" Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship." 1.
"The world "marriage" derives from the Middle English mariage , which first appears on 1250-1300 CE. This, in turn, is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin maritare meaning to provide with a husband or wife and maritari meaning to get married. ---The related word "matrimony" derives from the Old French word matremoine which appears around 1300 CE and ultimately derives from Latin matrimonium which combines the two concepts mater meaning "mother" and the suffix-monium signifying "action, state, or condition." 2.
"The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and personal, are acknowledged. Such a union is often formalized via a wedding ceremony. In terms of legal recognition, most sovereign states and other jurisdictions limit marriage to two persons of opposite sex or gender in the gender binary; and, some of these allow polygynous marriage. Since 2000, several countries and some other jurisdictions have legalized same-sex marriage. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or compulsory before pursing any sexual activity.
People marry for many reasons including: legal, social, being in love, libidinal, emotional, financial, spiritual, and religious. These might include arranged marriages, family obligations, the legal establishment of a nuclear family unit, the legal protection of children and a public declaration of commitment. The act of marriage usually creates obligations between the individuals involved. Some cultures allow the dissolution of marriage through divorce or annulment. Polygamous marriages may also occur in spite of national laws.
Marriage can be recognized by a state, an organization, a religious authority, a tribal group or a local community or peers. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation, in accordance with the marriage laws of the jurisdiction." 3.
Marriage in the United States:
" Marriage has traditionally been an important part of American society.
In the early 18th century, rarely did individuals look beyond fairness, kindliness, and good temper in a potential mate.
Marriage laws have changed over the course of United States history including the removal of bans on interracial marriage.----
According to the United States Census Bureau, 2,077,000 marriages occurred in the United States in 2009. The median age in the early 1970s was 21 for women and 23 for men and has risen to 26 for women and 28 for men by 2009." 4.
"Marriage laws are established by the individual states. There are two methods of receiving state recognition of a marriage: common law marriage and obtaining a marriage license. Common law marriage is no longer permitted in most states.
Though federal law does not regulate state marriage law, it does provide for rights and responsibilities of married couples that differ from those of unmarried couples. Reports published by the General Accounting Office in 1997 and 2004 identified over 1000 such laws." 5.
" In the event that a marriage fails, divorce is an option. Laws vary from state to state and address the division of property, child support, and other legal issues. "Married adults now (2005) divorce two-and-a- half times as often as adults did 20 years ago and four times as often as they did 50 years ago....between 40% and 60% of new marriages will eventually end in divorce. The probability within...the first five years is 20% and the probability within the first 10 years is 33%... Perhaps 25% of children ages 16 and under live with a stepparent." (The aforementioned statistics do not include legal and informal separation in marriage, which, of course, would imply that the actual statistics for failed marriages may be significantly higher). As of 2009, first marriages which ended in divorce lasted a median of 8 years for both men and women. The median time to separation from first marriages was about 7 years.
Other than marriage, there are three types of relevant unions in the United States: civil unions, domestic partnerships, and cohabitation. A civil union is " formal union between two people of the same or of different genders which results in, but falls short of, marriage-like rights and obligations". In the U.S., a domestic partnership is a city-,county-, state-, or employer-recognized status that may be available to same-sex couples and, sometimes, heterosexual couples. Cohabitation refers to two unmarried people who are in an intimate relationship and live together." 6.
End of long quote
A report from the Pew Research Center released on December 14, 2011 stated among other facts: 1. Census data indicates that barely half of adults ages 18 years of age and older are married- 51% in 2010, compared to 72% in 1960. 2.This decline is especially notable for young adults: 20% of 18 to 29 year olds were married in 2010 compared with 59% in 1960. 3. In 2011, the median age at first marriage is estimated at 28.7 for men and 26.5 for women. That means that half of men don't marry until at least about age 29 and that half of women don't marry until at least about age 27. In 1960, the median age at first marriage for both men and women was in the early 20's. 7.
The Census Bureau's 2010 American Community Survey found that the number of newlyweds, people who married in the previous year, was down 5% from the previous year;and, 4. 39% of Americans say that they agree that marriage is becoming obsolete. 8.
"Although the marriage rate and the proportion of women who are married have risen and fallen from the 1890s to the 1960s, they have declined precipitously since 1970 with both now at record lows. Furthermore, women's median age at first marriage is the highest is has been in over a century at 26.6 ( U.S. Census Bureau, 2012)" 9.
"The U.S. marriage rate (the number of women's marriages per 1,000 unmarried women 15 years and older is the lowest it has been in over a century at 31.1-that is, roughly 31 marriages per 1,000 unmarried women. The marriage rate was highest in 1920 at 92.3. Since 1970, the marriage rate has declined by almost 60%". 10.
"The proportion of women married was highest in 1950 at approximately 65%. Today, less than half (47%) if women 15 and over are married-the lowest since the turn of the century. The proportion of women who are never-married has followed a curvilinear pattern over time with the lowest point in 1960 at 17%. The highest peaks occurred in 1880 and in 2011 when 31% and 29%m respectively, of women were never married. There has been a dramatic increase in the proportion of women who are separated or divorced. Less than 1% of women were separated or divorced in 1920. Today, 15% of women hold this status. The proportion of women who are widowed has remained relatively stable over time at 11%. 11.
"Racial/ethnic patterns in the proportion of women married have diverged since the 1950s. Approximately 64% to 69% of women of all racial/ethnic groups were married in the 1950s. Today, the proportion of women married ranges from 26% to 56% by racial/ethnic group. The proportion of women married has declined among all racial/ethnic groups since the 1950s. This decline has been most dramatic for Hispanic and Black women, who experienced 33% and 60% declines in the proportion of women married, respectively. Today, the racial/ethnic group with the lowest proportion married is Black women (26%), and the group with the highest is Asian women (56%). Approximately 43% of Hispanic women and 51% of White women are currently married." 12.
"In 1940, there was only a 17% difference between the highest and lowest proportion of women married according to educational attainment. By 2011, the percentage difference increased to nearly 73%. All groups reached their peak in the proportion of women married in 1960 with the exception of women with less than a high school diploma, who peaked a decade earlier (1950). Since then, the decline in the proportion married was modest for women with at least a Bachelor's degree. Today, women with at least a Bachelor's degree have the highest proportion of currently married women (60%). Among all women, except the college educated, fewer than half are currently married. Today, the group with the lowest proportion of married women is women with less than a high school diploma (28%). 13.
It must be noted that marriage is now unhinged from the connection to childbirth due to our present 42% single women birth rate. I surmise that combining the fact that women earn 60% of college degrees and out earn men in every major city in the U.S.A. with the phenomena and effect of female hypergamy. 14.
Because of the facts that half of women up to age 29 have never been married and there is only a 44% total intact marriage rate at age 34, we have serious problems not only in the prospect of the two biological parent married family but with fertility itself. With our already below replacement level birth rate, we simply can not afford not to calculate the strain of not only the baby-boomer generation on our health care capacity but the fallout from the subsequent decline in birth rate; and, furthermore, the decline in number of births altogether.None of the same appears to be sustainable. 15.
