A Fathers Rights Judge?
Is it possible that Samuel Alito, new nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States is concerned with Men's Rights?
Well the man is concerned with carefully following the constitution - at least he says so, the following is from Alito's remarks upon being nominated:
Every time that I have entered the courtroom during the past 15 years, I have been mindful of the solemn responsibility that goes with service as a federal judge. Federal judges have the duty to interpret the Constitution and the laws faithfully and fairly, to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans, and to do these things with care and with restraint, always keeping in mind the limited role that the courts play in our constitutional system. And I pledge that if confirmed I will do everything within my power to fulfill that responsibility.
Sounds good, although I suppose it might be fluff, but Michelle Malkin alerts us to the following from US News , which I am sure makes gender femininsts' hair stand right on end:
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito was the sole dissenter on the Third Circuit, which struck a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking abortions to consult their husbands. He argued that many of the potential reasons for an abortion, such as "economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition . . . may be obviated by discussion prior to abortion." The case went on to the Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court's decision 6 to 3.
In the same article, his freedom of speech views draw interest:
Some observers say that Alito cannot be easily pigeon-holed. In Saxe v. State College Area School District, Alito, writing for the panel, argued that the school does not have the right to punish students for vulgar language or harassment when it doesn't disrupt the school day. "Sam struck that down as a violation of free speech," Kmiec says. "That's not a conservative outcome."
Men who find that their angry words are converted by a feminist court into criminal harrasment and who lose their children and residence as a result might take heart from that finding.
Strict Constitutionalism is clearly a strong pillar in support of men's rights, certainly a good sign for a men's activist on the court... but the idea that men might have a right to be consulted in the birth of a future child?
That's breathtaking.
There is a lot more to learn about this new nominee -he has an extensive record to review- but we can hope that he may play a key role in the challenges to our country's federally enforced enslavement of men that are currently brewing.
So there is some hope, wish I wasn't trapped in the trenches, and that I could wait for some case to liberate me.
My best to you in your struggles...
-M
Simulposted on MIsForMalevolent
Well the man is concerned with carefully following the constitution - at least he says so, the following is from Alito's remarks upon being nominated:
Every time that I have entered the courtroom during the past 15 years, I have been mindful of the solemn responsibility that goes with service as a federal judge. Federal judges have the duty to interpret the Constitution and the laws faithfully and fairly, to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans, and to do these things with care and with restraint, always keeping in mind the limited role that the courts play in our constitutional system. And I pledge that if confirmed I will do everything within my power to fulfill that responsibility.
Sounds good, although I suppose it might be fluff, but Michelle Malkin alerts us to the following from US News , which I am sure makes gender femininsts' hair stand right on end:
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito was the sole dissenter on the Third Circuit, which struck a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking abortions to consult their husbands. He argued that many of the potential reasons for an abortion, such as "economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition . . . may be obviated by discussion prior to abortion." The case went on to the Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court's decision 6 to 3.
In the same article, his freedom of speech views draw interest:
Some observers say that Alito cannot be easily pigeon-holed. In Saxe v. State College Area School District, Alito, writing for the panel, argued that the school does not have the right to punish students for vulgar language or harassment when it doesn't disrupt the school day. "Sam struck that down as a violation of free speech," Kmiec says. "That's not a conservative outcome."
Men who find that their angry words are converted by a feminist court into criminal harrasment and who lose their children and residence as a result might take heart from that finding.
Strict Constitutionalism is clearly a strong pillar in support of men's rights, certainly a good sign for a men's activist on the court... but the idea that men might have a right to be consulted in the birth of a future child?
That's breathtaking.
There is a lot more to learn about this new nominee -he has an extensive record to review- but we can hope that he may play a key role in the challenges to our country's federally enforced enslavement of men that are currently brewing.
So there is some hope, wish I wasn't trapped in the trenches, and that I could wait for some case to liberate me.
My best to you in your struggles...
-M
Simulposted on MIsForMalevolent
posted by MisAnDrope at 7:50 AM
6 Comments:
I would just like to comment and ask questions about your blog in general. Please don't take offense, I'm just trying to understand your point of view.
Is it your view that men are superior to women or that the genders are equal? Do you really believe that gender plays a significant role in who we are as people or is gender perhaps more of a societal mechnism for placing people into different roles? If you have to the time to answer I'd be very interested. Thank you.
Heh, there are a good number of people contributing to this blog, so I will offer my answer, which I think goes for all, and others will likely pitch in.
We believe:
That all men and women are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
And we believe that given the above, all men and women should be treated fairly and equally under the law.
If it seems that we are pointing out a lot of the 'crimes' of women on this site, it is only to provide some counterweight to a culture that seems to view men as fundamentally evil, and ignores crimes by women, or treats them as cases where the individual needs 'therapy', where a man committing the same crime would be vilified and locked away for many years. A classic example is domestic violence. It is VERY well documented that women commit essentially as much DV as men, and significantly more child abuse. But we have all kinds of laws and structures in place to punish men for DV and protect women... and little or nothing for the alternate cases.
And that is MY answer.
Regards,
-M
Hi Melissa,
My complete agreement with Misandrope's comments notwithstanding, I can only speak for myself. I was only recently invited onto this blog, so I can't say what the others might think besides what they have written in their posts.
Absolutely no, I do not believe that men are superior to women, nor that women are superior to men. We are different, yes, each with our own talents and failings and this supplies us with endless material for all kinds of discourse. Gender is biological, pure and simple -- we have different genes which express themselves in different ways (I use the word "express" in the technical, genetic sense). Evolution has shaped us to be suited to survive in the environment in which we evolved - that may seem tautological, but it is not. Since we have ourselves generated a radically different environment than that in which we evolved then our roles as individuals (as opposed to men and women) have also radically changed but our genes have not had time to catch up. Each of us must try to find a place in the big wide world while saddled with a set of instincts and level of adaptability which will vary from those of other people around us - evolution is nothing without variation.
