The International Symbol for Marriage

I saw this and had to share it.

Click here for more.

Gender Bias: No Cure for Domestic Violence By Lisa Scott

This article originally appeared in The Seattle Times © 2002*

October was Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Most articles and public-service announcements focused exclusively on female victims, while at the same time stereotyping all abusers as male. Federal laws such as the Violence Against Women Act codify gender discrimination and gender profiling.

Women's advocates claim that virtually all domestic-violence victims are women, therefore discrimination is justified. They repeat often-cited claims such as "the number one reason women age 16 to 40 end up in the emergency room is violence," "95 percent of domestic violence is committed by men" and "the chance of being victimized by an intimate partner is 10 times greater for a woman than a man."

Yet, these "statistics" cannot be verified and are repeatedly contradicted by both government and private studies. A Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report found the leading causes of women's injury-related emergency room visits are accidental falls, motor-vehicle accidents and accidental cuts. Homicide or injury purposely inflicted by others (including strangers and intimates) was the least likely cause, exceeded even by injuries due to animal bites and venomous plants (National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 1992 Emergency Department Summary).

Proof that women are not the only victims of domestic violence appears in the 1998 Justice Department report "Intimate Partner Violence." Of 1,830 domestic-violence murders, 510, or almost one-third of the victims, were men. The study also indicated that males are 13 percent less likely to report being a victim of intimate violence than females.

Another 1998 Justice Department report, "Violence Against Women Survey,"Extensive research concludes that men and women are almost equally likely to initiate domestic violence. While women may be more severely injured when domestic violence escalates, they can and do commit serious crimes of violence against men. Women's advocates continually downplay the existence of female violence. This obscures the fact that men are at risk of being victimized, and leaves them less prepared for the potential for violence against them.

Should an important public policy debate be about which sex is the most important victim? Should a female victim be more important than a male victim? Was Melanie Edwards (murdered by her husband in a divorce/custody battle) more important than Chuck Leonard (murdered by his wife in a divorce/custody battle)? Was Gertrudes Lamson (shot and killed by her husband) more important than Donyea Jones (doused with gasoline, set afire, and burned to death by his wife)?

Many male victims are ignored or ridiculed by a system that seems to recognize only female victims. When women are the abusers, they are more often than not given a pass. Recent cases with which I have personal experience involve men who have been hit, punched, gouged, choked and threatened with weapons by their spouses. Despite reports to police, none of the women were charged with crimes.

These local cases, and their numerous national counterparts, demonstrate that domestic violence is not the sole province of male perpetrators and female victims. Yet, we are constantly told that women are the only ones at risk. Had there been more education about the potential for violence by both men and women, men like Chuck Leonard and Donyea Jones may have been able to take precautions and avoid a deadly risk.

Myths and distortions about male and female violence have no place in the debate about stopping domestic violence. Despite a continual barrage of reports about how epidemic domestic violence has become, the truth is that most men and women are law-abiding citizens, loving spouses and caring parents. The 1998 "Intimate Partner Violence" report indicates steep declines in domestic violence against both men and women. The Justice Department numbers cited above indicate that only 1.3 percent of women (and .9 percent of men) are actually victimized each year.

Yet, domestic-violence advocates promote the myth that American women live in constant terror of violence from husbands or boyfriends. It is simply irresponsible to falsely demonize fully 50 percent of the population, further fanning the flames of gender warfare.

During Domestic Violence Awareness Month, let's not let the zeal to protect one class of victims perpetuate a bias that unfairly stereotypes an entire gender. It is noble and well-meaning to advocate for female victims. Yet, denying the existence of male victims of female violence demeans and ignores these victims, puts them at further risk and reduces the likelihood that female abusers will be held accountable for their crimes.

Lisa Scott is a Bellevue, WA attorney focusing primarily on family law, divorce and domestic violence. She is also a founding member of TABS, Taking Action against Bias in the System.

*This article originally appeared in The Seattle Times and is reprinted here with permission of the author. The links are added for this post and are as applicable as possible. More recent reports are used as links where the original reference is not available.

Click here for more.

Do Boys Die for Girl Power?

A recent Seattle PI has a poignant column about a recent spate of teen suicides in King County. It makes you think, but the reporter, Claudia Rowe, refused to dwell on the most important characteristic three recent suicides in the Seattle area shared - they were all boys. Not surprisingly, neither Vagina Warrior Susan Paynter nor the PI Editorial Board deemed it necessary to point out this simple fact in their related columns today.

In an age when politicians are irresponsible enough to make impossible promises like, "Even one ________ is too many," or, "Zero tolerance," it is easy to loose sight of the simple fact that we cannot prevent every tragedy. Some kids, as with some adults, will commit suicide. Some will die in car accidents, some will become paraplegics on the high school football field, and others will get involved in drugs or crime. These things will happen, seemingly randomly, despite our best efforts.

I suspect many of our readers have crossed paths with suicide. I did a while ago when the son of a family that lived just behind my own family's home committed suicide in high school. He was five years younger and I had already gone off to college by the time this occurred. I came home for the funeral to find his parents and sister lost in the inexplicable.

He seemed to be a happy kid when I last saw him proudly driving by my parent's house in his red convertible Mustang, waving to me. From everything I heard, he was a popular kid in school and I know his parents maintained a stable and comfortable home for him. There were no answers then and there still are none. Sometimes, these things just happen.

To admit this reality of the human condition is not to give up or become complacent in our efforts to avoid tragedy when possible. It does help set the stage for accepting the inevitable when we are unlucky enough to have it cross our paths.

After all, to completely avoid any sort of tragedy involving our children, we would have to coddle them to such a degree that they would never be able to function in the world outside our homes. And, as most parents of teenagers know, a teenager wants to be spoiled, but not necessarily coddled, so efforts you make in that regard are likely not to succeed anyway. But, this does not excuse us from examining the nature of teen suicide and the environment that might promote it.

In so doing, one has to ask why the rate of teenage male suicide is five times that of teenage female suicide. In fact, the media rarely notes this reality, even though the statistic is as cold, hard, and indisputable as a corpse. This is one of the most pressing mysteries of our time.

Any other statistic of such magnitude would surely receive immense attention. Schools were practically turned upside in the early 1990s when Carol Gilligan said that girls "loose their voice" in high school. She had no scientific evidence to support her claim as she based it on nothing more than anecdotal stories. But, with hundreds of women studies programs in universities around the country preaching the gender feminist doctrine, and vocal women's groups hogging media attention, politicians and school officials jumped on cue. This was a sign, said gender feminists, of the point in women's lives where the dreaded patriarchy begins its oppression of women. In your face "girl power" had thus begun.

