The Tyranny of Protecting “Victims”: The sexual harassment bureaucracy

The current gynocentric hysteria of combatting perceived sexual harassment of women is creating a multitude of bureaucratic government agencies and quasi-governmental functionaries, bound by hierarchal politically correct dictates, which function for social control of individuals and groups under threat of government violence for “non compliance”.  The mandated NYS Sexual Harassment policy placed upon businesses, even small family operations including farm operations, serves as an example.

New York State law recently mandated that ALL employers provide sexual harassment training for employees and have a policy in place to deal with it.  The law applies to not only employees but also to job applicants, contractors, interns (even if unpaid), and persons conducting business with them.  While the law allows businesses to make their own policy it must comply with the state mandates.  The state provides a Model Policy and given possible legal ramifications for non compliance it is hard to imagine a policy will be adopted other than by the state policy verbatim.  This is in addition to federal employment (E.E.O.C.) laws and regulations, and Penal Law protections of individuals.

There are a multitude of problems with these laws:

  • They imply sexual harassment of women in the workplace is a widespread problem.
  • They are bureaucratic social controls over individuals actions not based upon normal human business interactions.
  • They are sexually biased against men in dealing with false allegations.
  • They are sexual biased against male victims of sexual harassment by women.
  • They have vague descriptions of what constitutes sexual harassment.
  • They criminalizes non criminal activity.
  • They create multiple overlapping enforcement agencies.
  • They deny due process and double jeopardy protections for individuals and businesses.

The deadline for implementation of the NYS Law was October 9, 2018 which prompted the NYS Farm Bureau to respond with resources for compliance for its members (November 2018 “Grassroots”) with a full page (pg. 3) of articles on gaining compliance.  The requirements; interactive training, training in the language of the employee, public posting and individual distribution of the policy, will add a large bureaucratic burden on small operations.  Worse, the overlapping regulatory agencies with differing and obtuse definitions make it almost impossible for an individual to remain in compliance and businesses will be forced to legally defend themselves against complaints.

We need only to look at page 5 of this same publication (Do the Right Thing on Sexual Harassment Prevention by Richard Stup, Ph.D., workforce development, Cornell University) to find exaggerations of the “problems” and sexual bias towards men in the application of this new law.  Simply by choosing this title Stup is insinuating we have NOT been doing the right thing regarding sexual harassment.  Following the politically correct liberal view of sexual harassment, male perpetrators and female victims, he goes on to give extreme anecdotal examples in support of his “men are bad” position.

Let’s look at these “real-life examples”, and offer some differing real world – real life examples NY MAN has encountered in 25 years of advocacy for men.  First his examples given and then the real world examples in italics.

A young woman starting out in agribusiness is introduced to a client by the salesman she is replacing and the client states “she is much better looking than the last guy” and she felt demeaned as she was being judged by her looks and not her value.  Upon being introduced to a client by the person she is replacing the client states she is “much better looking than the last guy”.  She responds with “that’s not much of a compliment given the looks of that guy”.  They all laugh and then get down to business.  OR, A new saleswoman is uncomfortable when a client comments on her looks and she politely asks him not to in the future and he politely complies.

An American Male farm employee has a crush on a Mexican female farm employee and blocks her passage to get her attention.  She stated she wasn’t interested but he persisted and she felt threatened.  A female farm employee from Mexico develops a crush on an American male farm employee.  She took to blocking his passage by bending over in front of him and would press against him when passing even though there was room to pass.  His protestations drew criticism from the employer and fellow employees, telling him he was “lucky” to have the attention and they questioned his manliness and sexual orientation for declining her offers. OR, An American male farm employee rebuffed the advances of a Mexican female farm employee.  To get even she field a complaint of sexual harassment against him alleging he brushed his body against hers while they were working.  He was fired based upon her allegation alone.

A Farmers Daughter was subjected to extended looks and even a few whistles from farm employees as she did her chores.  While trying to do their work farm employees were continually subjected to the farmers daughter who dressed inappropriately for farm work and suggestively sexually animated her actions in sight of the male employees making them all uncomfortable to the point they started to avoid her and vacate buildings when she entered.  They feared reprisals or even being fired for pointing it out and so said nothing.  OR, A farmer noted untoward advances towards his daughter, warned the offending employee to stop, then fired the one who didn’t comply.

Stup goes on to say women readers will recognize these scenarios and men need to take them more seriously.  Thus he points to his sexist “women are victims – men are perpetrators” gynocentrically biased view of sexual harassment.    In all the cases he presented Stup fails to see the real world perspective of men which includes both male and female victims and also false allegations by “victims” as well as perpetrators who deny their actions occurred.  This one sided view of the issue can have negative consequences for small business owners.

By using vague descriptions to define sexual harassment and by defining sexual harassment ONLY by actions committed by men the system is training businesses to ignore both false allegations and also male victims of sexual harassment.  Many men have successfully resorted to civil litigation for employer (or organization) non compliance with sexual harassment of male victims and the creation of hostile work environments.  Those suffering false allegations have also successfully litigated the denial of due process and unlawful dismissal from employment.  While these laws are mandated by government, it is the employer who suffers the litigation and financial penalties.

The vague definition of sexual harassment, acts which “are objectionable or offensive to the recipient” allows a person to find offense where none is intended.  Simple innocent comments such as “you look good today” can be turned into an offense.  The workplace is being turned into a hostile environment for men who fear that any comment will be taken with offense and negatively impact their job and career. Allegation, even if not resulting in dismissal, will stay on the employment history of individuals and worker camaraderie and team work suffer in a sterile work environment with employees avoiding human interaction.

An unintended consequence of ignoring false allegations and male victims is that men are excluding themselves from interactions with women when they can avoid them.  By separating themselves from females men do not have to worry about an unintended action or comment being taken wrong.  False allegations can be avoided by avoiding females in the work environment.  Men are simply not working on joint ventures with female coworkers nor are they mentoring younger female workers due to the possible negative ramifications of the false allegation or misconstrued comment or action.

It’s not hard to see that a male small business owner would determine that not hiring women to work under him, or along side with male employees, will help to prevent them from having to defend against a hostile work environment complaint against them or the few male employees working under them.  Given the possible negative outcomes a small business may just forego getting larger and hiring any employees due to the bureaucratic oversight that comes with it.   

While well meaning these vaguely defined “violations” open to interpretation by both the “victim” and unelected government bureaucrats with mandated postings, reporting , and complaint investigations under threat of penalty by government is adding greatly to the expense of operating a business.  Sexual biases toward males in both false reporting and in male victims has negative outcomes for both men and women.  Indeed, it appears that the only party which benefits from these policies are the government bureaucrats and compliance advisors who increase the size of their agency under the guise of doing good.   

 

 

Rights with Responsibilities: Voting and Selective Service

A main area of sexual bias against men and gynocentrist favoritism for women is in men having to register for the selective service (draft) while women do not.  A citizen’s individual rights come with a corresponding duty.   Exclusion of rights is based on the person not being a “citizen” or they have limited rights from limited responsibilities.  In the U.S. voting has always been tied to the responsibility to serve in defense of the state.  Given the right to vote, women continue to avoid the responsibility of defense even though all barriers and legal arguments to exempt them have been rendered moot.

