Some worthy points, perhaps.

The move to assign children to women in divorces predates the feminist and no-fault movements. The plight of fathers has certainly been part of the mainstream culture for at least a generation. I'm thinking of the tearjerker Kramer Versus Kramer as one instance of a divorced father getting a very sympathetic treatment, only to get shafted in court.

I don't find it particularly surprising that two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women. Wives are three times more likely to be on the receiving end of physical abuse than husbands.

I would hope that Baskerville's book is more than an ideology in search of a cause. It would seem healthy family dynamics are at risk from a number of factors, including those foisted on us by conservatives (materialism, the Fox network, etc.) as well as liberals. We also have roadblocks like substance abuse, military service, a mobile society of job transfers and suburban sprawl, and numerous other factors that popped into consideration at the same time as feminists.

I get nervous when people bandy about "quasi-totalitarian state" and like terms. Rather than call names, it would serve your argument better to describe what you know and see and let other reserve judgment on who it looks like and what kind of ideology is functioning.

I suspect that much of the ill Baskerville describes is more an error of oversight, rather than all-out malice. Lawyers, social workers, and others do society a great service and they truly strive to improve the lot in life for clients. And some are simply greedy or power-hungry. And we have enough conservative Republican examples of those qualities in business and politics, don't we?

Historically, there are four pillars of society:
1. Smallest numbers at any given time, longest duration: the 'family' or 'clan'
2. A quasi-monopoly on legitimate violence, codified laws, medium time scale: the government, city/state
3. Large scope, long lived, hierarchical organization, ultimate moral authority: The 'church' - associations of co-religionists bound to religious authorities.
4. Largest scope, shortest relevant time scale, most pervasive: the market.

Each of these has strengths and weaknesses, and interacting, they have all ebbed and flowed, occasionally absorbed each other. When the family absorbs the state, nepotism is a major problem and blood feuds spill over into wars. When the state pretends to the church, religion is co-opted. When religion absorbs the state, the church starts acting like an Emperor. When religion absorbs the market, the priests become auctioneers... just as bad. When the market absorbs religion, idol makers sell their wares on every corner.

In reality, we need all four in some rough balance. They can't be allowed to run over each other. Why are the statist liberals and the libertarians at each other's throats these days? Because the family and church are in such retreat that the market and government are the only two options - and some people want one to absorb the other, or vice versa.

What we need is both of them to retreat far far from where they are. We see people reminiscing for the Mafia, for goodness sakes, that's how starved they are for an effective family... let alone a potent church, from which excommunication means something temporally significant.

This is untrue. See:

http://tinyurl.com/6brj3o

The truth about violence in the home is that it's pretty much a 50-50 thing. Respected social scientists Murray A. Straus and David Gelles have been publishing research for years that shows the standard Only-Men-Batter story--probably visible on a billboard near you -- just doesn't match reality.
Women and men attack each other about equally in the home. Solid research now shows that women begin the physical fighting in their homes about half the time. Equally solid research shows that mothers are responsible for 65 per cent of physical abuse of children.

Although the words "domestic" violence are commonly used, some commentators say that a better description would be "shack-up" violence, because violence is most common, especially where children are involved where the woman is living with a boy friend. In a piece in the Weekly Standard last December by John A. Barnes, he cited four studies which show "that the incidence of abuse was an astounding 33 times higher in homes where the mother was cohabiting with an unrelated boyfriend than in a stable nuclear family."


Furthermore, of the women who initiate divorce, the majority are for reasons other than violence or physical abuse. See:

http://tinyurl.com/5cm7cx

The most common reason women give for leaving their husbands is "mental cruelty." When legal grounds for divorce are stated, about half report they have been emotionally abused. But the mental cruelty they describe is rarely the result of their husband's efforts to drive them crazy. It is usually husbands being indifferent, failing to communicate and demonstrating other forms of neglect.

Another reason for divorce reported almost as much as mental cruelty is "neglect" itself. These include both emotional abandonment and physical abandonment. Husbands that work away from the home, sometimes leaving their wives alone for weeks at a time, fall into this category.

When all forms of spousal neglect are grouped together, we find that it is far ahead of all the other reasons combined that women leave men. Surprisingly few women divorce because of physical abuse, infidelity, alcoholism, criminal behavior, fraud, or other serious grounds. In fact, I find myself bewildered by women in serious physical danger refusing to leave men that threaten their safety.

There is a reason why divorce is acceptable - and that is the political figures conservatives like to support are themselves divorced - some of them more than once. There is even a name for the sort of lady they marry the second time around: "trophy wife", a ringing endorsement of marriage, isn't it?

It was a joke that all the Republicans candidates had two three wives each, except for the Mormon. On the other hand Democrats tended to be still married to the first wife - even randy Bill Clinton held on to his marriage and tried to patch it up.

When a political coalition can take as a hero Newt Gingrich, who divorced a wife while she was recuperating from cancer surgery - and then cheatdd on his new wife, you can see why theys do not want to talk about divorce.

In my own experience with my ex-husband, our marriage was always threatened by other women who were more than willing to leave their husbands and disrupt their families in order to chase mine. I get extremely nervous when folks try to blame one gender over the other. Intrapersonal violence, affairs and addictions happen across the genders and all socio-economic levels. As an upper-middle class woman, I have met abusive, narcissistic men and women, in all walks of life. Thanks again, Jeff, for setting the record straight.

This was extremely well written. Thank you for not mincing words.

I spent 3 years travelling the country shooting a documentary about the breakdown of the American Family, and the effect family court had on the behavioral outcomes of children. The discoveries were chilling.

When I realized the film would take too long to finish and that the world needed the information NOW, I wrote the book "Every Single Girl's Guide to Her Future Husband's Last Divorce." My intent is to educate future second wives, have them protect their a$$ets, and cut off the revenue stream to the system. Once we eliminate the "squeeze" or "magic fountain" from the ways the system is fed, it will die.

Dr. Baskerville's points should be read and re-read carefully, because inside his book are many ways to resolve the current travesty of justice called family court.

As for domestic violence hysteria, See: Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting - mediaradar.org

This article and some of the comments remind me of the devil's trick to make Eve QUESTION what the LORD told her in the Garden of Eden when he said, "you will not surely die" (if you eat the forbidden fruit).

Or of the current Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi's response when asked recently on The View, why she took impeachment off the table, "IF some can show evidence of a crime..." (by the executive branch), as if she were unaware of Representative Kucinich's Thirty-five articles of impeachment.

The reviewer and some above are questioning whether Baskerville has exaggerated in "Taken Into Custody". What he describes can be hard to accept for those unaffected by the totalitarian family court system.

As an exiled, but FIT and CARING father whose three kids were brainwashed against me, I was forced into bankruptcy, had my drivers license suspended, my career derailed, and spent a total of nine months in jail for civil disobedience to illegal, uncontitutional sole custody orders by which the state of Virginia stole my kids, exactly as Stephen describes in his book, I assure you every word he speaks is true and accurate, with absolutely no exaggerations. I lived and still suffer from what he describes, and I know hundreds of other victimized parents, mostly fathers, whose fundamental right to be a parent has been stripped from them by this evil family law system.

God's first Institution: Family, can best be saved by firmly establishing in family courts the same principle cited in our Declaration of Independence by which African-Americans, women, and others have been elevated: EQUALITY, a self-evident, unalienable right.

Just as the slave trade and economy existed by denial of racial equality, the divorce/family destruction industry and economy are based on denial of gender equalily in most family dissolutions. Both involve human trafficking at the outset.

Though fit mothers are occasionally victims of state-sponsored child abductions, the vast majority of sole custody orders are issued against fit fathers, who receive the shock and awe treatment by judge imposters from the moment they step into their secretive courtrooms. The system purposely tilts the scales of justice by denial of due processs in order to create and perpetuate family law litigation, and thus profits for the divorce industry.

The shock and awe practices of our family courts described in "Taken Into Custody" are the real terrorist threat to our nation. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE FASCISM.

youtube.com/markyoung12
ExiledFathers.org

Thank you for reviewing such a powerful book so positively.