Now, schools have effectively squeezed many of the things boys need out of the system. School environments as well as curriculums have been feminized and a war has been raging, according to Christina Hoff-Sommers, on boys for years. As a result, boys have dramatically lower grade point averages than girls, are several times more likely to drop out of school, and are now a minority on college campuses.

And, all the while, they have been committing suicide at astounding rates with nary a peep from politicians, school administrators, or the media. Even the PI's article, which focused on three recent suicides of boys, could do no more than note that boys commit suicide at five times the rate of girls. There was no further reflection on why this disparity exists.

Some might say that the world is a gloomier place than it once was, with terrorist attacks, war in Iraq, and the political divide the media so loves to exaggerate and exploit. But, previous generations have faced similarly gloomy and perhaps more ominous times. The 1970's saw Watergate, economic stagnation, accelerating inflation, OPEC cartels, the depths of the cold war, and a hostage crisis in Iran that the US seemed completely incapable of handling. But, the rate of teen suicide tripled only after that gloomy decade as things improved overall for the country in the 1980s. Both girls and boys are affected equally be the ramifications of these events in their daily lives, so the national or global outlook does not explain why the suicide rate for boys is five times higher than it is for girls.

For its part, the PI chose to focus on the pressures high school kids face to succeed. This pressure may be greater than it once was, but that does not seem likely. There is no evidence of that and, again, this does not explain the disparity in teen suicide rates between boys and girls. The PI also alluded to the possibility of a trend, with guys immitating each other. But the rate has been high for several years now and trends move quickly through American youth.

There is one trend that is hard to deny, however. Boys are growing up in a culture that has institutionalized a strong bias against so many things that are natural, even biologically imperative, for them. Schools have taken the action out of their curriculum, favoring subtle and nuanced feelings that are more the world of the feminine. Boys, who need to run, test each other, and form hierarchies as a natural course of development, are instead being told to sit quietly through hours of school work they find boring.

If they cannot calm themselves, they are given Ritalin. Seattle public schools even mandate that many boys be given Ritalin before they can enroll.

The indoctrination of boys with the loathing of gender feminists begins early. Boys are barraged with messages that they are naturally inclined to violence and taught to despise themselves by teachers and school administrators who are all too often steeped in the ideology and bizarre theories of women studies programs. They see commercials on TV with little boys being told that they need to recognize their inner male demon before they grow up to be wife beaters. They attend schools were girls wear t-shirts that say, "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them." And, increasingly, the structure and discipline provided by fathers is not present. Many of these fathers are driven out of their boy's lives by family courts that see them as nothing more than a source of child support.

All the while, as the world has turned against them and the attacks on everything they find natural are formed around them, they are faced with at least the same academic pressures as generations before. Is this the reason for the flurry of teen boy suicides? One cannot say for certain, but it is worth an honest look.

It is also high time for gender feminists to take a step back and take a good hard look at their own culture and what it has wreaked. Women studies departments are in place around every corner and receive state and federal funds. The infrastructure is there, the tenured professors have the time, and eager young college students are there to listen. Women frozen out of gender feminist discourse because of its intolerance for diverse views are doing their own re-examination of feminism in their own organizations, such as the Independent Women's Forum and iFeminists. Gender feminists should do the same.

You asked for it ladies; you got a room of your own. Perhaps that room should be used more wisely. Or, teenage boys may continue to die.

Click here for more.

What is Feminism Today?

My faith in women is restored, somewhat. Reading through on of my favorite blogs I came across the notion that there are two types of feminists today.

The "gender feminist" is what we are all familiar with. This is the man-hating breed.

I was astonished to discover that there are other types of feminists that have broken away from the bitter, spiteful sisterhood of man-hate. iFeminists and Independent Women's Forum represent a huge body of women that feel differently about what feminism stands for. I applaud you for your efforts and hope to hear more of the same.

I have learned to fear women and was fighting a losing battle towards misogyny until I ran across this. If I hear more from these types of women I may actually develop the confidence to date again.

Click here for more.

How to Destroy a Nuclear Physicist

In 1976 Anthony W. Laine married Mary Ann Phillips and they resided in Georgia. However, after their marriage Mary Ann made frequent trips back to the Clinton area of Tennessee, ostensibly to see her family. Often these trips extended for several months.

A first child, a boy, was born in October 1977.
In January 1978 Mary went back to Tennessee again to "see her family." She left a note for Tony ordering him not to call her or ever try to contact her again. In September 1978 she gave birth to a second child, a girl, but never told Tony she was pregnant or had any further contact with him.

By late 1978 Mary Ann had found a new love and filed for divorce in Tennessee. She arranged for Tony to be stripped of his parental rights (assuming he was the father of her children) by claiming that her husband-to-be, David Jarnigan, intended to legally adopt both her children as soon as they marry. As a result Mary Ann is not awarded any spousal or child support. Her divorce from Tony is finalized in 1979, after which Tony is notified of the proceedings. It is only after the divorce that Tony discovers that he supposedly has a daughter.

Tony never sees Mary Ann again.

Despite the breakup of his marriage to Mary Ann and the loss of his(?) children, Tony, who has a Bachelor's Degree in Electrical Engineering from the Century University in 1985. After completion of his doctorate Tony began a career in aircraft avionics investigating such areas as radio frequency interference, electromagnetic interference, electromagnetic pulses from nuclear events, electronic countermeasures, lightning strikes, and nuclear event hardness for both commercial and government aircraft. As is common with research scientists and consultants, Dr. Laine's work takes him to many locations:

1986-1987 - Fort Wayne, Indiana
1987-1989 - Litchfield Park, Arizona
1990-1995 - Phoenix, Arizona
1996 - Ontario, Canada
1997-1999 - St. Louis, Missouri
2000 - Chesterfield, Missouri
2000-2001 - Phoenix, Arizona
2002-2003 - Lakehurst, New Jersey (they still have a home there)
late 2003-early 2004 - Huntsville, Alabama
2004-present - Baltimore, Maryland
In 1983, Tony met and married Donna, his current wife.

Conversely, Mary Ann's marriage to Jarnigan has problems as he apparently refuses to work . In 1988 she goes on welfare in Tennessee where she had been living in Anderson County. She received welfare benefits between 1988 and l990, at which time she got a divorce from Jarnigan and went to school to get a nursing degree. During and after her marriage to Jarnigan, she has two more children but does not go on welfare again.