With the aforementioned and massive illegal and legal immigration from mostly third world nations, American culture is likely soon to disintegrate with an increasingly divided nation fragmented along socio-ethnic, gender,and racial lines and along fundamental political-ethical norms related to the social-cultural-political-economic construct and policies that led to the same.
Because the marital relationship and that of the father is now exploitative against men, men should no longer define themselves as being part of a family or as a father to children as these roles are dwindling away.
In order to live full, productive, and happy lives, men should find alternative empowering paths for themselves away from the very oppressive and exploitive relationship that the feminist state has demanded from them.
Men should no longer have to define themselves by how "eligible" they are to a woman or a family.
The political and social construct now is the same as it was in the final days of the Roman Republic.
Divorce in the United States
Because of the new feminist social,political, economic, and cultural norms, women are increasingly associating socially with and marrying weak, base, and feminist men.
The median length for a marriage in the USA today is 11 years with 90% of all divorces being settled out of court. 16.
In 1880, according to the historian, Robert L. Griswold , one marriage in 21-fewer than 5 percent- ended in divorce. 17.
The following is the URL of a web page entitled "Tocqueville for the 21st Century" "Divorce in America": http://blog.lib.umn.edu/rahnx003/pol4766/2011/02/divorce-in-america.html (link no longer is valid). It provides a table listing the rate of divorce in 34 countries with the United States with the highest divorce rate with 4.95 per 1,000 people and Sri Lanka with the lowest with 0.15 per 1,000 people. This web page, also, contains the following appropriate quote: " While reading chapter nine of part two volume one, I came across a statement that may put into perspective just how much America has changed since de Tocqueville's time. Near the top of page 279, Alexis states "Of the world's countries, America is surely the one where the bond of marriage is most respected and where they have conceived the highest and most just idea of conjugal happiness." This is vastly at odds with the data which places the United States as having the highest divorce rate in the world. This raises a question: how and why did American go from the conjugally pleased country de Tocqueville described to the divorce laden and adultery prone country we see today? What other observations of Alexis's, if any are null and void?" 18.
" But beginning in the mid-1960s," writes Griswold, the divorce rate " again began to rise dramatically,fueled by ever-higher marital expectations, a vast expansion of wives moving into the work force, the rebirth of feminism, and the adoption of 'no fault' divorce (that is, divorced granted without the need to establish wrongdoing by either party) in almost every state. " Griswold continues, " The last factor, although hailed as a progressive step that would end the fraud, collusion, and acrimony that accompanied the adversarial system of divorce, has had disastrous consequence for women and children." [Powell, D. (2003) Divorce-on-Demand: Forget about Gay Marriage-What About the State of Regular Marriage? National Review v55 i20 Retrieved June 9, 2004 from Expanded Academic ASAP.] 19. Recapitulating what was stated previously: " Married adults now divorce two-and-a-half times as often as adults did 20 years ago and four times as often as they did 50 years ago---between 40% and 60% of new marriages will eventually end in divorce. The probability within... the first five years is 20%; and, the probability of its ending within the first 10 years is 33%...Perhaps 25% of children 16 and under live with a stepparent." 20.
"The divorce rate in America for second marriages is between 60% to 67%. The divorce rate in America for third marriages is between 70% to 73%" 21.
There has been a dramatic increase in the proportion of women who are separated or divorced. Less than 1% of women were separated or divorced in 1920. Today, 15% of women hold this status. The proportion of women who are widowed has remained relatively stable over time at 11%." 22.
" Like marriage, divorce in the United States is the province of state governments. Divorce or "dissolution of marriage" is a legal process in which a judge or other legal authority dissolves the bonds of matrimony between two persons thus restoring them to the status of being single and permitting them to marry other individuals. The legal process for divorce may also involve issues of spousal support, child custody, child support, distribution of property and division of debt,though these matters are usually only ancillary or consequential to the dissolution of marriage.
Divorce laws vary from state to state. In some jurisdictions, divorce requires a party to claim fault of their partner that leads to the breakdown of marriage. But even in jurisdictions which have adopted the "no fault" principle in divorce proceedings a court may still take into account the behavior of the parties when dividing properties, debts, evaluating custody, and support. No-fault divorce on grounds such as "irreconcilable differences" or a period of living apart is now available in all states although some states require a legal and/or physical separation of up to two years prior to a formal divorce decree. This legal requirement, along with couples who live in a state of separation simply because neither has sought or completed a divorce for other reasons, has led to the creation of a separate somewhat ambiguously-perceived category of relationships- " separated".
-----Every state's law provide for child support where children are involved and, sometimes, for alimony.
In most jurisdictions, a divorce must be certified by a court of law to become effective. The terms of the divorce are usually determined by the court, although they may take into account prenuptial agreements or postnuptial agreements or simply ratify terms that the spouses may have agreed to privately. In the absence of an agreement, a contested divorce may be stressful to the spouses and lead to expensive litigation. Less adversarial approaches to divorce settlements have recently emerged such as mediation and collaborative divorce which negotiate mutually acceptable resolution to conflicts.
In cases involving children, governments have a pressing interest in ensuring that disputes between parents do not spill over into the family courts. All states now require parents to file a parenting plan when they legally separate or divorce." 23.
End of Long Quote
"Statistics show that two out of three marriages ending in divorce have minor children in the home.
American children are the least likely in the Western world to grow up in the same household as both biologically related parents with only 63% living in this situation at any given time.
Over nine percent of all households are lead by single mothers;and, almost two percent by single fathers. 85% of children with behavioral problems and 71 % of high school drop outs are from fatherless homes.
Studies have shown that children from single parent homes are, also, more likely to have teenaged pregnancies and to become single parents themselves." 24.