We hear much about women’s fight for the right to vote which they gained in 1920, but many are unaware that the individual right to vote for all citizen’s in the U.S. didn’t occur until the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Prior to the 1840’s most men, regardless of race, were denied the right to vote yet still had the responsibility to serve in defense.  And many men didn’t gain equal access to the vote until 1965 and yet still had the responsibility to serve in national defense.

During the colonial period and the Revolutionary War conscription was a state issue.  Most states required able bodied men to serve in the local militia.  Often a militia unit would be called up for a campaign and service would be for that campaign only or a limited time.  Given frontier and colonial life it was important to leave some able bodied men at home to work fields and guard the home front and often the militias were fighting in proximity of their homes to prevent invasion.  Avoiding militia service was usually rendered impossible as it was your community being invaded and you were fighting for both life, property, and liberty and running or hiding impossible.

When the U.S. Constitution was enacted and the vote for the new government held it was up to each state to decide on who was eligible vote and most had property ownership or tax paying and European ancestry as requirements.  As such only about 7% of the population could vote to chose the first President.  When war broke out again in 1812 a mandatory conscription at the federal level was shot down and mandatory service remained with the states.  The argument against conscription was that it was not authorized by the U.S. Constitution and was counter to individual liberty, a forced servitude.

Demand for equal suffrage for all white males was strong in the early 1800’s.  White males bore the responsibility to serve at times of war but were disenfranchised from participating in the decision of who decided they went to war which was opposite to the ideals of the fledgling Republic.  By the 1830’s most states removed property ownership as a voting requirement but limited participation to free white men.  Some limited voting to tax payers and in some states free black men could vote.  But by the 1840’s most states limited voting to free white men.  Eligible voters had increase by 20 times from 1820 to 1840 with over 2 million voting.

Prior to the Civil War the Woman’s Suffrage movement and the Abolitionist Movement worked closely together.  The woman’s suffrage movement was based upon women and men being equal taking the wording from the Declaration of Independence with addition, “all men and women are created equal”.  Opponents pointed to the higher calling for women as family caregivers, being the “fairer sex” and nurturing, in effect putting motherhood on a pedestal with women superior to men in that regard.  The responsibility to serve in defense of the country was a main talking point against a woman’s right to vote as they did not have the full responsibilities of a citizen.  The outbreak of the Civil War put Woman’s Suffrage on hold.

Citizen status conveys rights, duties, and benefits.  The right to vote centered on the definition of “citizen”.  A U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case (1857) said that no man of African Ancestry could claim U.S. Citizenship as a right.  Denial of the vote to women was based upon the lack of responsibility as a reason to deny the right to vote.  The woman’s movement split with one side staying with the men and women are equal argument and taking an anti-Abolitionist position of no vote for women, no vote for blacks.  The other side of the suffrage movement started to argue that woman’s superior nurturing made her qualified to exercise the the right and responsibility of voting.

The Civil War saw both sides enact mandatory military service.  Both sides met 90% of their manpower needs with volunteers and looked to fill out the ranks with a draft.  The south exempted plantation owners and the north allowed commutation money for exemption.  Both sides allowed for substitutes and most conscripted were substitutes.  The unfair policies of the draft caused widespread evasion and even violent protests, such as in New York City where riots resulted in the military coming in to restore order.  The draft ended with the end of the war.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1868) guaranteed citizenship to all male’s born or naturalized in the U.S. which set aside the Dred Scott decision.  And the 15th Amendment prevented states from preventing voting rights based upon, race, color, or previous servitude.  Various methods were used to prevent blacks, Native American’s, Mexican’s, and Chinese from being declared citizen’s or voting.  Many areas had pol taxes and literacy tests as a condition of the right to vote.

The draft was reinstated at the outset of WW I (1917-18) for male citizen’s aged 21 to 30 and then expanded to include 18 to 45 year olds with 4 million men conscripted.  It should be noted that the age to vote was then 21 years old.  The draft was ended with the end of the War.  In 1920 the right to vote was granted to women with passage of the 19th Amendment but in practice it was granted only to white women as minority women were either outright restricted from citizenship (such as Chinese and others) and the poll taxes and literacy tests remained in many areas.

It was in 1917 that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled selective service and the draft Constitutional based upon rights having responsibilities, stating “It may not be doubted that the very conception of a just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it.  This decision is based upon European Common Law (see The Law of Nations), brought to America and enacted here.  Although gaining the vote 3 years after it was tied to the draft, sexual biases were strong enough that the responsibility to serve in any fashion was not put on women.

Pre WW II (1940) saw the first peace time draft of male citizen’s 21-30 years old and just after the outbreak of the war (Dec. 1941) it was expanded to 18-45 year olds as mandatory service and registration of 45-65 year old men was required.  By the end of 1942 a Presidential Executive Order ended voluntary service (to control manpower for industries at home).  10 million men were inducted during the war, and 1 out of 5 men were classified fit for duty.  Just past the end of the war inductions stopped (1947) but the selective service system itself remained.

In 1948 peace time draft legislation was again passed requiring all men 18-26 years old to register, this the model for our current system.  With the outbreak of the Korean War (1950) the draft cranked up again and 1.5 million men (and 1.3 million volunteers) served during the war.  This draft was the first credited with driving volunteers as a voluntary commitment meant greater control over branch and duty assignment.  It was also the first draft with paternity and college deferments although paternity deferments ended at the end of the war.

When hostilities ceased in 1953  the draft continued.  The cold war and looming conflict in Vietnam kept it going, manpower needs of the military were met by the draft and the enlistments that having a draft drove men to do to gain favored branches and assignments.  Deferments were also used as a social control over men.  By granting a deferment to an occupation or class of individuals, such as married men with children, government could channel men into socially preferred activities.   These deferments for the “best and brightest” left a social divide between college educated and married men and poor single men, the “others” responsible to fill manpower requirements.

The voting rights Act of 1965, intended to prevent discriminatory practices against minority populations and bolster enforcement of the 14th and 15th Amendments, is in effect is the first legislation which had as a standard the theory of “one person – one vote” for all people 21 years of age and over. The attempt to treat all persons as equal, ironically, occurred as the draft was once again being ramped up in response to the Vietnam War.  Again, women were exempted from registering and deferments were given to married men and college attendees.  18-21 year old men were subject to the draft, even though they could not vote.

The theory of rights connected to responsibilities was the impetus for the 26th Amendment (1971) which was enacted under the rallying cry of “old enough to die, old enough to vote” and made voting a right for 18-21 year olds.  Again, the responsibility for men and the corresponding right was given to 18-21 year old women with no responsibility on their part.  Unfair draft deferments were also under attack.  The marriage exemption ended in 1965 and in an effort towards fairness a lottery system was developed.  As the war ground down in 1968 President Nixon proposed elimination of the draft and the use of only volunteers.  Even though the Gates Commission studied the issue and recommended elimination of the draft it was left in place for 1973, 74, and 75, but no one was called up to serve.  The draft and registration ended for the time being, but the selective service system itself remained.