It was Tony's belief that David Jarnigan had adopted Mary Ann's two oldest children but there was no proof. Adoption records are sealed in Tennessee and rarely opened.
In 1991, Tony was contacted by Maximus/Child Support Enforcement also demanded that Tony pay for the two years Mary Ann Jarnigan was on welfare even though she was married to David Jarnigan during that entire period and her brief marriage to Tony had ended 10 years before she went on the dole. Maximus also demanded a "reimbursement" from Tony in the amount of $11,489 for Mary Ann, her two children from 1977 and 1978, and for David Jarnigan's two children. This included $1,000 per month for child support ($250 per child), full-service medical insurance, spousal support (even though Mary Ann had remarried immediately after divorcing Tony), and reimbursement for the state.

Tony and his wife, Donna, were living near Phoenix, Arizona at the time. Reacting to this demand from Maximus/Child Support Enforcement of Tennessee, the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, stated that the case "smells like a bad kettle of fish" and awarded only $300/per month in child support ($150/per child for the two children that are presumptively his) and $50/per month for reimbursement in lieu of full-service medical coverage to be held in trust in case the children needed medical care. The support order was only in effect until the children were emancipated, the youngest in 1996.

Tony paid the child support faithfully as ordered until the children reached majority. However, Maximus/Child Support Enforcement did not allow any communication of any kind between the parties and Tony never gets to know these children.

According to Mary Ann and her daughter Amanda (in 2004, after reconciliation of Tony and his daughter) she never received a dime in support after 1994 even though Tony was still paying Maximus. Since both Amanda and her brother were both grown when this information was offered, Tony feels they had no reason to lie about the situation for they would not receive any money in this matter. Mary Ann claims she had received only a small portion of the child support prior to 1994 even though Tony was actually ahead in his payments.

In 1998, two years after Tony's youngest child was emancipated, Maximus/Child Support Enforcement created a case in which Mary Ann was alleged to have had a male child two (2) months before that she claimed was Tony's. At this point Tony had had no contact with Mary Ann for 20 years.

Notice of this action by Maximus/Child Support Enforcement of Tennessee was served via a package from Missouri Child Support Enforcement where Tony was living at the time. Coincidentally, Missouri is another Maximus/Child Support Enforcement-controlled state. Enclosed in this package was a copy of a forged prenatal bill, a forged hospital bill, and a summons requiring Tony to appear in St. Louis County Superior Court to decide upon terms of child support. At this point his youngest child had been emancipated for the past 2 years and this was an apparent attempt to force payment for the next 18 years for a non-existent child. This appeared to be a "recycling" of the original 1991 case without providing justification for the action. Tony requested a DNA paternity test but that was immediately denied by Maximus/Child Support Enforcement in Tennessee on the basis that the "mother" would not allow a paternity test to be done.

Eventually, Tony was able to avoid this obligation by proving to the Missouri Court that he could not have been anywhere near Mary Ann at the time of the conception and the case was dismissed. In addition, in 2004 he learned that the alleged child never existed. The last child that Mary Ann had was in 1991, after which she had her Fallopian tubes ligated. This information surfaced in conversations between Mary Ann, Tony, and Amanda in 2004.

As is common in cases such as Tony's, child support enforcement never gives up. According to Maximus/Child Support Enforcement, a "Final Administrative Order" was filed in the St. Louis County Circuit Court in July 1999 claiming an "arrearage" of $11,000. A Tennessee case number was assigned in violation of federal law (one state cannot amend another state's original court order for child support and make a new case out of it) and this practice is illegal per decree of the U. S.. Supreme Court.

The new claim against Tony was made approximately two (2) months prior to the time Maximus/Child Support Enforcement in Tennessee asked the original court, the Superior Court in Maricopa County, Arizona (not a Maximus-controlled state) to close the case for enforcement if they had not already done so.

Unbeknownst to Tony, and after he moved out of Missouri, in 2001, Maximus/Child Support Enforcement in Missouri amended the 1999 administrative order from Tennessee to now state that there is an "arrearage" of more than $13,000 for child support. The amended order claimed that the original order was filed in "Maricopa, Tennessee," a place that does not exist. Further, the amended order stated that it is a Tennessee case, something it never has been. Recall that the original case was adjudicated in 1991 in Arizona, not Tennessee, and that Missouri never had jurisdiction in this case.

Tony received no notice that any further court or administrative proceedings were taking place in this matter, which should come as no surprise to readers of this newsletter. At the time of the claimed 1999 administrative order, Tony's son (?) was 22-years old and his daughter(?) was 21, married with one child of her own. Neither child ever went to college, yet Maximus/Child Support Enforcement obviously calculated the "arrearage" up until June 1999.

Most readers will have anticipated the next event. Based on the bogus arrearage, Tony's wages were garnished and liens placed on his property by Maximus/Child Support Enforcement in Missouri, even though they had no jurisdiction, he had moved out of the state in 2000, and the support order issued by an Arizona court had expired in 1996.

A Missouri Attorney General's investigation eventually proved that Maximus/Child Support Enforcement had no jurisdiction to enforce in July 2004 and they finally closed their case against Tony. His case was then returned to Tennessee. Note that Tony has never lived in Tennessee or had any court order entered against him there.

In April 2004 Maximus/Child Support Enforcement in Tennessee went to Maximus/Child Support Enforcement in New Jersey and asked them to start enforcement proceedings against Dr. Anthony Laine claiming an arrearage in excess of $10,500. The order used as a base in this case was the fraudulent "Maricopa, Tennessee" one from Missouri that was closed nearly a year before after an investigation by the Missouri Attorney General. It should not surprise our readers that Maximus/Child Support Enforcement in Tennessee never bothered to tell their New Jersey branch that Tony's case was closed by Maximus in Missouri.

Maximus/Child Support Enforcement in New Jersey automatically gave Maximus/Child Support Enforcement in Tennessee what they wanted in June 2004 without ever allowing Tony to defend himself. He was not permitted to question his accusers, present evidence showing that he does not owe any child support, or even speak in the "Hearing Officer's" court. She automatically "finds for the state" and alters the tape of the session to reflect that the"defendant declined to present any evidence that the debt is not owed." No court reporter is ever present in these hearings .

Tony has been trying to get someone in authority to listen to him. No one will hear him because everyone in the divorce industry, from the judges on down, all have something to gain by creating new cases to enforce. The judges consistently rule for Maximus/Child Support Enforcement no matter what the facts of the matter are, or what civil liberties are violated.

