colors differently.

Women are far less likely to be color-blind than men — one man out of 25 is color-blind, but only one woman in 250. A smaller portion of men’s bodies than of women’s is erogenous. Females’ tear ducts are almost twice as active as those of men; they cry more frequently and more easily than men. Barton Goldsmith, Ph.D., MFT claims that women speak at a rate of 250 words per minute; men speak at 125.

- 149 -

Save the Males Although men’s vocal chords are longer and thicker, women on average speak 25,000 words per day, contrasted with a man's average 12,000 (perhaps that’s why they usually get the last word).

Men’s qualities are positive, overt, and easier to define. Man is essentially active; woman essentially passive. Women’s qualities are more subtle and intangible, but equally important. The “feminine mystique” is a compendium of characteristics not nearly so undesirable as claimed by Betty Friedan. Edythe Cudlipp admits that “men are the logical sex and women are the emotional sex.”250 Writer Dennis Prager said “The emotionality of the women jurors in the Menendez brothers’ trials is exemplary; all six women jurors in the Erik Menendez trial voted to acquit him of the murder of his father (all six males voted guilty of murder). A virtually identical breakdown by sex took place in brother Lyle Menendez’ trial for the murder of their mother. The women all had compassion for the brothers despite their confessions to the shotgun murders of their parents.”

Researchers who have explored the subject of sex differences from every conceivable angle and organ say that, yes there are a host of discrepancies between men and women: in their average scores on tests of quantitative skills, in their attitudes toward math and science, in the architecture of their brains, in the way they metabolize medications, including those that affect the brain.

Experiments at Baltimore’s Johns Hopkins Hospital, and in Russia and Britain, summarized in a U.N.E.S.C.O. report, indicate that intelligence is a factor of the quantity of male sex hormones in the fetus. Male testosterone provides extra aggression and drive, resulting in achievement. The large mental difference between men and women is scientifically explained in the book Brain Sex, published

by Michael Joseph in London, England. The information therein was verified in the Sept. '92 issue of Scientific American Special IssueMind and Brain...Sex...251 The rhythms and compulsions of the sexes are dissimilar. Men’s brains are more compartmentalized, designed for single-minded tasks such as hunting. Author George Gilder says “… men need jobs, both for psychological affirmation and for socialization, far more than do women”252. Dr. Florence A. Ruderman, Assistant Professor of Sociology at Brooklyn College in New York, claimed that males, not females, have the greater psychological and biological needs to achieve and dominate. Millions of men and relatively few women subscribe to sports magazines or watch athletic events on TV. Normal men desire to mate with beautiful women (I will tip a pretty waitress much more than my wife will), while normal women desire to mate with rich, powerful men. Dr. Paul Cameron, a Maryland psychologist, reported to the Midwestern Psychological Associa- 150 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation tion that, based on his exhaustive research, “Men like sex a lot more than women do.” Mating with beautiful women has pitfalls, however. While some can be intelligent, they are in the minority. We men are fools for beauty. Though one must admire The Creator’s handiwork, pretty women without the intelligence to handle those looks are like kids with loaded guns – very dangerous. Getting by on looks alone, seems to have escaped the need to develop intelligence.

Differences between the sexes have also been scientifically established by two well-qualified female researchers, Professor Eleanor Emmons Maccoby, Chairman of Psychology Department at Stanford University, and Carol Nagy Jacklin, Research Associate at Stanford University. Although the Stanford tests were restricted to children, where the differences are slighter, the findings were that boys are more aggressive than girls, girls have greater verbal ability than boys, boys excel in visual-spatial ability and in mathematical ability, boys are more active, boys are more competitive, boys are more dominant, and girls are more compliant.

The Denver-based Education Commission of the States conducted a government-financed study known as the National Assessment of Educational Progress. After analyzing tests given to nearly 900,000 students and young adults across the U.S., the commission’s researchers concluded that men have a clear edge over women in most areas of academic achievement.

Like some other studies, the commission’s report shows that in science, mathematics, social studies and citizenship — four of the eight areas studied — the sexes are roughly equal at age 9. But by age 13, girls fall behind in these areas of study in a relative decline that continues through adolescence and into adulthood. In reading ability and knowledge of literature, girls are ahead of boys until about age 17, but the same pattern of relative decline shows up as they grow older. The National Assessment finds the “male lead in mathematics ‘overwhelming.’ Nine-year-old girls do as well as boys in basic arithmetic but lag later in geometry and exercises dealing with measurement. Strangely, though girls can match boys in arithmetic and are better than boys at reading, they do worse on “word problems” involving simple computations, such as determining the lowest per-ounce price for a box of rice …” 253 Only in writing ability and music do females generally outperform males in later years.

There is persistent finding that men tend to prefer working with ‘things,’ avoiding fields with a high social component, while women tend to prefer working with people and in fields with a high social dimension. The entire anthropological record offers not a single notable example of a society in which women have better spatialreasoning skills and men the better verbal skills, in which females - 151 -

Save the Males are fixated on objects and how to manipulate them and men on feelings and sensibilities.

A simple experiment should end any speculation that hand/eye coordination differences between the sexes is a learned thing would be to have a dozen male and a dozen female basketball players line up at a free-throw line, and each take a dozen shots at the basket.

Better yet, use non-basketball-players. I think you’ll find that the males score more often.

Some excellent works prove the distinctions: As Nature Made Him

by John Colapinto (HarperCollins), Taking Sex Differences Seriously

by Steven E. Rhoads (Encounter Books), The Biological Basis for Gender-Specific Behavior by Gregg Johnson a Professor of Biology at Bethel College in Minnesota, and Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood.254 Even less desirable human behaviors such as rape, violence, and warfare, are often mere extremes or mutations of our very sexual essence. Johnson tells us that “Among most higher social mammals males are more aggressive than females and take dominant leadership roles in social groups. Males are more territorial. Males tend to build hierarchical social order. Females of most groups studied are not as driven by competitive, territorial or hierarchical urges… [and are] less confrontive and combative and more interested in building and maintaining social bonds. They are peacemakers and conformists to group expectations. Anthropologists find similar kinds of universal sex-specific behaviors among human cultures. Of two hundred fifty cultures studied, males dominate in almost all.” These differences are natural, “hard-wired,” and fundamental to the survival and progress of the human race. It is only logical that there be separate functions determined by these differences.

The biological polarity between the sexes is essential to life itself.

Indeed past civilizations that lost these distinctions have ceased to exist.255 In a survey of 2,000 different cultures Charles Winick, Professor of Anthropology and Sociology at the City University of New York, found that some fifty-five were characterized by sexual ambiguity. Not one of those cultures has survived. This is further corroborated by studies of eighty primitive and civilized societies conducted by Oxford Professor J. D. Umuin, and by the studies of Harvard Professor Emeritus Carle Zimmerman.

Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family in his best seller Bringing up Boys writes: The unisex movement prevailed until the late 1980s when it fell victim to medical technology. The development of magnetic resonance imaging and PET (positron emission tomography) scans allowed physicians and physiologists to examine the functioning of the human brain in much

- 152 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation greater detail. What they found totally destroyed the assertions of Feminists. Men’s and women’s brains looked very distinct when examined in a laboratory. Under proper stimulation they “lit up” different areas, revealing unique neurological processes. It turns out that male and female brains are ‘hardwired’ differently, which along with hormonal factors accounts for behavioral and attitudinal characteristics associated traditionally with masculinity and femininity... Unfortunately, the ideas that were spawned in the seventies and perpetuated in a different form today are deeply ingrained in the culture, even though they have never made sense. Many parents are reluctant or ill-equipped to teach their boys how they are different from girls or what their masculinity really means.

There is also a new source of confusion emanating from the powerful ‘gay’ lobby.

Feminists, mod/libs and homosexuals to the contrary, the sexes are not interchangeable. Granted, some persons are mentally or hormonally of the opposite sex. On the rare occasion when a woman does become a high achiever she usually almost reaches masculinity, losing her femininity. It is because of her loss of femininity that men do not feel attracted to such a woman. It has nothing to do with the fact that she is successful. As mentioned earlier in Part I Sex Roles…, some women can out-lift some men. Others can meet the rigid qualifications of an airline pilot. Astronaut Eileen Collins seems to be such a woman; yet I’ll bet my bottom dollar there were better qualified male candidates available when she was picked for the job. Even she cut short her career to return to hearth and home.

Male dominance is universal, and most women want their men to be more dominant, not less. According to the psychologist Karl Menninger, for every woman who complains to her shrink that her man is a brute there are a dozen who complain that he is a wimp — incapable of acting like a father who takes charge, accepts responsibility and gets things done. Surveys have shown that most college women prefer dominant and aggressive men. Oh, for the days when men were men and women were glad of it!

The Accomplishment Curve Finally, irrefutably and to settle the matter, throughout history practically every human achievement worth noting and requiring conscious effort was done by a man or men, few by women. Eighty two percent of all the saints are men. Almost every top chef is a man. The best orchestra in the world, the Vienna Symphony Orchestra, is composed entirely of men. No woman has ever won the world chess championship despite equal encouragement of the sexes in many countries. While women are proficient in many fields, men generally pioneered those fields, and instructed women therein.

Blogger Fred Reed says, “Men hold nearly every Olympic record in - 153 -

Save the Males sports in which men compete. In professional sports the sexes compete separately because otherwise there would be no women’s sports. On test after test of mental ability, men regularly outscore women: SATs, GREs, National Merit, and so on. In psychometry, it is settled knowledge that at the high end of the scale of intelligence, men outnumber women, and that the higher you go, the more the male preponderance; the disparity in mathematical talent is stark.

Even an avowedly liberal psychologist, Paul Irwing of the University of Manchester, writing in The Independent, unhappily confessed that there are twice as many men as women with IQs above 120 and 30 times as many over170.

It is true, many males are brutal, villainous or incompetent, nevertheless others have achieved the greatest accomplishments of civilization — men are primarily the thinkers, the inventors, and the saints. I am referring only to averages; this is not to be construed as a threat to the advancement of any single woman. Obviously, some women are competent to handle some top level jobs, and some women — Mother Teresa for example — can qualify as saints.

The lessons of The Bell Curve256 apply to gender equally as they apply to race. If we represent the number of men and women on the vertical axis, and traits on a horizontal axis starting with geniuses and saints on the left and moving to the villains and the drop-outs on the right we would get Gaussian distribution shapes with average traits in the center representing the majority of each sex. See the depiction below contributed to by Eduard Bakalar, Ph.D of the Czech Republic and Lloyd Selberg of Missouri.

The flatter the curve, the greater the standard deviation from the average. From the shape of the curves we conclude that men have a greater standard deviation than women making the extremes more probable. At both the saints’ end and the sinners’ end men appear in reasonable numbers; women, on the other hand, hardly at all.

Professor Camille Paglia put it rather well when she said, “There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack-the-Ripper.” The Creator and Satan are both widely regarded as males.

- 154 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation This being the case, I often wonder why it is that big media, and particularly female writers and women’s magazines, consider mostly the right end of the men’s line, but concentrate almost exclusively on the left end of the women’s line.

So why is it that maleness and high achievement go so closely hand in hand? Dr. Charles Goodheart at Gonville & Caius College, who has studied the difference in the results between the sexes for 16 years, states quite frankly that it is all a question of testosterone, the male hormone that gives men “forcefulness, aggression, ambition, originality and general push.” Women underachieve because they convert the majority of this hormone to estrogens. The same hormone that produces the yobo also produces the genius. The higher male levels of testosterone with it’s associated mental effects clearly explain the greater deviations from the norm be it for good or for evil. As both sexes produce testosterone as a precursor to estrogens in females and androgens in males, it should be obvious why gender could become ambiguous in abnormal cases.

What Difference Do The Differences Make?

This section is not to imply that men are better than or superior to women, only different, and just as good. Nor is it to denigrate the many accomplished women out there, but to posit that they possess masculine characteristics.

One must look beneath appearances, into underlying reality. All men, however rough appearing, aren’t evil. Contrary to popular opinion, men can be as innocent as women are perceived to be. To hazard a further observation, the number of first-class, decent persons of each gender seems roughly equivalent to the number of first class rotters. Garson Kanin, the writer and director, put it best: “I don’t think the basic separation in the world is male and female, or rich and poor.

The basic separation is between the slobs and the non-slobs.”

Men should be proud of their masculine characteristics and resultant abilities, as women should be of theirs. Human value is not derived from function. The obvious functional superiority of males in some areas is counterbalanced by certain feminine assets and characteristics.

One would be hard pressed to find in biological literature an instance of identical behavior of the males and females of any species.

Sure, lionesses do most of the hunting and killing, but that relates to women doing the grocery shopping. Lions still rule the pride. Despite the five pound handicap in favor of fillies (female horses) racing against colts (male horses), only three fillies ever won the Kentucky Derby: Regret (1915), Genuine Risk (1980) and Winning Colors - 155 -

Save the Males (1988). The fact that these universals transcend divergent animal groups and human cultures suggests that there must be more than a cultural basis for these sex differences. These distinctive, natural characteristics, predominant in each sex, are the result of eons of evolution, not of recent adverse sociological discrimination.

Society must recognize that the differences between the sexes are what make the world go around. Men and women are equal – but different. And “vive la difference!” Equality does not mean sameness. A big and healthy difference between the sexes is essential to the natural scheme of things. No amount of shouting, constitutional amendments or suspension of reality can eliminate the difference – thank God! Men are from earth; women are from earth. Deal with it.

Sex Roles, Affirmative Action Rebutttal Functional differences exist in nearly all higher species. Normal male functions range from provider to authoritarian, and are often arduous. Male abilities and characteristics are more suited for the arduous functions. Normal female functions range from procreator, tamer of men, nursemaid and housekeeper, through career roles requiring attention to detail, like medical or clerical. They are often considered tedious. Emphasis is on the word “normal” in the foregoing sentences.

Gilder again: “The fact is that the role of the housewife is arguably more important than any other broad category of work in the society.” Can we go back to that happy era when women were willing to be wives and mothers, to perform maternal functions as their grandmothers did, when the resulting family stability made more people better off than they had ever been?

Women demanding to perform normal male functions are, in essence, admitting failure at female functions. Feminist spokeswoman Edyth Cudlipp admits that there are certain functions to which women are not fitted; therefore, she maintains, special consideration should be given them.257 Sorry, no special consideration; there can be no have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too arrangements. It is nonsense to lower employment standards simply to qualify women for traditionally-male jobs.

It is asinine, as well as a compromise of standards, to establish employment quotas of women, ethnic groups or whatever; regardless of ability to qualify. Next, we may have hermaphrodites demanding proportional representation. Imagine instantly qualifying enough women as brain surgeons to comprise 51 percent of the practitioners; then imagine needing an operation. I’ll paraphrase Dr. Samuel Johnson’s pithy observation about women doing men’s work: It’s like - 156 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation a dog standing on his hind legs; it may not be done well, but it receives wide acclaim.

These assertions are generalities, not applicable to all (critics, take note). Normal gender attributes dictate that the best football line-backers and surgeons are men, and the best seamstresses are women. Likewise, if a couple has a flat tire on a rainy night, the man gets out to change it. If there’s housework to be done, the woman normally does it. Sex melders mistakenly attribute these function distributions solely to ‘tradition,’ but there is solid reason behind them.

This isn’t to imply that women shouldn’t be hired, but that they shouldn’t be placed in positions for which they are unqualified. Besides being a threat to the public safety, it demoralizes the men who must accept the increased risks and responsibilities imposed by working alongside incompetent females. Propelling women into positions for which they are ill-equipped is almost as unfair to them as it is to the rest of the world.

In view of the earlier-mentioned facts, and considering their proclivity to get pregnant, it makes little sense to use women in combat.

Imagine a woman Marine at Iwo Jima, bawling and fouling her lace panties or a woman cop just trying to exist in Detroit’s mean streets or Chicago’s South Side without strong male reinforcement.

Frankly, I find it disgusting to see women cops swaggering around with guns, handcuffs, and mace on their belts.

Regarding the advisability of employing women as police officers, economist John Lott has looked at the actual data.258 Instead of “deescalating force” through their superior listening skills, female law enforcement officers are more likely than their male counterparts to shoot civilians. According to Lott’s analysis, each 1 percent increase in the number of white female officers in a police force increases the number of shootings of civilians by 2.7 percent. In addition to accidentally shooting people, female law enforcement officers are also more likely to be assaulted than male officers – as the whole country saw with Brian Nichols in Atlanta (page 11). Lott also found that “Increasing the number of female officers by 1 percentage point appears to increase the number of assaults on police by 15 percent to 19 percent.”

The 2nd rate TV series, Commander in Chief, eagerly promotes the image of a woman president of the U.S. (Hillary Rodham Clinton?).

Jeannette Rankin, the first Congresswoman and the “outstanding living Feminist” according to N.O.W., cast the only vote against America’s declaration of war on Japan. Now that’s carrying peace too far. The aforementioned Dennis Prager remarked: “Virtually every car I ever have seen display the bumper sticker ‘War is not the - 157 -

Save the Males answer’ was driven by a woman.” Ann Coulter – a brilliant political analyst – said: “This is what happens when you allow women to think about public policy.”

One shudders to think of rule by the likes of that circus horse, former N.O.W. president Bella Abzug. Maybe the world would function better if it were regulated by some women’s curious mental processes, or by the cycles of the moon and periodic snits, rather than by what regulates it now, but not likely.

Affirmative action is based on three false premises: that the success of males is due to discrimination, sociological conditioning or conspiracy; that normal women can do anything normal men can – and do it as well; and that overall women’s pay should equal men’s.

The underlying intent is to redistribute income and power. Quotas/affirmative action negates equal opportunity. One ought to be able to develop his or her capabilities; and ought to be employed or accepted wherever qualified, but not in preference to better qualified persons, in pursuit of some egalitarian pipe dream.

A couple personal anecdotes regarding gender perceptions may be instructive. An airline stewardess friend of mine says that stewardesses are much more amenable to taking orders from a male steward than from other stewardesses. A couple years ago I attended an elementary school patriotic program, as a member of the local American Legion Honor Guard. Female teachers had some minor difficulty controlling a few kids, who settled down immediately when a male teacher approached.

Stereotypes aren’t always valid. There are exceptions to every rule which make strict adherence to norms an oversimplified and unfair solution. Undoubtedly there is some individual overlap in abilities between the sexes; some women, with interesting concoctions of hormones I’m sure, can lift the front end of a small car, while some men can’t lift 120 pounds. Because some women can match some men in some respects, it is illogical – reasoning from the specific to the general – to claim or imply that all women can do so.

In abnormal situations sex roles must be flexible. Because often they are not, exceptional men and women are subjected to gross discrimination.