Some of the reasons for men to avoid marriage are: 1. Women file for 66%-75% of all divorces. 2. Unilateral, also known as no-fault divorce, now exists with no recourse to the other spouse. There is nothing that you can do legally speaking to stop a divorce. 3. In Domestic Violence Fraud, men are are presumed guilty until proven innocent. Domestic Violence laws are now widely used as the "opening chess move" of many divorces. Once the husband is removed from the primary residence, he never comes back; and, she gets the primary residence in the asset split. Also known as the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) Legislation, this unconstitutional law has been fraudulently misused by divorcing spouses ever since it came out. There are no equivalent laws to protect men in equivalent situations. 4. Decriminalization of Adultery. Adultery is no longer a crime. However, the failure to pay money to an adulterous spouse is. 5. Losing custody of Children: Custody of children is most often awarded to the lower-earner spouse in family courts. Basically, this amounts to Goodby Daddy, hello ATM. 6. Non enforcement of Visitation Rights: States enforce payment obligations by non-custodial parents with an iron fist; however, they don't life a finger to enforce the other side of the bargain which is the visitation rights of the non-custodial parents. 7. Children as Cash Cows: The National Organization for Women (NOW) has been lobbying against Shared Parenting bills in many states. Why would NOW do that? What is more equal than shared parenting? The reason is that NOW's brand of feminism is no longer about equality but about a zero-sum game for resources. Children are cash-cows; and, NOW will not allow Shared Parenting to stop the cash flow. 8. No-Fault Alimony: In many states, fault is no longer a factor in awarding alimony. So there are plenty of cases of "spouse-A cheats but spouse-B pays". In what other area of contract law does the party breaking the contract get paid and the innocent party get punished? Only in American Marriage! 9. One Sided Alimony: The wife becomes accustomed to a certain standard of living so we will make the ex-husband pay alimony. However, how about the prior standard of living of the ex-husband? Do men have a right to live a life style that they became "accustomed" to, also? If not, why not? Shouldn't there be some sort of reciprocal reverse-alimony payment by the ex-wife in the form of weekly cleaning, a hot meal 7 nights a week, and "romantic companionship" services for the ex-husband? How come one spouse is obligated to provide something that the other was used to during the marriage, and the other isn't obligated to provide anything?" 10. Lifetime Alimony-Contrary to common belief, alimony isn't on its way out. There was a period in the 1970's when no-fault laws were first enacted when a few states put limitations on how/when it could be awarded. However, since then, there have been concerted efforts by powers that be such as the influential American Law Institute (ALI) for bringing alimony back in a big way. Here is a New York Times article covering the release of a landmark 2002 ALI report (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/30/us/legal-group-urges-states-to-update-their-family-law.html) which recommended broadening and deepening alimony awards across all 50 states. Right on queue there are now reports of alimony horror stories (http://alimonyslaves.blogspot.com/) coming out from many states where the breadwinner ex-spouses are ordered to pay lifetime alimony. There are also cases like the one in this Wall Street Journal article: (http://online.wsj.com./article/SB10001424052748703399204574505700448957522.html) where long settled divorce cases are re-opened and modified under the new pro-alimony paradigms. Paul Taylor, who was featured in the WSJ story, had his ex-wife take him back to court in 2009, three decades after their original 1982 divorce when both parties had agreed to waive all past/present/future alimony. The court reversed that original 1982 divorce judgement and awarded lifetime alimony to the ex-wife. It was ordered that this new alimony be deducted out of Paul Taylor's pension and paid monthly to a woman he hadn't seen in three decades. Mr. Taylor is now in bankruptcy and can look forward to spending his golden years working as a Greeter at Wal-Mart. 11. Paternity Fraud If you didn't catch right away that your kids weren't really yours but, instead, were "sired" by some other guy that your wife was having an affair with, you are out of luck in most states. What's worse, if your cheating wife divorces you, you can bring the DNA tests to court and you will still be forced to pay 18-23 years of child support for these kids who are some other guy's spawn. Read this case of a Toronto man forced to pay child support for twins that even the court acknowledged are not his (http://www.can1ii.org./en/on/onsc/doc/2008/2008can1ii68884/2008can1ii68884.html) but ordered him to keep paying anyway.In no other area of the law do we punish the innocent victim for the conduct of two other people. 25.
TOP REASONS FOR DIVORCE
"Money problems are often cited as the number one cause of divorce in America, but it's impossible to calculate because they are part of a larger cause usually called "irreconcilable differences", which basically means that a couple couldn't get along. These account for about half of all American divorces. Another key cause is adultery with an estimated quarter of marriages dissolving for this reason. Surprisingly, very few people cite outright abuse as a cause of divorce. Lack of commitment to the marriage, lack of communication between spouses, abandonment, alcohol addiction, substance abuse, physical abuse, falling out of love and criminal behavior and incarceration for crime were other reasons cited as cause for divorce." 26.
"Many observers have pointed out that our culture fosters a whole lot of misconceptions-no pun intended-about fathers. In the first part of Divorced Dads , Sanford Braver challenges those who have collectively had a profound and pervasive influence on the American legal system governing divorced fathers. A psychologist who led the largest federally funded research project on divorced fathers, he isolated six primary "myths" about divorced fathers: that they are usually the ones who either initiate divorce or trigger it by abandoning their families, that they usually have most of the legal advantages in negotiating divorced and custody arrangements, that they experience a climb in their standard of living and their ex-wives a decline, that they are in better emotional health than their ex-wives, that they seldom bother to continue supporting their children, and they they seldom bother even to stay in contact with them. But the fact is that approximately two-thirds of divorces in the United States are initiated by women, and the rate is even higher in Canada. From the ideological perspective of some feminists,the reason is very simple. Marriage, they believe, is an inherently patriarchal institution and thus inherently oppressive for women even without violence. No wonder they want out. But studies have shown that other explanations are more likely. ' If women can anticipate a clear gender bias in the courts regarding custody,' writes Candis McLean, ' they can expect to be the primary residential parent for the children. If they can anticipate enforcement of financial child support by the courts, they can expect a high probability of support monies without the need to account for their expenditures. Clearly they can also anticipate maintaining the marital residence, receiving half of all marital property and gaining total freedom to establish new social relationships. If they stand to gain so much from divorce, in other words, why put more effort into making a marriage work?. This is an interesting, but cynical, explanation. The solution to the mystery, the factor that determined most cases, turned out to be the question of child custody. Women are much more willing to split up because- unlike men- they typically do not fear losing custody of the children. Instead a divorce often enables them to gain control over the children. "The question of custody absolutely swamps all the other variables," Dr. Brinig said. "Children are the most important asset in marriage, and the partner who expects to get sole custody is by far most likely to file for divorce." The correlation with custody is so strong, Dr. Brinig said, that she has changed her view about the best way to preserve marriages and protect children. She previously advocated an end to quick no-fault divorces, but she now believes that the key is to rewrite custody law." 27.
Spousal Support, Maintenance, and Alimony
"Laws and practices regarding spousal support, maintenance or alimony very considerably by country and culture. On one end of the spectrum are Nordic countries, like Sweden, that by 1978 assumed that divorced spouses were not responsible for one another. Support might be provided for a transitionary period for the lower wage earner or primary care givers; however, only in about 6-8% of the cases and only for a limited time. In most Western countries, alimony is provided on an ever decreasing basis due to shorter marriages and the fact that women are more likely to be wage earners. Italy and many nations in Latin America are on the other extreme. Women may be supported during legal separation, which is a state in which they wish to remain because of a low chance of remarriage, religious reasons or to retain inheritance rights to their husband's property. However, the rate of support is declining in Italy, as well. Although the rate of payments of spousal support is declining, both due to the reduced rates at which alimony is granted and the low rates at which alimony is generally paid, there are concerns regarding men's rights when women continue to receive support after they enter into new relationships and when women are supported by men who are 'financially strapped.' " 28.
" Robert Seidenberg discusses yet another explanation, one that should be taken seriously by researchers at least as a possibility. 'Abandoning one's children is not a "normal" thing to do. It is natural for a father to love his children. For most fathers only extreme circumstances could force the breaking of this bond. Consider too, how difficult it must be to pick up and leave, not only one's children, but one's home town, family, friends, and job, and how difficult it is to enter an underground cash economy- all to avoid supporting one's own children. Someone would literally have to be crazy to do this, unless there were extraordinary pressure pressures to uproot. For fathers who have gone many rounds with the courts, lost their children, had their property seized, have their wages garnished, and spend time in jail, flight becomes a rational alternative. Deadbeat Dads are men who have "voted with their feet." They would more appropriately be called "Refugee Dads" or " Fathers in Exile."