Following the Star Chamber hearing in July 2004, Ocean County, New Jersey, Probation Department, the entity that handles child support enforcement, started harassing Dr. Laine about the $10,000+ he allegedly owed in "back child support." He tried to get someone to listen to him when he says he does not owe anything, but to no avail, and his pleas fall on deaf ears. Dr. Laine then filed a , via the Internet, the ability to locate the man she believes to be her father. They finally meet and spend some time together.

Amanda at this time is 25 years old. This was the first opportunity Dr. Laine has ever had to actually meet or talk with his daughter and many long-standing questions are answered. Tony's son, however, will not even attempt to contact the man who is possibly his biological father.

Under constant harassment from New Jersey about the alleged debt , Dr. Laine began a publicity campaign, taking his story to the media (both nationwide and worldwide), the U. S. District Court, the President of the United States, Senators and Representatives, and fathers' rights groups. He has started numerous criminal investigations against Maximus through the FBI, Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission (because their stock is traded on the Exchange), the New Jersey Attorney General's Office, New Jersey State Police, Central Intelligence Agency (Maximus is in other countries) and the Administrative Office of the Courts, to name a few.

In retaliation, Maximus has become more relentless in their efforts to force Dr. Laine to pay their unwarranted claims.

In January 2004 Dr. Laine filed a civil rights violation lawsuit against Maximus/Child Support Enforcement in federal court. That case is still proceeding. Maximus/Child Support Enforcement tried to use the same excuse as in the RICO matter to get that case dismissed but the judge would not allow it.

In March 2005 two people posing as police detectives came to Dr. Laine's home in New Jersey saying they had a warrant for Anthony Laine's arrest. They refused to identify themselves or produce the "warrant" saying it was a "privacy issue." After Mrs. Laine persisted in asking who they were, they produced two badges that had the word DETECTIVE written across the front. These were obviously costume props. It was later discovered that there was no warrant at that time for Dr. Laine's arrest and the "detectives" were actually from the Ocean County Probation Office. Since they were unable to obtain the information they wanted from Mrs. Laine, they went to the neighbors and asked them to call if Dr. Laine should show up again. One of the neighbors reported him on April 15, 2005 and Anthony Laine was handcuffed and held for "ransom" in the Ocean County jail. At the time of his arrest, a warrant had been obtained from Judge Barbara Villano who was supposedly checking into his case at that time. Dr. Laine had believed that at last someone was looking at the evidence and making a decision based on the facts. He was wrong.

On April 21, 2005, after six days in jail, Dr. Laine was given a hearing before Judge E. David Millard. The hardship that this matter placed upon the Laine's was not a matter of consideration. The only question was how much money Dr. Laine would be obligated to pay and when.

Mrs. Laine had taken evidence to Judge Millard personally, showing that monies were not owed, but the documents were turned over to the judge's paralegal who returned them to Mrs. Laine without the judge having reviewed them. Judge Millard then ruled for Maximus/Child Support Enforcement. Dr. Laine's testimony and evidence that he did not owe child support was never heard or examined.
Note that Dr. Laine is bounced from judge to judge, not one of whom looks at the evidence or hears testimony. That is characteristic in these cases.

He was kept in the Ocean County Jail in New Jersey until he was able to come up with a minimum payment of $2000 cash for his release. Child Support Enforcement believed the $2000 to be "chump change" for him because of his advanced degrees. Unfortunately, he does not have the income level that most people are misguided enough to believe. As a result of this excessive payment and loss of wages while in jail, he and his wife ran the risk of having their electric, gas, and other utilities shut off and most of their bills were left unpaid, resulting in yet more harassment from collection agencies.

Incredibly, on April 29, 2005, Dr. Laine's wife received yet another notice from the Ocean County Probation Office stating that Dr. Laine was delinquent in his "child support payments." The $2000 he had paid just the week before to get out of jail was never posted to his account. Donna also received a letter from Judge Barbara Villano requiring Dr. Laine to appear in court for a hearing on May 4th where a "hearing officer" employed by Maximus/Child Support Enforcement would allegedly look at his evidence and decide if he indeed owed child support.

Donna Laine attempted to appear in place of her husband with power of attorney since Tony was unable to miss additional time from his work and is extremely leery of returning to New Jersey. She was not permitted to present any evidence and was told that only Dr. Laine or an attorney would be acceptable, otherwise she would be "practicing law without a license."

Dr. Laine and his wife already know the answer to the question of what happens if Tony goes back to New Jersey. The "hearing officer" will rule in Maximus/Child Support Enforcement's favor. If he had appeared for the hearing that his wife went to in his stead, he would immediately have been thrown back in jail for an undetermined amount of time to extort even more money from him.

Child Support Enforcement routinely does business this way. They create arrearages that have no basis in fact and then abuse the fathers to the point that they have no hope. The only way out for all too many of them is suicide. Then Child Support Enforcement tries to force the obligor's survivors to pay for the "outstanding debt" and they are soon driven to despair as well.

The saddest thing is that the only thing unusual about this story is that it involves a Ph.D. nuclear physicist whose work on nuclear, biological, and chemical agents is used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other government agencies to thwart terrorism against the United States of America. When Dr. Laine was confined in Ocean County, New Jersey for "bogus" child support the FBI called the jail immediately to see what they could do. Two New Jersey state police detectives came to the Ocean County Jail to see Dr. Laine, and stated "we do not know why you are here."

There is no Maricopa, Tennessee.

Our special thanks to Mrs. Donna Laine and Mrs. Elaine Weiss
for their help in compiling and editing this report.

Thanks to the Equal Justice Foundation for providing this report.

Click here for more.

The War On Masculinity

As every good feminist knows, any position held by a man is a position that could or should be held by a woman. Currently our male government workers quake with fear for their careers at the mention of N.O.W. and make decisions and rulings based on that fear. These men fear feminist reprisals and there is no oversight for this type of coercion. N.O.W. does the footwork for women who can't think for themselves and takes a violently aggressive stance for anti-male legislation. It recommends and supports feminist policy and openly attacks anyone who questions their motives. They challenge any man that disagrees with them by accusing them of being 'pro-domestic violence' or 'pro-abusive' and against equal rights. These men fear the potential for litigation. And of course, these men are afraid of N.O.W.'s voter's guide.