To toss a thought (or virtual hat) into the ring, what if, as my heading states, Dr.Baskerville has touched upon a situation even more insidious and perfidious than what he presents in his book.

To argue this I will only address one major area, massive numbers of men forced into what many define as a type of sepeku or form of forced ritual suicide. What if the number quoted on the American Association of Suicidology (AAS) is correct, nearly 20,000 more men commit suicide than women each year with the vast majority in the “parent ages”?

We are surpassing the deaths of men per year in Vietnam during that war by multipliers. In the last five years it would appear that these govermental and judicial policies may have caused the deaths of 20,000 of our best, brightest, healthiest men who were most committed to family. It takes a severe trauma and continued deprivitation to drive men in those numbers to take their own lives in despondency. If they did not care and had not been centered on their families and children, they would just walk away, indifferent.

The figures at the AAS website page www.suicidology.org/associations/1045/files/2005StatesGENDER.pdf show consistently men commit suicide in nearly every state at the rate of 5 men to every woman. When you look at other pages with age breakdowns and causes determined, you find that it is the men in the family rearing age and the issues are "relationship". If these figures were reversed by gender we would see a media feeding frenzy beyond anything seen since Pearl Harbor.

What if we have certain judges and attorneys whose actions consistently account for the majority of these deaths? After all, 20% of the fishermen catch 80% of the fish.

Would it be a surprise to discover new social programs now providing major funding to the same feminist social workers paid to help break up the families for counseling the grieving children who have lost their father forever? This is a system to make money at every turn. At the cost of 10,000 fathers a year.

Then an even more frightening thought is our full compliment of family law judges in this country have become so indifferent to the deaths of men that we have developed a new aberration for the West, Gendercide for profit?

Dr. Baskerville’s “Taken Into Custody” as with most groundbreaking books, introducing a new, yet disturbingly apparent, set of facts and suppositions, has only touched on the surface of individual and societal destruction wrought by these radical social experiments. These social experiments are steered exclusively by elements most hostile to our families, children, and women, the most radical male hating feminists and the most demagogic of our politicians.

The safest scenario for a woman is in a marriage relationship with the father of her children. It is the safest and healthiest for the children as well. It seems so simple.

Stan Rains
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Every father should read this book - particularly every American father.

The Catholic Church is deaf to the pleas of abandoned spouses but cries openly about the "poor adulterers" who "find" themselves in these "irregular relationships", WHICH THEY CHOSE TO MAKE BY SLEEPING WITH ANOTHER LOVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is a disgrace and it is disgusting.

But all we hear about is abortion, abortion, abortion!

We are told to "forgive" and to "move on" as the Catholic Church openly welcomes our persecutors, who steal our homes our children and our lives and our faith. Commutative justice is DENIED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

I left this horrendous Church because it cares nothing at all about truth or justice. It pushes fake mercy down our throats as we gag from its open heresy!

All of the American Bishops should be forced to resign and after he accepts them the Pope himself should resign. He and his predecessor are responsible for the lack of governance that has plagued the Catholic Church, especially in these issues for over thirty years.

"Saint" John Paul II, God forbid!!!!!

I have never been as proud to be a Catholic, as I am right now. InsideCatholic.com is helping to wake up the faithful to the evil presence that preys on heterosexuals who dare to raise children on this planet.

As a victim of Family Law and Child Support Enforcement in California, I have been a devoted follower of Stephen Baskerville since 2001 and have read everything he has written. Anyone who has attempted to challenge or rebut him has always ended up making his case even stronger.
(see "Stephen Baskerville - How does he do it?", "A Family Law pugilist, or a new breed of patriot?" at http://tinyurl.com/5ow99b)

Bills of Attainder passed by the Legislative branch, Indentured Servitude enforced by the Executive branch, and Debtor's Prison imposed by the Judicial branch are funded with an endless supply of fiat money printed by Globalists who wish to impoverish a nation and enslave our children.

The American Middle Class is not the only targets of the Globalists, as Baskerville points out in his book. England, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Italy, and other countries have a pestilence cast exclusively upon parents to divide and conquer (as Globalists tend to do).

Where is the Pope when you need him?

Claim: "The move to assign children to women in divorces predates the feminist and no-fault movements."

False. 120 years ago Elizabeth Cady Stanton, one of America's earliest feminists, was demanding that children be assigned to women after a divorce.

Claim: "The plight of fathers has certainly been part of the mainstream culture for at least a generation. I'm thinking of the tearjerker Kramer Versus Kramer as one instance of a divorced father getting a very sympathetic treatment, only to get shafted in court."

False. Whatever sympathy there may have been for Mr. Kramer in that movie was incidental to the cultural mainstream. By most people then as well as by most people today, the plight of Mr. Kramer is considered an unusual occurrance. An observant person will have noticed that since Kramer Versus Kramer, there has been less sympathy for divorced dads from the public and the politicians the public elects. Todd provided an example of a heart hardened against men and fathers with his follow up crack of, "I don't find it particularly surprising that two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women."

Claim: "Wives are three times more likely to be on the receiving end of physical abuse than husbands."

False. Women are more likely to physically abuse their men before marriage and after the knot is tied they are no less likely than their men to be the abuser. Why do such beliefs as Todd's persist against all evidence? Because a man abused by a woman is an object of shame who is shunned whereas when the situation is reversed the woman gets sympathy and support.

Claim: "I would hope that Baskerville's book is more than an ideology in search of a cause. ... I get nervous when people bandy about "quasi-totalitarian state" and like terms. Rather than call names, it would serve your argument better to describe what you know and see and let other reserve judgment on who it looks like and what kind of ideology is functioning."

Translation. "I'm covering my eyes and ears. I can't hear you!"

Claim: It's mostly the conservatives fault!

Response: There appears to be a large element of traditionalism in anyone who, as Todd and Adriana did, eagerly searches for any excuse at hand, however untrue or distorted, to excuse the bad behavior of women and blame/bash men. Thus we see leftists, social conservatives, and even libertarians defending the anti-man, anti-father status quo. This cultural disease of disrespecting fathers and disposing of dads transcends all the usual political categories.

The insanity of the USA Divorce courts is exactly the same as what we suffer in the United Kingdom.

My own child access case went to Court what is believed a world record 133 times and was heard by 33 different judges during my ten year battle to see my daughters.

Despite each of my three daughters making clear to all those who bothered to listen over the years that they wanted to see me and indeed live with me, these corrupt secret courts refused to take any notice of them simply because if they did they would have had to enforce this upon their mother. British courts enforce nothing at all upon mothers in family proceedings.

Because I refused to accept the ending of my contact with my daughters, I took to standing on the street corner and waving to them most mornings when the mother drove them to school.

But because the mother did n't like this, she complained to the court that my waving to my girls made her feel harassed, even though she refused to comply with the access orders for years.

The family courts, faced with a mother who refused to comply with access orders and a father who would not go away, simply JAILED me for waving to my own children as this happened outside my allocated visitation times, even though the mother refused to comply with it!

Not small sentences either; 4 months first time, ten months second time.

This utter nonsense only ended when my daughters became old enough to take the law into their own hands and ran away to me. Then the courts instantly went away, leaving us reunited and to live happily ever after.

That was over five years ago now, the full story is told in a book my daughters and I have written called FAMILY COURT HELL, available through all good bookshops such as amazon, etc.

I am not the best Catholic on earth. But I do know that the widespread encouragement for people to divorce has lead to the destruction of the family unit much to the detriment of our society. Now, thanks to divorce on demand, there is a war on Dads being waged, a war in which Dads are pursued, criminalized, and forced to pay for the system that takes away their children.
Yor article is insightful and perceptive. Baskerville is right on in his assessment and far too many people miss the point that this is a civil rights issue. Fathers and non custodial parents have been reduced to second class citizens having very few if any rights before the courts in issues of family. Please note the recent filings by Leon R. Koziol, Esq in NY State against the entire court system. Koziol is a man you should interview and his cases should be followed closely.
Paul Greiner
Franklinville, NY

Though I have not read Baskerville's book, I consider myself an anecdotal example of the points made in this article and which Baskerville apparently makes in his book. In my experiences, the family courts were overwhemlingly biased against men and fathers. I would not have believed any legal institution could be so purposefully and overwhemlingly prejudiced without seing it first hand. The courts are so far "out there" that I'm sure those of us who try to relate our experiences with them seem to others as though we are just loonies, or conservative extremists, or misogynists, or whatever other perjorative seems most handy. Let me assure you, the family court bias is real and it is pervasive. As a man walking into family court, you are assumed gulty until proven innocent. For women, it's the reverse -- you are assumed by the court to be a virtuous victim, in spite of the evidence.