Some men, actually quite a few, are better custodians of young children than their wives. It is these exceptional men and women who are legitimate members of their respective liberation movements, and comprise the rational elements thereof. Much of this book champions the cause of such men. The philosophic aspect of sex roles will be further addressed in the chapter entitled “Apparent Dilemma Resolved.”

- 158 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation

Pay Equity The claim that that females are discriminated against because women earn only 76 cents for every dollar earned by men is a Feminist falsehood, a bald-faced lie because it compares the average wage paid to all women with the average wage paid to all men without any reference to the work they do. Wage comparisons deceptively equate women who polish fingernails in plush offices with men who labor deep beneath the earth's surface in coal mines year after year. That statistic also includes women who spent over 20 years raising children without any personal income. According to a Rand Corporation study, â&#x20AC;&#x153;The typical male worker has more job skills than the typical female worker, so it's not surprising there's a wage gap.â&#x20AC;? Besides, women quit jobs eleven times oftener than men.

A study in the May 2003 issue of American Economic Review found that the wage gap between men and women was the result of lifestyle choices, and not discrimination. This point has also been made numerous times by scholars at the American Enterprise Institute.259 A London School of Economics study tracking 10,000 post1993 United Kingdom graduates from 30 universities found that males were earning 12 percent more than women. The men tended to stress salary and were more likely to take up engineering, math, and computing. The women were more apt to seek socially oriented jobs, and as undergraduates had tended to major in education and the arts.

Higher paying jobs are usually more arduous, or require more training and dedication. Men's natural characteristics (especially greater motivation and aggression), as well as social expectations, cause them to seek and excel in these type jobs. Men work harder, longer, at more dangerous jobs and prepare themselves better educationally. It is quite evident that men largely shoulder the burdens in western civilization, while women reap the benefits.

By their own preference, most women have not pursued full time careers or obtained the training men have. Men are practically required to work (ask those in alimony jail), while women have greater choices in the matter. The pressure to earn is off women, who know they can depend on men for a living. Only three-fourths of American women between 25 and 34 are in the paid workforce (up from half in 1975).

Women generally receive lower wages than men because, in a free enterprise labor market, abilities are not subsidized; that is, they are bought and sold for what they are worth. It is absurd to demand or grant unearned reward. Compensation should be commensurate with actual abilities. Capability will out; Margaret Mead, Madame Curie, Condoleezza Rice and others have accomplished great things - 159 -

Save the Males — through effort, not shrill demand (Curie’s success contributed to by her equally brilliant husband). “As ye sow, so shall ye reap,” and only so.

Wage comparisons should compare apples to apples. Women who have never had a child earn about 98 cents per man’s dollar.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics provides pay comparisons for many jobs; these show that in some areas (for instance, teachers of law, medicine and economics) women earn considerably more than equally qualified male counterparts.260 In 1969, data from the American Council on Education showed that female professors who had never been married and had never published earned 145 percent of their male counterparts' pay. Female porn stars earn twice what their male counterparts do. Should the latter raise a commotion or should they find other employment?

Warren Farrell, a recovering Feminist and friend of mine, is threatened – if not yet wholly mugged – by reality. In his new book, Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap—and What Women Can Do About It, we learn that: (W)omen are 15 times as likely as men to become top executives in major corporations before the age of 40, despite the fact that “men executives work more hours, travel more, move more, and … make more of almost all the sacrifices;” that never-married, college-educated males who work full time make only 85 percent of what comparable women earn; that female pay exceeds male pay in more than 80 different fields, 39 of them large fields that offer good jobs, like financial analyst, engineering manager, sales engineer, statistician, surveying and mapping technicians, agricultural and food scientists, and aerospace engineer; that a female investment banker's starting salary is 116 percent of a male's; and that part-time female workers make $1.10 for every $1 earned by part-time males.

Even during the 1950s, Farrell says, the gender pay gap for all never-married workers was less than 2 percent while never-married white women between 45 and 54 earned 106 percent of what their white male counterparts made. Farrell says that apparent pay inequalities disappear as dissimilar factors between men and women are accounted for, and that one way to raise earning power as a woman is to work in a hazardous region. Typically she won’t be in danger; her male colleagues will protect her.

Not surprisingly, the unwarranted promotion of women into toplevel executive business positions has met with less than rousing success. This is documented in The War Against Men6 on pages 63, 64, 67, 69 and139 to 143.

True, pay scales several generations ago did indeed provide for more money to men – for good reason, to provide a “family wage” to support the man and his homemaking wife and children,261 to as- 160 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation sure enough income for every family by having only one breadwinner per family. But does today’s average income differential evidence discrimination? Of course not! On average men are paid better because on the whole they are better, more reliable workers.

The laws and clamor to raise women’s salaries ignore the fact that the 1963 Pay Equity Act requires equal pay for equal work. If women did work equal to men for 23 cents (or whatever) less on the dollar, why would anyone hire men? The market of supply and demand sets wages. All commodities, including labor, reach a price level consistent with their worth, unless interfered with by outside forces such as union or government dictates.

“Comparable Worth” schemes to pay women who opt into plush or comfortable jobs the same as men who do hard or dangerous work are popular with leftist state governments. Justice John Roberts aptly called them “central planning of the economy by judges.”

All that is needed to implement them is a Feminist-oriented bureaucracy willing to declare hard work easy and easy work hard.

Like “no fault divorce,” which sent the divorce rate skyrocketing, imposition of them can be a Pyrrhic victory with unintended consequences – that could financially break these states.

The Military For reasons detailed above, integration of women into military combat units has been a serious blunder. Responsible military officials have demonstrated that our combat forces are too watered down with women to be effective262. Pentagon sources told NewsMax that political correctness continues to rule over sound military practices. “It’s killing our [combat] readiness…all across the boards,” says a Navy spokesman.263 The presence of women in combat situations erodes that unit cohesion so necessary to fight effectively, and the inherent chivalrous favoritism undermines morale. Mrs. Schlafly quotes an Israeli general as saying, “We do not do what you do in the United States because, unfortunately, we have to take war seriously.” In 1979, recently elected Senator from Virginia and former war hero, Jim Webb, wrote an astute article entitled “Women Can’t Fight.” As a ‘bornagain’ Democrat running for office, Webb renounced that position and apologized for it. He may not have sold his soul to that political party, but he certainly morphed from right to wrong.

An army made up of an inordinate number of women soldiers, as ours, is inefficient. Women may be able to pull the lanyard on an artillery piece, but may not be able to lift the ammunition. They may be able to drive a five ton truck, but need help changing its tires.

Still, promotions come easier to women. In WWII, a man would have - 161 -

Save the Males to be in service nearly a lifetime to earn the rank of Master Sergeant; now, a woman who hangs around a few years can attain that rank.

Writing in the Orlando Sentinel, Kathleen Parker said “A 5-foot-4inch. 100-pound woman has no place in a war zone nor, arguably, in the military.” Parker goes further, “The Feminist argument that women can do anything men can do is so absurd that it seems unworthy of debate.”

It is unarguable that in its pursuit of gender-norming the military has caved in to Feminist demands and lowered physical fitness and other standards for women in order to fit them into M.O.S. s (military occupational specialties) formerly held by men.

Phyllis Schlafly speaks of the “mountain of evidence that women are not performing equally with men in military service today,” evidence acknowledged even by West Point spokesman Col. Patrick Toffler in a hearing intended to prove that sexual integration was a success. “During five hours of cross-examination under oath,” says Mrs. Schlafly, “he revealed a lot of things that West Point has heretofore concealed.” Col. Toffler admitted that West Point has a sexual quota system for the admission of women cadets and for their assignment after graduation. “Those quotas have got to be met,” he said. Like the St. Paul, Minnesota firefighters mentioned in Part I, inter alia, women cadets do not compete with the men, but compete only against each other for designated female quota slots.

Col. Toffler admitted that West Point does not require the same physical performance of female cadets that it requires of male cadets.264 He admitted that West Point has dual standards for males and females, that women cadets do not pass the same physical tests as men, and that if they perform the same task, the women are given higher grades. Female cadets are allowed to hold leadership positions based on their padded scores.

A later piece by Mrs. Schlafly quotes a woman soldier, “We can’t carry as much or stand up to the pressures and conditions. Whoever tells you we can, don’t believe him. Those who tell you we can are military spokesmen like Col. Toffler who are compelled to speak through the preposterous masks assigned by politically correct pols and bureaucrats to proclaim the Feminist party line which they know to be untrue.”

The Navy’s lower standards for women pilots has been especially disastrous. Lt. Kara Hultgreen, one of the first two women trained to fly the U.S. Navy’s F-14 Tomcat, is just one example. In October 1994, she crashed and died while attempting to land on the carrier U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. Her colleague, former Lt. Carey Dunai Lohrenz was removed from carrier aviation in May 1995 due to flawed flying techniques that her superiors described as “unsafe, - 162 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation undisciplined, and unpredictable.” In 1995 Elaine Donnelly president of the Center for Military Readiness (CMR) organization published a 20 page CMR Special Report: Double Standards in Naval Aviation Training. This report, backed by 104 pages of training records and related documents, exposed a pattern of low scores and major errors in the F-14 training of both women With the help of attorney Susan Barnes, a Feminist activist, Lohrenz filed a lawsuit in April 1996 blaming Donnelly for causing her to wash out by publishing the report, and claiming that inadequate training of both women contributed to the tragic death of Hultgreen (in fact, they usually receive extraordinary training). On August 16, U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted CMR’s Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing Lohrenz’s action “with prejudice.”

On August 18, 1976, writes Brian Mitchell, a detail of American soldiers was pruning a tree in the Joint Security Area separating North and South Korea when they were suddenly attacked by a truckload of axe-wielding North Korean guards. Two officers were killed. Nine other soldiers were wounded. Major General John Singlaub, chief of staff of U.S. forces in Korea, decided to take limited military action; United Nations forces in the South prepared for the worst. Forces moved into positions and air forces were called in from Alaska and Japan.

As soon as it became clear that the alert was no ordinary training exercise, commanders throughout Korea were flooded with requests from female soldiers for transfers to the rear. War was more than these women had bargained for when they joined the Army. Most fully expected to be evacuated in the event of hostilities, but when the question was raised at higher headquarters, Singlaub nixed the idea immediately and ordered all soldiers to their posts.

Later, when the emergency was over, Singlaub learned that his order had not been strictly obeyed. Many women had abandoned their posts near the border, and headed south on their own. Some turned up later in units well to the rear. Others reported for duty with dependent children in tow, since their arrangements for childcare did not cover the event of war. In some instances male noncommissioned officers had left their posts temporarily to tend to the safety of wives and girlfriends in other units.265 Was anyone surprised? Of course not. Critical? Military policy permits no negative comment about the performance of women.266 Similarly, males are forbidden to laugh at the female would-be soldiers at the Citadel and the Virginia Military Institute.

Elaine Donnelly said there is strong evidence the U.S. lost the opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, the architect of 9/11, - 163 -

Save the Males because of politically correct Pentagon policies to have more female warriors. At the end of 2001, a combination of Afghan fighters, American military advisers and U.S. air power was used to attempt to catch the most wanted criminal on the planet – then believed hiding in the remote, mountainous Tora Bora region of Afghanistan.

Bin Laden was last seen heading out of the Afghan city of Jalalabad toward Tora Bora in a convoy on Nov. 15, 2001. It may have been the best and last chance to grab him.

At that critical moment, one well-connected military source says the U.S. was unable to commit desperately needed personnel because women had been mixed into units that were at strong risk of seeing combat. Bin Laden remains at large despite huge bounties on his head. A Pakistani official suggested that some 4,000 al-Qaida members also escaped.

The folly of sending women to do men’s work is perhaps best demonstrated by the saga of Jessica Lynch. Remember her? She was the girl soldier captured and brutally raped by the enemy in Iraq. It seems Lynch joined the Army to get the college tuition she needed to become a kindergarten teacher. But she ended up in a combat situation that nearly cost her life while in captivity and left her shattered. The media painted Lynch as a hero who went down firing her weapon, which was not the case; she was knocked unconscious when the vehicle she was riding in ran off the road. The Army awarded her the prestigious Silver Star (no doubt the only one ever awarded a soldier who never fired a shot). Veterans and observers aware of what actually went down protested fruitlessly.

Lynch was put into that situation because the Pentagon caved in to Feminist pressure. That some women are as able as some men in some circumstances hardly constitutes a defense for ‘girling’ down our military and putting men at greater risk — so that the Jessica Lynches can become kindergarten teachers.

There are exceptions to any rule: Leigh Ann Hester was awarded the Silver Star for bravery (possibly well-deserved) in the battle of Salman Pak in Iraq. I knew a couple other sharp female soldiers.

NewsMax Magazine says women soldiers are being wounded and dying in record-breaking numbers. Feminist Peggy F. Drexler of Stanford University actually gloated that single mother Lori Piestwa was the first female soldier to die in Iraq.

We’ve been treated to the spectacle of girls playing soldier as children do, some parading about trying to prove their ‘manhood’ with barracks-room vulgarity. Remember the orgies at Abu Ghraib military prison? Nightline called them “a twisted tribute to gender integration in the U.S. military.” Army Pfc. Lynndie England’s sexual antics and use of a leash with Iraqi prisoners there set off a wave of - 164 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation embarrassment for the U.S. England, a female M.P., was photographed smirking at naked Iraqi prisoners’ genitals and holding one on a leash. The photos were a worldwide public relations disaster. I wonder how many of these former prisoners are now blowing our troops up with roadside bombs because of that shame.

The whorehouse atmosphere in our military can only weaken it.

Many units in Iraq no longer even keep separate sleeping quarters for the sexes. A 1991 Navy study revealed that 65 percent of enlisted women in the pay grades E-4 and below became pregnant while on sea duty (The Japanese might call them “comfort girls”).

During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the press branded the destroyer tender USS Arcadia the “Love Boat” after 36 sailors, 10 percent of the women aboard, became pregnant while deployed in support of Operation Desert Storm. One female Marine actually gave birth on a warship.267 The pregnancy of the unmarried Pfc. Lynndie England of Abu Ghraib fame is another example. An article in the Salt Lake Tribune of Oct. 12, 2005 titled Sex Runs Wild in U.S. Military claimed “sex is rampant among the men and women in uniform serving in Iraq.” It went on to say nearly all military women there have bedded either men or other women.

The apparent breakdown in discipline among the MPS at Abu Ghraib may relate to the fact that the commander was a woman, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski – wrist-slapped by being reduced in rank to Colonel and suspended from duty.

The climate of political correctness that has infested and overwhelmed the American armed forces makes it almost impossible to discipline a woman — and risky for a man to attempt to do so. The Navy has a rule which requires discharge of a lieutenant who fails twice to be promoted to Lieutenant Commander. This rule exempts women unless they have had 13 years of commissioned service. The U.S. Supreme Court pronounced this to be justifiable discrimination.”

If the above isn’t bad enough, the New Yorker broke the news that Army surgeons performed 496 breast enlargements and 1361 liposuctions on military females plus nose jobs, teeth straightening and other cosmetic surgeries between 2000 and 2003.

Admittedly, in this brave new world, we must gird for a new type of non-traditional warfare in which women may be useful. Of course the military needs women, but not in combat. History is strewn with the remains of great civilizations that lost the capacity to protect themselves.

- 165 -

Save the Males

Women's Lib – Rebuttal You’ve Come a Long Way Baby According to a Roper poll, seven out of ten men and women do not believe women to be discriminated against. A report by the World Future Society finds that Generation Xers and their younger counterparts in the Millennial Generation toil in a workplace that is all but gender-blind. Women continue to make headway in arenas traditionally associated with men. One third of wives out-earn their husbands.268 By the 1980s women outnumbered men in bachelors’ degrees.

According to the Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics, 57.2 percent of college enrollees are women.

This year, 133 women will graduate from college for every 100 men.

The proportion of Australian women age 25 – 29 who have a Bachelor degree or higher is 25 percent, of men – just 18 percent.269 Hear Jeanne Sahadi, CNN/Money senior writer on April 27, 2004: This year, for the first time in the history of Harvard University, the number of women offered admission to the incoming undergraduate freshman class outpaced the number of men.

That’s just one indication of how far women have come in their quest to achieve educational and professional parity with men.

Women now earn more associates’, bachelors’ and masters’ degrees than their male counterparts. In the academic year 2001-02, 57 percent of bachelor’s degrees and 59 percent of master’s degrees were awarded to women, according to data from the National Center for Education Statistics.

Women also earned nearly half of the Ph.D.s (46.3 percent) as well as first professional degrees (47.3 percent), which include medical, law and dental degrees.

“Equality,” said Voltaire, “is at once the most natural and most chimerical thing in the world; natural when it is limited to rights, unnatural when it attempts to level goods and powers.” The term equality is a two-edged sword; it cuts both ways. Otherwise the term is meaningless. Equal rights imply equal responsibilities — selfsupport, family maintenance, military service, arduous labor, guilt and punishment, and equal opportunity to be discriminated against.

The more responsibilities women reject the more unequal they make themselves.

Although its original legitimate goals have been largely achieved, Feminism has been a poison chalice to women. Since 1960 the suicide rate among women has almost doubled, paralleling the influence of women’s lib. Nancy H. Allen, president of the American As- 166 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation sociation of Suicideology, cites as a cause “the pressure of the woman going out in the man’s working world.” “Women in the Navy are hospitalized with psychiatric problems at more than four times the rate for Navy men and much oftener than civilian women,” according to Military Medicine magazine. Though women are almost never near combat, they experience Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome at twice the rate of men.270 Feminist activists evidently aspire to be 2nd class males. If successful, they will indeed be female eunuchs, victims of their own destruction, again hoist on their own petard. Non-distinction – what Feminists consider to be equality – is a mixed blessing, as women are discovering. Arils Flickinger and Mary Patrick, employees of a state liquor store in Sioux City, Iowa, discovered that when they petitioned the state merit employment commission for dispensation from lifting heavy cases and lost. The indistinct (from men) Chinese and Russian women would gladly exchange places with their American sisters. Before the advent of this aberration, women were placed on pedestals.

Obviously, many sex-melders think men are better than women or they wouldn’t so desperately emulate men, and often our worst qualities at that — brashness and garrulousness among others.

This seems to bear out the correctness of Freud’s theory about penis envy.

Those shrews aspiring to invade male sanctuaries are trading on the false premise (curiously supported by the courts) that a place is public simply because it must meet certain public standards, like obtaining a liquor license. There are well over 100 exclusively women’s colleges, including Radcliff, Wellsely, Smith and Wheaton.