I found that by looking into the descriptions of the women’s studies classes at the University of Washington, just how far my tax dollars go toward fueling man hate. If you look carefully you will notice a nice soft introduction, leading then, into an emotionally charged history lesson that generates feelings about men that are projected onto my generation. I didn't try to prevent women from equality, in fact I support equal rights, but I'm guilty by gender. With this type of college education running our state it is easy to see how we have gone so wrong. N.O.W. is not as interested in equality as they are in pure power, as is evidenced by Gregiore's snatch and grab tactics for office and insuring that certain items get passed before she is ousted.

After seeing how much N.O.W. hates Bush Jr. I think I see more to like about him. Perhaps putting together our own voter's guide will have the same impact. In the short term it might be helpful to know whom N.O.W. likes and vote against them. N.O.W. seems a bit like an eight hundred pound gorilla to me right now. If we can't stop them, they will keep the pressure on until we are all collared or caged.

Click here for more.

Grieving Father Crucified by the Media

Does anyone else think that it is unusual that now, whenever children disappear, the media immediately either condemns the father or sees the need to announce to us all that he is released of suspicion? This is despite the fact that most cases that hit the media result in the man's name being cleared.

Steve Groene is a simple man distraught over the disappearance of his children. He is a divorced man who, wanting to spend more time with his children, got into an argument with his ex-wife because he wanted them to stay with him an extra night or two.

No one questions the role the ex-wife played in the argument, even though police say she was using drugs. Without the argument, as the father, Wolfinger would be immediately suspect because of the myth that father’s are somehow homicidal maniacs that are just waiting for an opportunity or excuse to harm their children. Add the argument with the ex-wife – the media would never criticize a woman for wanted to spend more time with her children and arguing to that effect, but jump on the father – and Wolfinger is crucified in the media.

This is the result of the pervasive anti-male, anti-father attitude that has crept up in our culture over the past two decades. Somehow, the scholarly research that demonstrates clearly that fathers are less likely to abuse their children than mothers is lost in the hysteria.

It harks back to John Mason, of run-away bride fame, who said that, "Statistically, I'm guilty." No, John Mason, statistically you are not guilty. Statistically, men and fathers work hard to provide for their families and are willing to lay their life on the line to protect them.

Meanwhile, a poor and suffering innocent man grieving and panicking over the disappearance of his children also must deal with a media and public that has been trained to reflexively point the finger at him.

No wonder so few men in King County want to take the risk of marriage and family.

Click here for more.

Is this "The Patriarchy"?

Reading the nonsense that comes out of the UW Women Studies department, you’d think that all men are part of a conspiratorial network that operates with the sole objective of oppressing women. Of course, this is utter nonsense. Such a paranoid perspective on the world should receive medical treatment, not state funds wasted on a bizarre curriculum.

There are, however, responsibilities that most boys are taught that they have. One of them is to help others in need. This ethic is taught so strongly to boys of almost all cultures that when they grow to be men, they often risk their own life without thought to help another. We all saw that when the firemen of the NYFD charged into the World Trade Center to rescue people and ultimately were crushed by the collapsing buildings.

Those NYFD men were trained to do that. More recently, some local Seattle heroes without specific training relied on their male instincts to dive into Lake Union to save a man attempting to commit suicide by driving his car into the lake.

Jim Barrett, Jan Bultman, Chris Cavanagh, John Dunato, Jim Dunn, Roger Hinton, Aaron Loehr, Shawn McCain, and Matt Williams, an ad hoc rescue team that did not know each other before, all formed a highly efficient group that risked their own lives in frigid water to save the man. Serious scholarly research shows us that forming teams to solve problems and accomplish goals is a natural skill that boys seem to be born with.

Even “patriarchy” hating Susan Paynter of the Seattle PI hailed the bravery of these men. Of course, she was careful not to mention that men do this all the time. The Seattle Police Department, known for implementing anti-patriarchy laws such as VAWA with gusto, even gave these men certificates of appreciation. Yes, it is hypocrisy for SPD to do that, but it shows that all hope is not lost among our city’s politically correct departments.

The “patriarchy” is not a conspiracy of men to oppress women as contemporary gender feminists would have you believe. If one can say that such a nebulas thing even exists, at the most, you can say that it is a set of responsibilities and a code of conduct that sends heroes like these into precarious waters to save another human.

Do you think you will see anything about that in the cynical and vituperative whining that comes out of such places as the UW Women Studies department or the Eastside Domestic Violence Program?

It will be a sad day when men finally decide, after years of government institutionalized attacks on their most basic rights, that it’s just not worth it to do what comes most natural.

Click here for more.

Judicial Invention - Diluting the Meaning of Marriage

Have you ever heard of a concept called “meretricious relationship”?

Well, don’t look it up in the dictionary, because you are likely to find a definition for “meretricious” like this:

1. Of or pertaining to prostitutes; having to do with prostitutes.
2. Alluring by vulgar or flashy display; gaudily and deceitfully ornamental; tawdry; as, "meretricious dress."
3. Based on pretense or insincerity; as, "a meretricious argument."

Strangely enough (but perhaps not surprisingly, given the institution we are talking about), a couple of decades ago the Washington State Supreme Court used the word “meretricious” to define an entirely new type of relationship over which the state can exert its power.

For historical reasons, Washington State does not have common law marriage. Common law marriage generally refers to the legal status of a couple (heterosexual presumably, unless you live in San Francisco) that has co-habited for an extended period (not necessarily seven years, as conventional wisdom would have it) and has presented themselves to their community as “married” even though they are not officially and legally married. The historical roots of common law marriage go back several centuries in England, when it wasn’t always possible for a couple to have access to an official ordained with the power to declare them married. In that age, before modern transportation, it was a practical solution to a straightforward problem.

Today, in the US, the vast majority of states do not recognize common law marriage. In most states, such a concept, whether it is called “common law marriage” or “meretricious relationship” cannot exist without an explicitly passed law by the state’s legislature. However, two state judicial systems, in fits of judicial activism, decided to create a concept entirely on their own. Unfortunately, Washington is one of those states (Oregon is the other). Yes, the courts have created an intractable problem for a practical solution in our modern world.

It is often tempting for couples to live together before marriage, or even if they never intend to get married. Eventually, most people find that having roommates is untenable or downright disruptive – most of us have our roommate nightmare stories, many more than one. But, because the cost of living in cities such as Seattle is so exorbitant, many unmarried people in their twenties, thirties, or even older, find that cohabiting with a girlfriend or a boyfriend is a pragmatic solution to a cost-of-living problem.