It is very sad to know from experience how accurately Baskerville portrays the truth about what "family law" is doing to children, families, and society. Almost to the day, it has been seven years since I've been "allowed" to "visit" my children for having been found guilty of committing "no fault". During that time, in a relentless quest for answers and explanations as to how such evil could have usurped something as universally sacred as the family, including searching for answers in Catholicism, I have found no better understanding or explanation than Stephen Baskerville's "Taken Into Custody".

Having been forced to finance the "filching" of my own children, one would expect the children to come home after the money is drained just as any decent kidnapper would allow. But it's more insidious than that. Witness for yourself above the rapid response disinformation campaign waged to subvert Mr. Aglialoro's well-meaning and well-written review of "Taken Into Custody". Widely discredited, yet still pervasive, the dehumanization and vilification of fatherhood has a stranglehold over government.

Apart from my ever-dimming hope of reunification with my children, one of my most sincerely held hopes is that it will be from within the Catholic Church that this omnipresent evil is finally turned away. Please ignore the feminist trolls and the greedy lawyers, read "Taken Into Custody" for yourself, and reach into your deepest beliefs and ask yourself what you are going to do about it.

Micha: The author asked why no one is worked up against divorce the way they should be?

Part of the answer is that the people who should be more worked about divorce, the one who recognize what evil it is, have managed to be co-opted by a political party whose main standard-bearers tend to be divorce practitioners. This forces them into silence, with the result we see.

Whatever the reality of family court, these are men who managed to make the system work for them, and to satisfy their conspicuency for younger women while keeping a respectable front. So, they have no interest in changing the system, nor in stigmatizing themselves.

Why do I keep harping on the need to distance the Church from the Republican Party? Is not the historical record of the Church becoming a servant of the State enough warning?

Thanks for helping create awareness of America's anti-father social policies.

After three years of marriage, my wife divorced me. Privately she told me she was unhappy and I did not make her happy.

Without due process, but as a matter of routine, after a fifteen minute discussion before a Kane County, Illinois family judge, I was "awarded" four days every month to parent our son; ordered to pay $2,600 monthly in support; $200,000 of my savings frozen; and, an order of protection entered against me for my wife. Lastly I was anfd am legally innocent against crimes.

After three years, one hundred court calls, $150,000 in legal fees, and three jobs, I lost a successful career; involved in a dozen incidents calling for police; imprisoned; filed for personal bankruptcy; car repossessed; and evicted from my apartment, but won joint custody in Illinois to which 17% of fathers win. In February 2005, however, my wife in retaliation had my visitation suspended, and also the Kane County Circuit Clerk refuses to accept $12,000 in proof of payments as credit for court ordered support paid.

I regret saying, "I do," but miss a son and wife. A man is foolish to marry with America's unilateral (one person decides), no-fault divorce legislation in place.

America has one of the highest divorce rates in the world of about 200 countries - it's the white elepant in the room.

Yes, Adriana, this is similar to what I was hinting at in my first paragraph when I spoke of some social conservatives lacking "conviction." It's similar to the reason why there's no legal fight against contraception: the same Protestant allies who are indispensable in the fights against abortion and same-sex marriage beg out of that issue. Even otherwise pro-family Evangelicals are pretty much sold out to the divorce and remarriage status quo. And as you point out, some of the politicians in their camp have been divorced themselves.



The "joke" was that the Catholic, Giuliani, had three wives and the Mormon, Romney, had one. It wasn't a partisan joke.

Of the three front-running Republican candidates, only one had been divorced, while the other two were considered particularly genuine family men. You're grasping at straws here.

Moreover, you're confusing "social conservative culture warriors" with "Republican politicians," when the two are hardly -- in fact, seldom -- one and the same. Thanks to the Democrats' wholesale embrace of moral liberalism, it's true that the great majority of social conservatives are Republicans (or are affiliated with some offshoot thereof), but the GOP is also full of leaders and members who have nothing to do with the social conservative agenda. Thus it's no hypocrisy when it turns out such folks have been divorced (or solicit gay sex in an airport bathroom, or own TV networks that broadcast racy shows and poo-poo jokes). There is no Republican monolith.

The problem Baskerville underlines is not that Republican politicians don't operate on a divorce-reform platform, it's that social-conservative leaders don't lobby for one. Mostly because they only see a moral problem, not a legal/political one.

I have to say Mark, among the reactions I had after reading this book were:

1) I'm so fortunate and grateful to have married the sane, stable, reasonable woman I did.

2) I pray that my four sons will be so lucky.

While I concur with the author's concern about the over intrusion of government, at the same time, he is suggesting that the state intervene in enforcing the marriage contract. That, in effect, is just another way of having the courts direct and dictate.

If our objective is to see settlements of divorces that are fair, equitable and just, then we need to devise a system that also upholds those ideals as paramount and that recognizes demeaning and bankrupting one spouse does not serve the best interest of the children. If we go back to the old "at fault" divorces, then we'll just feed the lawyers, social workers, and other so called "experts" more money.

In other words, not every change has been bad. If we change the concept from "child support" and "visitation" to "parenting" inclusive of the "financial aspect" of parenting instead of implementing the erroneous support guidelines, a more real world, concrete approach can be applied. This would include eliminating the Draconian Bradley Amendment that precludes retroactive support adjustments should circumstances dictate.

I just resolved my family law battle after 17 years. In that time I was ordered to pay for child care costs that didn't exist, was treated as irrelevant by the courts and saw my daughter, who is now nearly 18, for only two minutes over the last 15 years. After fighting pro se for most of that time, my ex abandoned her efforts although the state pursued its case against me. In the end, we wound up with the same result we could have achieved through more civil means that I offered over a dozen years ago. Bottom line is that we must minimize state involvement and allow pragmatism and fairness to be the goal.

"a critical civil rights struggle; perhaps the most critical of all."

Edward Debono said "Lawyers are trained in only one thing, how to win an argument. This makes them lazy thinkers, incapable of looking outside the box"

Baskervilles book demonstrates the weaknesses of USA, UK and Australian law very graphically.

I think the Code Napoleon should be looked at closely, where judges are trained separately from lawyers, where judges are investigating judges who control their courts.

That the courts, and lawyers must be answerable to a governing body, as are all other professions.

Baskerville has made his points clearly and elegantly, in an amazingly short space. It is a must read for anyone concerned about the direction being taken by our society.

I just can't buy into the premise that two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women who simply don't want to be tied down to marriage anymore. The mere fact that the woman is listed as the plaintiff in the action has no bearing on what happened in the marriage. I personally have been divorced, and I know many others who have been as well. Most of the women I know who have gone through divorce (including myself) have either been abandoned by their husbands in favor of "somebody better," or have finally summoned the courage to leave abusive situations - whether the abuse was in the form of physical beatings, constantly berating the wife and telling her she's no good, or refusing for a number of years to perform simple tasks like get a job and take a shower. (Please don't discount the difficulty women have in leaving such situations - if you haven't experienced it, it's FAR more difficult than you'd think, as this type of man controls by convincing his wife that she is incapable of surviving on her own.) I do know a few people who divorced simply because they "weren't happy," but they are vastly in the minority in my experience.

It is a mistake for ANY father to think, "This couldn't happen to me." It doesn't matter who you are, or how long you've been married, or how "sane" you think your wife is. Every single father is targeted, and those who are trying to be good and faithful Catholics are targeted by the devil ten times more!