In 1980 President Carter reinstated the requirement that all men 18-25 register for the draft within 30 days of their 18th birthday.  It was made a felony not to register and additionally there were many sanctions for not registering, including not being eligible for most government programs.  A 1981 lawsuit (Rostker v. Goldberg) challenged the male only provision under the due process clause of the 5th Amendment.  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the fact women were prevented from combat roles allowed Congress the authority to treat men and women as unequal and look at military needs.

Once an equality movement, the women’s movement now is one based upon achieving benefits for women without corresponding responsibilities.  The demand of women to be treated equally in the military and to open up all job titles (MOS) based upon ability resulted in the military removing restrictions based upon sex in January of 2013.  One would think that the right to volunteer also creates a responsibility to register and women’s groups would support this as being fair and equitable.  The National Organization for Women which advocates for passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, and other women’s organizations, remain eerily silent when it comes to women’s responsibilities to obtain these rights.

The National Coalition For Men (NCFM) had filed a lawsuit against male only selective service registration based upon equal protection under the law guaranteed in the 5th and 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  Citizenship conveys certain rights, duties, and benefits on all of us equally.  It is very difficult to see how the selective service is justified for one class of people and exempted for another.  Some women get it for there is a lawsuit by Elizabeth Kyle-LaBell who tried to register and was turned away because she was female.

NCFM filed in 2013 and the U.S. Attorney’s Office continues to fight the case.  Overcoming arguments NCFM has beat back opposition, won their appeals, and now has asked for summary judgement in the case.   Certainly, the backlash of the anti-male women’s benefit movement on one end and the radical traditionalists on the other is the driving force behind opposition to equal rights and responsibilities for men and women.

As we remember those who have served this Veteran’s Day, the anniversary of the end of WW I, let’s honor our veteran’s by working to uphold the equal rights and responsibilities guaranteed to us under the U.S. Constitution.  And when politicians (most who have not served and who do not have veteran status) placate us with hollow words of the value of veterans, let’s ask them why Americas sons are not as valuable as Americas daughters.  And ask them to explain how sexual bias in selective service is fair and meets the equality requirements under the U.S. Constitution, a Constitution veterans swear to uphold and do so for all of us by their service.

10 things men NEED to do in politics for men and boys

  1. Put Men’s/Boy’s/Parent’s Rights and issues above ALL other issues and make it your voting issue.
  2. Register to vote.
  3. Register in a political party.
  4. Vote in every primary and general election.
  5. Focus on what YOUR party does and not what the others don’t do!
  6. Know ALL you elected representatives at the state and federal level.
  7. Write ALL your elected representatives on specific men’s issues.
  8. Write formal letters of complaint regarding any and ALL biased treatment you are subjected to.
  9. Know your political process and the issues you advocate for.
  10. Only support candidates who publicly support your issues!

NY MAN was formed 20 years ago as a political action committee and has been actively lobbying for men’s issues since then as a PAC and then a vehicle for grass roots lobbying.  While these 10 bullet items seem like common sense, it is amazing the number of people who don’t do the political basics needed for change.

First, to foster change for men’s issues men need to make them political issues.  Amazingly, while men/father’s complain of the unjust imposition on their rights or unequal treatment, many will point to other issues when it comes time to support a candidate or a party.  This occurs even with so called movement “leaders” who hide their political tribalism under the guise of “other issues”.  This lets the politico avoid having to deal with our issues.  And often the denial of your rights or due process undermines the other issues, a fact addressed in “Undermine parental rights to undermine all other rights”.

The primary way to be politically active is register to vote and register in a party and then vote in both primary and general elections.  Right now in NYS up to 70% of people don’t bother to vote in many elections.  What this says to politicians is that most people are happy with the status quo and they don’t need to address issues.  Politicians are well aware of who votes and how often.  And by registering in a party you get an extra vote, this being very important as in many areas one party or the other always win’s the general election.  Being in a party allows you to interject the issues into that party during primaries.

But Red, Blue, Green, Gold, or Tea: Which is the party for men’s issues?  Sadly, the answer is NONE!  But why does no party adopt few, if any, issues of importance to men?  The answer is men haven’t made them.  Now this is usually when someone goes off on “the other” political party with a tirade of what that party has done to persecute men ignoring the fact their party has done nothing for men and thus the political discussion get polarized right from the get go.  That’s why we added #5.  Stop complaining about what other didn’t do and look at the party you are registered in as that’s where you can foster change.

If there are no candidates that support mens issues, or one running unopposed, then do NOT vote for “the lesser of 2 evils” but register your protest with a write-in vote.  In Saratoga County in NYS Doug Smith promotes a protest write in vote for family court judge.  By writing in a protest vote you are letting politicians know that you are a person who votes and they do NOT address your issues.  You can bet that if a large number of people put in a protest vote that politicians will look to find out what the issue is they can support to get those votes.

And if it’s a “3rd party” candidate who supports the issues don’t get bamboozled by the “spoiler vote” argument that if you don’t vote for a major party candidate you are “voting for the other guy”.  That is nothing but cover for the fact they do not support reform and change.  We get that from Republican’s in NYS who tell us not to vote for Larry Sharpe even while their candidate isn’t on the record for change.  You want OUR vote then you support OUR issues or we’ll vote for someone else.  Period.

Political activism doesn’t stop after the election.  You should know ALL your elected representatives at the state and national level and you should engage them IN WRITING and on the phone on the issues of importance to you.  You need to understand how the political process works and at what level of government the complaints or reform requests should be directed.  A good example is shared parenting.  At the state level legislation is needed to enact change but at the federal level the issue is one of Parental Rights.   If you are unsure of the issues NY MAN has links and discussions of most issues which you can use as templates.

Filing formal letters of complaint seems like a no brainer but the fact of the matter is most men just don’t bother to do it.  Even though the bureaucratic process is often stacked against you and it will do nothing about your problem, it is important to get formal complaints on the record.   NY MAN met with the Chief Matrimonial Judge in NYS with a laundry list of complaints of injustice direct from fathers only to find out that the courts had NO official complaints on file.  The lack of formal complaints made it look like ours were isolated incidents.

A good practice for writing complaints or advocating for changes in law, policy, or procedure is to use a large CC list and send the issue to a lot of people.  For example, a letter about a problem with your county child support collections should be sent to the state office, federal office, and all your elected representatives.  This will often shed light on a problem and make it harder for the one causing the problem to sweep it under the rug.

Also an individual problem sent with a policy change to correct it not only supports the need to fix your individual case but your individual case also supports the need for structural changes in the program.   A good example is draconian child support collection methods which are policies enforced at the state level in response to Title IVd incentive payments to the states from the federal government.