If you take any group of people, men and women, you will be able to divide them into various roles. Take an office block: there will be the executives, secretaries, janitors, security guards, etc. Why is each of these individuals in the role in which they find themselves? In each case, the answer will be different, it will depend on their abilities and the history of the circumstances they have encountered every day of their lives up to this point.
That point about history is important, because what we do with our lives depends very much on the opportunities we encounter and the limitations placed on us by our surroundings. Our surroundings include the culture of human beings in which we share. Our culture judges us on our appearances, our acheivements, our personalities, etc. Many of these, perhaps most, are by definition not objective judgements. They are the agglomeration of opinions formed by those around us, from friends to bosses to enemies. Nevertheless, they will condition what we can do with our lives.
A culture that expects most secretaries to be women will tend to favor the path of women into that role. A culture that doesn't expect men to be secretaries will encourage them to go elsewhere. This will make some of us happy and others unhappy, and if enough momentum builds up behind the dissenters, things can be made to change. Gender clearly does play a role in who we are as people, the evidence is all around us, but that doesn't mean it should have an a priori effect in any given situation for any given individual. (Well, except perhaps in who gestates the baby. I think even the most ardent feminist would have trouble arguing over that one.)
Hopefully, in large part, we're getting smarter and better every day (although I confess I have my doubts). This ought to mean that we are becoming more objective and intelligent about our assessments of each other and less inclined to slot someone into a particular role because, for example, they are a man or a woman. As such, we ought to be moving towards a more humanitarian world in which everyone receives the respect and recognition that they deserve. We ought to be.
But it is a slow process which involves overcoming not so much our instincts but the preconceptions that have been laid down by the interaction of our instincts with our environment (i.e. of "society"). Much progress has been made in the western world over the last century in the arena of women's rights. We now think the idea that women should not be allowed to vote decidedly odd and would label anyone espousing such a view as a crank. Women have made huge gains in the workplace; some would argue it's still not enough, some wouldn't. The discussion continues.
So, the point: why I am here ought to be obvious from my writings. I think that the modern world isn't very hospitable to men in a number of ways. Likewise, I am well aware that there are ways in which the modern world is not very hospitable to women, but that is not what this blog is about. I think that we are surrounded by double-standards between the sexes, and I think that we should fight them. I think that, in some ways, the advances of feminism in promoting the freedom of women have not been balanced by an acceptence of men into other parts of life that are dominated by women. I think that there are certain "feminists" who want their cake and to eat it - to combine the advantages that women have historically had over men in some areas with the freedom to be equals of men in other areas. That is, they want to be "more than equal". The tactics used to acheive this range from subtle inuendo to outright legal injustice.
In my case in particular, I grew up on the understanding that a family was a partnership, each parent was as important to every child as the other, even if divorced. I was a fool. I have since learned that a father is largely disposable if the mother is sufficiently manipulative and should want it that way, many will let her get away with outright criminal behavior, almost fall over themselves to give her what she wants and will walk over the father to do so. I have encountered extensive prejudice in this regard, I have become disenfranchised as a father and I am now absent from my child's life despite my very best efforts to the contrary. I know, first hand, that the cards are readily stacked against fathers in divorce courts. I and my child have been betrayed by the system. Worse, I feel we have been betrayed by a system that I thought was trying to be humane and fair and therefore I supported it, in my own small, day-to-day way. In a previous post in my own blog, I have pointed out that we are worse than were the Victorians - back then, the father could take the kids from the mother, but then they'd have to leave her alone, nowadays, the mother can criminalize an innocent father, take the kids, half of everything plus a significant chunk of the father's future earnings, sometimes indefinitely. It is not only not fair, it is not right, I have something to say about it, and I say it here.
I agree with these gentlemen Melissa, and I encourage you to participate in this blog to the extent that you would like.
We started this blog primarily to function as a resource, mostly for men although it can be useful for women, who have been dealt with unfairly or discriminated against as fathers and men in custody and DV cases. I know how hard it is for a man to find help if he can’t pay for it. You can find the help you need through our links. This is a place to spotlight the inequalities in our culture the way it stands now, not thirty years ago. I have personally felt the sting of prejudice in our wonderfully liberated culture. It is REAL. I used to not believe other guys like me until it happened to me. I know I'm not the only one. The court pumps us out by the thousands. We need to know we are not alone and that we have a voice. We are here to raise the awareness about this bigotry that no one believes is happening until it happens to them or someone they love. Religious or not, men, women, fathers and mothers SHOULD all share in the equality our culture boasts. That is simply not the case and we are here to demonstrate that.
Oh, and by the way, it is ok to say you are angry about it here. I have seen too many pacifists getting nothing done. We are not here to lie down and take the beating that these pacifists seem to think is the ‘right’ way to pursue the men’s right movement. We are sick of the abuse and we are angry about it. That doesn’t make us wrong, anymore than the feminist movement's righteous indignation in the seventies was wrong. This is not some clicky club that has no room for those that don’t agree with me. I invited Perry Manley when no one else would have anything to do with him. Now he’s dead and everybody wants a piece of him. He said that would happen. He was right. EVERYONE who has something to say on the subject is welcome to say it here, even the angry ones.
You will notice if you read through the comments that I mean everyone, including the gender feminists. Speak your mind. I wont erase anything (except spam). Tell us what you really think. Don’t be afraid to say you are mad. That’s what we are here for. We give voice to what other’s are afraid to say.
Post a Comment
<< Main