I had been married for 24 years, had a seemingly solid-as-a-rock marriage and a large beautiful family when my wife began meeting with a priest for what I thought was spiritual direction, but which turned out to be "family counseling."

The next thing I knew, I spent 2 weeks in jail, another 2 weeks living in my car, and 4 months without seeing my family. I faced criminal charges, a restraining order, a divorce filing and a motion to prevent me from every seeing my children. I lost my home, my family, everything I owned and my reputation all in one fell swoop.

Thanks be to God, my situation turned out well thanks to divine intervention. I realized right away that there was no earthly hope whatsoever, and that my only hope was supernatural assistance. After 4 months of fasting and prayer, God and the Blessed Virgin intervened and drove out the devils who had caused this situation. My wife woke up from the hypnotic-like state she had been in, and turned her back on the evil priest, the social workers, the womens advocates, her attorney, her mother and sister, her female friends, and everyone else who was egging her on to destroy herself, her husband and her children.

We have been back together for 3 years and are happier and have been blessed more than ever. However, I am no longer so stupid and prideful as I was. I no longer think "These things happen to other people." The more you try to be faithful to God, the more effort the devil will invest to try to destroy you.

I also was the victim of divorce. My wife left me for another man, who turned out to be a three time convicted felon. Yet despite the fact that I had a stable job, was living in the only house our children had every known in a nice neighborhood, the courts gave her custody even through she was living a run down apartment with the ex-con. Finally after $50,000 in legal bills and a whole lotta hell on earth, I got custody of the kids. And the only reason I got that was because the ex-con got busted with possession of a firearm! (Felons cannot possess firearms in my state). Although I give full credit to his stupidity to my daily novenas to St. Jude, the fact that I didn't get custody in the first place. Family courts are anti-father.

Sadly, government has duped the people into believing that they are protecting us from terrorists when it is the government itself that is the real terrorist threat. The government is systematically destroying our families and abusing our rights. At the forefront of this tyranny is the judicial branch of government. Their sole purpose is supposed to be to interpet the laws that the legislature enacts when the reality is that the judiciary as a whole ignores the law and and does whatever they want to without any type of accountability whatsoever, thereby depriving,imprisoning and abusing the rights of the very people they are supposed to protect. Sound familiar??? Please visit www.corruptioncentral.com and help us help our children.

Actually, the commentary that women have been traditionally awarded the children during a divorce isn't correct. Until recently, women primarily were awarded nothing during a divorce. In fact, the man often was given the woman's property. This in keeping with dower and curtsey laws. In this respect, the "feminist" doctrine has had a valid point. However, pushing the extreme viewpoint that the father (in general) is unwilling or unable, incapable or abusive, and therefore all fathers should be treated essentially as a criminal, is wrong, unethical, immoral, and destructive, as Mr. Baskerville has so clearly documented. His book is "the recipe" that each and every man is now being subjected to in the United States. It is very, very clearly written ... and exactly details how the procedure is accomplished. I live it every day, thanks to my (now ex) spouse.

I think that the Catholic church does need to take a stand on this extremely important issue. I was widowed in my 30's and remarried a Catholic man who was divorced and had an annulment. I have seen the family court, lawyers and judge destroy everything in my husband's life and mine as well. My husband's ex had an adulterous affair. He did not want a divorce because he believed in the sacrament of marriage. She believed in nothing. She ended up with custody of their 3 children. When my husband remarried me and they found out that I was a widow, they tried to find out about every asset that I owned with my first husband. They even tried to look at the accounts of my three minor children. Then they took money from the sale of the house that I owned with my new husband and said they were securing it for child support. Instead the ex's lawyer used the money to pay herself. They based my husband's child support payments on a made up amount of money (based on the fact that I had assets and life insurance money). So instead of paying according to the guidelines, he is paying according to "what the lawyers think it costs to raise a child". I could not possibly spend the amount of money that my husband's ex gets from him per week. My husband and I share no accounts together but that did not matter to them. He pays so much support that I have to pay all the family bills, including those for our new child together. Imagine, a widow picking up the pieces for an adulterous woman and her lover so that they can live comfortably. My husband has not seen his daughter for 6 months. Since the child support began, the kids have been to Hawaii and a Bermuda cruise. My husband is living on about 150.00 per week. The ex also put an addition on her house and bought another car for her new guy. My husband is afraid to go back to court because his ex smiles at the judge and by virtue of her womanhood she is given the world. I have called lawyers, written to congress and the Dept of child support services in Washington DC and I do not get any answers. They tell me that I am not a party to the case, yet whenever my husband goes back to court the case is about ME! The lawyers have said by virtue of marriage my husband owns half of everything therefore he needs to show my assets in court, yet he can give all of his money to his ex and not help support me his new wife? What about my right to be supported by my new husband? I am warning all widows out there, PROTECT YOUR ASSETS, GET A PRENUPTUAL AGREEMENT or don't remarry someone who is divorced. I was told by a lawyer that they like to even up the households. Can you say, COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT? My children do not matter to that court, only my husband's kids. Only the first family deserves to be taken care of. I lose social security for my children when they turn 18, my husband's ex gets child support until the kids are out of college OR reach age 23! Only in the liberal State of MA! Maybe if one of his kids has a child out of wedlock before 23, they can attach his pay for his grand kids too! Thank you Stephen Baskerville for bringing to light the injustice, criminal, feminist agenda that is destroying everyone and everything in it's path. Come on Catholic groups, get on the bandwagon. Where are all the Catholic lawyers out there defending these poor men!

Karl, what are you talking about here? Were you denied an annulment?



Yep, we are told to forgive...that is a truth Christ taught us; even when you think that you have been royaly screwed over. forgiveness is one of the things that makes being a Christian tough.

What is Commutative justice?



Then why are you still trolling a Catholic website? What is it to you if you have left the Church?



I don't know how you can blame adultry or divorce on the bishops or the pope. I haven't heard either endorsing either over the last 30 years.

Dear James,

If you want real answers to these questions that you pose, by that I mean to hear from real people who can tell you their stories, drop into Bai Macfarlane's Yahoo group and also read her Marysadvocates website.

I lurk and post at Bai's yahoo group.


To answer one of your queries:


"Then why are you still trolling a Catholic website? What is it to you if you have left the Church?"


The Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus Christ founded upon "its rock", Peter. Those who have left it AND formed their own "Churches" are guilty of spiritual adultery and their adultery persists to this day with its gravely harmful but never ending effects.

Because I formally defected from the Catholic Church, in deference to its stated desire for such to be done in that specific manner(which of itself is a willful act of submission to rightful authority and a living witness lived faithfulness) does not mean I have ceased caring for it. That is your presumption and it belies your bias. I want to make you think.

Just as a faithful spouse partakes(and shows agreement with) in the adultery of their unfaithful spouse if they do not separate themselves from the adulterous spouse, so must all Catholics separate themselves from an unfaithful Church when its actions are gravely in error and scandalous.

I know what I experienced and continue to experience at the hands of the corrupt hierarchy in the Catholic Church, the Pope included. I cannot remain in union with their terrible pastoral practices regarding marriage.

If you are not aware of them then you are guilty of blindness to what is going on under your very eyes. But this does not surprise me as the catholic spin doctors do all they can to make evil seem good, and corruption seem wholesome. Pursue the facts, James, they will scandalize you unless your soul is already tolerant of the evil that the Catholic Church is about regarding marriage and its destruction in practice, while selling its "indissolubility" in public to look good. It is smoke and mirrors.

Go to Bai's sites.

Todd A.,

"1) I'm so fortunate and grateful to have married the sane, stable, reasonable woman I did."

And I hope and pray you will always be able to say this. I truly do. However, I say this because a year ago, nearly to the day, I would have said the same thing. Today, that same sane, stable, reasonable woman that I thought I had married, and had felt so fortunate and grateful to have as my wife and mother to my children, has since been unfaithful in our marriage and back in March of this year, filed for divorce. Guilty of nothing, likely to be stripped of damn near everything.