It would be interesting if some young Lotharios filed suit, under the rationale of Vorchneimer v. Philadelphia School District, to integrate these schools. Next, they’ll want to integrate the Boy Scouts, if they haven’t already. This mania for forced integration of the sexes in pursuit of some questionable right violates a prior right of free association. What would be said if men forced their way into women’s beauty salons, private clubs and bath houses?

A favorite gripe concerns past reluctance of the business community to extend credit to women without a husband’s signature. Sure it was discriminatory, but no more unreasonable or unjustified than reluctance of insurance companies to provide fire protection in ghetto areas. In both cases the risk involved is demonstrably high.

Insurance company statistics reveal that women already own nearly 80 percent of all wealth in the U.S. The U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission in Bethesda, Md. claims that women own 75 percent of the stocks and bonds and 65 percent of the savings - 167 -

Save the Males accounts in the country. Such a high bargain for so little work shows that men, relatively unable to bargain in sex, have paid a staggering price for it. In view of their wealth, contrasted with their efforts, most of these babies have come a long way — (too far?) — and monetary complaints have little basis in fact.

Then there is the silly claim that marriage is a trap for women.

Au contraire! Who sets it, baits it, and lures men into it? Largely women! A Stepford wife is not the alternative to a Feminist. Women who prefer the old traditional patterns aren’t brainwashed. Those who prefer the new traditional patterns are. Those who tend to their “kinder, kuche, and kirche” are a hell of a lot happier than the bra burners. Any woman who loves her family does not consider taking care of its needs to be demeaning or arduous. Beware the woman who does. As someone who once denounced motherhood as oppressive, Germaine Greer now longs for the child she never had.

The incidence-of-divorce curve follows the sexual-liberation-ofwomen curve. In 1953 Israel, Denmark, Sweden, and West Germany had the next-highest divorce rates behind the United States. Contrast divorce rates in these countries of liberated women with the low rates of countries like Japan and India. The Feminist movement is not for equality on the issues of child custody, of battered spouses, of military obligations (rank, yes, but not the draft obligation), of family support after divorce, of creating state men’s commissions to examine and recommend solutions to men's problems, of sex discrimination in criminal court, of ladies nights, etc., etc., etc.

Amneus again: “It is remarkable that the social patterns of the ghettos, despite their poverty, crime, violence, ignorance, illegitimacy, drug addiction, educational failure, and demoralization, should be regarded as worthy of imitation by white Feminists, but they are. These white Feminists might acknowledge that they would prefer living in patriarchal Beverly Hills to living in matriarchal Watts, but they will deny that matriarchy and female sexual promiscuity have anything to do with the squalor of Watts…”

An excellent article on this subject – worthy of Professor Amneus, but written by Harvard professor Harvey C. Mansfield – appeared in the June 2006 issue of Imprimus.

Dr. Thomas Sowell put it best when he said, in another context, “In reality, the crusade for civil rights ended years ago. The scramble for special privilege, for turf, and for image is what continues today under that banner and with that rhetoric...” The tumor of Feminism is shrinking. I think their party is about over, that we will soon enter a post-feminist world. Feminist Maureen Dowd admits that Feminism has “curdled.” Perhaps N.O.W. should change its title to T.H.E.N. - 168 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation In all fairness, one must admit that many “equity Feminists” are motivated by legitimate concern.

Feeling they are undercontributing, they want alternatives. Many are prepared to give up women’s privileges for men’s privileges. Some are honestly making an effort to ensure equal rights for both men and women. Sincere equity Feminists could be our allies. Because women may be discriminated against in some areas and men definitely are in others, the rational elements of men’s lib and women’s lib have more in common than in contention. If this is accepted, the only significant difference lies in the question of degree — who is discriminated against more — men or women? Certainly, this shouldn’t prevent cooperation for mutual assistance. (Rumor has it that Betty Friedan may even have been driven in her later years into this camp by a faction of man-hating upstarts.) The sincerity of women’s libbers can be determined with a nitty-gritty question I posed many years ago to Minneapolis Feminists: Would you advocate fathers actually having equal rights to custody of their children in divorce? Only one woman lawyer answered ‘yes.’ They can prove their sincerity by changing their demands from “equal rights for women” to “equal rights for both sexes.” If they do and mean it, this writer for one will be out in the streets with them.

Hear true Feminists, the adult women. Here on earth, it is important to be aware that modern day Feminists, especially gender Feminists, are only a vociferous minority presumptuously claiming to represent the views and interests of all women. Grown-up women invariably eschew them. The grand old dames who fought for legitimate women's suffrage over a hundred years ago would almost certainly reject the absurdities of today’s women's lib., just as the martyred old heroes who resisted the English occupation of Ireland generations ago would reject the IRA commi-terrorists and drug dealers acting under that banner in recent decades.

Strangely enough, it is women who seem to see through the adulation of the female. Fathers Day was instigated by a woman, Mrs. John Bruce Dodd of Spokane, Washington, after getting her fill of 6 decades of Mothers Day litanies. The holiday was proclaimed in 1966 by Congress – reluctantly, due to worries about diminishing the glory of Mothers Day. There is a viewpoint opposite to Feminism represented by women like Phyllis Schlafly, Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Beverly LaHaye, Babette Francis of Australia, and columnists Kate O’Beirne, Kathleen Parker, Suzanne Fields, Ann Coulter, Bay Buchanan, Mona Charen and Star Parker. Previously, like Maggie Gallagher, Schlafly may have been only little more interested in true equality than were Feminists, but to her credit was honest enough to admit women are better off than men, and to doing all in her power to retain that - 169 -

Save the Males standing. Recently she has begun to understand and strongly endorse the rights of fathers. Schlafly also said that Feminists who choose to abandon careers in favor of returning to hearth and home are “mugged by reality.”

Professor Ruth Wisse of Harvard is quoted as saying in 1998 that, “...Women’s liberation, if not the most extreme then certainly the most influential neo-Marxist movement in America, has done to the American home what communism did to the Russian economy, and most of the ruin is irreversible.”

Dorothy Evslin says in The Fortunate Sex, “the housewife has a gift she (too often) neglects to open: the gift of true freedom.” Being a true woman is the ultimate liberation.

Judge Beatrice Mullaney of Fall River, Mass, who retired after almost 20 years of hearing divorce cases said, “Women are anxious to exercise freedoms and permissiveness promoted by the women’s movement and the result is dissolution of marriages, homes and families.”

Simone-Gabrielle Colette said “The woman who thinks she is intelligent demands equal rights with men. The woman who is intelligent does not. That would be because she knows she already has greater rights.”

According to a 1999 Gallup poll, 74 percent of American women do not consider themselves Feminists, and a CBS poll showed 22 percent of women consider it an insult to be called a Feminist.271 The Independent Women's Forum is perhaps the best venue for sensible women. Devastatingly accurate criticisms of feminism periodically appear on their website.272 Their mission statement follows: The Independent Women's Forum was established to combat the womenas-victim, pro-big-government ideology of radical Feminism. We seek to restore, strengthen, and extend that which promotes women's well being by advancing the principles of self-reliance, political freedom, economic liberty, and personal responsibility.

Karin L. Agness, a student at the University of Virginia, founded the Network of enlightened Women, or NeW, to counter the Feminist influence on college campuses. NeW presently has 15 chapters nationwide.

In Either/Or, Kierkegaard lovingly described the essence of womanhood, real womanhood, not that of Feminist lore.

- 170 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation

Philosophic Issues A holistic approach to achieving justice for men and families.

Manhood, Fatherhood Manliness is more assertion than aggression. Manhood (hombria) means for men what Feminism should mean for women. It is the age at which males come to accept adult responsibilities, demand legitimate rights and are proud of their gender. It entails the work ethic and rugged individualism. Our best and most courageous men die in wars and dangerous occupations to build and protect society.

NYC firemen and police demonstrated the essence of manhood on 9/11/΄01 at the Twin Towers.

Machismo may not be majestic, but preferable to its opposite — sissyhood. Surrender of manhood is too high a price to pay for equality. I dispute the claim that ‘male chauvinists’ are actually uncomfortable with their masculinity. If that were true, they would be rejecting it, as the nominally male camp followers of Feminism do, not defending it. They’re obviously more comfortable with their masculinity than libbers are with their femininity. These inherent characteristics are not “attitudes,” subject to change.

With the deteriorating international situation and the oncoming war between cultures, it is imperative that the U.S., Britain, Australia and others regain their masculine strength and fortitude. International envy of the U.S. with its largely male-created material success is especially evident in Jihadist “terrorism.” It will take strong, fearless men to destroy or utterly isolate this evil, or civilization will die. As this is written, our brave military men are engaged in countering this evil in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

Non-masculinist thinking would seek “common ground for dialogue” with cold-blooded enemies.” This approach is suicide. Blind pacifism is, after all, utter nonsense; as many of the greatest evils – from Nazi totalitarianism and genocide to slavery, not to mention the Taliban and al-Qaeda – were quite effectively answered by war.

Men must reclaim their roles, and be competent to do so. Where - 171 -

Save the Males it is lacking, male courage and confidence must be restored. Mere nobility doesn’t guarantee social preeminence, or even survival.

That and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee. It’s the bull’s male nature that ends him on the matador’s sword. Men must be smarter than bulls to avoid Feminist poison pen swords.

Almost certainly these opinions on manhood will be interpreted as denegrating homosexuals. On the contrary, I feel sorry for them and deplore the environment that caused their affliction. This book addresses normal males.

Fatherhood is an important part of manhood, probably the most important part. My son Tim Doyle conducts excellent seminars nationwide on fatherhood with strong emphasis on Christian principles.273

Normal Man/Woman Relationships The Yin and Yang of male/female polarity – the yin being the passive female principle and the yang being the active male principle – dictates that the sexes are complimentary, or should be. They needn’t be at odds personally or employment-wise. Men and women are, or should be, complementary. They must reestablish mutual harmony and respect. The battle of the sexes should not be necessary.

There are as many answers to Freud’s famous question, “What does a woman want?” as there are women. Some answers are better than others. The family functions most smoothly and efficiently when husband and wife perform traditional roles. Traditional family structure and functions have developed over millions of years as the soundest way for men and women to live together and survive. A prosperous society with stable families requires that husband and wife be positively motivated to work, each in their own natural spheres.

The following passage, I read somewhere, sums it up nicely, “Not all inequality is based on superiority and subordination, in other words the kind of inequality that exists between king and subject, or master and slave. A saw and a hammer are certainly unequal, but their inequality is not one of worth or status; it is one of type or purpose. This inequality does not reflect adversely on the value of either — indeed, both are necessary to build a house. The inequality of man and woman is similar. The estate of woman, as wife and helpmeet, mother and nurturer of children, is no less (and no more) worthy than that of man as husband and breadwinner, paterfamilias, and defender of his native heath. Each complements the other, and both are necessary to create a family. Such families, in turn, are the building blocks of the larger society, and on their strength depends the soundness of the whole edifice.”

- 172 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation

Meeting Half Way Despite Professor Amneus’ persuasive intellectual arguments for Patriarchy, that ideal is not likely to be restored – not in this day and age, given the popularity of Feminist thought. Nevertheless, the attempt to restore it will help return the pendulum away from Matriarchy, toward the center. If Patriarchy’s enemies are kept up in arms about its prospect, they may be diverted from elsewhere further eroding what is left of men’s and fathers’ rights.

Let’s examine it another way, beginning with the acknowledgment by most people that Patriarchy (Islam, an extreme example) and Matriarchy (Feminism being another extreme) are philosophical opposites. A ‘happy medium’ compromise, as advocated by many reformers in the men’s movement, would appear reasonable. However – and this emphasizes the importance of Professor Amneus’ position – there is a practical problem with advocating the happy medium up front. Any marketplace haggler knows that one commences bargaining from a lower price than the one he is prepared to pay. Because Matriarchy (Point A on the illustration below) is extant, men’s movement activists would be well advised to commence from the position of advocating Patriarchy (Point B on the illustration, i.e. the Amneus position) in order that the inevitable compromise comes at the happy medium or mid-point (Point C on the illustration), and not at an undesirable compromise (Point D on the illustration) between the midpoint happy medium and Matriarchy. To use writer Lawrence Henry’s football analogy: “When you play mid-field ball against a team that plays end zone ball, you lose.”

Point A Point D Point C ↔ Point B Matriarchy Undesirable Happy-medium Patriarchy (Feminism) Compromise (Masculinism) Some say Patriarchy is an outmoded value system. Au contraire!

Although technologies change, values are eternal. The Bible, for those who believe, is replete with references to husbands’ authority over wives, “He shall rule over thee” (Genesis 3:16). The U.S. was a much better country in every way in its early patriarchal days when kids respected their fathers and obeyed them (or else!). Maybe an idealized society would not be patriarchal or would be a softer, gentler form of it than commonly understood, just as an idealized economy might not be market-oriented. But this is the real world. These forms have proved themselves. Patriarchy created civilization; traditional manhood is the best pattern to save it.

- 173 -

Save the Males

Apparent Dilemma Resolved Perceptive persons might ask, and some father-advocates do, if there is not an inconsistency in my arguments. They ask how can I defend traditional sex roles in some instances, as in employment and chivalry, and attack them in others, as in custodial preference.

Also the dichotomy between those acknowledging gender distinctions and those minimizing them brings forth a seeming problem for men in our quest for equality with women. If the claim of big differences is true, the argument for maternal preference in child custody, male preference in jobs, including combat ‘jobs,’ and harsher treatment for males in the criminal system seems plausible. If differences do not abound, existing preferences are obviously unjustified prejudices.

Either way, men come out short; the conservative, separatist approach costs us custody, while the neo-liberal, unisex approach costs us job preference and the traditional masculine image.

Let us consider the possibility that both contradictions are merely paradoxical, and that the problems can be reconciled. Making merit and normalcy the criteria for role assumptions, removes the problem. Normal men and normal women, under normal circumstances, have normal (i.e., traditionally sex differentiated) roles to play in life. On the other hand, abnormal circumstances – such as divorce, immorality, hormonal imbalances, strange personal preferences, etc. – require individual considerations based on these unique circumstances.

As a general rule, as children grow older they need their mother’s maternal qualities less, their father’s socializing, disciplinarian, toughening qualities more. However, due to individual circumstances, certain fathers should have custody of very young children and certain mothers should not. Likewise, certain mothers should have custody of older children and certain fathers should not. More on custody below.

While men are generally stronger and predisposed to the more arduous tasks, certain women could be professional boxers, beef luggers or used in combat, and certain men could not. While men are generally more dangerously aggressive, certain male prisoners should be incarcerated in sorority-house-like facilities and certain women prisoners in concrete dungeons.

So, under the normalcy test, more men than women would serve “hard time,” more mothers than fathers will obtain custody of infants, and more men than women will be top executives and foxhole “grunts.”

But the decisions will have been made after reasonable scrutiny.

- 174 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation If merit and normalcy criteria are used, reasonable tradition will be preserved, pleasing conservatives, while the absence of unreasonable tradition should please neo-liberals. To establish norms based upon exceptions and to refuse to consider exceptions both defy common sense.

But if society and especially judges continue to prove incapable of reasonable scrutiny, our only salvation may lie in resort to the Amneus prescription of invariable paternal custody (set forth later herein), no alimony or child support, men in all arduous jobs, women in the bedroom and kitchen.

Chivalry Trade-offs.

The Double Standard Justified.

Reasonable and fair inter-gender relationships require recognition of distinctions between ordinary women and ladies, and between ordinary men and gentlemen. For men to be gentlemen, women must be ladies. There are separate standards for each, and properly so.

The notion that all women are “ladies” is similar to the Congressional declaration that all military officers are gentlemen; although the latter is more reasonable in that certain standards have to be achieved and maintained. It offends any sensible person more to hear a woman, lady or not, belch, fart or swear than it does to hear a man do so. Sir Compton Mackenzie said “Women do not find it difficult to behave like men, but they often find it extremely difficult to behave like gentlemen.” This writer is sometimes asked how he distinguishes between ladies and women. The simplest answer seems to be that a lady has dignity, or to use theatrical examples: Grace Kelly was a lady (as is my wife); Elizabeth Taylor is a woman; Renoir painted ladies; Playboy magazine portrays women.

With recognition of these distinctions, chivalry could be mutually beneficial to ladies and gentlemen. Its benefits require that it be restricted to ladies, and that gentlemen likewise receive their due.

Chivalry cannot exist in a vacuum; it must entail traditional mutual trade-offs.

What trade-offs? From men: serious sacrifice and higher work output, a duty to fight and die in wars defending country and family, etc. To men: head of household status, the male kinship system (the tradition of patrilineal surnames), custodial preference of older children in divorce, veteran’s preference and dual sexual standards.

The last item requires a higher moral standard for women, especially wives. Is that unfair? No, just as the physical and mental sex distinctions discussed previously are not unfair. The case can be - 175 -

Save the Males made, and it is entirely reasonable, that women have a higher obligation to chastity than men. There are practical reasons for this double standard, chief among which is that husbands cannot surreptitiously introduce extra-familial children into their families, but women can as exemplified in the famous California case of Herschensohn vs. Carol D. They often do; recent studies show an amazingly large percentage of children (even in white, middle-class families) genetically unrelated to their “fathers.” As documented in Part 1, Paternity Fraud, at least 10 percent in the U.S., possibly more in other countries.

Hear Amneus on an equally important aspect of the Double Standard: The hated double standard which Feminists see as the core of women’s oppression, should rather be seen as the source of their bargaining power. The repudiation of the double standard and consequent deregulation of female sexuality deprives children of fathers and men of families, and hence of motivation to provide women with the benefit stipulated by Briffault’s Law, which says that a woman will not associate with a man who has no benefit to offer her. Women must be made to see that men’s loss of the motive to provide them with a benefit deprives women of their bargaining power with men. The double standard demands more of men. A man’s virtue is his integrity, his courage, his honesty. Not so with women.

(Girls) should be learning, but nobody will teach [them], the advantages of accepting the double standard and the patriarchal sexual regulation which entitles (them) to the benefits offered by patriarchy to chaste women — including a stable family, higher status and a higher standard of living.

Cheating on spouses is now an equal-opportunity sport. Equal opportunity but unequal damage, since the woman’s sexual loyalty to the man is of greater importance to him than is his sexual loyalty to her. Her sexual loyalty is her primary contribution to marriage, comparable only to her husband’s economic loyalty.

Male chastity has no importance comparable to female chastity. The female body is the vehicle by which the race is reproduced. The wife’s primary contribution to the marriage is her consent to share her reproductive life. She must be rewarded for this commitment and must not be rewarded for refusing it by un-chastity or revoking it by divorce. The husband’s primary contribution to the marriage is to supply this reward — to be a provider.