Think twice before you do it, though, because cohabition is exactly what meretricious is designed to cover. If you are in a relationship that a court finds to be “meretricious,” you may find yourself being subjected to community property laws created for the legal divorce of legal marriages. So, after cohabiting with a girlfriend or boyfriend, and accumulating some assets you consider your own, and later breaking up, you are one court filing away from having your former significant other taking you before a judge to get half of what you have worked hard to save.

Ironically, under the nebulous definition of “meretricious relationship” that has come out of Washington State’s Supreme Court, many divorce lawyers contend that you increase your chances of having your period of co-habitation deemed meretricious if you eventually get married to your live-in. If you eventually get divorced, you are likely to end up in a divorce court squabbling not only over assets acquired during marriage, but over those acquired prior to marriage as well.

Of course, this does not follow logically. If a couple gets married, they clearly are making a deliberate change from a non-married relationship to a married relationship. A bright line would seem to exist between “before” and “after” marriage. After all, if a couple does not deem there to be a difference between co-habiting while unmarried, and doing so after being legally married, why would they bother to get married? A statement is made by the very act of marriage that makes it natural to assume that, well, you weren’t married before you got married!

But, don’t try to find the logic in this. We are talking about the State of Washington, after all, where feelings take precedence over logic. This can be a huge mess for everyone involved, of course, except the divorce industry. Divorce lawyers routinely encourage claims of meretricious relationships in order to drive up the fees they get from the ensuing legal fight.

This problem has entirely resulted from the sloppy judicial activism of Washington State’s Supreme Court. Whether there should or should not be such a concept is beside the point. The problem is that cohabiting people do not have a clear law that came out of the legislature on which they can make decisions. Most people are hit by surprise with claims of a “meretricious relationship.” This is because most people do not read the obscure case law that comes out of a state’s Supreme Court. And, even if you do, the case law on the matter is limited because, after being depleted of financial resources by a contentious divorce case, so few people can afford to appeal a divorce court’s decision. What case law exists is all over the place (such as this compared to this).

So, what’s the solution? If you want to live with her, you could put together a “co-habitation agreement,” but the relevance of such an agreement in a family court, should you find yourself there, is not clear. The best solution is simply to bear the expense on your own and not live with her, even if that means you, or both of you, must live in a shack(s). If you are a guy, when you add the risk of landing in a divorce court after your break-up (even though you were never married!), to the risk of a false accusation of domestic violence (which happens more than you probably think), you are playing Russian roulette with your economic as well as physical liberty.

One final thought: With the nebulas status of “meretricious relationship,” could you imagine the havoc that would be wreaked if gay marriage were allowed in the state? You would then have to worry about the possibility of every same-sex roommate you ever had hauling you into court, claiming a sexual and “meretricious relationship,” and subjecting you to community property laws! I have never heard this nightmarish scenario mentioned in the debate over same sex marriages, but this would likely be the most egregious result. And, the Washington State Supreme Court is heading in just that direction.

Thus, from a practical standpoint, the concept of “meretricious relationship” should be eliminated by the courts. If not by the courts, then by the legislature. In the meantime, tone down the romance, drop her off at her place, and sleep in your own bed.

Ah, Seattle is such a lonely place for so many singles.

Click here for more.

Writings of a Caca Scholar

For those of you that still believe, or at least hope, that domestic violence laws are designed to protect women, check out this sad blog that calls itself Feral Scholar. You will find a collection of writing by deranged individuals that are obsessed with the “patriarchy” and constructing theories based on paranoia.

Read it closely, because these are the sorts of people, with their hatred of everything male, who have taken over the agenda at places like the Eastside Domestic Violence Program, which states an entirely concocted myth on it's front page that, "Domestic Violence is the leading cause of jnjury to women between the ages of 15 and 55." They are full of male loathing and blame all of their own shortcomings, inadequacies, and unattained dreams on a phantom bogeyman. They hope to destroy the bogeyman much the way a psychotic swings away at imagined demons.

Society generally tries to help those suffering mental illness, both out of concern for anyone that is suffering, as well as to protect the rest of society from their unpredictable and sometimes destructive behavior. Unfortunately, through the Violence Against Women Act, government became directly involved in feeding the delusions of these sociopaths and co-dependent on their hysteria. So, what in another time would have been a managed illness among a small percentage of the population has now become a cult of shared delusion. Worse, the cult is busy attacking half of the population simply because they exist.

I am not quite to the level of calling contemporary pathological feminism a form of genocidal behavoir, but I’m afraid that we are not far from that point.

Click here for more.

Who's Your Daddy?

Paternity fraud is finally making the news, at least in Los Angeles.

The American Association of Blood Banks reported that of 280,000 paternity tests conducted in 1999, 28% showed the man tested was not the father of his presumed child. Worse, in many states, a woman can pick a man at random out of the phonebook and put his name on her child’s birth certificate. If the man does not somehow gain extra sensory perception and quickly realize what has been done to him (he has 6 months in California), he can be ordered to pay child support of more than half of his income by a family court.

In many, if not most cases, once the poor guy finds out what has happened to him, he can’t even get out of the court enforced child support with DNA evidence. Not that getting that evidence is easy, because all the woman has to do is apply for a permanent restraining order against the man she is perpetrating fraud against, and he will find himself in jail if he goes anywhere near the child (who is supposedly his) in order collect a hair sample. Getting a court order for such a test usually involves many thousands of dollars in court fees.

Taron James, of Los Angeles, was hit with a default paternity judgment for a child that was not his. James proved in court that he was not the father with court ordered DNA evidence, but only after he was forced to make child support payments for over a decade. Amazingly, even though the court ruled that James was not the biological father of the child, it still would not reverse the child support judgment against James!

The court’s excuse? If they reversed the child support judgment, many women who have fraudulently extorted child support money from hapless men would loose their child support payments. Yes, you read that right – the courts of California are promoting and protecting fraud and extortion. Watch the TV news report here. Paternity fraud is the only known example of a victim of a crime having to pay the perpetrator.

Watch for this to become an issue in Washington State, the country’s leader in single mothers. Men in Washington have learned that marriage and family are sure fire ways to loose their most basic constitutional rights. In King County, for example, 46% of men in their 30’s have never been married. So, women in King County that want children often have to resort to getting pregnant without the consent of the men they are sleeping with.

Click here for more.

Liberals for Men?

As we have talked about here before, the men and father’s movement is growing and becoming more organized. This is what tends to happen when a group is under continuous and unfair assault.