That's the evil of "no-fault" divorce that Stephen Baskerville writes of. All it takes is having one's head turned by another, not being happy, or feeling unfulfilled, and anybody, and I mean ANYBODY, can find themselves on the short end of a divorce decree. In my case, the divorce is not yet final, but that's only because my wife seems to be asking for more and more with each passing week.

I don't know if one can possibly understand the injustice of "no-fault" divorce without being forced into it. Thank you for really trying to see what many of us are forced to endure.

In Christ,
David

...some of the comments made might be difficult to uphold. First of all, the words used such as "fairness", "Justice" are not specific enough to be used in making a decision of "Law" in which (if it;s good Law) and i's are dotted; and the t's are scrupulously crossed. Family Law presents a special set of parameters which are largely psychological. That is, applying to particular individualities. Thus there are harmonies and conflicts growing together -- and growing apart. Perhaps in some cultures, the strength and respect for religion may have bolstered marriage up so that it did not fact the grim statistics of failure (some 50% in our time/society).

Sometimes I think that prior to getting down to dealing with the details of divorce: who gets what, how much, when, custody, etc., there needs to be another level upon which all of this is founded. I believe that divorce would be better if it involved the whole family and maybe other members of the community -- teachers, ministers, employers, doctors, relatives, etc. As well as one or two so-called 'experts'. Couples should be able to choose which form of divorce resolution suits them best or is most appropriate. Perhaps time limits with specific agendas would help the process from psychological grid-lock.

Just a thought, maybe adding something to a very needy social issue that is probably not nearly as complex and difficult as it is made out to be.

I have studied the divorce industry for years; focusing more on child support. It surprises me that today, there are still people who are unaware of the dramatic changes that have taken place in recent decades. Perhaps a minority, but still many, people believe that legally, marriage and divorce are something like they were 50 years ago. Divorce reform / welfare reform from at least the 1980s forward, was about enlarging the pork barrel - turning marriage and family into a tool for political corruption. These reforms, hailed by conservatives and liberals alike for "enforcing personal responsibility" actually removed the personal responsibility element from marriage and family, and eliminated family rights for the sake of allowing arbitrary government control and manipulation of the institutions and people. Baskerville is 100% correct when he explains that the main problem today is political.

Count me as a continuing doubter on the extremes of the divorced-father-as-victim. I do have one friend who was ill-treated in his divorce, but I've also known more women who have themselves been on the shaft end of the law.

I suspect that the divorcing side with the speedier, nastier strategy to salvage the most from a failing marriage will most often succeed over a party who is shell-shocked, naive, trusting, or otherwise passive. So are men being taken advantage of because they're men and there's some sort of direct malice directed against them as a sex? Or are they being played as dupes? Before I want to get associated with the culture of victimhood as a man, I'd want to know for sure, wouldn't you?

Women getting the goods in a divorce strikes me as a remnant of chivalry--not necessarily a feminist principle.

All that said, it would be informative to see actual studies of divorce settlements. While I feel individually sympathetic to the case stories mentioned in this thread, a dozen or so selected comments do not necessarily represent the facts as they are.

As for the question about support for loosening or tightening divorce law, it has become a convenience for the "nastier" side of a contested divorce, plus both sides who decide to divorce amiably. Among those directly involved, unless you count children, the opponents of divorce will always be in the minority.

Adriana is right: conservatives have no monopoly on sound marriages, and are equally coopted by the divorce culture. To expect that Republicans (who initially supported decriminalized abortion, and largely still do) will be allies with fatherhood organizations in the divorce wars is naive and futile.

Finally, is this issue is about the damage done by divorce, I would suggest the father organizations get together with women's organizations who support wronged wives, and open up the cause, if indeed this is about divorce and mistreatment. If you're in the minority on this issue, you're going to need all the help you can get, eh?

Your story is sad, I'm sorry it happened, but the fact thyat you don't believe what has been proven statistically (NOT that all the 2/3 female filed divorces are frivolous..no one claimed that)
is really irrelevant. Its why this is such a hard sell to women as they bring their anecdotal experiences to bear on a problem that is massive. Exceptions do not negate rules.
Also, when you start down the path of "berating the wife" and all the verbal abuse nonsense, while sure there may be such a thing, it is entirely too nebulous to codify into law..it has too wide a range of definitions and allows women to toss out the term "abuse" and garner the requisite sympathies.

My comments on much divorced men with trophy wives pointed to what the struggle entails. Basically divorce makes it easier for serial polygamists - by allowing them to find different parnters, and by encouraging divorce in others, adding to the pool of potential sexual partners.

There is one thing about polygamy that should be obvious when you do the math **Poligamy requires a constant cull of males.**. Think about any flock of sheep. Many ewes and one ram. Lambs are born 50/50 but only one male grows up to become a ram, the rest get to make mint sauce acquaintance. In men it is not so bad (though the laws of inheritance of the Turkish Empire were quite faithful to the model), but still the numbers imply that for a man to have ten sexual partners, there must be nine who will either have none or must accept being cuckolded.

Polygamy means that each man is each other man's enemy and competitor. So, if you are asking for relief from cruel divorce laws, do not go looking for it to serial polygamists, who are the winners of the game..

Todd,

The issue really isn't just about men or women who get the short end of the stick in divorce. "No-fault" divorce is very often a matter of injustice. As a liberal, I would think you would be outraged at the all too frequent violence against justice with regards to those faithful spouses who have been forced into divorce. And it is not a rare thing when the one filing for divorce has been the unfaithful spouse. Ask me, I'm living this hell as the spouse who was faithful in my marriage. Then again, I sometimes wonder about the sincerity of those who always go on and on about social justice, yet manage to dismiss real injustices that take place all around us.

David

As a victim of false allegations made in the Family Court in 2001 two months before the twin towers disaster I can assure you it has been a heartwrenching experience that I would not wish on my worse enemy.
Firstly, the authorities take your children and imprison you family man one day, then like a lighting strike celled up like a caged animal the next. Then they poison and brain wash the children, tainting their vulnerable tiny wee minds, so they can learn to hate dad during the years of forced alienation. The state lawyers, counsellors and psychologists feed from all the misery like leeches at a blood bank. These unscrupulous professional scum enjoy false allegations in the adversarial Family Court litigation system, which reeks of unlawful gender discrimination. The gender bias system breeds resentment and certainly tests my faith. The blatant injustice orchestrated by callous state agencies that shamefully claim to act in the best interests of the child is a sad indictment on all western societies.

David,

"'No-fault' divorce is very often a matter of injustice."

There is a certain measure of injustice in any divorce, and probably at least as much in marriages.

Seeing as many couples pastorally as I do on the engaged side of marriage, I also know that many seeds of injustice, as you put it, are sown before vows are given and accepted. Already there, the offended side is very willing to put up blinders and convince the inner self all is well. Often, there is no convincing otherwise.

"As a liberal, I would think you would be outraged at the all too frequent violence against justice with regards to those faithful spouses who have been forced into divorce."

As I said above, I've known one man and a few women who were in that situation. In each of them, none were forced into the original marriage. In contrast, I've known far more children who have had to bear the burdens of parents, often both mother and father and deal with the fallout.

"I sometimes wonder about the sincerity of those who always go on and on about social justice, yet manage to dismiss real injustices that take place all around us."

I don't doubt that victims often wonder about such things. As you mention in your post, this isn't about men or women, so I have a wonder myself: do you align yourself with Mr Baskerville and others who see this as a man-discrimination issue, or with someone like me who would see it as opportunism, suggesting you band together with women and children who are also victims of this emotional violence?

Todd,

"Seeing as many couples pastorally as I do on the engaged side of marriage, I also know that many seeds of injustice, as you put it, are sown before vows are given and accepted."

Ah, yes. The "1095 special." The vast majority of declarations of nullity due to "psychological" reasons. After 10, 20, 30 years of marriage (or in my case 16), all of the sudden the one wanting out of the marriage (often because one has found someone else, and contrary to popular belief, it is not always the man falling for another, but quite often the wife who has strayed) believes the marriage is not valid because they were too immature, too young, too this, too that. And the tribunals in the U.S. are more than willing to accommodate such psycho-babble with a Canon 1095 declaration of nullity. I wonder how many truly valid, sacramental marriages have been "put asunder" by the U.S. tribunals.