Regrettably, indiscriminate chivalry continues largely unabated, and it causes most of men’s gender problems. Its reasonable and once-mutually-beneficial tradeoffs have mostly disappeared for men.

And to some extent for women; how often do you see men give up their seats on busses these days? Is it reasonable to expect ordinary men and women to agree to the trade-offs? Probably not. Ladies and gentlemen – yes.

- 176 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation

Behavioral Issues This section is based on the premise that objective standards of good and evil exist. These opposites should be self-evident to all, not merely in the eye of the beholder. Civilization is maintained by attaching more importance to these standards than to “humanistic” principles, no principles, or sexual prejudices. The eternal struggle between these poles is ours to win or lose. All of us must overcome those devils within us. Progressive elements of psychiatry are finally recognizing the whole Gestalt of this polarity. Karl Menninger acknowledged it in his book Whatever Became of Sin? Society is diseased, but curable. Like the Augean Stables, it needs to be cleaned up. At risk of offending moral relativists and philistine intellectuals who seem to have come into the majority of late, it is obvious that civilization requires certain norms of behavior.

Rejection of the hedonism that has wreaked so much havoc is necessary for the preservation of civilization as we know it. It won’t be easy. Albert Einstein said, “It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature evil from the spirit of man.” It behooves us to return to the objective, time-proven values and concepts of morality, common sense, and authority based upon them, to the “primeval moral platitudes” of C.S. Lewis. We might start by eschewing tasteless entertainment and even more tasteless entertainers.

These strictures were imposed by Biblical patriarchs, the thought of whom to Feminists is as a Crucifix to vampires. While religion does not equate exactly with morality, it is a civilizing institution.

What does morality have to do with saving the males? Plenty. Immorality destroys marriage, and divorce destroys men and families.

This is not to advocate religious radicalism. Some people are practically driven away from church by the righteous rantings of Biblethumpers warning of a plague of frogs and boils. The insane face of religious fanaticism was demonstrated in New York on 9/11/01.

Nevertheless, Washington Times editor Wesley Pruden wisely deplored that churches seems to have become merely a place to marry daughters and bury the dead.

The walls that some think are there to restrict are actually there to protect. Women must carefully guard the entrance to that sacred place where babies are made. Restoration of traditional values is an integral part of creating a decent society and salvaging the institution of marriage. Because pornography builds the urge to rape and even to molest children it ought to be curtailed, Libertarian objections notwithstanding. If it would make the mod element feel better, they could behave properly without danger of being considered square, by calling the behavior “ethical pragmatism.” As Montaigne put it, “If rascals only understood the advantages of virtue, they - 177 -

Save the Males would be virtuous out of sheer rascality.”

Abortion has to be one of the most terrible decisions a human being can make; one cannot equate it with discarding a tampon. There is no perfect solution. A woman has a right to control her own body, but not another’s. After conception, another person’s rights must be considered. A life is more important than an inconvenience.

There is a foolproof way to prevent an unwanted pregnancy: don't do the thing that produces babies. Unwanted pregnancies are the result of irresponsibility, and male partners may be equally irresponsible; however – let’s face it – they do not get pregnant. Because only females get pregnant, the responsibility for contraception lies more heavily with them.

Is it fair that the above strictures don’t apply equally to men?

Yes, considering the other expectations attaching to men. Sure these are double standards, as in some of the gender trade-offs discussed earlier. They may not seem fair to some; however the dictates of nature (i.e., female pregnancy) are not subject to chivalrous notions of fairness. Persons wishing to argue the issue of fairness should take the matter up with The Creator. This book deals with temporal realities. More on abortion later under Law Reform.

This section may amount to nothing more than a losing rear guard objection to encroaching hedonism, nevertheless civilization dictates the objection be mounted.

Arguments Against Divorce DNC Chairman Howard Dean said “We don’t think children ought to go to bed hungry at night.” He’s right, but tangentially so.

KIDS WITH FATHERS DON’T GO TO BED HUNGRY AT NIGHT (See table at right).

That many children are harmed by parental conflict is not in doubt, nor is the fact that some children benefit from parental separation because it lessens their exposure to conflict. But children must not be made the victims of parents, especially mothers, using the magic- 178 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation wand argument: “It’s better for the kids to go through a divorce than to live in a home where parents fight all the time.” The psychobabble of supposed intellectuals, such as Feminist Lynette Triere,274 who tell us that children are better off in a single parent household than with bickering parents should not be taken as gospel.

In the preponderance of cases, divorce is not better for children; it is better for Mom because it is accompanied by mother custody, support payments, and the massive transfer to her of ‘the assets of the marriage.’ In most cases the home with fighting is better for children than the female-headed home which replaces it. For that majority of marriages in trouble that are not fraught with conflict, future generations would be well-served if parents remained together until children are grown.

The exiling of fathers from families in divorce is bad policy. Social policy, like laws, ought to be framed for the general case, not the hardship case. Hard cases make bad law and bad social policy.

Moreover, as the threshold of dissatisfaction at which divorce occurs becomes ever lower, an even higher proportion of future divorces will involve low-conflict situations in which divorce will be worse for children than the continuation of the marriage.

Both sociologists and children themselves agree with the foregoing. Dr. Rex Forehand of the University of Georgia says “Children in high-conflict divorced families did the worst, considerably worse than children who remained in homes where their mother and father fought constantly.”275 “Children,” say Psychologists Wallerstein and Blakeslee, “can be quite content even when their parents’ marriage is profoundly unhappy for one or both partners. Only one in ten children in our study experienced relief when their parents divorced.”

Others suggest that at most a third of divorces involving children are so distressed that the children are likely to benefit. The remainder, about 70% involve low-conflict marriages that apparently harm children much less than do the realities of divorce.

It’s better for kids that their parents die than that they divorce.

At least that is the implication of a study by Jay D. Teachman of Western Washington University, who studied the impact of childhood living arrangements on factors related to the likelihood of women having a successful marriage. Starting with data from the 1995 round of the National Survey of Family Growth, Teachman focused his attention on 4,947 women who married between 1970 and 1989. He found that women who grew up with two biological parents were far less likely than women who grew up in alternative family arrangements to form ‘high-risk’ marriages; they married later, had higher levels of education, married men with more education, were less likely to have experienced premarital conception or birth, - 179 -

Save the Males and were less likely to cohabit.

However, as the idiom goes, it is the exception that proves the rule, or more accurately that proves the necessity for the rule. I know well one Vietnamese mother who arrived penniless on the last flight out of Saigon as the war there ended (her husband was put in into a re-education camp). All alone, she raised three of the best adjusted, most successful children – now adults managing corporations – I have ever encountered. Actually, it’s not so exceptional; she was raised in a high class, strongly patriarchal family.

Avoiding the Tender Trap Cohabitation, a practical approach?

Every marriage and every baby born are not the dandy event naive little old ladies consider them. Arguments for morality and sanctity of marriage are all well and good; nevertheless the realities of life, however stupid and unfortunate, sometimes get in the way.

There is an old adage, “Marry in haste; repent at leisure.” How true!

Had we the benefit of hindsight, much trauma, heartache and bitterness could be avoided.

Caveat Emptor! The modern woman is practically unmarriageable. She’s not new at all. She is the autonomous, pre-patriarchal Stone Age woman, sexually emancipated, who refuses to form a permanent relationship with a man upon which he — or her children — can depend. She doesn’t need a man. A man would be foolish to marry such a woman, even though he may fancy himself “in love.”

Shakespeare wrote of taming shrews; they are better avoided. The man who marries a shrew deserves her, just as citizens deserve their corrupt officials.

Another wise saying goes, “There are women you marry, and women you screw; they are seldom the same women.” It’s important to distinguish between them. Since the triumph of Feminism, there are more women to dally with and fewer ladies to marry. Man needs woman, but the immensely pleasurable vaginal channel is tender bait to what can be a steel trap — marriage. If you take the bait, beware the trap – and her later wrath. Why buy the cow when milk is cheap?

As a matter of self-protection, no man should ever let himself care enough about a woman to let her unfaithfulness drive him to violence. No marriage or woman is worth the repercussions in this day and age. The implied assumption that women aren’t intelligent or responsible enough to behave is demeaning. This reaction is foolish also because another lover always crops up, and the injured hus- 180 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation band cannot contend with every man in the world. Wasn’t it General Beauregard who opined that it was impractical to shoot his entire staff?

How do men avoid the tender trap? In view of present circumstances the best solution to the problems of domestic relations, in all unfortunate practicality, may be the informal union, or in the vernacular “shacking up,” at least until children arrive. This is advocated by many domestic and foreign intellectuals, and even by many Feminists (the old stopped clock analogy). Cynical though that is, it is hard to argue against. Fifty years ago living together was a daring thing to do; now, getting married is equally so.

There is much to be said for a voluntary system. In view of the undeniable brevity of modern relationships, why pretend that marriage is permanent and sign a contract to that effect? If inordinate liabilities are placed on homeowners, people will prefer to rent rather than to buy. So too with marriage. Despite the statistics, some people have already evolved to the point where legal and ecclesiastic shackles, previously necessary to insure the marriage bond, can be replaced with personal integrity and discipline. Both social pressure (which modernism has largely removed) and desire can preserve the family unit, but of these desire is more effective. The ties of love bind stronger than those of law.

The very terms, “married” and “divorced,” are becoming irrelevant.

Realistic terms to describe existing conjugal relationships according to their degree of vigor might be more appropriate. Common law marriages have been around for centuries. According to the 1970 census, the number of unmarried people living together in the U.S. had risen by 820 percent. A law in Yugoslavia requires a one-month period of living together before marriage may be formalized. In this country it is advisable to obtain a signed, notarized statement to the effect that both are aware that their arrangement is not an ‘authorized’ marriage.

Informal unions cannot prevent defection, but do take a more realistic approach to the probabilities and permit the planning and conduct of one’s affairs accordingly. If as unsuccessful as formal unions, they will at least ease the pain and spice our deterioration.

The state can have no objections, because for all practical purposes it has interpreted the First Amendment as prohibiting the regulation of morals.

Arguments against cohabitation The foregoing section is reluctantly included for practical purposes. It is not to be mistaken as advocating completely free experiments in mating.

- 181 -

Save the Males Sometimes both sides of an issue can have merit. When I was a young buck working the control tower at Topeka, Kansas, I argued the merits of ability over ‘beard length’ in job promotion. Years later at Minneapolis tower, I appreciated and understood the validity of promotion by seniority. I guess that makes me an opsimath.

So too with the issue of cohabitation. Cohabitation, while perhaps fun, does not augur well for marriage. Maggie Gallagher says “Cohabitation not only undercuts marriage, but it also produces less stable marriages. In 90 percent of cohabitations at least one of the sex partners expects the arrangement to end in marriage. Almost half will be disappointed. Axinn and Thornton found that ‘cohabiting experiences significantly increase young people’s acceptance of divorce.’”276 David Hall: “Women who lived common-law before their first marriage have a 33 percent greater risk of divorce at any time in their marriage than… women who do not cohabit before their first marriage.”277 A plain woman – plain outside or inside – might have to cohabit to obtain some of the benefits of marriage, but a beautiful woman – outside or inside – doesn’t have to sell herself so cheaply. She can hold out for all the benefits. Marriage signifies a greater degree of commitment and a more positive attitude toward that commitment, as opposed to just a vehicle for sex.

The formula for success in this world is Education, Job, Marriage, Babies – in that order. This is self-evident to the mature, but seldom to the young.

- 182 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation

Law Reform The concept of the inherently inferior male must be eliminated, in law as well as in society. To change things, we must first understand them. Simplistic suggestions for reform usually advocate changing “the law,” but most law is fair on its face. What needs changing is biased application of the law. Although the proposed Equal Rights Amendment theoretically guarantees equal rights to men, the interpretations of it have been so utterly unacceptable that it probably shouldn’t be adopted without amendments permitting the acknowledgment of reasonable distinction between the sexes.

The enormous reservoir of anti-male sentiment makes judicial and social reform incredibly difficult. Basic philosophy needs reexamination. “Legal” and “illegal” must be made to more closely conform to right and wrong, not just in domestic relations but across the board. Confused, contradictory law must be examined in light of the underlying moral issue.

Reason demands consistency of law application. A crime is a crime. One set of litigants must not receive different treatment than another. All laws, including prohibitions against adultery and alienation of affection, ought to be strictly enforced. If the laws are obsolete, change them. Ulysses S. Grant said, “I know of no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution.”

In crime deterrence, the eye-for-an-eye principle may never be surpassed; but retribution must be sex-blind. Actual sex offenders ought to be isolated and harshly treated; seven states and counting allow castration. I have no objection if the subjects are actually guilty. I’d like to see “BTK” killer Dennis Rader subjected to the same tortures he inflicted on his female victims. The rub is that many so-called guilty men are actually innocent, or at least not proven guilty.

Even outside of domestic relations the adversary system can be a disservice. Accused law violators can be mad-dog killers, innocent victims of circumstance, or something in-between. Whichever they are, there is a lawyer trying his damndest to make them out to be the opposite, and he will prevail far too often. As prosecutors say, ‘You can indict a ham sandwich.’ This system is claimed by those making a livelihood from it to be the lesser of two evils. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn’t.

On the bright side, DNA testing has been a boon to men. With its advent many prisoners are being freed after wrongful convictions.

The pace of exonerations has jumped sharply, from about 12 a year - 183 -

Save the Males through the early 1990s to an average of 43 a year since 2000 according to a study by the University of Michigan. There have been at least 328 exonerations since 1989 and about half of those since 1999 were based on DNA evidence. Innocence Projects – there are at least 41 – are constantly uncovering instances of wrongly imprisoned men, many having been incarcerated over 20 years. The Cardozo School of Law’s Innocence Project,278 among other efforts, used DNA evidence to exonerate 163 innocent people (read men).279 Newspapers and the internet abound with such stories. As he left office in January 2003 Illinois Republican Governor, George Ryan, imposed a moratorium on executions in Illinois after DNA testing found that 13 prisoners on death row there were innocent. Unfortunately, a move is afoot by ambitious prosecutors to greatly restrict the accuseds’ access to DNA testing.280 Methods, such as public referendums, to bypass legislative selfinterest groups might be advisable. Veterans losing families in the service of their country ought to be compensated, just as if they had lost an eye or a limb (Full disclosure: I would personally benefit from such a measure. I would rather have lost an arm or leg in the Korean War than my kids). This also applies to bluenose DUI laws – aimed primarily at men. The allowable blood-alcohol content of these laws is set so low it could almost obtain by walking past a saloon (To counter the Mothers Against Drunk Driving organization – MADD, I have considered founding DDAM – Drunk Drivers Against Mothers).

Shakespeare’s character, Dick the Butcher, said, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”281 While that may be a little drastic, some form of control must be instituted. If we can’t throw these moneychangers out of the temple, we must at least reform them.

Their license to steal must be revoked, even if some have to go back to peddling encyclopedias. Lawyers must be servants, not masters, of justice. The notion that the courts exist primarily for the benefit of lawyers must go, and ethics which really reject cheating must be implemented. The Jail for Judges (jail4judges.org) organization is hotly pursuing judicial corruption. Their “Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.),” recently rejected by So. Dakota voters due to wording manipulation by state government officials, would have created a special grand jury for the purpose of determining whether judges civilly sued as a result of blatant judicial offences should be stripped of immunity and whether they should be indicted for criminal violations.

There is legitimate concern over the troubling conflict between parental rights and governmental authority; however it is important that the rights of citizens be respected. William Pitt the Elder quotes Thomas Jefferson thusly: “The poorest man in his cottage bid defi- 184 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation ance to all the forces of the crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it, the storm may enter, the rain may enter, but the King of England cannot enter. All of his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined cottage.”

Domestic Relations Reform No law can compel the enormous sacrifices, from working overtime, to taking a second job, to mortgaging the house to pay for college, that married fathers routinely make for their children, but which divorced fathers seldom do.”282 The law cannot handle the problem by seeking alternatives to the family. Anything to replace the family is unmanageable.

Assuming government continues regulating domestic relations, laws regarding formal marriage ought to be more restrictive than those regarding divorce, not the present illogical reversal. As it stands, a marriage license is easier to get than a drivers’ license or a hunting license. I won’t propose a mandatory minimum marriage age, but young aspirants ought to be discouraged. China recognizes the proper, almost mandatory ages as 25 for women and 28 for men.

India’s divorce rate proves marriages arranged by adult parents work out better than those by hot-blooded 20-year-olds.

Marriage requires licensing, but having children does not. The reverse would be more sensible; but of course the very idea is impracticable as well as fascistic. Nevertheless, mandatory premarital counseling to include the legal, sexual, financial, and other aspects should be required. It is preferable to have attorneys involved before a marriage rather than after. Premarital contracts, presently honored by the courts only if the female litigant wishes them to be, should be more closely adhered to.

Marriage should include strong, legally binding agreements requiring, where there are young children, counseling in the event of marital problems and a waiting period prior to divorce. Covenant marriages are advisable. When two people bring children into the world, their primary responsibilities shift, or should, from themselves to their children. Even the liberal (not neo-liberal) John Locke said that the state should make parents stay together until the children are raised. Unless marriage is permanent and sacred, it becomes an increasingly vulnerable and embattled institution that collapses before every temptation and crisis. Any contract, including formal marriage, should ensure that each party has a legal and moral right to expect the other to comply with its terms, and that violators suffer consequences.

Domestic relations are too important, dignified, and delicate to be - 185 -

Save the Males administered in the present manner. They must be protected from barratry, exploitation, and aggravation. Family integrity can better be preserved by just and competent administration, using constructive, intelligent approaches. High offices carry with them the responsibility of making reasonable decisions and measuring up to standards above the abilities of many judges.

Because the exclusively “No-fault” concept is even worse than the old fault system, over thirty years ago this writer devised a solution dubbed “fault option.” The idea was to alleviate instead of inflame basic conflict where possible, while preserving moral and legal rights. It resolved the dilemma, utilizing the best, and eschewing the worst, of both fault and no-fault modes. Under it, legislatures need not choose for citizens between the fault and no-fault modes; it is presumptuous for them to do so. Today’s citizens aren’t children; they have evolved sufficiently to participate, to some degree anyhow, in the conduct of their own lives. My proposal would permit the principals themselves to decide under which mode to proceed. It would work thusly: A. The No-fault mode would allow couples to avoid the destructive, mud-slinging and expensive atmosphere of adversary courts, obtaining their divorce from a court clerk on mutually consented terms, much as they got married. This mode would apply only if both parties agreed to it and to the terms.

B. If agreement couldn’t be reached, the fault mode would apply, and the parties could go to the mat in court. This would preserve the constitutional right of injured parties to redress grievances in court. Injury and culpability would be factors in determining financial and property awards. Either party could demand this mode apply.

