Government Power and Money Assures More Tyranny under Feminist Greater Good Excuses
© Shane Flait (2011)

 

The divorce and domestic violence industry (DDVI), unlike the farming or manufacturing, doesn’t create real product. It’s a parasite industry of legal and police-related services and benefits funded by taxpayers and extortion of fathers. It wholly depends on unconstitutional court orders that rob fathers of their children and create abusers under phony laws. Its guaranteed state power and its feminist push for ‘safety of women’ and ‘the best interest of the child’ excuses assures more tyranny. Here’s how.

 

The last quarter of the 20^th century saw government initiatives force industry to make equal opportunity a fact for women and minorities. Aside from the fact that equal opportunity was occurring anyway, government forced quotas and the set-up of ‘human resources’ in all businesses to assure compliance with its dictates. The unrelenting and unlimited ability of government to sue industry brought industry to its knees to comply with whatever the government wanted. You can guess who determined what ‘government wanted’.

 

Discrimination was proven simply by under representation - not by unjust discrimination. The ‘reverse’ discrimination it created was ignored and the ‘end justifies the means’ slowly surfaced in legal decisions. ‘Equal opportunity’ was now just a propaganda front to social engineering and social-outcome policies in government, education and whatever else. If you plan to exist in the system, you better go along with the flow because PC and hate speech became part of the social enforcement propaganda.

 

Because of this, Women’s rights have evolved into using government to force benefits and privileges for women. The process is to acquire government funds to support legislation to legally force government and its subjects to comply with the ‘commendable-sounding women’s (and feminists’) issues. Women’s Rights organizations and government’s women’s offices uses the ‘safety of women’ issue to force feminist outcomes in family relations.

 

To bring this about, abuse of women had to be shown to be rampant and due to the abusive nature of men. The legal system in domestic relations had to be ‘updated’ to stop the abuse – stop the ‘victimization of women’. The propaganda grew with the hysteria – most of it completely made up. But what’s important is that the laws dealing with abuse were perverted so that any man could be charged with abuse – and ‘women must be believed’. So was born ‘feminist jurisprudence’ – laws by and for women based on denial of the fundamental protections for men when women make claims against them. It epitomizes the malicious sexism that state-imposed feminism necessarily relies upon. 

 

Enormous money was made available to support feminist jurisprudence through every step from gathering and educating women that they are abused, redefining how police shall arrest abusers and protect victims, how court processes shall deal with abusers and victims, and more. Of course the abusers were men and victims were women; the whole situation was prejudiced accordingly.

 

This feminist jurisprudence perverted criminal justice while eroding centuries-old constitutional protections:  

·         the presumption of innocence – of men - has been largely eliminated;

·         false accusations go unpunished even when made known

·         patently innocent people – i.e. men - are jailed without trial

·         legal processes are setup to invoke admissions of abuse by men to forestall more injustice against them, loss of their jobs, or more unjust jail time.

 

The restraining order (RO) issued against men represents less than a misdemeanour since no proof must be shown. It’s just the claim that a women is ‘in fear’ of him. Both the RO and simply the threat of an abuse claim by a women is sufficient to have an innocent father thrown out of his home, away from his children and forced – i.e. extorted under state enforcement and threat of jail - to pay the mother what is euphemistically called child support for whatever she wants to spend it on. Innocent violations of both ROs and extortion orders bring immediate criminal sanctions with virtually no constitutional protections.  

 

The outcome….a mother-headed family with the children divorced from their father- but supported by him at an impoverishing rate for up to 23 years. This is the essential family court outcome. No protection is accorded to preserve a fit father’s right to parent his own children. Any possibility of guaranteeing equal parenting to both parents even under the unjust process of the family court is thwarted by claims of the ‘abuse’ that mothers would incur under abusive men. 

 

The feministic perversion of both family courts and criminal courts has assured the creation of women-centered families based on father absence but father-supported. No parental right for fathers but only parental obligations to pay mothers money.

 

And the state-supported, parasite divorce and domestic violence industry composed of the judiciary, the state revenue departments, lawyers, and a host of ancillary legal and social attendants – and mothers – benefit from this outcome based on denying constitutional protections of fathers and men.

 

Years of feminist propaganda have infused itself into the judiciary. Feminist jurisprudence sees a father with only responsibility to pay the mother while denying him his constitutional and equal parental rights to his children. Why?,,, because it’s the ‘best interest of the child’ to do so - an interest so often associated with what the mother determines is ‘her best interest’.

 

The DDVI is powerful since it incorporates the judiciary, lawyer organizations, the executive enforcement – state and federal, and all its affiliate social workers. It is the authority to define and propagandize its need. And it does so relentlessly with unlimited dollars and too many benefactors. The villains it promulgates are ‘deadbeat dads’ and ‘abusers’ who are generally fit fathers denied their rights and protections under feminist jurisprudence.

 

Anyone objecting is obviously anti-women and for abuse – so goes the PC and Hate Speech propaganda.          ….What do you think! 

 

 

 

 

 

END