Political Commentary and Opinion
Misandry Enacted Into Law
Lets look a few examples demonstrating feminist misandry enacted into law. Please remember that so-called mainstream feminists went along with, and even urged the creation of these policies:
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is unconstitutional on its face, just as it would be if we were to pass a "Violence Against Whites Act".
VAWA blames all domestic violence on men. It funds assistance only for women and radical feminist "public educational programs", with over $4-billion spent since 1999. There is no counterpart funding to help men who have no choice but to deal with a violent spouse (who may likely be abusing drugs or alcohol), often with their own two terrified hands.
VAWA is perhaps responsible for more predatory divorce than any other antifamily law in America today.
In her 1985 book, "The Divorce Revolution," Lenore Weitzman claimed women's standard of living drops 73 percent after divorce, while men's rises 42 percent, based on a 1977 study. This study became the foundation for child support orders in most states, as incorporated and cited in the Williams model.
When other researchers wanted to view the data in the late 1980's, Weitzman claimed it had been lost. It was later accidentally found in the basement of a University where she had worked. A re-analysis done in 1996 uncovered a tremendous computational flaw, which Weitzman blamed on a "computer foul-up".
In his 1999 book "Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths," Arizona State University researcher Sanford Braver found that among typical divorced couples with two children, both parents' living standards decline slightly (which matches my analysis).
Urban Institute scholar Elaine Sorensen reported that only 4 percent of fathers are able to get a judge to reduce their child support payments when their earnings drop by more than 15 percent, and when they do, it takes up to six months -- while arrearages mount.
Fact: Child support tables have still not been adjusted to account for corrections caused by the "Weitzman Fallacy" and the average divorced father is left to face criminal incarceration if he cannot absorb the double burden.
Approximately 55% of husbands today have been unwillingly divorced and separated from their children, under threat of felony conviction for failure to paying support even if they cannot possibly earn it.
There is no excuse for debacle of divorced reservists who fought the War in Kuwait, who endured substantial decreases in pay, who were immediately incarcerated on criminal nonsupport charges upon landing in Georgia at the end of the war.
The owner of this website had a bill introduced in the Missouri legislature in 1991 which guarantees reservists a modification of child support to match military pay. It passed both sides of the legislature in six weeks. The statute is located at http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/c400-499/4520416.htm .
Missouri is the only state in America which protects its reservists from being criminalized at home while risking their lives overseas, and if we go into Iraq, many heroic men will be destroyed right here on the home front.
But all other men, especially those who are laid off from work in downturn fields of employment such as I.T., or those who have small businesses subject to the vagaries of the marketplace, are subject to horrendous abuses -- losing a battle trying to pay support orders often totalling more than their total incomes.
The American Association of Blood Banks reported in 1999 that nearly 30 percent of 280,000 paternity cases evaluated excluded the alleged father as the biological parent.
In paternity cases, fathers are often forced into signing paternity papers under threats of criminal prosecution, without legal representation or DNA testing, and in all but a handful of states DNA evidence cannot later clear them of paternity fraud financial abuse.
Perhaps 25% of fathers are now being forced to support children that are not even theirs, in a system of paternity fraud sponsored by the U.S. Government.
The "Vagina Monologues", a highly-promoted lesbian-feminist work popular on cable TV and college campuses poetically pretends that women having sex with little boys is a beautiful thing.
There is no public outrage over this. There is plenty of public outrage over real or imputed abuse of children by Catholic priests, but there was little outrage over Mary Kay LeTourneau.
The National Organization of Women litigated and lobbied on behalf of Mary Kay Letourneau to get her off the hook for admittedly and repeatedly sexually abusing a 12-year-old student and having two children with him.
One of the babies was conceived while Letourneau was out on leave while serving time in prison on her first conviction. N.O.W. orchestrated a photo published in many newspapers. It is a photograph of LeTourneau clothed in a Shirley Temple dress, a white bow-tie in her freshly-curled hair, with a sweet little smile on her face, innocently sitting on the floor pregnant as a whale.