Recapitulating, in part, what was stated above: "The second misconception is that divorced fathers are better equipped than mothers to negotiate separation, divorce, and custody. Although both men and women complain about their problems, many people are prepared to believe that women- members of an official or unofficial victim class- are at a relative disadvantage. Feminists have argued, and not only in this context, that laws were made by and presumably for men. Or that judges are usually men. Or that men are richer than women and can afford better lawyers. Or that men are more aggressive and thus better equipped for legal battles. Braver points out that not one of these arguments is legitimate, certainly not now. And he is not the only one. 'In terms of commanding federal dollars, electing politicians, enacting legislation, controlling academic discourse, and influencing media to promote their cause, ' writes Seidenberg, 'the feminist movement is one of the most powerful political forces in the United States today. Unfortunately, the public, including the middle-class professional men most affected by custody litigation, still tends to perceive feminists as the near-powerless victims they portray themselves to be. Judges, however, are astute political creatures; they understand the extent of feminist political power and act accordingly.' "The third misconception is that divorce brings men a higher standard of living and women a lower one. It would be hard to exaggerate the importance of this claim. Yet several investigators have shown that this assumption is false." "The fourth misconception is that divorced fathers are more satisfied than mothers, emotionally, with the results of divorce and loss of custody." 29.
End of Long Quote
CHILD SUPPORT AND CUSTODY
" The fifth problem inherent in our legal system is that divorced fathers are criminalized in both the United States and Canada, directly in the former and indirectly in the later. In the United States, all noncustodial parents-and they include those who do comply with child support regulations-are now being monitored by the criminal justice system and thus being treated as criminals or potential criminals. 'Under the guise of pursuing deadbeat dads, ' writes Baskerville, ' we are now seeing mass incarcerations without trial, without charge, and without counsel, while the media and civil libertarians look the other way. We, also, have government officials freely entering the homes and raiding the bank accounts of citizens who are accused of nothing and simply helping themselves to whatever they find-including their children, their life savings and their private papers and effects, all with hardly a word of protest noted.' Not only are problem cases filtered through criminal enforcement agencies, moreover, but so are all cases of child support. Otherwise, states would not be eligible for federal funds. ' This both further criminalizes the fathers and enables the government to inflate the amount of collections it makes,' says Baskerville,' which helps divert attention from the fact that the program operates at a consistent loss.'" "This creates a situation that would endanger any free society. 'Never before,' said the Washington Post , ' have federal officials had the legal authority and technological ability...to keep tabs on Americans accused of nothing.' Fathers are under surveillance merely because they pay child support. The situation is ominous, according to Steve Dasbach, in view of the precedents in totalitarian societies. 'Government bureaucracies will soon have the power to deny you a job, and the ability to monitor your income, assets, and debts. This law turns the presumption of innocence on its head and forces every American to prove their innocence to politicians, bureaucrats, and computers.' And surveillance is by no means the only problem. As Baskerville points out, guilt and innocence are fatally blurred ' since officials are monitoring citizens who own [money for child support], those whose obligations are paid up, and those who are not under any order at all. The presumption of guilt against those who are obeying the law was revealed by one official who boasted to the [Washington] Post that ' we don't give them an opportunity to become deadbeats.' " 30.
" Contrary to government propaganda (and Common Law tradition), child support today has little to do with fathers abandoning their children, deserting their marriages, or even agreeing to a divorce. It is automatically assessed on all non-custodial parents, even those involuntarily divorced without grounds ("no fault"). It is an entitlement for all divorcing mothers, regardless of their actions, and coerced from fathers, regardless of their fidelity. The "deadbeat dad" is far less likely to be a man who abandoned the offspring he callously sired than to be a loving father who has been, as attorney Jed Abraham writes in From Courtship to Courtroom , "forced to finance the filching of his own children."
Federalized enforcement was rationalized to reimburse taxpayers for welfare. Under feminist pressure, taxpayers instead subsidize middle-class divorce through federal payments to states based upon the amount of child support they collect. By profiting off child support at federal taxpayer expense, state governments have a financial incentive to encourage as many single-mother homes as possible. They, in turn, encourage divorce with a guaranteed, tax -f9, 2004 free windfall to any divorcing mother." While child support (like divorce itself) is awarded ostensibly without reference to "fault", nonpayment brings swift and severe punishments. "The advocates of ever-more-aggressive measures for collecting child support," writes Bryce Christensen of Southern Utah University, "have moved us a dangerous step closer to a police state." Abraham calls the machinery "Orwellian": "The government commands... a veritable gulag, complete with sophisticated surveillance and compliance capabilities such as computer-based tracing, license revocation, asset confiscation, and incarceration."
"Here, too, "the burden of proof may be shifted to the defendant," according to th National Conference of State Legislatures. Like Kafka's Joseph K., the "defendant" may not even know that charge against him," if the court does not explicitly clarify the charge facing the (allegedly?) delinquent parent, " says NCSL. Further, "not all child support contempt proceedings classified as criminal are entitled to a lawyer." Thus defendants must prove their innocence against unspecified accusations, without counsel,and without a jury."
Assembly line hearing can last 30 seconds to two minutes during which parents are sentenced to months or years in prison. Many receive no hearing but are accused in an "expedited judicial process" before a black-robed lawyer known as a "judge surrogate." Because these officials require no legislative confirmation, they are not accountable to citizens or their representatives. Unlike true judges, they may lobby to create the same laws they adjudicate violating the separation of powers. Often, they are political activists in robes. One surrogate judge, reports the Telegraph of Hudson, New Hampshire, simultaneously worked "as a radical feminist lobbying on proposed legislation" dealing with child support." 31.
End of Long Quote
"When a noncustodial father is charged with civil contempt, he 'must prove his innocence without a formal charge, without counsel, and without a jury of his peers.' The burden of proof is often on the defendants. And fathers are put in jail without trial. 'Those who face trumped-up accusations of child abuse also must prove their innocence before they can hope to see their children. Yet now it is well established that most child abuse takes place in the homes of single mothers. A recent study from the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, found that ' almost two-thirds [of child abusers] were females.' Given that male perpetrators are not necessarily fathers but much more likely to be boyfriends and stepfathers, fathers emerge as the least likely child abusers.' "32.
" In the United States, 75 percent of juvenile delinquents, 71 percent of pregnant teenagers, and 90 percent of teenage runaways, are children from fatherless homes. Such statistics are endless. Whether the subject is gang involvement, drug abuse, alcoholism, scholastic failure, or teen suicide, the incidence among children from fatherless homes far exceeds the incidence among children from homes where the father is present Our culture's hostility toward men has reached a dimension where it no longer affects only individual families, but is tearing apart the social fabric." 33.
" UNDERSTAND THAT THE TWO PARENT BIOLOGICAL FAMILY AND MARRIAGE IN AMERICA ARE NO LONGER THE NORM. We are officially living under a matriarchy." 34.
The historical means by which women directed the resource support construct to them was through marriage. This has been replaced by the political process by two primary methods, forced resource provision by Isolated Resource Producing Males after no-fault divorce at the family level and through Government Husbandry. 35.
As state previously in the chapter on Government and Feminism, the feminist goal, essentially, is to nullify the necessity of a husband and father altogether both at the personal level in family and divorce law and at the political level with Federal law. 36.