Thought precedes all action.  The vast majority of negative outcomes for men and boys are due to government polices and laws of the denial of rights and equal treatment under the law.   It’s time for men to think about men’s and boy’s issues then act to change political systems which are harming us or denying our rights.  If we are to be an equal rights movement then we need to be politically active.

Endorsing Joe Vitollo for the 20th (NY) Congressional Seat

NY MAN endorses Joe Vitollo for Congress in the 20th (NYS) Congressional Ticket.  In response to the question of supporting Parental Rights and reform of Title IVd of the Social Security Act Joe Vitollo responded with a yes.  In his own words:

  • Parents rights are at the top of my list Constitutionally the most basic form of Gov. is the Family and, as a Libertarian, Individual rights are the “prima fascia” precedent for Gov. I don’t believe the Gov. is in anyway responsible for raising or educating my children as a matter of fact we home schooled our kids. So I’m all in on Title IVd SSA reform and minimizing any Gov. control and intervention in the Family.

For more on Joe Vitollo you can find his web page here and his Facebook page here.

NY MAN believes that parental rights are primary, and necessary, to all other rights.  We further believe that the current system of interference in families, making one parent a “NON” (custodial) Parent, is a violation of that persons parental rights.  Additionally, forcing an income transfer from one parent to the other in instances where that parent has NOT failed to provide for their children financially is a violation of parental rights.  Incentive payments by the Federal Government to the states is driving the removal of one parent (usually the father) from their children.

New York’s 20th Congressional District covers all of Albany and Schenectady County and parts of Montgomery, Saratoga, and Rensselaer Counties.  We encourage all family advocates, and their families also, to VOTE FOR JOE VITOLLO.

Kavanaugh Compared to Fathers in Family Court: – How to Slander a Man as Dangerous

While watching much of the Kavanaugh Supreme Court Senate hearing  we couldn’t but help see the comparisons between what he is enduring and the plight of fathers in (anti) family and matrimonial court.   Indeed, many posts on men, father, and family sites generally agreed with this perspective, most stating they couldn’t make an informed decision based on the lack of evidence and political circus, but the hostile and unjust treatment of Kavanaugh was the same as they endured in (anti) family court.

People are beginning to recognize that false allegations are occurring and ruining men’s lives, even the President mentions it.   Unfortunately the fact this has been occurring in family courts for the past 40 years, and is an accepted practice, has not reached the consciousness of the nation.  This is an opportunity for advocates to bring the issue of false allegations and the denigration of fathers in family court to light.  Advocates need to contact politicians with their personal horror stories and say #HimToo.

Kavanaugh entered this hearing like most men enter (anti) family court, they are generally honest and caring individuals who hold their children most dear and would do anything to protect them.  Like fathers entering family court he entered this system of hearings believing:

  • That the system is fair,
  • That the truth will prevail,
  • That the small human faults and frailties common to us all will be accepted under the time, place, and circumstance they are in,
  • That we are all treated equal in the processes and with respect,
  • And we swear before our God to these believing honest statements with evidence will prevail.

And to our dismay we find it all to be opposite of that. It is a gynocentric unjust system which treats women with dignity and men with disdain.  The truth is ignored and perjury and false allegations become the norm.  Any small character flaw, even from years before, is blown out of proportion and exaggerated.  Your demands to be timely heard are ignored while your name is further dragged through the mud.  And when victimized your anger at injustice is then used as proof you are an “angry man” capable of harming others.  The perjurer is treated as the victim, supported, believed, and pampered while you the real victim of a false allegation are treated as a perpetrator, liar, attacked, and made to defend yourself and prove your innocence.

The rules of evidence are plain in that uncorroborated statements are not to be taken as fact.  Absent evidence a “he said-she said” is a wash as it can neither be confirmed true or confirmed false.  The fact is that liars lie because they are good at it and are believable.  Also persons who mistake and misinterpret facts believe the mistake and as such appear to be telling the truth for it is as they see it, especially those with any mental health issues.  If justice is blind it would not see a victimized female and a perpetrating male until the evidence was presented.  But just like a father in family court Kavanaugh was considered guilty until he proved his innocence and Ford, like women in family court, considered truthful without corroboration.

Like fathers walking into court Kavanaugh walked into this hearing expecting an adversarial but fair process.  When faced with public allegations he demanded a timely hearing to clear his name.  Just like most fathers he didn’t make grand, misleading, and false allegations against the opposing party to counter those made against him nor attack the credibility of the opposing party.  Just like fathers he had to wait for justice, which when delayed is denied, while he was further excoriated.

Just like fathers he told his side and presented evidence in support of it only to have it dismissed.   Just like fathers he was bullied, beaten, and attacked under questioning while she was treated with polite conversation and allowed to take a break when “upset” by the soft pitch questions, and obvious discrepancies in the opposing story were ignored.  Questioning under oath is an adversarial process if it is to derive the truth yet there was no adversarial questioning of Dr. Ford, just like occurs in family court.

Just like fathers entering family court, Kavanaugh showed righteous indignation at the character assassination and the unjust system.  And like fathers this was turned against him to show he “lacked demeanor” and was certainly an “angry man” capable of “angry violent actions” and not deserving of the position.  The politically correct method to stop a Supreme Court Judge is the same as it is to remove a father from his children.  High rhetoric and denial of due process.

After suffering the inquisition of the minutia of his life, defending embarrassing sophomore actions when a sophomore, he thought it all over.   And just like fathers entering family court, Kavanaugh sees another delay in the process.  More time to look into the further allegations, this in spite of the fact that they become more ludicrous and numerous as the days pass.  He, like a father in family court, is learning it will never end.  It isn’t about adjudication, it is about winning a war of attrition.

False allegations and slander are a form of relational violence and when government systems respond to it and treat one party with bias based upon the relational violence then we have institutional violence.  This is what fathers suffer every day in (anti) family courts.  It is not only emotional violence, damaging the psyche, the repercussions of the institution which acts on it often results in physical violence against the falsely accused in the form of fines and incarceration.

Our system of justice in the U.S. is based on the fact that the guilty will sometimes go free but that is far superior to the innocent suffering persecution by prosecution.  Judge Kavanaugh is finding out the hard way that this is not how it is working today.  One need only look at the Innocence Project to see the hundreds of falsely accused men who were convicted and now exonerated of sex crimes.  But how many fathers in (anti) family court suffer the loss of children and the plundering of assets by an unjust system which allows perjury and treats them as deadbeats, guilty before walking in the door?

NY MAN has been complaining about the lack of due process for fathers and men in our justice system, now for 20 years.   The pleas to return justice and due process to our court systems have fallen on deaf ears.  Perhaps now people within the court system will recognize that a system based upon biases, false allegations, and perjury can at any time grab an innocent person and oppress them with the tyranny of false allegations, even them.