By thus removing a large percentage of divorces from the courts, judicial workload would be cut sufficiently to function properly. The Minnesota Legislature ignored the proposal, but similar proposals may have gained traction in other legislatures recently.

Mediation is strongly recommended before proceeding to the law and lawyers. The right to jury trial must be reexamined. The European inquisitorial system, wherein the judge has far more latitude to seek out facts for himself, is another logical alternative to the adversary system for domestic relations.

Application of the elementary behavioral principles – positive and negative motivation – is necessary for reform. Presently, women initiate many divorces because they are positively motivated to do so by assurance of obtaining custody, alimony, support and the lion’s share of property, enforced by all the powers government can muster. Conversely, men are coerced into supporting truant families by - 186 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation negative motivations.

A two track reversal of these motivational factors is necessary.

The first track provides positive motivations for men to carry out their genuine responsibilities. The best positive motivations are guarantees of paternal rights and prohibition of unreasonable alimony and support. The second track provides negative motivation for women to remain married by removing the positive motivations to divorce. Wild horses couldn’t drag most women into divorce court if cases were judged solely on merit and they stood an equal chance of losing.

Proper use of motivation principles would result in: •

many more fathers having child custody, drastically reducing the need for public assistance and support collections, • divorce itself being greatly reduced.283, • reduced juvenile delinquency and other aberrations due to reduced divorce and mother-custody rates, • those men without custody, but who lost fairly, being much more inclined to meet support obligations because they would pay only a fair amount of support and their visitation and other rights would be enforced, reducing even further the need for public assistance.

Nearly all needed reform measures fall into a common category – fairness to men – which admittedly relies heavily on interpretations of “fairness.” Proper interpretation of fairness would require that: • • • •

because marriage is a lifetime contract, spouses aspiring to terminate it unilaterally without very good cause be prevented from absconding with the fruits of marriage, merit, not sex, become the criterion for awarding custody, property and money, responsibility for support be reasonably and equitably shared, rights be enforced with equal vigor to that of responsibilities.

There are mighty few circumstances wherein an erstwhile mate planning to abscond, that is — leave without good and sufficient reason, has any moral right to take common assets with him or her, certainly not those owned by the other prior to marriage. Some circumstances might justify a deferred, or post-marital, incremental settlement though. An example is the case of a guiltless bride who sacrificed a career in order to work, thereby financing the husband’s education, which paid off handsomely. Then it should not be called alimony, but her rightful share of a common investment, some of which hasn’t yet accrued. Conversely, a divorced man might have something coming from a woman whose education or training he - 187 -

Save the Males financed. Property settlements should be flexible, taking into account such factors as premarital ownership, respective contributions to the estate, and – lastly – needs of the parties.

Because most temporary hearings are unnecessary, except in actual emergency situations (their real purpose is usually to order several hundred dollars – at least – to one or both lawyers), they should be allowed only in emergency situations. To be Constitutional, rules of evidence must apply in evictions. Otherwise there’s too much abuse of process. Any party aspiring to shed a mate, and unable to prove that mate’s presence to be dangerous, ought to be the party removed at a temporary hearing. If safety were the consideration, it would be more reasonable if the party feeling threatened voluntarily left. The September, 1974, advice of Judge Archie Simonson of the Dane County Family Court, of Madison, Wisconsin, to cease routine ex parte removal of husbands, should be precedent for every court in the land.

Any state generous enough to provide for guardians ad litem should he required to pay the costs of such generosity.

Contrary to the ACLU and the Supreme Court, separation of church and state shouldn’t require rejection of all moral considerations. Thomas Jefferson’s phrase, ‘wall between church and state,’ does not appear in the Constitution, and even if it did it would not require rejection of morality. If the law can prohibit gambling, prostitution, and selling merchandise on Sunday, it can recognize moral turpitude as a factor in divorce and custody. The legislation of morality is either prohibited by the First Amendment or it is not; we should not have a double standard.

While politicians are nearly all of the same sanctimonious mold when it comes to domestic reform, there are exceptions. Some with both feet on the ground occasionally propose legislation to reform the system, but the incessant battering of opposing forces demolishes most reform proposals like pieces of china in a bull shop. Iowa may set a good example for other states in national family politics.

Its shared parenting legislation may have national implications.

Though the Democrat party line had previously been against it, the bill passed the Iowa Senate unanimously, and was signed by Democrat Governor Thomas Vilsack.

Iowa Republican U.S. Senator Charles Grassley, original lead sponsor of the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act (PRRA), is reputed by many to be the most profamily member of the US Senate.

The government must come to recognize the stability that a father brings to a family and society. President George W. Bush has publicly acknowledged his belief in the importance of marriage. His administration has called for $360 million a year to be spent on pro- 188 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation marriage research and activities as part of welfare reform, but the legislation is tied up in a quarrelsome senate.284 The following policy statement was adopted by the Conservative Party of Canada on March 19, 2005 at their convention in Montreal: “A Conservative government will make the necessary changes to the Divorce Act to ensure that in the event of a martial breakdown, the Divorce Act will allow both parents and all grandparents to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children and grandchildren, unless it is clearly demonstrated not to be in the best interests of the children.” The policy was adopted with strong support and almost no opposition.

Courts can also do right; in May 2004 the California Supreme Court acted to give courts the power to restrain proposed moveaways by custodial parents that are harmful to children.285

Reforming Custody It is my fundamental belief that the parental relationship is a God-given right, and that earthly government must not deprive a man of his children or his property without good and sufficient cause. Divorce courts must not be permitted to continue removing children from legally unimpeachable parents. It is time, far past time, that “settled law,” as quoted below, became an actuality.

Writing in The Family in America (May 2004: 7), Professor Stephen Baskerville said: An extensive body of state and federal case law, reflecting centuries of Common Law tradition, recognizes the right to parent one’s children free from government interference. The United States Supreme Court noted that a parent’s right to ‘the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children’ is an interest ‘far more precious’ than any property right; May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 533; 73 S.Ct. 840, 843, (1952). The same Court stressed, ‘the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection. A parent’s interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility;’ Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651; 92 S.Ct. 1208, (1972).

Fathers activist Lloyd Selberg contributed the following information regarding custody: The U.S. Supreme Court regards parental rights as fundamental. Such a status should subject any legal procedure that directly and substantively interferes with the exercise of parental rights to strict scrutiny…

Parental rights of both the father and mother are a fundament right protected by the First, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution. (Doe v. Irwin, 441 F. Supp. 1247 1251 (D. Mich. 1977)).

- 189 -

Save the Males Parental Rights are regarded by the US Supreme Court as "far more precious than property rights" (May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 533 (1953)), and as an "essential" right (Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923)) that protects a substantial interest that "undeniably warrants deference, and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection." (Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1971)). Further that "it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions" (Irwin 441 F. Supp. at 1251) and that, because of this, "there must be some compelling justification for state interference." (Id. at 1249).

Around the nation, lawyers and individuals are challenging state child custody laws. One example: on January 6, 2005 Pro Se attorney (a non-lawyer arguing on his own behalf) Harold Rosenberger argued a case, Rosenberger v. Pataki, Case #04-0312-CV, before the US Second Circuit alleging that New York’s custody law is unconstitutional. Mr. Rosenberger’s challenge addressed the fundamental protected rights of suitable parents to the legal and physical custody of their minor children where both parents are similarly situated.

Rosenberger asserted “the State cannot arbitrarily designate one parent a custodial parent and the other parent a non-custodial parent where there is no finding of unfitness...” The case was dismissed, as was an earlier one of mine, demonstrating that the federal courts just don’t give a damn.

“Our culture,” says Wade Horn, “needs to replace the idea of the superfluous father with a more compelling understanding of the critical role fathers play in the lives of their children, not just as ‘paychecks,’ but as disciplinarians, teachers, and moral guides. And fathers must be physically present in the home. They can’t simply show up on the weekends or for pre-arranged ‘quality time.’ ’”286 Going way back among many authorities who agree – some fully, some partially – with most of the foregoing are: Dr. Karl Menninger, world-renowned psychiatrist; Professor Urie Bronfenbrenner, Chairman of the White House Conference on Children; Dr. Starke Hathaway, Developer of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory; Dr. David Goodman, child psychologist and author; Dr. Jessie Bernard, renowned sociologist and author; Dr. Richard Robkin, New York psychiatrist; Dr. Fredrick Wyatt, University of Michigan psychoanalyst and motherhood researcher; Dr. Stanley F. Yolles, Director, National Institute of Mental Health; Dr. Wm. Goode, President of the American Sociological Association; Dr. Edmund Bergler, psychiatrist/author; Dr. Anna Freud — his daughter; Dr. Neil Rosser, University of North Carolina behavioral expert; Dr. Phon Hudkins, former lawyer/economist/sociological researcher with the U.S. Labor Department; Dr. Joan Aldous, University of Minnesota Family Studies Center; Dr. Everett S. Ostrosky, author; Professor Lawrence E. Fuchs, Brandies University; Professor Juan B. Cortes, PhD. Psychol- 190 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation ogy, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.; Psychologists Mark Reuter and Henry Biller; Frank Watz, M.D., Hagerstown, Ind.; and most anyone with a modicum of sense.

All judges must be made to realize that the biological marginality of the male role is not a reason for discriminating against males, not a reason for depriving them of their children, but a reason for strengthening their role.

Misguided women's advocates often claim that fathers usually win custody when they pursue it, and that the reason few fathers have custody is because few of them want it. For example, feminist psychologist Phyllis Chesler claimed in her book Mothers on Trial that fathers win 70% of custody battles. However, this widely cited factoid was based on a biased, pre-selected sample of 60 women who had been referred by feminist lawyers or women's aid groups because they had custody issues. Boston Globe columnist Cathy Young examined the research upon which these claims are based and concluded that they belong in the 'Phony Statistics Hall of Fame.'

The “Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act,” drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on State Laws, modified to more explicitly enforce visitation, is an approach that should be seriously considered.

The best custodial parent usually is the parent who remains loyal to the marriage agreement and the family. It is generally accepted among authorities that, intellectually and morally, we are largely products of our environments, and that the imperfections of the custodial parent are mirrored in the child. It is imperative that the grossly unfit be eliminated from consideration. To these ends, objective tests, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and others, should he administered. Prospective step-parents ought also to be evaluated in the same way.

Legitimate criteria (which gender — per se — is not) should determine custodial qualifications in divorce situations. Meaningful criteria would help the image of the many good mothers, by demonstrating that they indeed deserve custody. There is even merit in the idea of Goldstein, Freud and Solnit – that drawing lots would be a better system of determining custody than what now operates.

Challenging Maternal Preference Dr. Lee Salk, director of pediatric psychology at the New York hospital Cornell Medical Center, said, “Males clearly have the same instincts, the same protective feelings toward children as females have… there is no scientific basis whatsoever to indicate that the female is superior in doing this” (sc. caring for children).

- 191 -

Save the Males Contrary to romantic lore and electioneering principles, motherhood, per se, is a mere biological accident undeserving of categorical blessing. The old shibboleths about motherhood must be exposed.

The current clamor for abortions and child care centers ought to dispel a lot of the myths. Really good day care centers may do a better job of raising children than many mothers, but is that a virtue of day care centers or a failing in today’s mothers?

The courts should resurrect their former principle that “It is not logical to assume that a woman can be a good mother and an adulteress at the same time. The primary duty of any mother (or father) is to educate her (his) children in basic moral principles. One who does not possess these principles can hardly be expected to teach them to others.”

Betty Rollin, Senior Editor of Look magazine, said, “The realities of motherhood can turn women into terrible people. And, judging from the 50,000 cases of child abuse in the U.S. each year, some are worse than terrible.” Therefore, why invest in either juvenile prisons or ‘early childhood programs’ rather than protect the child from abuse by allowing his best protector, the father, to remain in his home?

The most popular rationale used in favor of exclusive maternal custody and exclusive paternal support is that mothers are more available to care for children. This is stereotypical nonsense; most hire baby-sitters, go straight to work, and become part-time parents, which is the ostensible objection postulated against paternal custody. In the year 2000, 62.8 percent of married women were in the work force.287 The following old citations are from The Rape of The Male and a Labor Department study, Children of Working Mothers: Seventy-three percent of divorced working mothers have children between the ages of 6 and 17. There are 13.3 million mothers in the United States with children under 18 who are either working or looking for work. Almost 27 million children in the U.S. had mothers who were working or seeking work in March 1974. A Roper poll shows 70 percent of women work outside the home, or plan to, and those holding full time jobs have doubled since l970.

Advocating Paternal Custody: Although the idea may be shocking to some, routine paternal custody in divorce would practically wipe out delinquency and eventually crime. There is no better police force than millions of unemasculated fathers. Discipline is not normally a maternal quality.

Generally mothers are known to pamper children, while the father is the one person readily available who is physically, emotionally, and reasonably capable of maintaining order.

- 192 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation A poet once said “One father is a hundred schoolmasters.” Because behavior patterns are formed in childhood, because authority and discipline are more vital to civilized development than most other conditions and more lacking in father-deprived families, because males naturally and more positively project these images and are generally less neurotic than females; therefore, in single-parent environments the paternal environment may be more important than the maternal.

Professor Amneus made a compelling case for automatic father custody by citing our past more civilized society when such was the case. Admittedly, his thesis presents new opportunity for abuse, but probably less than does present practice. Evidently, he anticipated that men would rise to the challenge if this responsibility were thrust upon them.

A big advantage of paternal custody is that it motivates both parents against divorce. Mothers don’t want to lose children, and fathers need a housekeeper. According to Phyllis Chesler, “Divorce is especially rare among those tribes where custody is retained by fathers.”288 Even if one could wave a magic wand and implement total father custody, it would take generations to undo the damage of past custodial practices.

Of course kids aren’t ‘nothing but money,’ however a father has to think of them that way in a divorce. If he thinks emotionally, he will be even more likely to lose either custody or money or both, usually both. Charlie Metz, God bless him, taught me that.

Sometimes one has to take matters into one’s own hands. One method is “bicycle custody.” Kids who are mature enough to know where they want to live, but ordered elsewhere by courts, can live where they darn well please despite the machinations of the entire legal system. After all, what can they do with a kid who keeps jumping on his bicycle and pedaling off to Dad’s pad? Damn little! One caution – informing children of this right must be done very carefully, lest the court find out and charge the person doing so with “contempt” or some such crime. Years ago when I was an active divorce counselor, Ramsey County Minnesota Family Court Referee Kubes became hysterical when a friend of mine brought his thirteenand-one-half year old son to a temporary hearing to express his (ignored) preference for paternal custody. Next day I picked the boy up in front of his mother’s house (He just “happened” to be out there hitchhiking) and delivered him to his father, where he remained into adulthood. He’s now a well-adjusted man and good father.

- 193 -

Save the Males

Joint Custody: The American Children and Fathers Coalition and others posit that Joint Custody or Shared Parenting is the cure to the custody problem and is the closest thing to a two-parent family that we can give a child. The eminent Dr. Sanford Braver of Arizona State University says, “If we adopt a policy of presumption for joint legal custody, we will have better child support payment, we will have more contact with fathers, we will not have more conflict, we will not have worse parenting on the part of mothers, and most important of all, we will have better adjusted children.”

In a paper presented at the 11th Annual Conference of the Children’s Rights Council October 23-26, 1997 for the Children’s Rights Council in Washington, D.C, Richard Kuhn and John Guidubaldi, D.Ed of John Carroll University (Cleveland, OH) and Kent State University (Kent, OH) contrasted divorce rate trends in the United States in states that encourage joint physical custody (shared parenting) with those in states that favor sole custody. Their conclusion was that states with high levels of joint physical custody awards (over 30%) in 1989 and 1990 showed significantly greater declines in divorce rates in following years through 1995, contrasted with other states. Divorce rates declined nearly four times faster in high joint custody states, contrasted with states where joint physical custody is rare. As a result, they say, states with high levels of joint custody have significantly lower divorce rates on average than other states.

And that states favoring sole custody had more divorces involving children. Their findings indicate that public policies promoting sole custody may be contributing to high divorce rates. Both social and economic factors were considered.

There is reason to believe that opposition to joint custody may be diminishing. During the November 2004 election, 85 percent of Massachusetts voters supported joint physical and legal custody.

On the other hand, hear Amneus: “Joint Custody is the cure,” says Stuart Miller. No it is not; and Miller’s reason for supposing it to be — “When fathers receive joint custody, the child-support compliance rate jumps to more than 90%” — is the worst possible “justification” for it. Miller is saying that joint custody makes the destruction of the family workable. Families ought not to be destroyed; they ought to be strengthened. Father custody will accomplish this; joint custody will not. Joint custody will only strengthen divorce.

Divided Custody: Most thinking persons agree that a child needs both the maternal and paternal environment. The rub occurs if one must be sacrificed due to divorce. I suggest that determination should be made with - 194 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation the intent of minimizing the loss. While maternal qualities are important to very young children, paternal qualities are more important to older ones. Generally, young children need mothers most, and older children need fathers most. The following suggestions would better serve children and justice by dividing parenting time closer to equally between mothers and fathers over the long run.

Dr. Danilo Ponce, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Hawaii School of Medicine, believes that, all other things being equal, fathers should have custody of boys after age three and of girls after age 11, mothers prior to those ages. Muslims have a far more sensible rule regarding child custody than Westerners. Muslim women have custody of boys less than 7 years of age and of girls less than 15. That’s eminently sensible, far more so than the western tradition of almost total mother custody.

This writer has long proposed, where there is no clear disqualification of either parent, a rebutable presumption of joint legal custody, with physical custody of boys less than 7 and girls before puberty to mothers; above those ages and upon reaching those ages, to fathers. The court would be required to submit written justification for deviation.

Reforming Alimony and Support For every problem there’s a solution that is simple, neat and wrong. Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Solving the child support problem by snorting and frothing about “dead-beat dads” meets these descriptions. But it gets the boob vote. Draconian transfer-of-wealth schemes are ineffective, no matter how aggressively they are enforced. Positive motivations work better than negative ones. So far, only the latter (extortion and jailing) have been employed. Why not try a more reasonable approach — fairness?

Fairness would eliminate much bitterness and many refusals to pay.

Often, failure to support results from questionable custody decisions. Disproportionate obligations are another cause of failure to pay. A survey by the Wisconsin Institute of Divorce revealed that arrearages in support and alimony are directly proportional to the severity of the “obligation.” Most non-complying fathers are eager to support, but under proper circumstances. A 1991 Census Bureau study found that about half of fathers receive no court-ordered visitation. When fathers do receive visitation, almost 80% pay all of their child support on time and in full. When fathers receive joint custody, the child support compliance rate jumps to more than 90%.