If men follow through with their traditional patriarchal expectations and duties toward and for women and the state, inclusive of marriage, the same amounts to sure economic, political, and social suicide and servitude to women and the state. 37.
Neither women nor the state now allow any of the benefits formerly associated with such a relationship. The same formed the essential frame work of the "social contract" requisite for all nations and societies to exist and prosper. As the "social contract" has been destroyed in the U.S.A., the U.S.A. and any other nation which adopts this new social order will decline socially, economically, politically, and militarily as have all matriarchal states in the past
Will a "Matriarchal" state as exists in the USA truly allow males to be part of truly mated pair bond with an responsible and egalitarian relationship with their children?
No! Under ALL matriarchal structures, males are not members of the mated pair bond nor the lives of their children.
The marital laws that took force in the 70's, during the second wave feminist revolution, replaced laws that made men true partners in the marital relationship with laws that destroyed the true partnership relationship and that made men subservient to the economic, social, and cultural goals of women in the same. Inherent in the same was and is the increasing emphasis of mens financial worth as a means to satisfy these same marital ends for women rather than the character of the man which is, in fact, inimical to such exploitation.
The following is a partial quote from "Twenty Four Indicators of Systemic Discrimination Against Men" : "LEGAL SYSTEM BIAS: 96% of physical altercations resulting in injury to a spouse occurs AFTER the date of separation. [Read: spousal abuse laws that pretend that husbands are dangerous discriminate against husbands when we know that only a very small percent of domestic violence is associated with them]. [Chadwick and Heaton , "Statistical Handbook of the American Family"] DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: Even though study after study shows that women are the majority of the initiators of domestic violence, and 58% of the above mentioned physical altercations are initiated by the female, Congress passed the obviously anti-male VAWA and VAWA II which are known to make the problem far worse. [Read: despite the fact we discriminate against husbands in protective orders, women still cause more than half of domestic altercations because they know they can get away with it]. CHILD VIOLENCE: Even though mothers commit 55% of child murders and biological fathers commit 6%, even though NIS-3 shows that Mother-only households are 3 times more fatal to children than Father-only households, children are systematically removed from the natural fathers who are their most effective protectors and men are imprisoned at rate 20 times that of women." 38.
End of Long Quote
"Roberts notes that a recent scholarly article locates severe partner violence with the female partner at a rate more than twice than that with the male partner (4.6% to 2.1%). Of course, this flies in the face of the feminist hack that goes: "Though women also engage in physical violence, severe violence is the sole domain of the much stronger and much more evil male partner!" Insert heavy breathing soundtrack here..... " 39.
"Women are more likely than men to initiate domestic violence in Western countries." 40.
"Contrary to conventional wisdom, which is based on the suppression of evidence and even biased statistics, research that began in the 1980s has repeatedly shown that women commit or even initiate domestic violence at least as often as men do. In the research of Murray Straus and Richard Gelles, 53% of the women questioned admitted that they had struck first. Other studies indicate that women are more likely than men to become violent without expecting reprisals. According to Carmae Mann, only around 10% of the self-defense claims are legitimate. Why? For one thing, some women kill men who are incapacitated in wheelchairs, asleep in bed, or not then engaged in violent or threatening behavior. By making pre-emptive strikes, albeit strikes based on reasonable fear of future violence, these women take the law into their own hands. Since men are often victims of domestic abuse, moreover, some scholars refer now to the Battered Man Syndrome, which is the counterpart of the Battered Woman Syndrome (although not all of the reasons that men stay in abusive relationships are the same as those of women who do so).
Warren Farrell still had to rebut denials that men were often victims of domestic violence. In Women Can't Hear what Men Don't Say,he summarized all this evidence:
'To their credit, despite their assumption that men were the abusers, every domestic violence survey done of both sexes over the... [last] quarter century in the United States, Canada, England, New Zealand, and Australia... found one of two things: Women and men batter each other about equally , or women batter men more. In addition, almost all studies found women were more likely to initiate violence and much more likely to inflict the severe violence. Women themselves acknowledged they are more likely to be violent and to be initiators of violence. Finally, women were more likely to engage in severe violence that was not reciprocated.' " 41.
"And while " domestic violence" is painted in the media (and in the X-rated masochistic dreams of feminists) as the exclusive domain of the male, the fact is that when men are involved in anything that appears to be actual "violence," they are generally responding to an attack by a women. When only ONE party was involved in an act of violence, Roberts states (referring to the research of one Murray Straus), female-only violence is TWICE as common as male-only violence. And this statistic holds true for 32 nations around the world. Insert wide-eyed look of surprise icon here...
So the entire "domestic violence" hysteria, no matter from which angle it is viewed, simply points to a departure from reality that is so severe that, if it is an unwilling departure, it is indicative of severe psychosis. But if "domestic violence" hysteria is a willing departure from reality, it points to a dishonesty and manipulation of the ignorant masses so extreme as to place feminism as a movement in the same propaganda stream as that indwelt by Goebbels himself." 42.
"Like rape, domestic "violence" is defined so loosely that it need not be violent.
The U.S. Justice Department definition includes "extreme jealousy and possessiveness" and "name calling and constant criticizing."
For such "crimes" men are jailed with no trial. In fact, the very category of "domestic" violence was developed largely to circumvent due process requirements of conventional assault statutes.
A study published in Criminology and Public Policy found that no one accused of domestic violence could be found innocent, since every arrestee received punishment.
Here, too false accusations are rewarded.
"Women lie every day, "attests Ottawa Judge Diane Nicholas."Every day women in court say,'I made it up. I'm lying. It didn't happen'---and they're not charged." Amazingly, bar associations sponsor seminars instructing women how to fabricate accusations. Thomas Kiernan, writing in the New Jersey Law Journal, expressed his astonishment at "the number of women attending the seminars who smugly--indeed boastfully--announced that they had already sworn out false or grossly exaggerated domestic violence complaints against their hapless husbands, and that the device worked!" He added,"The lawyer lecturers invariably congratulated the self-confessed miscreants."
Domestic violence has become a "backwater of tautological pseudo-theory," write Donald Dutton and Kenneth Corvo in Aggression and Violent Behavior. " No other area of established social welfare, criminal justice, public health, or behavioral intervention has such weak evidence in support of mandated practice." 43.
End of Long Quote
The sociopathy that is characteristic of feminism includes the pathological fabrications,lies, and false hoods associated with the same.
FALSE CLAIMS A STRATEGY
"Scholars and practitioners have repeatedly documented how "allegations of abuse are now use for tactical advantage" in custody cases and "become a part of the gamesmanship of divorce." Domestic abuse has become "an area of law mired in intellectual dishonesty and injustice, " according to the Rutgers Law Review.
Restraining orders removing men from their homes and children are summarily issued without any evidence. Due process protections are so routinely ignored that, the New Jersey Law Journal reports one judge told his colleagues, " Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man you're violating." Attorney David Heleniak calls New Jersey's statute "a due process fiasco" in the Rutgers Law Review. New Jersey court literature openly acknowledges that due process is ignored because it " perpetuates the cycle of power and control whereby the [alleged?] perpetrator remains the one with the power and the [alleged/] victim remains powerless." Omitting "alleged" is standard even in statutes, where, the Massachusetts Lawyer Weekly reports, " the mere allegation of domestic abuse...may shift the burden of proof to the defendant."