Unlike Kavanaugh fathers don’t have a powerful senate bloc supporting them.  If the provably false allegations against Kavanaugh are investigated and charged and if the unproven allegations against Kavanaugh are set aside and he is appointed to the Supreme Court, perhaps then Lindsay Graham, Kavanaugh, and others will realize that the reason the unethical sham of false allegations works in politics is because they, all 3 branches of government at the state and federal level, failed to correct it in family court as good fathers were removed from their children without cause.  As Martin Luther King said, “Justice denied anywhere diminishes justice everywhere”, a fact I suspect that Judge Kavanaugh now knows.

Do we believe all male victims of female assault?

The great hypocrisy of “believe all women” who have been victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) or sexual assault is that we do NOT believe nary ANY MAN who is the victim of IPV or sexual assault perpetrated by a female.  Certainly, if we are to skew due process to believe the victim then are not men entitled to the same equal protection?  The focus on women alone shows the blatant sexual bias in this “believe” movement, a gynocentric focus on female victims only.  It is a fact, if we “believe all women” we then inversely NEVER believe a man.

To believe all women is the slippery slope to the denial of due process in our justice system.  Under the U.S. Constitution we stand innocent until proven guilty in stark contrast to blind acceptance of an allegation.  Lady justice is the allegory passed down to us from Roman times representing the morality which should be in justice systems.  She is shown with a scale designed to show that evidence of an offense is present, measured, and balanced.  The blindfold is there to show impartiality in the application of the law.  The sword is for swift justice for justice delayed is justice denied.  If Lady Justice “believes all women” then she removes the blindfold, tips the scales, and strikes any man with the sword at the behest of any woman.  She is then hardly an allegory for justice and equal protection under the law.

At what point do we believe all MALE victims also?  Right now the system dismisses male victims.  How many men’s domestic violence shelters are there?  What government programs are available for male victims of IPV or sexual assault?  Hotlines?  The “Violence Against Women Act” by name and in practice excludes male victims.  Indeed, to admit that one is a male victim of IPV or sexual assault is to subject oneself to ridicule starting with the police and continuing ridicule through the legal system.  If lacking a voice and ignored what is a man to do to get justice?

In a world which believes all women the victimized male is undermined by the counter claim of the female.  Instances of mutual aggression result in the male being prosecuted.  Male victims of female violence are twice persecuted, once by the violence they endure and a second time by the institutional violence of a system which discounts their victimization.  As they are doing now, men will push to be believed and receive equal treatment.  Are we to then morph into a system which believes all “victims” with no measure of the evidence?

Our current system has gotten so gynocentrically focused that we argue about intrusions into protection for the falsely accused as if all false allegations are made by females and all falsely accused are males.  While statistically it may lean in that direction, it is a simple fact of life that both men and women are capable of violence and sexual assault against the other sex, and both men and women lie and are capable of using the relational violence of the false allegation to trigger institutional violence, the prosecution based upon false allegation.  While the institutions are now gynocentrically focused causing more false female allegations then male, we can expect men to push back and gain equality.  Do we want the “equality” of a system which persecutes all falsely accused, both men and women?

The fact that an individual does NOT have to prove their innocence and the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt protects the innocent from the criminal justice system.  Unfortunately, to protect the innocent there are many guilty parties who are not prosecuted due to a lack of evidence.  This is the price we pay to ensure that no innocent person is prosecuted, for to be innocent and prosecuted is to be persecuted.  Indeed, enough men are already falsely convicted for crimes they did not commit.  Are we ready to persecute and incarcerate more men AND women as we undermine due process to “believe all victims”?

For those men and women not prosecuted for whatever reason are we then to resort to a system of public majority rule and social destruction of character?    Two parties both claiming status as victim and perpetrator with high allegations and rhetoric replacing evidence?  The loser being the one who can’t muster as many counter allegations nor sway the majority opinion to their side?  What happens when both sides meet with their mobs with no process to contain them?  Are we not then returning to tribal trial by combat?

Both males and females can be the victim of IPV or sexual assault.  And both males and females can be the victim of false allegations and slanderous character assassination.  Individual victims of violence and victims of false allegations who are not served by the criminal justice system need to be served by our civil and social systems without regard to their sex.  The modern day social and media mob rule lynchings need to cease and we need to return to  due process for all.  Impartial balanced swift justice serves us all and anything else is anarchy and mob rule.

False Allegations of Abuse: The Modern Day Lynch Mob for Men

First they came for the “deadbeat dad”, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a “deadbeat dad”.
Then they came for the “abusive men”, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not an “abusive man”.
Then they came for the “toxically masculine man”, and I did not speak out—  Because I was not “toxic”.
Then they came for me, labelled a deadbeat, abusive, toxic man — and there were no men left to speak for me.

Unfortunately, lost in the absurd dramatic theatre of the supreme court hearings before us is the fact that this absurdity can be visited upon any man or boy at any time in any environment.  Chivalry coupled with gynocentrism opens men up to a societal lynching based upon even the most outlandish allegation.  Regardless of obvious fact, the allegations of a Mayella can turn any man into Tom Robinson, arguing his innocence in a sham of a trial where innocence is destroyed at the hands of the politically correct.

Many a NY MAN, like most men nationwide who suffer through the false allegations and perjury of family court, probably have empathy for Judge Kavanaugh for the politically correct sexist institutional and relational violence he is suffering.  It is plainly due to politics and lacking legal or professional cause to deny him the nomination the Democrats use character assassination.  This is the same strategy used to “win custody from the father” in (anti) family and (anti male) matrimonial courts also.  And while we have empathy, the fact of the matter is that he is caught up in a political and legal system allowed by the courts themselves and put in place by Federal Executive and Legislative branches of government which pandered to the “women’s vote”, both Republican and Democrat alike.  Politicians (including judges) pandering to the many social justice warrior “victims” for political expediency, appointments, and elections created the “deadbeat”, “abusive”, and “toxic” male.

Matrimonial and family courts, and increasingly criminal courts, have thrown aside legal protections for the innocent under the guise of “protecting the victim”.  To “prevent” possible future offenses due process and the right to be heard are thrown out and perjury is the accepted norm as judges issue ex parte “Orders of Protection” on hearsay alone.  Over 70% of orders are withdrawn, this after the party obtains their objective (custody of children and money transfers) and the slanderous allegations are no longer needed.  Appellate Courts, which should be protecting Constitutionally protected individual rights and due process, have turned a blind eye to individual violations of civil rights.  Men, individually fighting alone, are squashed under the weight of a political and “justice” system to large for one man to fight, most often surrendering to the no win situation.

The “all women are victims and all men guilty”, once contained in family court, has now spread to EVERY situation where a woman wants to gain leverage over a man.  Given liberal college campuses, it is no surprise that todays female “journalists” would espouse radical feminist “women victims of men” dogma that all women should be believed and all men considered guilty until they prove their innocence (Obviously they don’t read “To Kill a Mockingbird” in college anymore).   It is a movement which went from espousing equality to one hating men, and willing to destroy innocent men to achieve their ends.