Interestingly enough, those annulments based on "psychological" reasons, when appealed to the Roman Rota, are overturned approximately 90% of the time. I know that should the time come when our Archdiocesan marriage tribunal might declare our marriage null, I will be exercising my canonical rights, no matter how many roadblocks are thrown in my way, or how much I am discouraged from doing so, will insist that the Court of Second Instance be the Roman Rota.

As to where I fall (Baskerville or others), I am striving to align myself with Truth. That Truth is Christ. I may not agree with everything Baskerville writes, but it is also a false premise to say he sees "no-fault" divorce as solely an issue of injustice towards men, as he clearly writes that such injustices as he writes about happen to women as well. However, it is like an ostrich sticking it's head in the sand to believe that the Family Courts are completely unbiased when it comes to gender.

However, I have found that an organization called "Mary's Advocates" to be one that also aligns itself to the Truth that Christ taught, i.e. that marriage is indissoluble, and is trying to educate others of the evil of "no-fault" divorce. This organization was founded by Bai Macfarlane, wife of Catholic author, Bud Macfarlane, Jr., and co-founder with him of their apostolate, "The Mary Foundation," who was the victim of her state's "no-fault" divorce laws and subsequent sham of annulment proceedings. As you may have noticed, she is not a man suffering from "man discrimination." However, she, like many of us, is suffering from injustice at the hands of the state AND the Church.

BTW - Here is a link to the Mary's Advocates web-site:

http://www.marysadvocates.org/

FYI, Bai Macfarlane is quoted several times in Baskerville's book.

David,

My counsel would be to approach a discussion or argument without one's own biases. You were the one to raise the nullity question, adding another ADD aspect to this discussion and those like it. If you would prefer to farm the internet for personal sympathy, that is your choice. But don't expect others to regard your arguments as entirely rational. You'll remember I was the one who said that the wronged party in divorces is often lapped in terms of the degree of legal aggression--not because the person happens to be male.

The truth is that many couples are blindly infatuated during the engagement period and early marriage, and many individuals choose to overlook serious issues because of a cultural motto that "love conquers all." Rather than actually work on communication and other skills, many relationships devolve into two narcissistic spirals.

I suppose one could ask if you were blindsided by divorce, either you chose to ignore your wife's signals or she had some brain short-circuit and completely changed personality on you. Regardless of your ecclesiastical plans, did you miss the signals completely? Or did your spouse get replaced by aliens one day and file for divorce the next?

Todd,

"I suppose one could ask if you were blindsided by divorce, either you chose to ignore your wife's signals or she had some brain short-circuit and completely changed personality on you."

If you were to speak to any of our long time friends, from our children's Godparents, to homeschooling friends, including her two best friends, they would tell you the latter. One might have good reason to wonder what influence her new "best friend" who also happened to be another married man, in which they crossed the line into physical infidelity, might have had with regard to her complete 180 degree change in personality. You tell me. You seem to have all the answers.

"You seem to have all the answers."

Eek.

I try not to. I prefer to raise questions. I see a lot of holes in Todd's original essay, plus a lot of arguing from worst-case scenarios.

Divorce is a big problem for everybody involved, especially kids. I suppose I'd prefer not to see the issue get mangled with the specter of conspiracy theorists.

Todd,

"Divorce is a big problem for everybody involved, especially kids. I suppose I'd prefer not to see the issue get mangled with the specter of conspiracy theorists."

Just pray that you never are faced with forced divorce, then, my friend. Until it happened to me, I might have been a bit of a skeptic, too.

CrisDee -- Though I sympathize with you and your friends' divorce scenarios, I would have to say based on my own experiences that the sceanrio you describe as being "rare" -- e.g. wife files for divorce because she is bored and doesn't want to be tied down anymore -- is not rare at all. To the contrary, it is very much the norm.

I myself experienced this very thing, and most of the men I know describe their divorce scenarios in similar terms. Their wives filed for divorce basically because they "weren't fulfilled", their husbands "didn't make them happy anymore", or words to that effect. I have never run into even one situation where the reason for the divorce was "abuse" or anything close to it.

I would say that when the entire family court system is designed to favor you, as it is for women, and you are virtually assured of getting custody of your children, as is true for women, it is MUCH easier to consider divorce than in the reverse were true (as it is for men). I have no doubt that women file 70% of divorce actions. Makes sense.

The death of life-long Catholic marriage in America -- few young people now believe marriage a requirement for "family," and most young men wisely avoid marriage due to the punitive legal environment -- is partially a consequence of the American Catholic's rejection of SUBSIDIARITY. This basic Catholic principle of social justice requires the Church (us) to respect the family, but in America the Church (you and I) has given up on the autonomous family and preferred instead to support the social-worker state. State paternalism is NOT subsidiarity. Our divorce culture issues directly from our national and religious disrespect for families to remain autonomous from the divorce industry. Catholicism must cant away from the cult of social workers and embrace instead our radically different, Catholic, notion of social justice that begins with individual autonomy. For those interested please go to the web site of the Holy See and look up "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" and read section on "Subsidiarity." Subsidiarity begins with respect for the individual family, which is not done in the Social Worker inspired Divorce Industry.

I am a second wife and stepmother to two girls. My husband was a whistleblower who lost his high paying government job and was blackballed from the industry. As part of the character assassination that goes along with being a whistleblower, my husband was labeled a "deadbeat" and prosecuted for not paying his child support after he lost his job. This was done so that he could no longer obtain a security clearance to permanently keep him out of his job.

Knowing the financial difficulties we would face, we did have a prenuptial agreement to protect my assets from my husband's ex wife, but it does not matter. Essentially the superior court said "we realize that the child support is not your responsibility, but if you ever want your husband to see the light of day again, you will pay off all of his obligations."

Our case was heard by the Court of Appeals for our state and we prevailed, but that has not stopped the lower court from attempting to re-incarcerate my husband and wait for either me or someone in his family to pay off his debts. The courts are completely unaccountable in family law. Even if the lower courts are reversed, there is no punishment for the judges who disregard the constitution, precedent, and recent opinions of the higher courts.

I even contacted the civil rights division of the FBI for our case, and they refused to investigate the human trafficking going on in our state because they said that their department only investigates threats of PHYSICAL abuse. (Apparently the FBI does not think that holding a person for ransom in jail constitutes any physical abuse...)

I continue to pray for St. Jude and St. Rita to restore hope to our hopeless situation, St. Michael to defend us, St. Joseph as an advocate for fathers and step parents and of course to the Blessed Mother herself. So far, we haven't gotten our answer but we continue to be grateful that God gave us to eachother for strength and support. We continue to struggle to maintain a role in the children's lives as they have been almost completely alienated from their father over child support and control issues.

I do hope the Catholic Church takes a more vocal role on these issues. The Eucharistic Congress would be a great place to start. I wonder if Dr. Baskerville would be a speaker...

Pope Benedict, Archbishop Wilton Gregory, where are you?

God Bless all of you out there who are struggling with this corrupt goverment destroying your families. My prayers are with you.

