"international mens organisation"
<international_mens_organisation@internationalmensorganisation.cjb.net>
wrote in message news:fa7a7aec.0410080407.60b4e59f@posting.google.com...
The Bloodsport of Divorce
B A. Green
Imagine how a woman would feel if a man could petition for divorce and
have
her thrown out of the marital home? Imagine how a woman would feel if men
were automatically given custody? Imagine how a woman would feel if they
could only see their kid every other weekend? Imagine how a woman would
feel if her ex-husband denied her visitation to be vindictive and the
system did nothing about it.
You are describing Britain 100 years ago?
Or describing some other countries now?
Imagine special laws where a man could persecute his former wife by
falsely
accusing her of sex abuse or physical abuse.
Iran?
Imagine a system where a woman
would have to spend thousands to prove her innocence while a lying
ex-husband had no liability for telling such lies?
Not Iran then. Spending thousands would do no good.
Women would scream that
such a system was sexist, paternalistic, unjust, unfair, irresponsible and
injurious to both genders and the kids and they would be right. But this
is
the system, except fathers are the victims and mothers smugly accept the
maternal monopoly over children that the system has handed them.
Maybe in reaction to how opposite it was even 100 years ago?
This has been the system for at least forty years and social engineers are
getting exactly the results they want. What are some of the consequences
of
this state-enforced matriarchy? By destroying the balance of power in the
family the state provides a wonderful incentive to divorce. If custody
weren't a certainty, many young women would find a way to resolve
conflicts
instead of resorting to divorce.
Consider some of the problems:
1) Divorce is expensive, more expensive than most people understand. Often
it leads to bankruptcy. Because the state provides financial assistance
and
medical care, many young women joyously jump into the social safety net
only to hit the bricks. Life is then composed of harder options than in
the
lost marriage.
2) Although there is aggressive collection of child support, there is not
aggressive enforcement of visitation.
Agressive collection of child support in which country?
In Britain, something like a third of assessments made by a certain
department are paid in full.
Not very agressive collection.
I can't think of any country offhand that could be said to have agressive
collection of child support. Some may want aggressive collection, but seems
like none actually manage it.
Women generally understand that they
can use the children to formalize acts of revenge. Turning the children
against dad is a favorite sport. Denying or frustrating visitation is a
standard post divorce strategy for most women.
Not limited to women of course. Men can and do turn the children against the
women too.
3) Post-divorce the kids quickly learn that dad is a big, dumb, powerless
fairy that you hustle for bucks. Mom has all the power. The kids quickly
learn how to work both ends against the middle. The disadvantage of
disempowering dad is that there is no enforcer of a family moral order.
Eh?
So are you suggesting that only dads can enforce family moral order? Is that
some standardised moral order, or based on the parents?
Especially for boys, mom is not an obstacle to early entry to sex, drugs
and crime.
Why especially for boys in particular?
Has there been some study done suggesting that?
However, there is one advantage; in this manner millions of
clients are being created for the welfare state and criminal justice
system.
4) The system has no ethical standards at all about post divorce
co-habitation.
You would perhaps try and enforce ethical standards?
It is not uncommon for children to have to live with a
succession of unrelated renegade males. The system does not even protect
the children from mom moving an ex-con, a child molester, an alcoholic, a
drug addict or a known child abuser; this over the objections of the
father.
And where the kids live with the father, or stay overnight with the father,
there is a similar lack of background checks of new partners.
Hey, lets do full backgound checks of mum and dad's new partners before
cohabitation is allowed. That would please everyone?
The dangers posed to children contradict the state's claim that it
is acting to promote the "best interest of the children." Such a claim
would be laughable if it weren't so utterly tragic.
Hmmm....aren't there claims that more women abuse kids than men do? Yet how
many are concerned about dad's new partner?
5) The matriarchy reveals the depth of its malice toward men in abortion
laws. A wife can abort her child without consent of the father. Even if
the
father desires to assume full responsibility of his unborn child, the
mother has the dictatorial right to kill the child anyway. In essence the
system regards men as "sperm donors." The system strips the father of his
fatherhood and then identifies him as a mere "visitor." He's a wallet for
sure and nothing more.
Would people want that situation reversed? Carry the baby to term because
the father demands it?
What if the two adults disagree? The Solomon solution?
Martin <><
6) It has long been the goal of socialistic utopian planners to destroy
the
traditional family and replace it with a socialistic, collectivist,
blended
family; one that's been through the blender. For example the Communist
Manifesto clearly identifies destruction of the traditional family as a
prerequisite to installing a totalitarian system. If one seeks insight
into
why family law is what it is, one will arrive on the doorstep of the
state's hidden agenda. The goal is to destroy the traditional family. By
shifting the balance of power in the family, the state could essentially
eliminate divorce. By imposing joint physical custody and paternal family
custody (where appropriate) the state could greatly reduce the incentive
to
divorce.
I am not optimistic. The divorce industry is a bloodsport and is run by
predatorial attorneys (a redundancy) who support subjective laws, social
engineering and universal female custody upon demand. The goal of the
state
is to destroy the traditional family and it solicits the help of the guild
of attorneys who exploit divorce conflicts for money. To "reconstruct"
society one must first "deconstruct" it. That is the goal.
=======================
via
International Mens Organisation
http://internationalmensorganisation.cjb.net
Fathers Fighting Injustice