Because most “cost-per-child” figures used by courts to figure child support contain de facto alimony, I recommend using cost es- 195 -

Save the Males timates for foster care. According to The Urban Institute, these figures per month in 1995 ranged from $225 in Alabama to $597 in Connecticut. Alternatively, one could determine the percentage of welfare standard at which it is wished to sustain the children. It would vary from case to case; at least double that standard might be reasonable on average. Bill Gates’ child, of course, would command considerably more than double the welfare standard.

In the interest of fairness, the basic cost should be pro-rated between the parents, proportionate to their ability to pay, instead of having the father pay the entire cost. Incomes of custodial parents’ second husbands or wives ought to be considered, although they seldom are, unless it’s to the advantage of mothers. Reportedly, Georgia’s support guidelines will change to require consideration of both parents’ incomes. In determining a seasonal worker’s ability to pay, his income should be figured on an annual basis, because projecting his earning capacity into the off-season can result in unrealistic, dangerously-high payments. Based on figures from the Family Service Association of America, a single man’s cost of living was $1,820 a month in 2004. If a man nets $2,000 a month, obviously he could pay no more than $180 a month as his share, and that would leave him nothing to live on. A donkey has to have some hay in order to work. Any child support assessment over 100 percent of actual cost of necessities should, at the option of the payor, be payable into a trust controlled by the payor.

An argument for reliving mothers of child support obligations is that raising children burdens mothers enough, so they should not be obliged to share in the costs. Nonsense! From my experience most fathers would love to be so burdened; and many if not most of those with custody forgo receiving support.

Realistic child support guidelines based on economic studies of child costs and consumer spending have been developed by economist R. Mark Rogers for use by states in developing reasonable standards.

Called “Income Shares,” they are available online at http://www.guidelineeconomics.com. Again, child support must contain no alimony.

According to the director of child support enforcement in Dade County, Florida, “Most men simply do not pay support until they are forced into it… If they don’t pay for electricity, it’s cut off…if they don’t make car payments, the car is taken away…but if they don’t make child support payments, nothing happens.”289 Amneus responds: Nothing should happen. For paying his electric bill he gets electricity.

For making his car payment, he gets a car. For making support payments he gets nothing but a reminder that his marriage contract was

- 196 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation fraudulent, that the courts have destroyed his family and are trying to make him pay the costs of the destruction.

Money greases the wheels of divorce; women require it for themselves and “their” children after divorce, and attorneys become involved for the fees. Paying into the system which oppresses us in divorce is foolish. I submit that to finance an evil system by paying unfair alimony, support and attorney fees is more immoral than is refusal to pay. Would you feed the dog that bites you? Removal of the money incentive is a key to reform. Pull that carpet (money) out from under, and the system collapses.

Because it is likely that officialdom will continue practicing Einstein’s definition of insanity, a majority of the men’s/fathers’ movement, if it ever becomes formidable enough, may have to support Prof. Amneus’ suggestions – outright prohibition of alimony/support and of maternal custody.

Atlas must shrug himself free. In the long and honorable tradition of civil disobedience, many conscionable men have refused to pay the alimony/support that finances this family-destroying system. Widely implemented money strikes could be a powerful means for restoration of justice. In the ΄70s the Men’s Defense Association mounted 2 alimony/support strikes termed ‘Atlas Shrugged’ operations. We were too small and the movement was too disorganized (still is) to have any effect. The time may come to reconsider this tactic.

There was a billboard in Kansas put up by the alimony/support collection industry saying “What do you call a guy who gets a woman pregnant, then abandons her?” Well, I ask what do you call a woman who intentionally (in this day and age) gets pregnant to trap a man into marriage? Gold digger? What do you call a guy who falls for it? Sucker?

There would be more good wives and fewer spurious divorces without alimony. A woman who, in this day and age, fails to prepare for a career, promises to live with a man for life, has his children, throws him out, expects support from him or from taxpayers – and then pleads poverty – deserves little sympathy.

Nationally syndicated advice columnist Amy Alkon believes that men, like women, should have reproductive rights. Condemning women who get pregnant intentionally and “turn casual sex into cash flow sex,” she notes, “In no other arena is a swindler rewarded with a court-ordered monthly cash settlement paid to them by the person they bilked... Penelope Leach, in her book Children First, poses an essential question: ‘Why is it socially reprehensible for a man to leave a baby fatherless, but courageous, even admirable, for a woman to have a baby whom she knows will be so?’...the law, as - 197 -

Save the Males written, encourages unscrupulous women to lure sex-dumbed men into checkbook daddyhood.”

In view of the widespread availability of contraceptive devices, and except in the rare cases of actual rape, pregnancy results from voluntary choices by females; and therefore involuntary financial responsibility for these children should not devolve upon fathers. If a father has no abortion veto, logically he should have no support responsibility. Where fathers made conscious choices in initiating pregnancies (as opposed to just copulating), their responsibilities – and rights – should become equal to those of mothers, no more, no less. The Choice for Men movement seeks to give unmarried fathers the right to relinquish their parental rights and responsibilities within a month of learning of a pregnancy, just as mothers do when they choose to give their children up for adoption.

Paternity and Abortion Reform Illegitimate children? There is no such thing, only illegitimate parents. Any onus should be on the parents, especially the mothers, not on the children.

One thing crystal clear is that courts should protect men from false paternity accusations. DNA testing is extremely accurate.

Carnell Smith the Paternity Fraud victim mentioned in Part I, formed a company, 4TRUTH Identity Inc. for the purpose of protecting families from fraud through DNA testing.

His web site is www.911DNAtest.com.

Jeffery Leving, the attorney that represented Smith, and ‘Idgentigene,’ the DNA identification company that aided Smith in determining that he was not the biological father of the child in question, have stressed the need for legislation that will protect men against paternity fraud. Smith tells me that the number of legislative bills (passed and pending) designed to prevent paternity fraud has increased from 19 in 2001 to approx 48 in 2004. Though it isn’t designed to assist accused fathers, legislation is pending in Minnesota to join 3 or 4 other states in taking DNA samples from all arrestees, much to the consternation of the ACLU. I would go further, and propose the taking of samples of all newborns, in the event of future paternity questions. Many of us would benefit.

California paternity fraud victims are finding relief under a landmark 2004 court decision and a law that went into effect in 2005.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a paternity fraud law called AB 252, which allows un-married men to challenge established child support orders under limited circumstances. “In just the past few weeks, I have overturned seven [men’s support orders]... They’re off the hook,” Santa Ana, Calif., lawyer Linda S. Ferrer told The Wash- 198 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation ington Times in January of ΄05.

A California man, Manuel Navarro was being forced to pay child support for children he had not fathered. On June 30, 2004 Navarro got his day in court when the Second District Court of Appeal of California overturned a paternity judgment against him. Los Angeles County, which had imposed the judgment, knew Navarro was not the father of the children in question because DNA testing had proved so. Yet under both federal and state child-support laws, the county was still able to demand he pay child support. The childsupport agency, concerned about loss of income if the precedent became established, asked the California Supreme Court to “depublish” the ruling, meaning the ruling could not be cited as precedent for future reference or appeals.290 Fortunately, the request was denied.

The court’s landmark decision in Navarro’s favor may well become the controlling authority for contested paternity in California and a legal precedent nationwide.

The appeals court explained, “the County ... should not enforce child-support judgments it knows to be unfounded. And in particular, it should not ask the courts to assist it in doing so. Despite the Legislature’s clear directive that child-support agencies not pursue mistaken child-support actions, the County persists in asking that we do so. We will not sully our hands by participating in an unjust, and factually unfounded, result. We say no to the County, and we reverse.”291 And in other good news, the Mansfield Rule (mentioned in Part I) has been ignored by Texas, No. Carolina, and Pennsylvania courts; the latter stating that it “lacks a basis in good sense or in social policy.”

It is to be hoped that courts will not just hit the snooze button, and go back to sleep on this issue.

Abortion. “Penumbras” to the contrary notwithstanding, there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. Partial birth abortions, i.e. infanticide of helpless babies, must be considered murder of the foulest sort.

The term “choice” as it relates to abortion is as misleading as the terms “gay” and “Feminist.” There are myriads of examples of nonsense “choices” — polygamy or incest for example, or pedophiles demanding to determine how to relate to children. Why should women have any more choice in this matter than should the children or fathers involved? Perhaps men should have choice in gun control.

For many years the Men’s Defense Association took no official position pro or con on abortion’s morality or legality, other than to insist that fathers, married or otherwise, should have an equal right in determining the fate of their offspring, born or unborn. (In contem- 199 -

Save the Males plation, that was a strong argument against abortion; if abortion on maternal demand is acceptable, then equal rights dictate the totally unacceptable, proposition of abortion on paternal demand).

Subsequently, seeking to avoid making the perfect the enemy of the good, the MDA adopted a compromise among several approaches: Abortions should be illegal beyond the first three months of pregnancy, except in cases of extreme physical danger to the mother or extreme deficiency of the unborn child, both conditions medically certified. In the first three months, consent must be obtained from parents or legal guardians of minors and from husbands of married women. Abortions should be funded by taxpayers only in certified cases of danger to the mother or deficiency in the child, or in cases of rape or incest that are reported to police within one week of occurrence.

How, you may ask, can we justify giving fathers equal say in abortion? It is self-evident that a male is required for fertilization of a human egg. Beyond that a female provides the proper aqueous environment and nurture for development. The fetus is never part of the mother. She doesn’t own it any more than plantation owners owned slaves (although in the past, racial slavery also was accepted by courts as legitimate). Liberator writer Muldoon X asked, “Does bread belong to the oven more than to the baker?” Even Simone de Beauvoir describes a pregnant woman as “merely an incubator with eggs.”

Punishing False Allegations Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness.

It is this writer’s oft-suggested opinion that persons who are found to have made a false sexual assault complaint (or any other false accusation, for that matter) should receive the same jail sentence the falsely accused person would have received if he/she had been convicted. Bills to this effect have been proposed in several states, but have been successfully opposed by women’s advocates.

Again, many of us would benefit.

This punishment was mildly applied recently in England. Sally Henderson, from Woodmancote, was jailed for a year by Judge David Lane QC for making false rape allegations against her former husband, Richard Cooke, in 2004. Henderson had earlier made similar claims against her then live-in lover Mark Rowe.292 Another small step toward sanity occurred in June of 2004 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, “it is a valid defense for employers to demonstrate that a complainant failed to use whatever reasonable system existed for the report- 200 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation ing of sexual harassment.”

A poster appeared in the cubicle of a female Nortel engineer around 1992: “In this cubicle, sexual harassment will not be reported, but it will be graded.” That gal had a sense of humor.

Rinaldo Del Gallo, Esq. of the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition in Massachusetts suggested in an e-mail on January 8, 2005 that lawsuits against false accusers can be brought under several legal theories, as follows: •

Malicious prosecution, wherein the plaintiff carries a heavy burden of proof.

• Defamation on the basis of the traditional tort doctrine where false charges that a person committed a crime are made to a third party outside of a judicial proceeding.

• Abuse of process, normally applied to attorneys cooperating in the making of false charges.

And, in theory, one might sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress if the accused person can show damages.

In addition, forensic trial consultant Dean Tong,69 proposes the following: • • • • •

• •

Create a national task force to examine all of the science, data, studies and statistics relative to child abuse and domestic violence over the past 30 years.

Repeal CAPTA (the Child Abuse Prevention & Treatment Act) or at least make it more family friendly.

Remove absolute immunity of government.

Require child abuse reports to be made confidentially, not anonymously.

Establish higher standards of education and training, not only for child protectors, but also for attorneys (defense litigators and prosecutors) and judges dealing with these cases in courts.

Create VAMA (Violence Against Men’s Act) to neutralize the VAWA. Change the legal standard of “preponderance of evidence” to “clear and convincing evidence” in both juvenile and family courts.

Welfare Reform Is welfare a right? No, it is charity — from those who carry their weight in the world to those who do not or cannot. Welfare for the aged, infirm, and the honestly-unemployed is only fitting and proper, arguably even justifiable by birthright. But that which encourages - 201 -

Save the Males indolence, non-productivity, and divorce is not. We have brains as well as hearts. It’s time to use them.

The thought of high – or even low – placed government officials, conditioned (some by living on welfare themselves) to the idea that we have an unlimited supply of money owed to slackers, is frightening. Even many clients consider welfare a racket. Because one person owing a living to another is a moral proposition, welfare is a form of social morality, and morality is supposedly prohibited in government by the first amendment. That is what our learned judges rule about sexual morality.

The Reagan welfare reforms, enacted in California in 1970-71, and the Republican welfare program (the PRWORA act), enacted in 1996 with bi-partisan support, reduced grossly inflated welfare rolls nationwide and caused a decline in illegitimacy.

This initiative must continue. The dragon must be slain. A further reduction in the AFDC/TANF program seems entirely reasonable. An objective congressional investigation into the correlation of divorce and AFDC/TANF ought to be undertaken, with emphasis on testimony from other than “experts” who agree with their own preconceived opinions, interviewing victims of these rackets as well as administrators. Welfare and child support must become separate, independently accountable programs.

Because sociological conditions are a causative factor in divorce, society probably should, and does, shoulder some of the financial burden of divorce. But this is a limited obligation. Individuals have obligations to society also. It is only common sense that no-one, man or woman, has a right to bring children into this world unless they have the means to support them. The award of children to the divorced parent most able to support them would greatly reduce our tax burden.

As for the complaints of AFDC/TANF mothers about investigation of live-in men (who should support them before the taxpayer should), gift horses shouldn’t be submitted to a tooth exam. If one is giving money on condition that the recipient has no other means of support, one should reserve the right to investigate that condition.

AFDC/TANF terms should be dictated by donors, not recipients or agents. The rejected suggestion to pay fraud tipsters a percentage of saved money should be reconsidered. Private investigators should he hired, for a percentage of the money they save taxpayers, to uncover fraud. If we tighten up eligibility for welfare benefits, there will be plenty of unskilled labor to take jobs that most Americans find unpleasant or beneath them, and the illegal alien problem would greatly diminish.

Where custodial parents are drawing welfare payments for child - 202 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation care, the other parent should automatically and officially be considered as primary (non-paid) caregivers, as opposed to the present practice of government-funded child care. Sterilization of habitual or prolific male and female AFDC/TANF recipients ought to be a condition of eligibility. That measure has been employed for mothers to avoid murder charges (See Part I, Disparate Treatment of the Sexes.

Re. Carisa Ashe). Bleeding hearts will throw up their hands at these measures, but let’s see what the voters say.

A providential side effect of past welfare reforms was the reduction of poverty due to the incentive to work for a living; but requiring work is only part of the cure. Restoring fathers to families is a more important part.

While welfare can advantage potential athletes, it can interfere with their mental development. Boys with single mothers laying up on welfare have little to do other than pump iron and practice their sport. Those with fathers, as a general rule, more often concentrate on work and academics.

Children have a right to a complete home, including father and mother, sustenance and guidance. Likewise, parents, unless proven unfit, have a right to live with and guide their children. It is parents’ responsibility to provide children’s needs, so long as the parents’ rights are honored. But if society, through its judicial system, denies these rights to men and aspires to control their families; then society, through its welfare system, must assume the financial responsibilities. The specter of chaotic consequences may jolt the system into reform.

- 203 -

Part IV Prospect for Saving the Males Numerous organized and disorganized attempts have been made, and are being made, to further justice for men and fathers, and to promote the traditional family within that context. The history of this rather ineffective ‘movement’ and its internal problems appear on the Men’s Defense Association website <mensdefense.com>.

The best prospect for achieving these results is for the major legitimate, international mens and fathers organizations to mature sufficiently to overcome their present militant independence, and commence serious efforts at cooperation. Your author has been urging this course for well over 30 years, and has issued open, continuing invitations for them to do so. The future of Western society, in large measure, depends on their response – or non-response.

We haven’t reached the endgame. Imagine a world in which justice prevailed. It is not an “Impossible Dream.” Activists in other struggles gave encouragement: Solzhenitsyn – “Our day will come.”

Irish hunger-striker Bobby Sands – “Our revenge will be the laughter of our children.” 293

- 204 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation

Appendix Recommended Reading A partial listing of important writings of interest to men seeking equality. Many of these titles can be viewed online at amazon.com.

Abused Men, The Hidden Side, Philip Cook.

American Dream: Three Women, Ten Kids, and a Nation’s Drive to End Welfare, by Jason DeParle. Viking, 422 pp., $25.95.

Ashes to Ashes...Families to Dust, Dean Tong (FamRights Press, 1996) Between Two Worlds: The Inner Lives of Children of Divorce, Elizabeth Marquardt, $16.47, Amazon.com Bias, Steven Goldberg.

Big Sister: How Extreme Feminism Has Betrayed the Fight for Sexual Equality, Neil Boyd, Greystone, 211 pages, $22.95.

Blind Baseball: A Father’s War, Allen Green, Amazon.com. $19.95.

Bringing Up Boys, James, Tyndale House Publishers, 2001.

Diagnosis for Disaster: The Devastating Truth About False Memory Syndrome and its Impact on Accusers and Families, Claudette Wassil-Grimm, Overlook Press, Lewis Hollow Road, Woodstock NY. $22.95.

Divorce and The Military, Frank W, Ault and Marsha L. Thole, American Retirees Assoc., San Diego, CA, ISBN 0-9639850-0-0.

Divorced Dads, Shattering Myths, Sanford Braver.

Domestic Tranquility: A Brief against Feminism, by F. Carolyn Graglia. Spence Publishing, 1998.

Domestic Violence: The 12 Things You Aren't Supposed to Know, Tom James, J.D. Aventine Press, Chula Vista, CA., Amazon Books.

ISBN 1-59330-122-7. A meticulously and thoroughly researched expose of the truth about domestic violence.

Don’t Blame ME Daddy, Dean Tong (Hampton Roads, 1992).

Elusive Innocence: Survival Guide for the Falsely Accused, Dean Tong, (Huntington House Publishers, 2002) ISBN 1-56384-190-8.

Exposing The Corruption In The Massachusetts Family Courts, by Kevin Thompson. http://www.lulu.com/content/198514 Father and Child Reunion, Warren Farrell, Penguin Putnam Inc. N.Y.. ISBN 1-58542-075-1.

- 205 -

Fathers’ Rights, by Jeffery M. Leving, esq. 2004. www.dadsrights.com.

Feminism and Freedom, Michael Levin. Transaction Books. 490 pp.

Feminist Fantasies. Phyllis Schlafly.

Feminizing the Nation's Boys, article by Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D.’04 Concerned Women for America, Washington, D.C. From Courtship To Courtroom, Jed Abraham. Amazon, $14.95.