Stephen Baskervilles book, “Taken Into Custody” was right to the point, and astonishing accurate on every detail. This Civil Court secular steamroller has been tearing apart families for some time and people are just beginning to notice. (A rhetorical observation). Religions are the worst hit by this phenomenon because they promote marriage. Hence when the father is dragged from his religious beliefs into a corrupt gender biased court system he thinks to himself, “Why was I so unaware of this male hatred campaign?” Religions have missed the point all along, because they follow doctrines, not political biased civil laws. To put this simply once the state hijacked marriage from the religions - religions became organizations. You are married in your religion but you are married to the state, with its laws it’s values, no matter how draconian they might be. With the creation of churches headed by lesbian ministers like Pauli Murray the first Episcopal Priest who helped Betty Friedan write the statement of purpose for the National Organization of Women. Your religious values were altered by other religions. The traditional religions following traditional values were considered antifeminist, and patriarchal. Yet with marriage altered the traditional religions kept clinging to traditional values, trying to protect their families. Since the civil law is created by the elite in society you were fed a huge amount of exaggerated evidence on how abusive males are, especially fathers. This evidence came from women abuse homes that exaggerated evidence to receive more funding. The Y.W.C.A. which is the largest provider of abuse homes in North America, and is allies with the National Organization of Women is an example of such an organization. Now you have “Women’s Christian Associations” trashing fathers as abusive baggage in marriage. Yet still you kept pushing for traditional values, in a world that had changed so fast that nothing in marriage is traditional any longer. The lawyers entered into the divorce courts cleaned up on the unsuspecting fathers, picking apart their assets like vultures. Judges tearing fathers children away from them like Nazis during a holocaust. Yet still bewildered the traditional religions did nothing to stop this misandry, and to add fuel to the fire these religions still promoted marriage to their flocks, which made the divorce industry at a 54% divorce rate extremely happy. In Canada the majority of Canadians have never been married, separated or divorced, marriage is dead. The average child per family is one. In the U.S. where all this anti male bias started the statistics are similar. Immigrants are now entering this void at such a rate that walls have to be erected along rivers like the Rio Grande. Still these religions fall victim to the deceit and lies of these radical male hating elite bigots. Civil law and feminism kept repeating that it was always about the protection of the children. What children? The ones that were never born because of lack of commitment to get married in a secular society, or the ones aborted to maintain a lifestyle. If I may be so bold as to give advice here; “You have to get this civil law out of religions marriages, you invented marriage to protect the family, civil law came along thousands of years later”. The only alternative is to get the attention of the legislated branch of your government and get them to stop their colleagues from racketeering over the families. (Not much hope there.) Maybe you can form a coalition of traditional churches and faiths and bring your arguments to the white house. Sarcastically, “Oh I forgot, this war against the fathers may not be happening at all”. Why wouldn’t a woman want a divorce knowing full well that she is going to get everything, the house the car the kids and an ex husband as an economical slave for the rest of her life? This makes it pretty hard to sell marriage to anyone other than to strict traditionalist religions.

If you’re interested in how this misandry is happening here is a news article “Misandry is the message” by Barbara Kay, which appeared in the National Post. Her blog was derailed by some not so nice individuals. This is one of the best articles I have encountered on this subject. If you read into the blog you will understand how this isn’t just happening in your country, but is occurring in other nations in the western world as well. It started in the U.S. to make a simple point and expanded throughout the western world. Two out of three churches I attended when growing up are now vacant and sold to real estate marketers. Something I held dear in memories faded to dust, only to be replaced by this.


http://tinyurl.com/5heewk

I sympathize with the original article and agree with many of its points.

And it is most certainly true that radical feminists are not averse to outright lying about statistics; the logic is simple, whether it is abortion, wages, domestic violence or any other issue related to gender inequality: a) inequalities undoubtedly do exist, and b) there is no harm in greatly exaggerating them for dramatic effect because the ends justify the means. This is war, after all, war of the sexes, and lies are a weapon of war.

But there is ALWAYS the danger that the justifiable backlash to this movement can become just as blind and unjust. Right now I know two couples where custody disputes may erupt at any moment, and in both cases it is most certainly the father who is both negligent and unfit. And I don't think they would be above lying, especially to well-meaning advocates of fathers-rights, about the supposed injustices their spouses have inflicted upon them.

The radical feminists are blinded by an ideology that is practically a sacred religion to them. This is what happens with secular ideologies - they have no experience with religion or they fly from religion thinking they have done away with it, so they are entirely unaware of how they make an even more grotesque religion out of their ideology. Then they become aware and they rationalize it.

Our religion is different. It has a clearly defined place in our lives, we know what it is, where it comes from, and where it is leading us. We must not succumb to the same disease - to take our sympathy for fathers to the next level of ideology, which then determines how we look at each case. One unfit father allowed to triumph over a fit mother because of an ideologically-blinded advocate is one too many. It would make us as bad as the current system.

“But there is ALWAYS the danger that the justifiable backlash to this movement can become just as blind and unjust. Right now I know two couples where custody disputes may erupt at any moment, and in both cases it is most certainly the father who is both negligent and unfit. And I don't think they would be above lying, especially to well-meaning advocates of fathers-rights, about the supposed injustices their spouses have inflicted upon them.”
Joe these negligent and unfit fathers can lie to any well meaning advocates of fathers rights that they can find, because it won’t matter. All the wives have to do is pick up the phone and say they fear to the local 911 operator, then presto the police will arrive and a restraining order will effectively be issued. With the restraining order in place she has total control of the house and the children. If he is stupid enough to try to contact his wife and violate the restraining order the father will be incarcerated for a lengthy stay in the nearest jail. With him gone the lawyers will tear apart his assets. She will get custody of the children 87% of the time. If she lies to the police it doesn’t matter no charges against her will be laid. The husbands in this case will probably be seeing a psychological councillor for evaluation. Usually restraining orders are for about a year. If for some reason the wife has a change of heart, the restraining order will not be revoked.
Joe there is only one perfect father that I have ever heard of and he is up in heaven, the father of us all. No father on earth is perfect, and they should not be compared to perfection, everyone has weaknesses and strengths. The problem here is that when it comes to rights the fathers have none. If you’re worried about a backlash being as evil as these Radical Feminist Scream Queens, don’t worry, you have to have rights to fight back. So far only one gender I know of has any rights, all the fathers have is obligations.
You do know that this misandry comes with a body count, in Canada it is estimated that three thousand fathers commit suicide each year because of divorce. There are ten times the amount of people in the U.S., if the statistics were similar based on population, that would make 30,000 fathers a year in your country. More deaths than any war the U.S. has ever engaged in because year after year these statistics keep repeating themselves. You mentioned fear of a backlash and I think of the father lying on the courthouse steps with a bullet hole in his head, a gun in one hand and a note in the other stating how the court system took away his children and destroyed his life. It is hard for me to think that anyone could be as callous against a gender as that.
You did make an excellent point on caution. In any war there are casualties and in the end result it can end up in hatred, not just of them for who they are and what they did, but also for what we had to do and what we became to stop them.

I grow ever so tired of hearing both sides of this issue cite gender favoritism as the problem. It is decidedly NOT the problem, because there are males and females alike who get trashed by the courts. Who fights dirtiest wins, Who wants out badly enough will capitulate. A lot of the folks who complain about how they were "taken to the cleaners" forget how they were willing to say, do, or sign anything to be with a new lover, or to unload an old one. A lot of the folks who seem to have benefited from divorce were simply more ruthless, more willing to fight, than their tired, or even unmotivated, opponent.

The root cause of disproportionate outcomes in divorce trials is down to two things: Judicial inconsistency, deriving from "No Fault" divorce. The solution is the reinstatement of fault in divorce. Fault Divorce means you can't chuck your mate for a new one, you can't chuck your mate for "not being who you fell in love with", you can't chuck your mate because you're "unfulfilled," you can't chuck your mate because he leaves the lid up or she comes to bed in curlers. Yes, Fault Divorce made divorce hard to get... and that was a good thing.

Let's see about making DIVORCE "safe, legal... and rare."

“No Fault Divorce”. The National Association of Women Lawyers claims credit for this working through the American Bar Association,(Stephen Baskerville’s book, Taken into Custody, pg.234).
The following link is an interview with Stephen Baskerville at town hall.com
http://tinyurl.com/6mcgdh

It seems to me that the chivalrous males strutting like a rooster passing in front of a hen house in the protection of the fairer sexes rights are the most in danger. They get married with the misplaced pride that, “This won’t happen to me because I am special”. They don’t realize that a man is only as good as his wife says he is. She has all the rights, he has none. The reason is because these really heavy organizations have reduced the fathers to a second class citizen, a lower class of despised society with no rights. That is why not getting married is catching on so fast.
To take the children away from a father who has broken no law and is guilty of no crime, is against the Constitution of the U.S. and is an affront to democracy itself.
Meanwhile the National Organization of Women wants the female gender in the front lines of the armed services. Valkyries of the 21st century, or poor victimised woman marginalized by society, which is it?
The laws are being changed so fast that in a while divorce may be gone replaced by murder. These radical feminist organizations are trying to change the laws on spousal murder, where all a wife has to say is “abuse” and the charge will be reduced to manslaughter. At that point in time do you think that the murder rate will go up?
Karen Selick, National Post Published: Wednesday, August 13, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/6oyz32

I second everything you said!

