Feminist-Controlled Family Court Laws and Procedures Give Women Incentive to Divorce
© Shane Flait (2011)

I’ve done nothing wrong and I’m a fit parent. So will I be able to parent and directly care for my children after a divorce or paternity suit?  Yes, if you’re a mother; just sit tight and insinuate misgivings about the father. No, if you’re a father; you get the run-around so it’s not obvious that you won’t, nor why you won’. Here’s why.

Today, feminism – geared to the empowerment of women – has achieved integration into government at all levels. Unfortunately, feminism does not advocate for equal opportunity for women under equal ability to perform – as most of the public are duped to believe.

As now integrated into the judicial system, feminism fosters and imposes women’s empowerment based on asserting the need for ‘greater good excuse’ laws specifically for women that take precedence over the fundamental rights and protections of men. Why – because it asserts that women are easily victimized by men who are naturally abusers of women; and that long standing jurisprudence is inadequate for women’s redress of this alleged sexual inequity. This garbage propaganda represents the invidious sex discrimination against men that anchors state-imposed feminism.

Of course, any ‘greater good’ law that supersedes our fundamental rights and protections supposedly secured by our constitution would void our rights and represent a state tyranny. Our individual rights and protections are the greater good of a free republic.

Nevertheless, the continually renewed Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) funds state agencies to implement arrest and prosecution procedures that directly violates long-standing fundamental rights and protections of jurisprudence when applied to men. The unconstitutional safety of women abuse excuse process it creates operates as a ‘greater good excuse’ law. This excuse complements the other feminist-supported ‘best interest of the child’ greater good excuse.   

Of course, never are such laws referred to as rights-denying ‘greater good’ excuses. That’s too revealing. The public would be upset if they knew their constitutional rights were being taken from them – superseded by something else. So feminists quickly sidestep such a confrontation just like those imposing women’s privileges cloak them as ‘women’s rights’.

You need only investigate the benefits that women receive at the expense of the fundamental rights denied others – mostly men - to ascertain the unconstitutional privileges that ‘women’s empowerment’ means.  The twisted legal justification of denying fundamental rights to men for the benefit of women comes under feminist-instituted ‘social justice’ for women legally characterized as feminist jurisprudence.

A ‘greater good excuse’ law is promoted for all the ‘good’ that it can and does do – according to well-funded feminist propaganda. It’s most notorious legal perversion is the domestic restraining order (RO). A wife or mother can use the RO excuse law to allege abuse by a father to her or his children to immediately kick him out of his house, restrict him from his children and extort him for child support. It’s often used as the prelude for a woman’s filing for divorce or paternity against him in family court.

The family court is the government’s lynchpin for controlling and social engineering the most fundamental unit of society – the family. Historically, the family has represented a bulwark against government intrusion, a protection for all its members bonded by blood and the natural love and concern it engenders, and a repository of wealth for now and the future.

Feminism’s empowerment of women is most invidiously applied by restructuring the family into a matriarchy under both its ‘best interest of the child ‘and ‘abuse of women’ greater good excuses. Feminism is well known for defining the natural family of father and mother as oppressive to women. But feminism’s matriarchy must both deny rights to fathers and then enslave them for women’s empowerment. Just look at the outcomes of family court and government policies for proof.

The almost assured family court outcomes where such excuses are employed produce an enormous incentive for women to divorce their husbands or file paternity suits against fathers. Doing so allows a mother with the state’s help and enforcement to take over his family by virtually kidnapping his children from him and then robbing him of his wealth and extort much of his future income under the phony phrase of child support – money she can do anything she wants with. END

 

 

 

Shane Flait writes on issues confronting freedom