Issues in Child Abuse Accusations, Institute for Psychological Therapies, 13200 Cannon City Blvd., Northfield, Minnesota 55057.

It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good, Rick Santorum, ISI, 449 pp., $25.

Manliness. by Harvey Mansfield, Yale, 304 pp, $27.50 Marriage Under Fire, Dr. James Dobson.

Men and Marriage, George Gilder, Pelican Publishing Co., Gretna, LA, ISBN 0-88289-946-5.

Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America, Mark R. Levin, Regnery Publishing, ISBN: 0895260506.

Naked Nomads, George Gilder.

Outrage: How Gay Activists and Liberal Judges are Trashing Democracy to Redefine Marriage, Peter Sprigg, Regnery 2004. 176 pp., $24.95.

Responsible Manhood, Winston Smith (a.k.a. Alan Barron.).

Tate Publishing. info@tatepublishing.com Soft Patriarchs, New Men: How Christianity Shapes Fathers and Husbands. W. Bradford Wilcox. University of Chicago Press, 328 pp., $20.

Spin Sisters: How the Women of the Media Sell Unhappiness and Liberalism to the Women of America, Myrna Blyth, St. Martin’s Press, 342 pages, $24.95.

Spreading Misandry, Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young, 2001.

Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family, Stephen Baskerville, Amazon.com Taking Sex Differences Seriously, Stephen E. Rhodes, Encounter, 374 pp., $27.95.

The Abolition of Marriage: How We Destroy Lasting Love. By Maggie Gallagher. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 1996. 300 pp.

US $24.95. www.regnery.com.

The Bulldog Attitude. By Doug Giles The Case For Father Custody, Daniel Amneus, Ph.D. $20 for hardcover ($4 for one-hour cassette tape) - 206 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation www.viaticumpressinternational.com. 4 Ranch Lane, Saint Louis, Missouri 63131 HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. The Compleat Gentleman, Brad Miner. Conservative Book Club. $24.95.

The End of Equality, Anne Summers, Random House.

The Family in America. A periodical publication of the Howard Center in Rockford, IL. The best source of knowledge on family sociology.

The Female Brain, Dr. Louann Brizendine The Feminized Male, Patricia Sexton.

The Garbage Generation, Daniel Amneus, Ph.D. $8 paperback, $15 hardcover, www.viaticumpressinternational.com.

The Inevitability of Patriarchy; Steven Goldberg, Wm. Morrow & Co., NY. The Kinder, Gentler Military, Stephanie Gutmann The Meaning of Marriage, by Robert P. George and Jean Bethke Elshtain. Spence publishers. 316 pp.

The Myth of Male Power, Warren Farrell, Simon & Schuster, New York, ISBN 0-671-079349-7.

The Myth of Repressed Memory by Dr. Elizabeth Loftus (St. Martins Press, 1996).

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex and Feminism. Human Events Book Service. POB 96505 Wash, DC 20090-6505 The Privilege of Being a Woman, Alice Von Hildebrand, Veritas Press (300 W. Forest Ave., Ypsilanti MI 48198). 108 pages.

The Revolt of the Primitive: an Inquiry into the Roots of Political Correctness, Prager Publishers, 2001.

The Sex-Change Society: Feminized Britain and the Neutered Male.

Melanie Phillips London: The Social Market Foundation, 1999. 370 pps. Amazon.com.uk.

The Tyranny of Toleranceâ&#x20AC;Ś by Robert H. Dierker, Jr., Chief Judge Missouri Circuit Court. ISBN: 978-0-307-39356-2 (0-307-39356-9).

Crown Forum $17.95 The War Against Boys, Christina Hoff Sommers, Simon & Schuster, N.Y. The War Against Men, Dr. Richard Hise, Elderberry Press (.com), $22.95. This is one of the very best books on gender issues, and the most up-to-date.

Tilting the Playing Field, Jessica Gavora, Encounter Books.

- 207 -

Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know about the Emerging Science of Sex Differences. by Leonard Sax Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap—and What Women Can Do About It. By Warren Farrell, Ph.D. New York: AMACOM, 2005. www.amacombooks.org . www.warrenfarrell.com .

US $23.00. 270 pages.

Women Who Make the World Worse: and How Their Radical Feminist Assault is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military and Sports. By Kate O’Beirne. HEBookService.com

- 208 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation

Men’s/Fathers Organization Websites Activist site: http://www.mensactivism.org/ American Coalition for Fathers and Children: www.acfc.org Australia: www.menucan.net Black men: www.bondinfo.org British organizations: www.mankind.org.uk Citizens Against Paternity Fraud: www.paternityfraud.com Divorce magazine: www.levingsdivorcemagazine.com False abuse charges: www abuse-excuse com Family law: www.RealFamilyLaw.com Family law books: www.familylawsource.com Fathers For Life: www.fathersforlife.org.

Feminist links: www.Discoverthenetworks.org Justice oriented: www.jail4judges.org Men’s Activism: www.mensactivism.org Men’s Blogsite – excellent: ANCPR.org Men’s Health: www.menshealthnetwork.org Men’s issues: www.GlennSacks.com MensNewsDaily: www.mensnewsdaily.com National Coalition of Free Men: www.ncfm.org Paternity fraud/Shared parenting: www.NFJA.org Religious-oriented: www.momentumevents.org, www.greatdads.org, Resources for Dads: www.fathers4kids.org Second Wives Club: www.secondwivesclub.com Spiritually-oriented fatherhood: www.jrgroup.org Veterans Fighting Paternity Fraud: www.hometown.aol.com/vetsvsp

- 209 -

Index Abraham Jed, 66 Abzug, 158 ACLU, 48, 188, 198 AFDC, 36, 78, 79, 80, 202, 203 Affirmative Action, 10 Alda, 144 American Civil Liberties Union, 67 American Coalition for Fathers and Children, 80, 209 American Retirees Association, 62 Amirault in Massachusetts, 34 Amneus, v, vi, 34, 39, 43, 53, 62, 65, 66, 73, 78, 88, 89, 91, 99, 124, 147, 148, 168, 173, 175, 176, 193, 194, 196, 197 Asner, 144 Atlas Shrugged, 197 Bakalar, 126, 154 Baskerville, 24, 82, 99, 144, 189 battered women’s shelters, 24 Bernard, 81 Besharov, 35 Biller, 94 Blankenhorn, 94, 144 Bork, 55 Braver, 55, 126, 144, 194 Briffault, 38 Bronfenbrenner, 36 CAPTA, 35, 201 Catholic Church, 83 CEDAW, 134 Chadwick, 70 Children’s Rights Council, 194 chivalry, 3, 43, 110, 126, 174, 175, 176 Choice for Men, 198 circumcision, 106 Civil Rights Act, 6, 10, 11 Clinton Hillary, 76, 96 William Jefferson, 66 Commission on the Status of Women, 5 Comparable Worth, 161 Constitution United States, 13

- 210 -

Corry Dr. Charles E., 27 de Beauvoir, 200 deadbeat dads, 45, 65 debtor’s prison, 70 DeCrow, 139 Del Gallo, 201 DNA testing, 30, 31, 57, 198, 199 Dobson, 113, 152 Donnelly, 163 Dworkin, 138 England Lynndie, 16, 164, 165 Equal Rights Amendment, 59, 183 ERA, 109 Farrell, 15, 105, 160 Fathers4Justice, 55 fault option, 186 Fiebert, 25 firemen, 12, 33, 171 Francis Babette, 169 Freud, xii, 35 Friedan, 25, 26, 131, 138, 149, 150, 169 Friedman, 130 Galahad, 16, 126 Gallagher, 36, 53, 81, 94 Gardner, 97 Gelles, 37 Gender Contract, 147, 148 Gilder, 45, 79, 100, 150 Glueck, 90 Goldberg, 142, 147 Gonzales Elian, 110 Greer, 139, 168 Guidubaldi, 194 Hathaway, 90, 190 Hearst, 16 Hetherington, v, 30 Hise, x Hite, 42, 138, 144 Holoway, 141 Horn, 42, 51, 54, 94, 99, 190 Howard Center, 74, 207

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation Independent Women's Forum, 133, 170 James Thomas, Esq., 27, 51, 57, 79 Joint Custody, 54, 194 Jordan Minnesota, 34 Kelly Michaels in New Jersey, 34 Kipnis, 102 Leving, 198 Liberator, vi, 3, 23, 102, 116, 124, 130, 200 Little Rascals in North Carolina, 34 Lord Mansfield, 56 Love Boat, 165 Lynch Jessica, 164 MacKinnon, 33, 137 Mansfield Rule, 199 matriarchy, 53, 168, 173 McMartin in California, 34 McNeeley, 25 MDA, 30, 120, 122, 200 Mead, 8, 53, 147, 159 Men’s Defense Association, v, vi, 19, 52, 61, 122, 197, 199 Men’s Equality Now (M.E.N.) International, vi Men’s Health Network, 23 Men’s Rights Association, vi, 121 Metz, v, 47, 84 Michelman, 139 military wives, 76 Mill John Stuart, 127 Miller Stuart, 66 Minnesota State Bar Association, 50, 121 Morgan Elizabeth, 113 Moynihan, 53, 101 Mutari, 21 National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, 36 National Coalition of Free Men NCFM, vi, 209 National Organization for Men Against Sexism, 145 Navarro, 199

No-fault, 42, 47, 64, 80, 81, 82, 83, 186 No-fault divorce, 82 Noland, 53 NOMAS, 145 NOW, vii, 98, 125, 127, 134, 139 OCSE, 57, 69 Office of Child Support Enforcement, 57 Orders for Protection, 50 Parental Alienation Syndrome, 97 Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act, 188 Patriarchy, 53, 145, 173 Pftotenhauer, 133 Pizzey, 24 plesmograph, 34 Popenoe, 94, 100 Potiphar, 29 Prenuptial contracts, 59 presidential assassins, 93 Promise Keepers, 144 Prostate Cancer, 105 Prostitution, 18 Redistribution of wealth, 58 Reno Janet, 34, 110, 111 Ritzy, viii Roberts Carey, 102 Rogers R. Mark, 196 SAID (Sexual Allegations In Divorce) Syndrome, 35 Schlafly, 22, 30, 131, 162, 169 Schlessinger, 169 Sjodin, 141 Smeal, 139 Smith Carnell, 56, 198 SNAG, 144 Steinem, 134, 139, 144 suicide, 9, 85, 86, 88, 94, 95, 100, 102, 166, 171 Summers Lawrence H., 132 Tail hook, 32 TANF, 57, 78, 79, 80, 202, 203 The Bible, 173 The Case for Father Custody, v, 66

- 211 -

The Myth of Male Power, 15 The Rape of The Male, v, vi, 42, 61, 110, 192 the tender trap, 181 Title IX, 6 Tong Dean, 34, 201 Triere, 138, 179 URESA, 68 Usher, 80 Vagina Monologues, 131 VAWA, 22, 112

- 212 -

Vedder, 79, 90 Violence Against Women Act, 22, 136 Wallerstein, 55, 87, 95, 144, 179 Weitzman, 65 Wenatchee in Washington, 34 West Point, 129, 162 Whitehead, 95 Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Studies, 109 Yates Andrea, 14 Zepezauer, 116

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation

Endnotes 1 Author of Divorce and Custody for Men (out of print). Founder of America’s Society of Divorced Men in Elgin Illinois. Originator of the practice of individual divorce counseling.

2 Dislike of men, manhood and fatherhood. The sexual equivalent of misogyny.

3 The word “Feminists” is in quotes because most of the spokeswomen for that philosophy are anything but feminine, and in actuality are attempting to destroy all traces of femininity.

4 http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2004/12/06/768551-cp.html.

5 New Oxford Review, May ’06 6 Dr. Richard Hise, The War Against Men (Elderberry Press) 81, 82.

7 National Review, 12 July 2004, 48.

8 Stephen E. Rhodes, Taking Sex Differences Seriously (Encounter), 374.

9 Bryan-College Station Eagle 3/2/2001.

10 Male and Female: A Study of the Sexes in a Changing World, 173.

11 Reported by Carey Roberts in NewsWithViews May 23, 2006 12 Winnipeg Free Press 5/4/1992.

13 Michael Levin, Feminism and Freedom (New Brunswick, Transactions Publishers, 1994) estimates a loss in productivity of American business as high as 36%. Richard A. Epstein, Forbidden Ground, The Case Against Employment Discrimination Law (Cambridge, Harvard Univ. Press 1995).

14 Wash. Times Weekly, January 30 – February 5, 2006 15 §13-90-107(k)(I) C.R.S. states: (k) (I) A victim's advocate shall not be examined as to any communication made to such victim's advocate by a victim of domestic violence, as defined in section 18-6-800.3 (1), C.R.S., or a victim of sexual assault, as described in sections 18-3-401 to 18-3-405.5, 18-6-301, and 18-6-302, C.R.S., in person or through the media of written records or reports without the consent of the victim. (II) For purposes of this paragraph (k), a "victim's advocate" means a person at a battered women's shelter or rape crisis organization or a comparable communitybased advocacy program for victims of domestic violence or sexual assault.

16 See Kahn v. Shevin, Fla., U.S. Sup Ct Case No. 78-78.

17 Independent newspaper, early 2005 18 Gender and Injustice an NCFM article (POB 1993 Baltimore, MD 21203). Originally from U.S. Government figures and Gender Bias Reporter (NCFM) 9/30/90. The huge disparity between punishment of men and of women is further documented on page 180 of The Hazards of Being Male.

19 National Review, Dec. 5, 1986. p 16 20 BBC 21 Atlanta Journal-Constitution, AP., Yahoo news.com, 10 Feb. 2005 22 Washington Post, 28 February 1998, p. B01.

23 Timemagazine.com, Oct 23, ’06; AP Oct 19, ’06, Wash. Times Oct. 23, ’06

- 213 -

24 Lisa Scott is a Bellevue, Washington attorney practicing in the areas of family law, divorce and domestic violence. She is also a founding member of TABS, Taking Action against Bias in the System, www.tabs.org.

25 Forest Lake, MN Times, April 5, 2007.

26 CBS News Nov. 23, 2005. CNN Headline News March 21, 2006.

27 Associated Press (undated).

28 St. Paul Dispatch 25 July 1975.

29 State v. Barton; La. Sup Ct. 6/23/75.

30 Fox News 22 Dec. 2004.

31 N.Y. Law Journal, 11/16/05.

32 Phyllis Schlafly newsletter. 13 December 2004.

33 Fox News June 9, 2005.

34 Washington Times Weekly, Feb. 19, 2007.

35 Andrew Hartman, U.$. Prisons Mean Money, Humanist, Nov/Dec. 6-10 Year missing.

36 Justice Departmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington (AP) 28 May 2004.

37 From Law Enforcement Administration study of l58,000 prisoners in 3,500 local jails, released May l5, l980.

38 60 Minutes, Feb. 11,2007 39 Sacramento Times, 3 Feb. 2005.

40 Canada National Post, September 2004.

41 as reported by Feminist Jessica Valenti, founder and Executive Editor of Feministing.com, on Manumit Exchange 1/12/06.

42 See website www.r-kids.org.

43 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160968,00.html.

44 Ibid. p 486.

45 R. L. McNeeley, The Truth About Domestic Violence: A Falsely Framed Issue 485490.

46 Criminal Victimization in the U.S (1989).

47 Ibid. p 487.

48 Transitions Magazine, Nov/Dec. 2004.

49 Prof. Clifton Flynn, Family Relations, (April 1990) 194.

50 The Times, 11 November 2004. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,21353322,00.html.

51 William Congreve 1670 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 1729.

52 It Changed My Life, p. 126.

53 New Harbinger Publications, CA. 54 Domestic Violence: The 12 Things You Aren't Supposed to Know, Tom James, J.D. Aventine Press, Chula Vista, CA., Amazon Books. ISBN 1-59330-122-7.

55 R.L. McNeely, Ph.D. & G. Robinson-Simpson, Ed. D, The Truth About Domestic Violence: A Falsely Framed Issue, Social Work, Nov/Dec 1987, 485, 490; Dr. Coramae

- 214 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation

Richey Mann, FL. State U.; Justice Quarterly Mar ‘88; Dr. Amneus, Garbage Generation, ps. 85,86.

56 Bureau of Justice Statistics and Uniform Crime Reporting. McNeeley, p 487.

57 Charles P. McDowell, et al, False Allegations, appearing as a chapter in Practical Rape Investigation: A Multidisciplinary Approach edited by Behavioral Science Unit, FBI Academy, Quantico, Virginia, 1985.

58 The Phantom Epidemic of Sexual Assault, The Public Interest, Spring 1991.

59 From the National Crime Survey; The Liberator August 1991.

60 NCFM PO box 317, Brooklyn, NY 11240.

61 Townhall.com. February 6, 2006 62 Durham NC Herald Sun June 8, 06 63 Washington Times Weekly Edition, Jan 16-22, 06, p19.

64 Ibid.

65 WorldNetDaily.com 13 Nov. 2004.

66 Albuquerque, NM Tribune, January 22, 2006.

67 CNN.com, February 9, 2006 68 St. Petersburg, FL Times September 13, 2006 69 (Alpha Publishing, 2002). Tong’s website: http://www.abuse-excuse.com.

70 Rick Teague, Court Psychologist for five-county area of S.W. VA. 71 Margretta Dwyer, University of Minnesota Psychologist.

72 According to Dr. Douglas Besharov, former director National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect.

73 R. L. McNeeley, The Truth About Domestic Violence: A Falsely Framed Issue, Social Work, Nov/Dec 1987, 488. (The definitive study. Heavily annotated).

74 Ira Reiss, An End to Shame: Shaping our Next Sexual Revolution (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1990), p. 52.

75 Ibid. p 485; Marriage and Divorce Today, (Dec. 15, 1986).

76 Straus, M.A., GellesR.J. & Steinmetz, Suzanne I., Behind Closed Doors: Violence in American Families (Doubleday NY 1980).

77 Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services during the Bush Administration.

78 Patrick Fagan and William Fitzgerald, The Child Abuse Crisis: The Disintegration of Marriage, Family and the American Community, 13, 17.

79 The Abolition of Marriage, p. 36.

80 The Family in America: New Research, December, 1989.

81 Transitions, July/August, 1995.

82 http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm03/index.htm 83 London Daily Telegraph 28 Dec. 1996.

84 Richard Gelles, The Book of David: How Preserving Families Can Cost Children’s Lives, HarperCollins, 1996, 75f.

85 Amneus, The Case for Father Custody.

- 215 -

86 Washington Times Weekly, 1/3-9/05.

87 From a H.E.W. study cited in The Rape of The Male.

88 Marriage and Divorce July/Aug 1974, 36.

89 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract.