Worse, but not unexpected, are the politicians who openly advocate denial of Constitutional Rights for political gain.  The Senator from NY Kirsten Gillibrand used a copy of a domestic violence report to unseat Congressman John Sweeney in 2006 and start her rise to the top of the Democratic Party, even though the wife denied any abuse.  She now stands ready to persecute all men in her push for a Presidential run.  Then, as now with Kavanaugh, the femi-leftist pink hat propaganda machine regurgitates politicians and “celebrities” who argue “all women MUST be believed” even though there were no complaints then, no arrest, no charges, no adjudication, no evidence.  The unsubstantiated allegation itself is allowed to stand as fact, he said is dismissed, she said is believed.  Senator Mazi Hirono says,  “just shut up” to men’s cries of innocence and injustice, so much for airing grievances to men by men.

False allegations of abuse are rampant and men are persecuted by the relational violence of the false allegation and the institutional violence of systems which ignore the innocent, due process, and even evidence.  The cases of falsely accused who manage to overcome the injustice are to many to list, the  Duke Lacrosse case  come right to mind.  The most recent case of the falsely accused male obtaining a measure justice is as NPO says, Vladek Filler Wins Again  and as reported by the Daily Wire  “man receives $375,000 for false rape accusation”.  But at what cost?  Years of freedom, loss of finances, destruction of reputation, years of persecution and fighting.  Link to Vladek Filler’s own words here about false allegations.  How many men, facing certain ruin just “take the deal” saving themselves the institutional and relational violence and possible incarceration which accompanies fighting the charges? Most that I know, myself included.

Father and family rights groups have been complaining for thirty years now about the injustices we suffered, and continue to suffer, in an anti-male system of institutional violence against us; beat dead, assets plundered and driven broke, abused, and disenfranchised by relational and institutional violence against us.  Innocent until proven guilty by a jury of peers, the onus on the government to present their case with evidence showing beyond a reasonable doubt, and the right to face your accuser are the protections in place for individuals.  Hundreds of years of common law trying to build a just legal system.  As William Blackstone said, “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer”. But not for us men, bring in the next guilty bastard.

Gynocentric sexual bias against men was easy to ignore when the injustice was contained in family court.   It was easy for people to turn a blind eye when it crept into criminal court as it wasn’t them.  Men suffered allegations at work, the leverage to get a head of the competition or pay back for some perceived slight.  Then it crept into the deep state, Title IX, and onto college campuses, into high schools and down to grade schools.  It has crept into political campaigns as the nuclear bomb of smear allegations.  Judicial appointments are not immune either.  Now, any man anywhere can be the victim of the relational violence of the false allegation and the violence of institutions pandering to that.  Where does it all end?

Justice Thomas put it well Oct. 11, 1991, when he called the institutional violence driven by relational violence what it is, a modern day lynching.  Unfortunately, from then until today it has not changed and has in fact gotten worse.  False allegations by women and lynchings of men have historically been the norm such as the lynching of Emmitt Till, unacceptable in a civil society.  Perjury and false allegations are the accepted norm in our courts and society today.  Why is this lynching not unacceptable in a civil society?  Perhaps this most recent lynching of Kavanaugh will be a wake up call.

Justice is not righting an injustice done to you, justice is not having the injustice done in the first place.  A system which allows injustice to occur is a system of tyranny.  Hopefully there are enough men left who will DO something and work to end tyranny and prevent the injustices in the first place.

NY MAN endorses Larry Sharpe for Governor

The New York Men’s Action Network endorses Larry Sharpe for Governor of New York State.  Larry Sharpe, running on the Libertarian Party line has come out strongly for shared parenting as natural and normal and believes parental rights should not be restricted unless a parent is proven bad and an unfit parent (see his campaign meme above).  You can see Larry Sharpe speak to these issues on Long Island Back Story.

For the parents, men and women, and families abused by New York States incompetent and corrupt (anti) family courts the choice of Larry Sharpe is a no brainer for he is the FIRST statewide candidate in the last 20 years to come out publicly calling for family court and child custody reform.  He has gone so far as to include it on one of his campaign buttons and other campaign materials.

 available here

Let’s address the nay sayers who will dismiss this endorsement asking for  support for their party.   For the last 20 years each party has controlled one house of the legislature and held the Governor’s Office about 1/2 the time, yet neither party has seen fit to pass ANY reform legislation.  Additionally, NO candidate for statewide public office of either major party has publicly come out in support for reform of the system in any fashion.

Republican’s will point to the anti family policies of NY Democrat’s, and while it is true Assembly Democrats like disgraced leader Sheldon Silver and (then) Judiciary Committee Chair Helene Weinstein have blocked ALL legislation, especially shared parenting legislation (which enjoys over 80% support from all New Yorkers) Senate Republican’s have also been active in opposing shared parenting, with Senators like Republican Betty Little leading the opposition to reform.  It is an unholy alliance of “opposing” parties which blames the other for inaction to reform a system they put into place together.

The “deadbeat dad” legislation introduced by Republican Sen. Kathy Marchionne is a classic example of the unholy alliance of Republican’s and Democrats.  Studies have shown that the reason for default on child support is due to high awards and inability to pay.  Thus the system impacts poor fathers, disproportionately fathers of color, and yet Democrats readily jump on the “deadbeat” bandwagon, even though these fathers are beat dead and dead broke.    Democrats and Republicans alike turn a blind eye to fathers incarcerated for non payment, a debtors prison for poor men, mostly men of color.

Republican support to label disenfranchised dads deadbeats 2013

A constituent letter to Assemblyman Angelo Santabarbara and Senator George Amedore has went unanswered by both deadbeat politicians for over a year now.  Now that they are running for reelection they freely contact constituents for support.  Deadbeat Santabarbara sent a snail mail notice with contact information on his office stating, “I encourage you to call me, send me an email, or visit my web site… I want to hear from you”.  A blatant lie given the non response to parental rights issues before him which went unanswered, without even a form letter of acknowledgement.  Deadbeat Amedore announces his “lime disease” Committee work and “FREE document shredding” by snail mail.  Taxpayer money spent on reelection while he ignores the plight of children and destroyed families.  Deadbeat Santabarbara went so far as to block the constituent on LinkedIn when he posted about the death of Gabby Boyd due to his legislative inaction on reform.

Vote for me because the other guys is worse is NO reason to vote for them.  The 2 party status quo (crazy) do the same thing over and over again and expect a different outcome people (Republican Molinaro) will tell you a vote for a “3rd party” candidate (LARRY SHARPE) is a “split vote” working for the Incumbent (Democrat Cuomo).  Perhaps if the supporters of either major party wished the support of father, mother, and family advocates they would have done something to reform a system instead of creating this one which is harming children and destroying families.

Can Larry win?  What we say is does it matter if another status quo do nothing for reform politician wins (Democrat or Republican)?  But if recent elections are any indication, the answer is yes, he can.  But even without a win we have established the need for reform and if any future candidates want the support of family advocates they will have to begin to address the issues.  A good showing on election day for Larry Sharpe is good for reform advocates, families, children, and parents.  See Larry Sharpe on the Rubin Report speaking on this topic.  He’s also on Joe Rogan here.