Special " integrated domestic violence courts " presume guilt and then, says New York's openly feminist chief judge, " makes batterers and abusers take responsibility for their actions. " They can seize property, including homes, without the accused being convicted or even formally charged or present to defend himself. Lawyer Walter Fox describes these courts as "pre-fascist": " Domestic violence courts ...are designed to get around the protections of the criminal code. The burden of proof is reduced or removed, and there's no presumption of innocence.
" Forced confessions are widespread. Pennsylvania men are incarcerated unless they sign forms stating, " I have physically and emotionally battered my partner." The man must then describe the violence, even if he insists he committed none. " I am responsible for the violence I used, " the forms declare. " My behavior was not provoked." 44.
End of Long Quote
The characteristic sociopathic manipulativeness, callousness, and predatory nature of feminism is reflected in the aforementioned.
"Many men feel that they are discriminated against and that they do not have the same contact rights or equitable shared parenting rights as their ex-spouse. The United Kingdom and the United States were cited, with several other unnamed countries, as affected regions where child custody issues have become complicated by higher divorce rates, less father-child time, while there have been greater expectations for fatherly involvement in their children's lives. Authors of Unfamiliar territory write: "The current struggles of the fathers' rights movement can be understood as part of this complex and painful renegotiation of intimate relations against a backdrop of changing lifestyles and expectations." Men seek to change the legal climate for men through changes in family law." 45
"In the United States, fathers were awarded custody in 17.4 percent of cases in 2007, a percentage that has statistically not changed since 1994." 46.
" Contrary to government propaganda (and Common Law tradition), child support today has little to do with fathers abandoning their children, deserting their marriages, or even agreeing to a divorce. It is automatically assessed on all non-custodial parents, even those involuntarily divorced without grounds ("no fault"). It is an entitlement for all divorcing mothers, regardless of their actions, and coerced from fathers, regardless of their fidelity. The "deadbeat dad" is far less likely to be a man who abandoned the offspring he callously sired than to be a loving father who has been, as attorney Jed Abraham writes in From Courtship to Courtroom , "forced to finance the filching of his own children." 47.
Gulag for 'Deadbeat Dads' Fathers in child support cases are victimized by an Star Chamber like judicial system which deprives them of fundamental legal rights
"Assembly-line hearings can last 30 seconds to two minutes during which parents are sentenced to months or years in prison. Many receive no hearing but are accused in an "expedited judicial process" before a black-robed lawyer known as a "judge surrogate." Because these officials require no legislative confirmation, they are not accountable to citizens or their representatives. Unlike true judges, they may lobby to create the same laws they adjudicate violating the separation of powers. Often, they are political activists in robes. One surrogate judge, reports the Telegraph of Hudson, New Hampshire, simultaneously worked " as a radical feminist lobbying on proposed legislation" dealing with child support." 48.
"Though governments sensationalize " roundups" of alleged "deadbeat dads", who are jailed for months and even years without trial, no government information whatever is available on incarcerations.--- We know the arrests are extensive. To relieve jail overcrowding in Georgia, a sheriff and judge proposed creating detention camps specifically for "deadbeat dads." The Pittsburgh City Planning Commission has considered a proposal to "convert a former chemical processing plant....into a detention center" for "deadbeat dads.
Rendered permanently in debt by incarceration, fathers are farmed out to trash companies and similar concerns where they work 14-16 hour days with their earnings confiscated." 49.
"Men's rights activists" state that children of men of Indian descent have been abducted from their homes in Canada, the United States and Europe and moved to India where the national courts do not recognize foreign child custody orders. That country is not subjected to the Hague Convention and men accused of dowry harassment may be arrested at Indian airports." 50.
"There is a wide variance in parental leave provisions across 24 western countries which are primarily European countries, Australia and the United States. The most liberal allows the couple to chose how to split the family leave time between mother and father. In the countries where parental leave is available and defined, it is, generally, for 2 to 12 days. Where maternal leave is available and defined, all but the United States and Australia, the period of time is, generally, 14-20 weeks. However, four countries have extended leave periods." 51.
"Beyond the needs of adults and even of children are those of society as a whole. Without major reforms to the legal system discussed in this chapter, society will become even more fragmented and polarized than it already is. We are already moving toward a society in which women have colonized reproduction, along with child rearing, and men have less and less incentive to participate fully in family life and face more and more unjust and oppressive penalties if any problems arise. Think of all this as a series of symbolic messages. Some are sent to boys and men, others to girls and women. Some are about society, others about identity." 52.
"Marriage is a very unequal contract where the legal power balance both within the marriage and after divorce is heavily balanced against the primary bread winner, the man. Given that this is today's legal reality, why would you any man want to sign such a one sided contract? There are simply no benefits in marriage for the primary breadwinner, the man, under these marriage rules. None whatsoever.
Ask yourself now: "What is in it for me?" If the above hasn't yet convinced you to avoid this mutated institution that has become a giant legal trap, then you owe it to yourself to keep learning more about the risks of saying " I do." 53.
In fact, it appears that American men are on a "Marriage Strike" because of the aforementioned and other social, cultural, political, and legal reasons.
As stated above: A report from the Pew Research Center released on December 14, 2011 stated among other facts: 1. Census data indicates that barely half of adults ages 18 years of age and older are married- 51% in 2010, compared to 72% in 1960. 2.This decline is especially notable for young adults: 20% of 18 to 29 year olds were married in 2010 compared with 59% in 1960. 54.
When the family unit, the basic unit of the state, disintegrates so does the state!
Women benefit immensely from marriage as it gives them and their children social, political, economic, legal, and cultural legitimacy, recognition, protection, and status.
When the state,society, laws, and the culture, instead of providing for men incentives to marry and remain married provide disincentives for the same, women, children, and the state are disproportionately adversely affected.
The lack of foresight by feminists for the long term welfare of women, children, and the state, in this regard, is exemplary of one of the characteristics of the "sociopathic" nature of feminism, the lack of long term successful planning which results in failure , self destruction. and the inability to attain reasonable life goals.