With the men’s voting block growing, the question now is which political party will pick up on this movement? We have thought that it would not be one of the major parties. The Democrats seem far too beholden to the feminist victim cult. Republicans seem afraid to overtly align themselves with men’s and father’s issues and, anyway, they are far to distracted by issues such as abortion to take notice of the plight of fathers at the hands of government. So, we have believed that it might be a third party that picks up on the growing anger among men.

But, perhaps we are wrong. Air America, the self-avowed liberal radio network, recently had Glenn Sacks on the air. The host of the program, Charles Goyette, seemed relatively sympathetic to the problems faced by men and fathers.

You say that’s hard to believe? Well, listen to it here!

Click here for more.

Wrestling the Irrational

While the Seattle Silly Times glorifies a father that wants to sue his middle school aged daughter’s way into wrestling matches against unwilling boy opponents, we should pause for a moment to reflect. Since the mainstream media will only focus on the so-called “civil rights” and politically correct aspects of this story, we should focus on the rational reasons for why it is not always acceptable to force little boys to wrestle with little girls. In fact, we should focus on the basic rights of our boys.

In her landmark book on the plight of boys in our public schools entitled The War Against Boys, Christina Hoff Sommers the hostile environment boys encounter in public education (and private universities, for that matter). Hoff Sommers, a recognized and serious scholar, was moved to write her book after the ridiculous mid-1990’s claim that girls “loose their voice” in high school. She wanted to learn more, but found that the claim was baseless. Worse, she found that boys show very tangible evidence that the feminized public school environment is having a real and very negative effect on their development.

The problems she found included the fact that teen boys are several times more likely than teen girls to drop out of high should or commit suicide. Moreover, the boys that remain in school are far underachieving girls. If anything, she conncluded, boys have their voice muzzled in schools that are dominated by the politically correct and feminized agenda of our nation’s public school system.

And then there is Title IX, which mandates that equal money be spent on male and female sports in all publicly funded schools. The number of opportunities created for women athletes has increased and that is very positive, but the irrational implementation of Title IX has demolished an even greater number of athletic opportunities for boys and men. Within college sports, for example, there is no adjustment made for the money raised by men’s football and basketball, which financially support all of the other programs in a schools athletic program.

Because football has so many players, the only way to have equal numbers of male and female athletes in many universities is to eliminate male sports programs. For example, many men’s wrestling programs in universities across the country have been eliminated in order to reduce the number of men in sports and balance them with the number of females. Often, this is done because colleges just cannot find enough young women that want to participate in sports.

With that backdrop, it is not hard to believe that Meaghan Connors’ father would be threatening law suites simply because boys on the wrestling teams of private schools choose to forfeit their matches to her instead of wrestle a girl. The “offending” private schools are all Christian and they claim that it is inappropriate for girls and boys to be making such close physical contact. Why it is that Meaghan Connors’ father believes that he can force a little boy to wrestle his daughter when his beliefs, and those of his parents and his school forbid it, is anybody’s guess.

Any rational person would have to say that Mr. Connors’ is wrong. In fact, we would go even further. No boy in a public school should be forced to wrestle Meaghan, period. Even though the radical feminists that run our public schools will never admit it, there are major developmental differences between boys and girls. Girls tend to physically mature much more quickly than boys. In fact, walk around any middle school and you will find that girls on average are taller and larger than boys.

Is it fair to match up smaller boys against larger girls in a wrestling match? They don’t do that in high school or college where it would not even be a match up. But, the humiliation a boy would feel (in the subsequent ribbing) seems not to be a concern for the feminists that run public schools. In fact, they seem to enjoy the idea of bashing an adolescent male’s ego while it is in its formative years. Indeed, they hope it will have a lasting impact on the poor kid.

No, forcing boys to wrestle girls is not a good idea. The fact that Seattle area public schools routinely do this is an indication of the destructive pathology of feminism. And, it shows that boys are second class citizens in our public schools. In a system that seems to believe that self-esteem is more important that learning the 4 R’s, you would be reasonable to expect that they would care about the awkward position they are putting boys into. But, in fact, they relish.

Click here for more.

Are Women Really Equal?

My ex makes more money than I and we share custody (about 60/40). Yet I still have to pay her child support. In fact, she makes ALOT more money than I but she seems to do less with it. Sometimes I feel like I'm renting my child.

We have an unconstitutional law on the books right now called the Violence Against Women Act. This is unconstitutional because it targets a single demographic. That's like saying you have to sit in the back of the bus because you aren't female. Did this law save Lacey Peterson? Will it save anyone? We have another bill trying to be passed that is engineered to empower women, called POWER or Protect Our Women in Every Relationship. Another sexist law that excludes help to half of our population.

I ask this, if women are truly equal to men, then why the double standard? Can't these sexist laws and obvious family court bias be seen as evidence that women are in fact, inferior? I have to help my ex financially and receive no help myself. I do ok without, but I'm a man and can do these things (even though she makes almost three times what I do). If women can, why don't they? Perhaps they really can't.

When we ALL play by the same rules, only then will we have equality.

Click here for more.

File Complaints Against Biased "Judges"

There is now a growing chorus of fathers who are angry with how they have been given the shaft in Washington’s Family Court system.

One father complained on the most recent Glenn Sacks radio program about Judge Susan Cooke of Skagit County. This man has custody of his children and has a restraining order against his unstable ex-wife. She also has several warrants for her arrest. She showed up unannounced at his home, ripped out a window screen, and attempted to pull one of the children through the window.

The two appeared before Judge Susan Cooke regarding custody issues. Judge Cooke berated the father for following court orders, and then told the woman that she “understands her behavior.”


Obviously, Judge Cooke has a bone to pick with fathers.

If you encounter a judge, like Judge Susan Cooke, that so flagrantly abuses her position and does not follow the law, you should report that judge to the Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct. You can do it on line here.

When you do, please document your complaint with a comment on this blog. None of us are naive enough to think that the so-called “Commission” will do anything but reward judges who are anti-father, but if enough people complain, and those complaints are documented, it will be hard for the politically correct anti-father legions of state government to ignore us forever.

Click here for more.

Clint Made My Day

Here is a great interview of Clint Eastwood where he talks about his generally libertarian views.

Eastwood makes a point that we have made several times in this blog. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats seem to be much interested in liberty and freedom now. As Clint say, the Republicans were once a party of libertarians, but are clearly evangelical at their core now. Democrats, who were once concerned about civil liberties, are now clearly much more interested in micro-managing our daily lives, balkanizing us and punishing groups that are out of favor (such as men), and making us as dependent on the government as possible.