Would anybody support or believe in a men's group who actively defended an admitted male sexual predator and tried to turn it into a public relations photo-op? Would any convicted male sex offender even know the address of his former victim, much less be let out to do it again on temporary release?
||N.O.W. organized V-Day (Vagina Day), which intends to replace Valentine's day in favor of a celebration of the core belief that women should use their sexual power to get men to do whatever they want.|
N.O.W. actively defended Andrea Yates, who was convicted of murdering her children. N.O.W.'s strategy was to blame it on "postpartum depression". When that didn't work, they blamed it on her husband, and almost had half the nation wanting to see him prosecuted for it.
Please recall here that under V.A.W.A., there is no funding to help men who are living with dangerous women.
Actor Phil Hartman was brutally murdered by his cocaine-abusing wife, who then committed suicide. It was discovered that he had been experiencing difficulties coping with her for some time. Despite all his money, there was no legal structure in place for him to force her into treatment, and little legal structure for him to seek protection from her.
If our federal domestic violence laws were not sexist, Phil might be with us today, and his wife might have a new start on life without drugs.
Unequal Pay for Equal Work?
January 12, 2005
by Carey Roberts
There is no better example of how radical feminism hoodwinks women than the gender "wage gap" controversy.
For years, the Gender Warriors have been on the war path over this issue. Their argument is simple: On average, female employees receive 76 cents for every one dollar paid to male workers. And that difference equals discrimination.
It's time to blow the whistle on that nonsense. And a just-released book by Warren Farrell does exactly that. Why Men Earn More is chock-full of government wage data and research findings which shows the feminist-driven
"pay gap" is an ideological con-job. I feel a little silly making such an obvious statement, but I guess it needs
to be said: the work patterns of men and women are different.
First, the sheer amount of work. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, full-time men clock an average of 45 hours a week, while women put in 42 hours. Men are more than twice as likely as women to work at least 50 hours a week - that's why most CEOs are male.
Only in a socialist economy do employees get paid the same, regardless of the number of hours worked.
Second, men tend to gravitate to the socially-unrewarding but lucrative fields like computer programming, tax law, and engineering. And women select professions such as teaching, nursing, and social work that pay less, but
offer more job flexibility.
Third is job desirability. Recently the Jobs Rated Almanac rated 250 jobs based on income, work environment, physical demands, stress, and so forth. These were the five worst jobs: seaman, ironworker, cowboy, fisherman, and lumberjack.
Does it come as a surprise that all of these jobs are male-dominated? The only way these companies can attract men to do the dirty work is to increase their paychecks.
Finally is the difference in job hazards. Men represent 92% of all occupational deaths. Why? Because if you look at a list of the most hazardous occupations - fire fighting, truck driving, construction, and mining - they have 96-98% male employees, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Shouldn't men who risk their lives on a daily basis be paid something extra?
Warren Farrell then takes aim at the dishonest depiction of the wage gap issue by the media. He cites one shrill headline that read, "Study of TV News Directors Finds Discrimination Against Women." And it's true that the
female TV news directors were paid 27% less than the men.
But take a closer look, and it turns out the male directors had an average of 14.8 years of news work experience, while female directors had only 5.6 years. In other words, the men had almost three times more work experience,
but were paid only about a quarter more.
This study of TV directors raises some lingering questions. First, why did the female directors have an average of 9.2 years less work experience than their male counterparts? And were qualified male candidates being passed
over because of their sex?
It turns out that TV directorships aren't the only place where something fishy is going on. Why Men Earn More presents information about beginning salaries for newly-minted college grads, broken down by their college major. In Table 5 we learn that women who major in computer programming, physics, agricultural engineering, or computer systems analysis receive substantially higher salary offers than men. By "substantial," I mean men in these fields are paid $4,000 to $7,000 less in the first year alone. That's a lot of pin
And in Table 6, we learn about the 10 occupations in which women with bachelor's degrees receive starting offers that are at least 10% higher than men: Investment banking, portfolio management, urban planning, financial
analysis, distribution, finance policy, fundraising, religious occupation, communications production, and dietetics.
For example, if you are a female dietician, your starting salary is $23,160. But your male counterpart is only offered $17,680 - a whopping 30% difference.
This information comes as a bombshell.
I'm going to predict that when word of these disparities leaks out, American companies will be faced with a tsunami of complaints, grievances, and lawsuits from men alleging wage discrimination.
Because men deserve equal pay for equal work.