NY MAN is a non partisan political action site dedicated to men, father, and family issues.  We believe in the EQUAL rights of BOTH parents, the right of children to BOTH parents, and in PARENTAL RIGHTS as superior to government bureaucrats, lawyers, and politicians who act as as if they know best how to raise your children, treating them, and you, as dependent on and working for the state.  Morally superior “professional” busybodies telling you how to live your daily life and raise your children “in your best interest” while they plunder your assets while telling you the tyranny is for your own good need to be voted out of office.

Let your voice be heard.  We encourage you to support and VOTE for Larry Sharpe for Governor of New York State.

Bias against fathers is killing children

Due to blatant sexism the police and DA’s office refused to enforce a custody order that the father had and this directly led to the death of Gabriella Boyd. “Child Protection” Services was non existent. The article contains video of the father discussing the incident. We brought the issue before NYS Government Officials in 2001 and ask ALL members of NYS Government how long will you turn a blind eye, fiddling away while families burn and children die.  If the system didn’t harbor such anti father bias the mother would most likely be receiving mental health care and Gabrielle would be alive.

https://www.lohud.com/story/news/2018/09/12/mamaroneck-cynthia-arce-charged-murder-daughter-gabriella-boyd/1277593002/

Our original post regarding the incident:

It’s a Child’s Best Interest to be neglected, abused, or killed by sole custody?

It hit the local news and social media here in New York State (Mamaroneck, Westchester County) that a knife wielding mother is shot by police after they find “her toddler” severely injured.  The child later died from her injuries.  It is then reported (Mamaroneck Daily Voice 4-30-18) that the day before this incident the father, armed with a Custody and Order of Protection  from the court, was denied custody by the mother who closed the door in the face of police and the father.  The police refused to act as they “didn’t know if they had authority to arrest” the mother.  The fathers attorney reports the District Attorneys Office was contacted and Assistant District Attorney Mary Clark refused to act on the valid court order as it “is a civil matter”.

Apparently both the police and the District Attorney’s Office are unfamiliar with Section 215.50 the NYS Penal Law, Criminal Contempt, “Intentional disobedience or resistance to the lawful process or other mandate of a court” a class A Misdemeanor which allows the police to arrest a person for violating it.  Based on the inaction of the police at the time, and the inaction of the District Attorney’s Office, it appears the mother abused the child the next day, resulting in her death.  In the process of trying to save the child two police officers were attacked and injured, and the mother shot by police.  Ignoring the “problem” with an “It’s a civil matter” hasn’t seemed to make the problem go away.

Incompetence, bad training or bias against fathers, or all of them?

It is hard to imagine a scenario where the circumstances are the mother seeking to enforce a court order against a father where the police didn’t, at a minimum, step in and transfer custody of the child to the mother and most likely would arrest the man.  This sexist anti-male bias against fathers and their parental rights by police and District Attorney’s is the number one complaint of men attempting to enforce their parenting time.  Hundreds, if not  thousands, of fathers in NYS each year are met with custodial interference in gross violation and criminal contempt of the custody order of the court and law enforcement advises them it “is a civil matter” that they need to return to family court to correct.

Unfortunately, buried in the denial of access for fathers and the uneven enforcement and bias which doesn’t recognize a fathers parental rights, is the fact that children are being neglected, abused, and murdered by “custodial” mothers while police, DA’s, and social service agencies do nothing to help.  And the system is well aware of the problems which have been occurring for over 25 years now.  In 2001 the case of Logan Marr was aired by Frontline on PBS.  At the same time here in NYS we had the Kali Warrington saga, a child grossly abused and neglected by her mother and the live in boyfriend as the father, Daniel Simms, tried to get police and prosecutors to remove the child from her custody to his under a court order.

The issues of denial of a families access to a child, most often the father, which results in harm to children was brought to the attention of the NYS Legislature, Governors Office, Courts, District Attorneys, and government agencies extensively in media releases and public education campaigns by the Coalition of Fathers and Families NY, Inc. (FaFNY) such as this 05-10-15Warrington-Simms piece.  Mr. Randall L. Dickinson, then FaFNY VP spoke to the recognized institutional bias against fathers and warned of future harm to children; If, indeed, Social Services and the Courts were performing their duties and responsibilities in a accordance with conventional orthodoxy and did nothing wrong in their handling of this case, and, if, as Mr. Kisselbrack states, they acted in “the best interests of the child,” what, pray tell, are we to expect when, as may occur from time to time, they inadvertently drop the ball? Seven-year- old Kaili Warrington very nearly died before her father, Mr. Daniel Simms, was provided the necessary assistance and even allowed to rescue his daughter. She was fortunate to have survived. How many others will be as lucky? Will some other innocent child have to actually be sacrificed before Speaker Sheldon Silver and the New York State Assembly finally get the message???

How many child victims from Kali Warrington in 2001 to Gabriella Maria Boyd in 2018?

In January of this year I sent a letter to (my) Senator George Amedore and Assemblyman Angelo Santabarbara (link here 17-09-15 Legislation request my districts) regarding legislative corrections for fathers and families.  Clearly requested was “Legislation to provide for access enforcement of parenting time by law enforcement agencies for clear violations of a court order” where I explained, “Access Enforcement. Right now there is NO access enforcement for parents save for a costly return to court which after the fact results in the parent losing time with the child even when it was ordered by the court. It is criminal contempt in the penal law to violate the order of a court yet law enforcement agencies will not enforce custody orders. Just as we have mandatory arrest for violating an Order of Protection we should have equal mandatory arrests for violating custody orders of the court.

Just like all legislatures before them, my own “representatives” didn’t bother to respond to my correspondence and request to protect children.  After the child suffered at the hands of her mother through the neglect of the police and district attorney I posted on social media with these elected representatives, “when?”  Senator Amedore’s Office has done nothing.  Assemblyman Santabarbara’s office simply blocked me from their social media accounts.   How many other innocent child have to be sacrificed before the NYS Legislature, Governors Office, District Attorney’s, Police, and Child Welfare Agencies finally get the message???

In the Executive Summary of the Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect we learn that “Children of single parents have a 77-percent greater risk of being harmed by physical abuse, an 87-percent greater risk of being harmed by physical neglect, and an 80-percent greater risk of suffering serious injury or harm from abuse or neglect than children living with both parents.”  The largest class ofabuser is single mother households; the second largest class of perpetrators is “boyfriends”, often referred to as a “father figure” by the popular media.

Denial of access to “non custodial” parents, most often the father, is harming children.  District Attorney Anthony Scarpino isn’t commenting, the Mamaroneck PD isn’t returning calls, the NYS Legislature is hiding, social services hasn’t been heard from, the media has moved on.  And somewhere a father sit in tears, heart broken, wondering how the current system and denial of his parental rights and bias against fathers has been in the best interest of HIS child?

How many other innocent children have to be sacrificed?