90 The Family in America June 2004. Wade Horn is an adviser to President Bush, and is the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families in the Department of Health and Human Services.

91 Stanley Kurtz, The End of Marriage in Scandinavia, The Weekly Standard, 2/2/2004, 27.

92 The Family in America, May 2005.

93 Newsletter July 2005, Judicial Watch, Washington, DC. 94 Lenore Weitzman, The Divorce Revo1ution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and Children in America (New York: The Free Press, 1985), 460: ‘These researchers [Robert Schoen, Harry N. Greenblatt, and Robert B. Mielke] report that 78 percent of all divorce petitions in California were filed by wives....” p 147 (quoting attorney Riane Eisler), “By social convention, the vast majority of divorces were filed by women.” p. 174, “In California, in 1968, under the adversary system, over three quarters of the plaintiffs—those who initiated the legal divorce proceedings—were wives filing charges against husbands.” According to David Chambers, Making Fathers Pay (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), p.29, “the wife is the moving party in divorce actions seven times out of eight.” According to the Legal Beagle, February, 1986, 72 percent of divorce filings are made by wives. According to Yuanxi Ma, Chinese Feminist, about 60 percent of China’s divorces are initiated by women (Off our Backs, April, 1988). According to Joan Kelly, author of Surviving the Breakup, “Divorce is sought about three to one by women” (cited in Joint Custody Newsletter, January, 1988). According to Christopher Lasch, NYRB, 17 February, 1988, three-quarters of divorces are granted to women. According to Elsie Clews Parsons’s The Family: An Ethnographical and Historical Outline (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons 1906, 331), “A large majority of divorces are obtained by women.” According to a three-day survey by the County Clerk’s Office in Orange County, California, two of every three divorce petitions listed the wife as the plaintiff (Fathers’ Forum, August, 1987). According to court records in Marion, Howard, Hancock, Grant and Ruch counties in Indiana in 1985, of 2,033 dissolutions granted, 1,599 (76.6%) were filed by wives, 474 (23.3%) were filed by husbands (National Congress for Men Network, Vol. 1, No. 3). According to Shere Hite (Women and Love: A Cultural Revolution in Progress New York: A1fred A. Knopf, 1987, p. 459), “ninety-one percent of women who have divorced say they made the decision to divorce, not their husbands.’ NY Review of Books 2/17/66 95 Shere Hite, Women and Love (New York, Knopf 1987) 459, and many other sources cited herein.

96 This is Dr. Lenore Weitzman’s celebrated statistic, frequently quoted in Feminist literature. See Chapter 8 of Professor Amneus’ Garbage Generation for a discussion of it.

97 Zimmerman v. Zimmerman, USDC E. Pa. 5/16/75.

98 The Associated Press 99 Pat Robertson, PBS TV 25 Jan. 1988.

- 216 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation

100 George Gilder, Family and Nation: Moynihan’s Welfare Turnaround,” Catholicism and Crisis. June, 1986; reprinted in Human Events 26 July. 1986.

101 Liberator, Fall 2005. pp 8,9.

102 Nelson on Divorce, 2nd Edition.

103 In the Matter of the Marriage of SHAWN S. SUGGS Petitioner, and ANDREW O. HAMILTON Respondent No. 73892-1. Filed July 8, 2004 http://pub.bna.com/fl/738921.htm 104 Cook County Illinois file # 69D11468, Kansas Chief Justice Prager 105 This writer disagrees with Newblatt to this extent: The LAW doesn’t prevent properly performing. Judicial PRACTICE prevents it).

106 The results are published in Tim Groshens and J.J. Smith, A Report On the 2005 Survey of MSBA Family Law Section Members, 14 Family Law Forum, no. 2, pp. 2132 (the Spring/Summer, 2005 issue).

107 Still Unequal: The Shameful Truth About Women and Justice in America, Lorraine Dusky, (Amazon.com). 336.

108 Cox vs.Cox; Utah Sup. Ct. 3/6/75.

109 67 Corpus Juris Secundum 11b. Parent and Child, 638.

110 Runge v. Runge: 212 S.W. 2d 275.

111 105 N.E. 2d 300.

112 Forman v. Forman; Fla Ct App., 3rd Dist., 5/27/75.

113 In In re John A. v. Bridget M., 2005 WL 7290006 (N.Y.A.D. 1st Dept., 3/31/05) 114 The Washington Times, July 5, 2004.

115 U. of M. research report 2003.

116 Father Facts, Dr. Wade Horn.

117 The lower figure appeared in Policy Review, Summer ‘95, page 50, and the U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services, Advance Report of Final Divorce Statistics, 1988, Monthly Vital Statistics Report 1993. The higher figure is from various sources. The term “father-deprived” is used often herein instead of the much less appropriate term “fatherless,” at the suggestion of my colleague, Pradeep Ramanathan, to whom I am indebted for the suggestion.

118 Rasmussen Reports. June 16, 2002.

119 PBS TV Frontline 2/25/86.

120 Dr. Wade Horn. April 13, 2004 speech in Melbourne, Australia 121 Industrial Abstract of the U.S. 2000.

122 Basic Books, 1990 123 The Guardian, 28 November 2005.

124 Miami Herald.

125 AAP, 17 March 2005. The Australian Gender Report for March, 2005.

126 Newsday, July 23, 1975.

127 According to Myron Brenton, writing in The American Male pp 70-71.

128 House v. House, Calif. Ct App Dist. 8/11/75.

129 Thomas v. Thomas; Tx. Ct Civ App, 1st Dist. 5/22/75.

- 217 -

130 Markowitz; NY Sup. Ct., NY Cty. 6/4/75.

131 Boston Herald. 12/30/’04.

132 Wilson v. Wilson; 271 Ky. 631, 112 S.W. 2d 980.

133 1 FLR 2100, 2843.

134 American Retirees Association (for retired military personnel) newsletter. The organization is based in Redlands, California and Arlington, Virginia.

135 Foxnews.com. August 09, 2002 136 TheOmahaChannel.com. http://www.theomahachannel.com/family/4213430/detail.html 137 See Chapter 5 of Garbage Generation for a fuller discussion of Mutilated Beggars.

138 Jed Abraham, Esq. The Divorce Revolution Revisited... Northern Illinois Univ. Law Review, Vol. 9, #2, 1989.

139 Los Angeles Times, 29 September, 1995.

140 Child Support Report, OSCE, U.S. Dept of Health & Human Services. Sept. 2004.

141 Child Support Report Vol. XXVll. Sept. 2005 142 Wall Street Journal, 2 March, 1995.

143 Associated Press, Portsmouth Herald April 24, 2005 144 For a complete review of Title IV - D, see the B.N.A. Family Law Reporter, June 10, 1975, Monograph #8, Volume I, No. 30.

145 Reason Magazine, June 2004. 13, 14.

146 Office of Child Support Enforcement. U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services.

147 1 FLR 2824 148 Gloucester, Mass. Daily Times, 3/21/73.

149 American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, Civil Liberties Record, February 1957.

150 gmtoday.com. Sept 12, 2006 151 Boston Globe Jan, 20, 2006.

152 International Family Planning Perspectives.

153 Sacred Pleasure, 284. ISBN 0062502832 154 From an article by Eleanor Hoover for the Los Angeles Times reprinted in the St. Paul Dispatch 9/2/75.

155 Heyn, The Erotic Silence of The American Wife 26, citing a survey by Playboy made in 1982.

156 American Mourning, Melanie Morgan and Catherine Moy, WND Books. WorldNetDaily.com, October 19, 2006 157 Stacy J. Rogers, Dollars, Dependency and Divorce: Four perspectives on the Role of Wives’ Income, Journal of Marriage and Family, (2004): 59-74.

158 Newsmax.com, Nov 21, 2006, Washington Times Weekly 10/27/’06.

159 National Center for Policy Analysis.

160 John Leo, U.S. News & World Report, 10/3/’05.

161 The new Medicare law could cost from $1 trillion to $2 trillion in its 2nd 10 years.

- 218 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation

162 Policy Review Winter 1988, 62. Heritage Foundation publication.

163 Bureau of Justice Statistics: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs.

164 Report 92-24, March 24, 1992 165 Gallagher, The Abolition of Marriage, 150) 166 See: The Effect of No-Fault Divorce Law on the Divorce Rate Across the 50 States and its Relation to Income, Education, and Religiosity. Paul A. Nakonezny, Robert.Shull, Joseph Lee Rodgers, Journal of Marriage and the Family 57 [1995]: 477488.).

167 NBC TV News 9/24/96. Marriage and Welfare Reform, Wade Hornand Andrew Bush.

168 http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/imapp.crimefamstructure.pdf.

169 Stephen Demuth and Susan Brown, Family Structure, Family Processes, and Adolescent Delinquency: The Significance of Parental Absence Versus Parental Gender, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 41 [2004]: 58-81. Reprinted in Family in America, New Research. March 2004.

170 Figures confirmed by a 1970 Rehabilitation memoranda by the Florida Ocean Sciences Institute.

171 Ramsay Clark, Crime in America, 39, 123. Also from The Garbage Generation.

172 Statistics from Los Angeles Times, 19 September, 1988. See Amneusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Garbage Generation p. 179 for a discussion of these statistics. 72 (the percentage of delinquents who are from broken homes) divided by 24 (the percentage of all homes) equals 3.0. 28 (the percentage of delinquents who are from intact homes) divided by 76 (the percentage of homes which are intact) equals 0.3684. 3.0 divided by 0.3684 equals 8.143. If the findings of this study are to be trusted a child growing up in a single-parent home (usually female-headed) is 8.1 times as likely to be delinquent.

This study is now decades old. The number of female-headed households has continued to increase since then.

173 Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency, (Harvard University Press, 1950) 88-91, 122125.

174 Adolescent Personality and Behavior: M.M.P.I. Patterns of Normal, Delinquent and Other Outcomes, Univ. of Minn. Press.

175 US News & World Report 1/15/07 176 U.S. News & World Report 22/December/2003.

177 See Amneus, â&#x20AC;&#x2122;Garbage Generation, 215-285 for documentation.

178 U.S. News & World Report, 13 Dec. 2004, 23.

179 Children No More, pp. 73, 76.

180 Issue 27, September/October, 1997.

181 Margaret Driscoll, The True Victims of Separation, The Medical Post, 5 April, 1994.

182 Human Events, week of June 7, 2004, 21.

183 David Blankenhorn, Fatherless in America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem (New York, NY: BasicBooks, 1995), 258.

184 Henry Biller, Fathers and Families (Westport, CT: Auburn House, 1993), 1f.

185 David Popenoe, Life Without Father (New York: The Free Press, 1996), 62.

- 219 -

186 Popenoe, Life Without Father, 77, 156.

187 Maggie Gallagher, Enemies of Eros (Chicago: Bonus Books, 1989), 114f.

188 Requiem for the War on Poverty, Policy Review, Summer, 1992.

189 Looking Forward: The Next Forty Years, ed. John Templeton, 132f.)

190 Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, The Divorce Culture, 98f.

191 Andrew Peyton Thomas, Crime and the Sacking of America; The Roots of Chaos (Brassey's 1994), 161.

192 James Nelson, The Intimate Connection, Amazon.com, 119.

193 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 25, # 1, (Feb 1988).

194 The Most Significant Minority: One-Parent Children in the Schools; quoted in Moynihan, Family and Nation, 92f.

195 Hillary Rodham Clinton, It Takes a Village, 313f.

196 2005 Houston Chronicle, Feb. 13, 2005 197 “State of Fatherhood,” Father Facts, quoted in McKenzie, October, 1997 198 Robert Rector, et al, Marriage Plus: Sabotaging the President’s Efforts to promote Healthy Marriage, The Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder #1677,22 Aug 2003.

199 Address to the Commonwealth Club of California, 1992; quoted in FACE, August, 1992.

200 Andrew Payton Thomas, Crime and the Sacking of America: The Roots of Chaos (Washington: Brassey’s, 1994), p. xxii.

201 Gallagher, The Abolition of Marriage, 126 202 Urban Institute and American University, July 2002. This paper was prepared for the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation under HHS Grant Number 00ASPE359A. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 23rd Annual Research Conference of the Association for Public Policy and Management, Washington, DC, November 1-3, 2001.

203 The Silence of the Lambs, Columbia Journalism Review, January/February 2003 204 Popenoe, Life Without Father, 128ff.

205 Nigel Davies, The Rampant God, 277 206 Wall Street Journal, 30 October, 1995.

207 Family and Nation, p. 95 208 Mankind, Dec. 2005 209 1154 15th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005. http://www.pcacoalition.org.

210 Poe v. Gerstein, CA5, 18 August 1975, 1 FLR 2744.

211 PBS TV 25 Jan. 1988.

212 Gallagher, The Abolition of Marriage, 42.

213 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4592890.stm 214 I prefix this word to distinguish modern liberals from the classical definition of liberal which had an honorable connotation.

215 Canadian Press, as reported on Manumit Exchange, 11/30/06 216 AP & CBS News, June 13, 2005

- 220 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation

217 Campus Report, Date not available.

218 Human Events 3/19/88.

219 Commonwealth ex rel. Edinger v. Edinger 5/12/53, Judge Musmanno, Penna.

Sup. Ct. 220 Article by Cristin Schmitz, CanWest News Service, National Post, 20 January 2005.

221 National Review, December 5, 2005, pgs 28, 29.

222 Helen Alvare, Types and Styles of Family Proceedings, Report of the United States to the VII World Congress, International Association of Procedural Law (2003): 1.

223 ALR Review (April-June 1988): 4,5.

224 New York Law Journal, 9/16/05, N.Y. Post 8/17/05.

225 Morrey v. Morrey; Ill 1st Dist Ct. 11/18/74. See also Jones v. Tyson; U.S. Ct. App (Ca) 9th Circuit 6/16/75.

226 Cook County, Illinois, file #369D13574.

227 Ramsey County Minnesota, file #362629.

228 The Associated Press Jan. 12, 2005 229 The 9 page citation is as follows: Minnesota State Bar Association v. Divorce Assistance Association, Inc., 248 NW 2d 733 [Minn. 1976], 311 Minn. 276, Dec. 17, 1976).

230 National Review, (28 June 2004): 11, 12.

231 ibid.

232 1/18/05 Boston Globe.

233 U.S. News & World Report 19 Jan. 1998.

234 According to the Treasury Dept. there are more women millionaires than men millionaires and total assets held by women are within seven percent of those held by men.

235 So says The Declaration of Feminism or The Document (an alleged secret Feminist agenda).

236 What civil rights has wrought, Townhall.com - Creators Syndicate. July 26, 2000.

237 Phyllis Schlafly Report, March 2007 238 Lynette Triere, Learning to Leave: A Womanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Guide (New York, Warner Books, 1982), 20f.

239 It Changed My Life, 102, 153, 144.

240 Beyond God the Father, 59.

241 Los Angeles Times, 1 August 1988.

242 Defense of the Family Survey of Christian Coalition (1996).

243 Quoted in Katherine Anthony, Feminism in Germany and Scandinavia, pp. 248ff.

244 Phyllis Chesler, Mothers on Trial: The Battle for Children and Custody, 441.

245 Carla Rivera, Los Angeles Times, 15 November 1996.

246 Associated Press, 22 Feb 2005.

- 221 -

247 Alain Danielou, Gods of Love and Ecstasy: The Traditions of Shiva and Dionysus (Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions, 1979), 17.

248 Stephen Goldberg, New York City University, The Inevitability of Patriarchy (Wm. Morrow & Co).

249 Yuri Kageyama, Moderate Japan Recovery Expected, http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/020421/japan_golden_recession_1.html.

250 Understanding Women’s Liberation, 70.

251 Source – Adam and Ms. Eve. by Dr. Charles Phillips, Corroboration is provided

by Arthur Jensen, Professor of Education Psychology at the University of Calif., Berkeley in American Renaissance (Aug. 1992).

252 Sexual Suicide, 126.

253 Time Magazine 27 October 1974.

254 Available from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. $22. Phone 888-560-8210.

255 Professor Willystine Goodsell, A History of Marriage and Family (Australia).

256 Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (New York: Free Press, 1994), 845.

257 Understanding Women’s Liberation, p70.

258 Citation: John R. Lott Jr., “Does a Helping Hand Put Others at Risk? Affirmative Action, Police Departments and Crime,” Economic Inquiry, April 1, 2000.

259 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 200361150 Seventeenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036.

260 1984 Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

261 Alan Carlson, Family Questions: Reflections on the American Social Crisis, (New Brunswick: Transaction, 1988): 116 – 125.

262 Brian Mitchell, Weak Link: The Feminization of the American Military, (Regnery Gateway 1989).

263 Los Angeles Times, 28 July 1992.

264 CBS Evening News 16 Feb. 1976.

265 Brian Mitchell, Women in the Military: Flirting with Disaster (Washington D.C.: Regnery, 1998), 77f.

266 Human Events, 15 June 1991.

267 Washington Times, 21-27 June 2004, p. 1.

268 According to ABC TV Nightly News on 7/12/2005.

269 The Age, Weekender, 11/6/05 page 11.

270 American Legion magazine, March 2007, p 38.

271 Newsmax, May 2006 272 http://www.iwf.org/ 273 website http://www.jrgroup.org 274 Lynette Triere, Learning to Leave: A Woman’s Guide (New York: Warner Books, 1982), 285.

275 Quoted by Maggie Gallagher, Enemies of Eros, 200.

- 222 -

Reality, Sensibility, Liberation

276 Gallagher, The Abolition of Marriage, 170 277 Marriage as a Pure Relationship, Journal of Comparative Family Studies, xxvii (1996), 1-12; epitomized in The Family in America: New Research, April, 1996 278 See www.innocenceproject.org.

279 Reason Magazine, Feb 05.

280 Time Magazine, Oct 3,’05.

281 Henry VI Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2, Line 83.

282 Maggie Gallagher, The Abolition of Marriage: How We Destroy Lasting Love, (Regnery), 43.

283 Phyllis Chesler, Mothers on Trial, 569: [In Mauritania] “divorce is especially rare among those tribes where custody is retained by fathers.”

284 Washington Times Weekly, May 10-16, (2004): 23.

285 In re Marriage of LaMusga.

286 Imprimus, June, 1997.

287 Industrial Abstract of the U.S. 2000.

288 Mothers on Trial: The Battle for children and Custody (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1986). 569.

289 Miami Herald, 24 March, 1980; cited in Triere, 157.

290 Full story in the 8/18/04 Washington Times. http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040818-111309-3555r.htm 291 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125579,00.html.

292 BBC News, 3 November 2006

- 223 -