Friday, October 17, 2014
"Women's suffrage is the right of women to vote and to run for office. The expression is also used for the economic and political reform movement aimed at extending these rights to women and without any restrictions or qualifications such as property ownership, payment of tax, or marital status." 1. "The Nineteenth Amendment (Amendment XIX) to the United States Constitution prohibits any United States citizen to be denied the right to vote based on sex. It was ratified on August 18, 1920." 2. The Nineteenth Amendment reads as follows: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." 3. The Nineteenth Amendment did not address the duties of citizenship the implication being that men remained primarily responsible for military service, the support of the family, and for maintaining a civil society. "Even though men 115% of federal income taxes, women constitute 11% more of the voters. Because there are 11% more female than male voters, males have little to no influence on how the male tax dollar is spent." 4. The following is the URL to a web site entitled: " Independent Voters Are More Likely to Be Highly Educated and Male": http://www.prlog.org/11869490-independent-voters-are-more-likely-to-be-highly-educated-and-male.html A partial quote from the same states: " When in came to gender, men are more likely than women to identify as Independents: 35.9% of men, compared to 25.2% of women." 5. Generally, according to the article, the greatest percentage of independent voters in the USA are educated men. Extending the same responsibilities and duties to women that traditionally men had, inclusive of military service, was not contemplated in this "reform" movement. Neither was the proposition that all of the electorate, regardless of gender, was equal before the law individually and collectively, with regard to rights, duties, and freedoms. Does the Nineteenth Amendment defeat the purpose of the U.S. Constitution, therefore? Without a doubt, it does. Arthur Schopenhauer in his work, "Of Women", states that the fundamental fault of the female character is that it has no sense of justice. He states that: "This is mainly due to the fact, already mentioned, that women are defective in the powers of reasoning and deliberation; but is also traceable to the position which Nature has assigned to them as the weaker sex. 6. The fundamental lack of justice with regard to the aforementioned is an affront to the happiness of the state as the premise of the U.S. Constitution is based upon a hardy, temperate, and virtuous citizenry under which all citizens were brought. However, as women are excluded from those provisions of the law which would result in their virtuous behavior, intemperance,avarice, and the dominion of them over men and their husbands would naturally result. As Aristotle stated in his work, "Politics",: "that in such a state wealth is too highly valued, especially if the citizen falls under the dominion of their wives, ----" 7. Yes, in the USA, we have seen an increasing disparity as this avarice and materialism has resulted in an increasing inequality of property amongst citizens of the USA However, women's suffrage had already been granted in many nations. "The movement's modern origins are attributed to late 18th century France. In 1893, the British colony of New Zealand became the first self-governing nations to extend the right to vote to all adult women. The women of the nearby colony of South Australia achieved the same right in 1895. South Australia was, also, the first nation to allow women to stand (run) for Parliament. Women did not win the right to run for the New Zealand legislature until 1919. The first European country to introduce women's suffrage was the Grand Principality of Finland; and, that country, then a part of the Russian Empire with autonomous powers, produced the first female members of parliament as a result of the 1907 parliamentary elections. Women's suffrage has generally been recognized after political campaigns to obtain it were waged. In many nations, it was granted before universal suffrage. Women's suffrage is explicitly stated as a right under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, adopted by the United Nations in 1979. " 8. The title of this convention conveys the oppressive and discriminatory intent of this convention. That is, it does not address any forms of discrimination against men. Rather, it imposes, ipso facto, privileges on women, duties on men, and discrimination against, because of gender, men as a matter of international law. Does women's rights expect to combine the prerogatives of both sexes and to have equality and privilege too? The advocates of the women's movement say very little about the effect of the aforementioned changes upon marriage, relations between men and women, domestic relations, and the state. In fact, the enthusiasts of the women's movement are rather contemptuous of this part of the case. With the decline and destruction of the family and the social contract will come the decline and destruction of the state. The reconstitution of the family, the family might rebuild the state. However, the state can never rebuild the family. The very essence of the American existence, the Declaration of Independence, refers to that "separate and equal" status which is fundamental to ordered liberty. Yet, does the women's rights movement affirm this proposition? No, it seeks to place women against men with regard to rights, liberties, and duties affirming privileges,liberties, and rights for women while designating additional duties, fewer rights, and fewer liberties for men. Alexis de Tocqueville stated: " There are people in Europe who, confounding together the characteristics of the sexes, would make man and woman into beings not only equal but alike. They would give to both the same functions, impose on both the same duties, and grant to both the same rights; they would mix them in all things- their occupations, their pleasures, their business. 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." 9. But how can the aforementioned occur to men without the acquiescence of and enforcement of the same by men? It is these same weak men who have become the allies of these disorderly women based upon the same inconsistent, unjust, irrational, and self destructive principles. Aristotle, in his book, "Politics", delineated his view points with regard to women's rights. He stated: "As to the indulging of women in any particular liberties, it is hurtful to the end of government and the prosperity of the city; for as a man and his wife are the two parts of a family, if we suppose a city to be divided into two parts, we must allow that the number of men and women will be equal. In whatever city then the women are not under good regulations, we must look upon one half of it as not under the restraint of law, as it there happened; for the legislator, desiring to make his whole city a collection of warriors with respect to the men, he most evidently accomplished his design; but in the meantime the women were quite neglected, for they live without restraint in every improper indulgence and luxury. So that in such a state riches will necessarily be in general esteem, particularly if the men are governed by their wives, which has been the case with many a brave and warlike people except the Celts, and those other nations, if there any such, who openly practise pederasty. And the first mythologists seem not improperly to have joined Mars and Venus together; for all nations of this character are greatly addicted either to the love of women or of boys, for which reason it was at Lacedaemon; and many things in their state were done by the authority of the women. For what is the difference, if the power is in the hands of the women or in the hands of those whom they themselves govern? It must turn to the same account. As to this boldness of the women can be of no use in any common occurrences, if it was ever so, it must be in war; but even there we find that the Lacedaemonian women were of the greatest disservice, as was proved at the time of the Theban invasion, when they were of no use at all, as they are in other cities, but made more disturbance than even the enemy. The origin of this indulgence which the Lacedaemonian women enjoy is easily accounted for, from the long time the men were absent from home upon foreign expeditions against the Argives, and afterwards the Arcadians and the Messenians, so that, when these wars were at an end, their military life, in which there is no little virtue, prepared them to obey the precepts of their law-giver; but we are told, that when Lycurgus endeavored to also to reduce the women to an obedience to his laws, upon their refusal he declined it. It may indeed be said that the women were the causes of these things, and of course all the fault was theirs. " 10. In terms of political power males cannot compete with the homogeneous and gynocentric tendencies of female nature and the related political disposition of it's voting block. Again, we must remember that females are programmed to look after themselves while males are a means to an end for herself and "her" offspring. When you observe the social systems that females build and when you observe their behavior within these institutions, this becomes very clear. Female value in such a gynocentric social-political-legal construct become inherently systemic and institutionalized. Male value in such a social-political-legal construct is heavily related to it's "external utility" in furthering the goals of the female construct. This is the natural result of Matriarchy and female institutionalized power. Recapitulating what was stated in Chapter 6, when a culture is divided accordingly, discord ensues. Increasingly as the core foundation of the mated pair bond breaks down, we witness disparate representation by socio-political and socio-economic gender class; and,at this point, it is mainly on behalf of women. The natural consequence is a further exacerbation of the initial problem i.e. the breakdown in the male\female mated pair bond and the social structure that facilitates it.