Bob the Non Custodial Father – NYC Fireman

It was the early spring of 2001 and I had received an email from “Bob”, a NYC Fireman (I never got his real name).  He was looking for advice with his matrimonial issue and although we had others doing intakes for our non profit, Fathers and Families NY (FaFNY), I would handle police, fire, and military as I was certified in Critical Incident Stress Management, a police officer, former US Army, and an army brat to boot and can relate to those groups.  We exchanged 3 or 4 emails concerning his case over several months.

As Bob tells it: Bob returned home from work one day to his small 2 bedroom apartment in NYC and noted a strange pair of men’s shoes under his bed.  His “what are these?” inquiry had his wife respond they belong to her boyfriend and he stops there days when Bob’s at work.  Hit with the relational violence of infidelity, made worse by the violation of his privacy, and subjecting his child to it no less, a large argument ensues.  The yelling back and forth and the swearing is loud, each contributing equally to the argument.

The neighbors call the police and when they arrive Bob is lucky they find no marks on his wife.  But even with no evidence of abuse Bob is told if he doesn’t leave they’ll arrest him for domestic violence as she is afraid of him.  So Bob get’s an overnight bag and heads to a single buddies apartment, distraught and an emotional mess.  Taking his buddies advice he calls the bank to find his checking account has a zero balance and half the savings are gone, leaving him about $40,000 (they were saving for a house).   He finds the joint credit cards had been maxed out and he closes those accounts.

Bob contacts an attorney and gets an afternoon appointment with him.  To his surprise, a process server finds him and he is then served with an order of protection and ordered to stay away from his wife, an order giving temporary custody to his wife, and a temporary child support order with the money to be deducted directly from his paycheck.  He closes his savings account and puts that money into a checking account in his name only.  The attorney requires a $5000 retainer to start his case and will get responding papers field within a couple of days.

A few weeks later Bob then made the mistake of thinking he could quietly watch his child’s school recital.  He walked to the school and stayed off the grounds until the recital started, then ducked in the door and stood in the back.  But a teacher recognized him and staff told him to leave, which he did without incident.  But walking off the school grounds he was stopped and arrested for violating the order of protection.  It was a night in the system before he was arraigned and made bail.  It was a $2500 retainer to a criminal lawyer to fight that charge.  He needs any help or support he can get.

Bob, like most, thought his treatment unique.  He thought that he had somehow mistakenly been signaled out as a dangerous deadbeat and when given his day in court he would be able to rectify the situation.  He was a good, hard working dad.  It was his wife who had been unfaithful, and in spite of that he was not physically violent towards her in any way.  Once he was in front of the judge and could explain the story they certainly would see the truth.  He’s a fireman after all, a good father, and not a criminal.

I’m sure Bob took no solace in finding out that his treatment was the norm and not the exception.  It is so common in fact I have put a templated “help” page on NY MAN so they are available when a father is first hit with the injustice.  I warned Bob that the attorney’s, his included, would look to drag things out and he should file for divorce in Supreme Court to get it settled as fast as he could.  I warned it might get worse before it gets better and that he should expect the system to drain all his assets and in the end order the “standard NY order” of visits of every other weekend and one or two mid week 4 hour visits and hopefully she doesn’t interfere or keep filing domestic violence claims as that would stop his access completely.

It is the irony of this broken and biased system designed to get “deadbeat dads” that it has morphed into a system which creates “deadbeat dads”.  These so called “deadbeats” are actually committed fathers who are beat dead by relational and institutional violence which labels them dangerous, violent, drunk, abusive, drug addicts, and/or a deadbeat.  The system drives them dead broke with extended litigation, costs, and “child support” which will leave them bankrupt then garnishes about 60% of their income for the next 18 years, the price to be a father.  They are abused by a system which accepts false allegations as fact and punishes them for  being physically present for their children.  The system disenfranchises them as parents, reducing them to at best a visitor and at worst erasing them completely from their children’s lives, valued only for the money they pay into the system.

This is a system of omnipotent moral busybodies doling out oppression and injustice under the guise of “the best interest” of your child as they define it.  It treats all fathers as guilty until they prove their innocence, a star chamber of “esquires”, robber barons, demanding ransom to be a visitor to your child.  In the end it destroys your parental rights and replaces them with decisions by government bureaucrats, reducing “responsible fatherhood” to one who pays his child support into the system.  Once the system reduces fathers to “non” (custodial) parents it will then lament that the children are in need “of father figures”, ignoring the fact it created the problem in the first place.  Government breaks the family then blames dads.  Being an upstanding member of society, serving society, and wearing a uniform is no protection from it.

I last heard from Bob in August that year.  He had “settled” with his ex with “joint custody” her having primary physical possession, every other weekend and a Wednesday 4 hour visit for him which he was trying to fit it into his rotating schedule at work.   His savings were gone and he was paying out about 50% of his gross income in support and bills ordered to pay. The need for a 2 bedroom apartment for his visits with his child was a strain but he was just getting by.  The criminal charges were settled by him accepting an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal and a one year order of protection for his wife against him.  He was afraid of another arrest (it would be a felony) but he kept 2 recording devices on himself at all times for any time he might be in proximity to his ex due to his being there for kid. It sucked but it was better than nothing.  He hoped it would all calm down and he could be a father, as best he could given the circumstances.

He now knows he was set up by his ex wife who was using the system to her advantage but was coming to terms with her actions.  But it was mostly the system he was angry at.  How could he be held in high regard as a fireman one day and then treated like a common criminal the next?  And for a year he fights with all he has to be a father and is treated like a dangerous deadbeat.  Yet once it is settled he somehow once again returns to heroic good guy, a fireman.  It is the person, not the uniform, which makes a man a role model, he stated.  And I must agree.

I wish I could give you an update on “Bob” especially in light of events on September 11, 2001.  But I can’t, I never heard from him again.  It’s not uncommon for fathers to focus on the tasks at hand and prioritize work and time with children, especially non custodial visiting fathers taxed for time at both ends, work and kid.   Often I would have contact with a father doing battle with the courts and not ever hear from him after the dust settled.  I like to think Bob made it through the events that day unscathed.  But I’ll never know.

What I do know is that 40% of U.S. children live absent their father.  The vast majority are committed fathers who fight tooth and nail to be a part of their child’s life.  It’s not the fathers fault, it’s the broken and biased system.  I can only wonder how many firemen and policemen were treated like Bob and then ran into harms way to help another on that fateful day.  From that day we started the war on terror, 17 years now of firemen, policemen, soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, the vast majority men and many of them fathers, heroes, protectors of society and defenders of the weak.  Sacrificing for a society that later persecutes them.

20 years of father and family advocacy shows me there are a lot of fire, police, and military fathers who sacrifice for our safety and freedom, only to be denied it at home.  The system is tyrannical and unjust for any father and that’s wrong.  But a system which collectively holds men responsible to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of society only to denigrate and destroy them individually is particularly tyrannical, oppressive, and cruel.  It’s time we recognize boys and men for their value individually and what they bring to society and stop treating them as if they are only worthy of being cannon fodder then forgotten at home.  We can start by treating fathers better, supporting fathers, heroes with or without a uniform.