A viable third party could easily form in today’s extremist environment. Most Americans hold views that overlap about equally with the positions of the two major parties. There are even views that the majority of Americans hold that neither party seems to be interested in.

All it might take is a catalyst. One possible catalyst could be among increasingly organized men’s and father’s rights groups. Both major parties ignore these groups with a vengeance. Democrats because of their alignment with socialist women’s groups, such as NOW; Republicans because their major preoccupation is with religious issues, such as abortion.

But, the plight of men and fathers in Western countries with governments that have institutionalized bigotry against them is increasingly a political opportunity for a third party to pick up on. Their voices are growing, becoming increasingly organized, and change will come.

Even the press is starting to reluctantly pay attention. Keep an eye out for an article in the New York Times this Sunday on the UK men’s group Fathers4Justice.

Click here for more.

Clear and obvious sexism in college

I was appalled when I read this article. It is a prime example of anti-male sexism in college. These vagina worshippers are emulating the behaviors they claim to be resisting. Is this happening at a college I will be forced to pay for? I heard it said once that if the family courts could get away with forcing us to pay for law school, it would then be a self-feeding closed loop.

Click here for more.

When Hysteria Takes Root

Mass hysteria is a dangerous social pathology. It even has a medical term: Mass Sociogenic Illness or MSI. History provides a number of examples of MSI, ranging from the Salem witch hunts to the internment of Japanese during World War II. We have a modern form of MSI infecting society today: domestic violence hysteria.

Run-away bride Jennifer Wilbanks provides the segway into examining this societal illness. While the cable TV networks slice and dice the Wilbanks story, presumably to fill the space they set aside for their hoped for Scott Peterson redux, they seem to miss the point entirely. News analysis focuses on whether she is guilty of something for her bizarre exodus. That’s a waste of time. Jennifer Wilbanks treated her family with utter disrespect and she will have to answer to them. Outside that fact, adult women are free to come and go as they please. The real story here is in what happened to John Mason, Jennifer’s fiancée, and how that relates to feminist mythology.

Contemporary feminist theory holds that we live in a patriarchal society in which women are oppressed by men. As a consequence, men are prone to physically abusing their wives and intimate partners. In fact, according to this ideology, every marriage is a patriarchal institution in which a man creates his own private Idaho of spousal abuse. This has inspired the Duluth model, which proports to explain how patriarchal "control" manifests in domestic violence against women (with its ridiculous "wheel of control"), and is used by such places at the Eastside Domestic Violence Program.

This is a load of hooey, of course, and would be easy to ignore as a view held on the margins of society. But, somehow, this odd and extreme ideology was given credence not long after the OJ Simpson trial. The passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) marked the government institutionalization of this view. VAWA is like a turbo-charger for the spread of the baseless belief that men are innately dangerous to women.

Through VAWA, the federal government spends billions of dollars per year to fund local governments in a full-scale assault on the most basic rights of men. Scholarly research before and after VAWA has shown clearly that men and women are equally likely to instigate violence within a relationship. The brutal murderer Clara Harris, who ran over her husband with his daughter in the car, and a series of Vagina Warriors raping adolescent boys are further evidence that violence and sexual misconduct are not a problem resulting from the patriarchy, but a human problem. This doesn’t matter, though, because when an MSI takes hold, reality and facts mean little.

This brings us to poor John Mason. Mason had to suffer the unthinkable horror of believing that his fiancée had been abducted. Even the most hopeful possibility, that Jennifer Wilbanks had simply gotten cold feet before their wedding day, was only a source of humiliation for him. But, in this age of exaggerated and usually made-up statistics about the behavior of men in a relationship, the cold comfort John received was to be named Suspect #1.

The police and the FBI were not willing to say it. But, after demanding a lie detector test and several intense interrogations, everyone knew that Mason was being blamed. The FBI and local police began building their case against Mason before anyone even knew what had happened to Jennifer. Meanwhile, the news networks set up shop in Duluth, GA and began what they hoped would be a long ratings boon of another man being lynched and hung. They were all accusing Mason (here and here for example) and salivating at their ratings prospects. When Jennifer finally phoned home, you could almost here the collective sighs of disappointment from news organizations across the country. Even Jennifer’s father said poor Mason was, “being crucified by the media.”

How did this happen? Well, according to contemporary wisdom, when a woman disappears her intimate male partner is most likely the culprit. Sadly, even John Mason bought into the mythology, commenting, “Statistically, I was guilty.”

The problem with this is that belief in such a statistic becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. By immediately assigning guilt to the man in the equation, and building a case against him before anyone even knows what happened, more men are falsely accused and as a result, falsely found guilty. This, of course, feeds the statistic that everyone points to, substantiating the myth. Could you imagine where innocent John Mason would be now if Jennifer had not turned up?

These sorts of events happen every day and out of the sight of media. When government becomes the chief agent for spreading MSI, as it has with VAWA, the results are devastating. Family Courts, particularly in Washington State, routinely strip a man of access to his home and his children on trumped up charges of domestic violence. These charges are more often than not baseless and are used by women as a tactic in divorce proceedings, usually with devastating results for the man. King County routinely hauls large numbers of men into jail each night on charges of upsetting their wives; these men end up in DV gulag, a soviet style re-education system that is designed to beat the “patriarchy” out of them.

Medical textbooks prescribe a cure for MSI:

The most powerful tool is for a calm authority figure to give clear and accurate information repeatedly, and to remain visible and available to provide updates and reassurance.

One would be reasonable to expect that leaders in government would stand up and be that authority figure that quells the irrational tide. But, with few men until recently connecting the dots on what has happened to them, there has been little political pressure for a cure to the disease. The Washington state legislature just perpetuated and exacerbated it, cynically assigning new fees to the cost of acquiring a marriage license and putting the money into an account for “domestic violence advocacy.” These “advocates” are usually social workers steeped in Women Studies ideology who find domestic violence in their morning coffee.

Recognizing a problem is the first step in solving it. Since the people we entrust with our governance do not step-up to the plate to cure the MSI plaguing our society, men will need to stand up and make it clear that this an issue on which they will vote. Groups like Fathers4Justice have had success fighting back in the UK and hero’s like Glenn Sacks have had some success fighting for father’s rights in the California legislature. The next step should be the repeal of VAWA when it comes up for re-authorization in September.

Washington State is far behind other parts of the country on coming to its senses. But, with a particularly viral form of MSI hysteria gripping this state, and men increasingly up in arms, it won’t be long before our voices are heard. In the meantime, whenever false charges are raised, we should all be yelling, “Remember Mason!”

Click here for more.