Posted by Marcus Aurelius at 4:25 PM
Thursday, October 2, 2014
The following is a partial quote from "Twenty Four Indicators of Systemic Discrimination Against Men": "The American woman by the 1960s lived in the nation with the world's highest standard of living and owned 65% of the wealth in that nation. Feminists "felt victimized", however, and convinced American women that they are "discriminated against". Never have they been required to nor been able to produce a shred of statistical evidence to back up that claim. Twenty one key statistical indicators each illustrate how men have been and are being systematically discriminated against by government fiat. WEALTH: Women hold 65% of the country's wealth [Fortune Magazine]" 1. " All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, (the female voting and numerical majority in related to this book) that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority (male as related to this book) possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression"- President Thomas Jefferson. 2. The XIX (19th) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which granted women the right to vote, was passed in 1920. 3. The founders of the USA never intended to have separate and unequal representation and laws within government by gender, race, or religion. 4. However, because of the aforementioned, the precepts and admonitions in the quote of Thomas Jefferson have been abrogated at the behest of feminist organizations such as N.O.W, The Feminist Majority, and other large feminist organizations. Male enfranchisement and voter participation have been on the decline. "Male voting rates have declined sharply since the mid-1960s i.e. the beginning of the Matriarchal social and political construct (feminism). Between the 1964 and 2000 Presidential elections, the male voting rate declined from 72 to 53 percent. " 5. Because the USA has a winner take all, bought, two party and gerrymandered form of electoral representation, the female absolute and electoral majority has a disproportionately adverse affect on male political representation, male rights, and male equality. The female vote makes up approximately 54-56% of the total in the U.S.A.. 6. "Because there are 11% more female than male voters , males have little to no influence on how the male tax dollar is spent." 7. This results in a political framework that produces a socio-political-economic-legal construct that is essentially matrifocal,gynocentric, and Matriarchal. 8. Men should realize that males as a group are being systematically and politically disenfranchised. Unless males are able to and do respond to this and organize as a group for their own well being and enfranchisement, the Matriarchal system will continue to grow. 9. "The solution would be to remove representation by gender within government altogether or add representation for the male gender. The end goal should be to somehow restore the rights, advocacy, representation and enfranchisement for men, boys, husbands and fathers in society, family, divorce law and governmental policy." 10. Laws that exist in the USA now violate this principle, however. Inclusive of but not limited to the following laws: 1. Affirmative action; 2. Title IX; 3. VAWA; 4.. Divorce Laws; 5. The military draft and combat duty; and, 6. Family and Child custody laws. The United Kingdom, also, has a "winner take all" form of electoral representation. As per the aforementioned, men are discriminated against by law and custom in the UK through the inherent injustices and the tyranny of the feminist and female electoral majority. For example, in the United Kingdom, where there is a Minister for Women, there have been calls for an analogous "Minister for Men." "Lord Northbourne, who made the first parliamentary call for such in 2004, told the BBC that 'if the government feels they need a minister to address women's issues, it should be the same for men.' Northbourne's proposal was presented to the prime minister during prime minister's question the same year. The proposal was rejected and Northbourne and others argue that such a minister is needed pointing to a relatively poor standard of health for men, Father's rights, male suicide rates, and males under-performing in education compared to females." 11. When women, feminists, and their male supporters use their collective political power in a systematic manner upon the political process, they promulgate "the government husband." 12. "The goal essentially is to nullify the necessity of a husband and father altogether both at the personal level in family and divorce law and at the political level with Federal law." 13. The males who serve the needs of females most are voted into political power and placed into political, economic, cultural, social, and legal positions of power. Women put into political and economic power men who are their surrogates for granting them their unjust privileges while undermining, both by overt and covert means, the just and equitable economic, political, cultural, social, legal, and other rights of men. This is the greatest weapon of feminism. "The goal essentially is to nullify the necessity of husband and father all together at the personal level in family and divorce law and at the political level with Federal law. 14. The same does and has had a disastrous affect on males. This female gynocentrism became systematic during the political and cultural revolutionary period in the USA during the late 1960's and early 1970's. The civilization that was the USA began to decline very quickly as a result of the same. The female political, economic, cultural, and social dominance and power resulting from the same advocates for the consummation of resources around the well being of females and females alone. Women seek to create and personify the male within government, a government husband if you will. Another term for the same is "governmental husbandry." 15. Women have not demonstrated that sense of honor, that courage, that self control, and that egalitarian attitude (all traditional male virtues) requisite for stopping this. The systematic destruction of the "social contract", requisite for all societies to function, through the authoritarian, oppressive, and discriminatory use of female political power, consumes and destroys the social, political, and economic system itself. One tragic consequence of the same has been the explosion in the incarceration rate for men in Federal and State prisons from 1925 until 2013.. The same has increased from 149 in 1925 to 904 in 2013, an increase of 723%. 16. The cause and affect of the same on the rates on male incarceration rates and other signs of social, economic, and political decline are quite evident. "In terms of political power, males cannot compete with the homogeneous and gynocentric tendencies of female nature and the related political disposition of it's voting block. Again, we must remember that females are programmed to look after themselves while males are a means to an end for herself and "her" offspring. When you observe the social systems that females build; and, when you observe their behavior within these institutions, this becomes very clear." 17. Female values in such a gynocentric social-political-legal construct become inherently systemic and institutionalized. Male value in such a social-political-legal construct is heavily related to it's "external utility" in furthering the goals of the female construct. This is the natural result of this Matriarchy and female institutionalized power. When a culture is divided accordingly, discord ensues. "Increasingly as the core foundation of the mated pair bond breaks down, we witness disparate representation by socio-political and socio-economic gender class; and,at this point, it is mainly on behalf of women." 18. The natural consequence is a further exacerbation of the initial problem i.e. the breakdown in the male\female mated pair bond and the social structure that facilitates it. We have to understand what women's goals are. The collective actions, political, social, and economic of women have as their ends the massive distribution of societal and governmental resources to themselves. It is to be independent of men. 19. Men, as a result, must become independent as well. In my opinion, as men do become independent from this feminist construct, the same will have disastrous affects on this feminist construct and the tyrannical feminist state that supports the same! Why? In actuality, it is men who support and defend the state and the women who occupy the same. When men abandon their traditional role in support of both women and the state, both will collapse. The feminist construct, the feminist state, and feminist women, therefore, provide the premises for their own denigration and destruction. The traditional male virtues are described in the chapter on Masculinity: "In many cultures, the basic characteristics of masculinity include physical prowess (strength, fitness, and lack of laziness), courage, wisdom, and honorable or righteous behavior. The opposite may be expressed in terms such as unmanly or epicene. 20. A typical near-synonym of masculinity is virility (from Latin vir , man; and the usual compliment is femininity. Cicero wrote that " a man's chief quality is courage." Ancient literature goes back to about 3000 BCE. It includes both explicit statements of what was expected of men in laws and implicit suggestions in myths involving gods and heroes. In 1000 BCE, The Hebrew Bible states that King David of Israel told his son: " Be strong, and be a man" upon David's death. 21. Scholars suggest integrity and equality as masculine values in male-male relationships and virility in male-female relationships." 22.
Through laws,customs, and feminist dogma, if a male demonstrates any of the traditional male virtues, American women can and will destroy him by lying about abuse, rape, verbal haranguing, anything; and, he can be arrested, prosecuted, and maliciously convicted of a crime. This is the case even if she has a historical pattern of lying because the "system" does not want to take any chances.
Through laws,customs, and feminist dogma, if a male demonstrates any of the traditional male virtues, American women can and will destroy him by lying about abuse, rape, verbal haranguing, anything; and, he can be arrested, prosecuted, and maliciously convicted of a crime. This is the case even if she has a historical pattern of lying because the "system" does not want to take any chances.
Posted by Marcus Aurelius at 7:05 PM