While the church has not endorsed divorce, no church that I know has denied Communion to women who initiated divorces and damaged their children. I have compassion for all involved here; I try to have.

I don't go to church much any more, but I would guess that the pastors deal with the new social reality of easy-and-shame-free divorce by quoting the New Testament, and, I suppose, saying, "These aren't really divorces--they're separations." I am not sure. But the pews are full of divorced women who were moved to divorce because the money rewards are huge, and their lawyers are amoral, and feminists present divorce as more or less a sacrament (the sacred ritual of freedom from the patriarchy). Few in the Catholic Church, which I have so loved, are studying what is actually going on.

The hierarchy's silence on this widespread social evil is understandable, but not to be forgiven easily.

Why are the pastors and the Bishops not creating sermons, homilies, addressed to the evil-doing women sitting in the pews...homilies entitled, perhaps, "If you are a Catholic woman and you have initiated a divorce, you must not compound that evil by committing greater sins against your children. Here's a sermon titled Ten Rules of Proper Conduct for Divorced Catholic Women. It is printed in a pamphlet that will be available at the back of the church."

The church is not sufficiently resisting the Satanic theme that flies everywhere in this culture. It goes "Women are above the law, above morality, and above God." If the church puts more calcium into its backbone, some day the pastors will stand up and start talking to the women about their sins against God, husband and children. And if the women leave the church and go Unitarian or something, let them go.

I watched my alcoholic and cognitively ruined ex-wife nearly ruin my kids' life...after have gotten custody of them...and like the pious fraud she was (alkies are great at appearances) she went to the altar rail for communion every week. This is a woman so cruel that she concealed my son's Holy Communion from me, and when I found out about it, would not let me sit in the pew that had my name on it. This is a little family-scale Goering or Goebbels...and she piously walked up and received Communion every weekend. Had to keep up appearances, you know.
Whitened sepulchre. I think if Jesus of Nazareth were around, he'd go right after this huge hypocrisy. It's the biggest domestic nest of lies and evil we have.

Both Obama and McCain are evil. Both have not repented. Obama does not want to repudiate his pro-abortion stance. McCain does not want to repudiate his adulterous marriage by leaving his current partner. Neither of them can be trusted to run the country. One who is open to killing babies can't be trusted. One who can't be faithful to his wife and has stayed in an adulterous relationship for so long can't be trusted either.

No to both of them. None deserve the Catholic vote.

I do feel for the fathers who have posted comments here, describing their pain--both emotional and financial, but I want to point out that women deal with exactly the same issues.

I was divorced by my husband because my children were close to growing out of the home. We had a deal that when our youngest daughter graduated from high school, that I could stop being the breadwinner of the family and take some time away from my career.

Actually, as I discovered, my husband had been constantly unfaithful throughout our marriage, and now proposed to leave me with our youngest daughter in order to marry his latest girlfriend.

BTW, not only did I not get ANY child support for the 14 year old child, but he went to a lawyer who said that I would have to pay HIM over 3X the child support that I could claim. Why, you may ask, given that he had no intention of even asking for custody of this child??? Well, that would be because I had been making more money while he cavorted with other women. (yes, I also cooked, cleaned and actually paid some attention to the child--he could sue ME for spousal support because he was a completely lazy and abusive a*****e) To avoid a battle which would be very painful for both me and OUR daughter, I let him walk with NO child support whatsoever. I seriously HATE no-fault divorce. He was at fault--he should have had to pay a reasonable level of child support. There is no way I should have had to pay a serial adulterer.

At any rate, guys, understand that you are not the only ones getting shafted by the system. I helped my girls through college (he paid not a dime for college, braces, or other medical issues). Just me--he left the state and saw his youngest daughter perhaps 2X per year (his choice--I NEVER kept her from him). This part of my life is almost over, as my youngest daughter will graduate college next year, but I am quite bitter over how I have been used and abused, just as many of you have been. Please try to understand that many of us have been abused by this system. It's not a father thing at all.

This is not an issue about gender--this is an issue of "no-fault" divorce and the way that it punishes responsible parents.

“I grow ever so tired of hearing both sides of this issue cite gender favoritism as the problem. It is decidedly NOT the problem, because there are males and females alike who get trashed by the courts.”

The US now has an estimated 500,000 men in debtor's prisons for falling behind on their support obligations. Are there any mothers in prison for not paying child support? Child Support Enforcement laws allow for no adjustments in payments for "unintentional loss of income/employment" due to unusual circumstances. So a man losing his job is no excuse for not paying his child support--he goes to jail. No evidence has to be considered, because there is no jury trial. Fathers are made into felons. No trial, no evidence.
Tennessee Department of Human Services tested more than 7,000 men who had been named as fathers by women seeking child-support or government assistance. Approximately 2,000 of the men — roughly 27 percent — were not the biological father, DHS records show. Experts agree on a national average that it is about 10% of fathers who are not biologically linked to their children. This may in effect mean that out of 500,000 fathers in prison 50,000 are there because they became unemployed and could not pay up for chips off of someone else’s block.
Census figures show only 57 percent of moms required to pay child support -- 385,000 women out of a total of 674,000 -- give up some or all of the money they owe. That leaves some 289,000 "deadbeat" mothers out there, a fact that has barely been reported in the media.
That compares with 68 percent of dads who pay up, according to the figures.
Though it is true that both mothers and fathers get trashed in the courts, it is fathers that pay the ultimate price of being duped and sent to prison. In a fair and just society citizens would be trying to solve this social problem. However the divorce industry is so powerful with its judges, lawyers, psychologists, jail guards, police, abuse homes, family counselling firms, etc., that no one is even trying to find the solution to the problem. In fact the opposite has occurred; there are a host of citizens associated with these institutions that provide a torrent of false statistics to the press, in an effort to receive more funding, they propagandise only the exaggerated statistics which enhances their funding base.
The church is adrift in a maelstrom of radical feminist ideology, and has been for some time. It is not likely that such a religious institution can sail gracefully through to the far side and shelter without casualties. When religious institutions cannot protect their families, other institutions arise that can. Gangs enter into society; syndicates of criminal behavior arise out of the dust, more radical religions are formed, violence permeates our culture, and basic fundamental rights are altered. One only has to think back to the movie “Gangs of New York” to understand how violent Christian religions were, or later in American history with “The Godfather”. Without prejudice out of the many nations that the Muslim religion entered the other religions were replaced. When they say life without father is the biggest determining factor in criminal behavior, early pregnancy, and drug abuse in children, they mean it.
It is sad that both fathers and mothers have suffered in such a vicious battle of the sexes, but grinding your axes into each other doesn’t help the children, and it won’t solve this social problem.

“If Baskerville is mistaken, then he may just need a little time off, somewhere out of the sun. But if he's correct -- and his book compels -- then we have been blithely sitting on the sidelines of a critical civil rights struggle; perhaps the most critical of all.”
Baskerville was not mistaken, but this leads to another question. Why did it take so long for people to notice this social problem? Well I suppose that if I were an editor of a major newspaper or magazine; and my funding was based on not offending the entrenched establishment, then it would be likely that in order to prosper I should look the other way. Truth is a rare commodity these days; it’s oppressed by politics and ideology, which are influenced by greed and envy. Human rights should never be compromised by these issues. Family rights are equally important, and should never be frivolously diminished by the state. Children need both parents, the state cannot take the place of a mother, nor can it replace the father. Ultimately when one parent is compromised it is the children who will pay the price.
They say that a picture speaks a thousand words.
http://tinyurl.com/4yy2ub
Evidently the March was a success.

Divorced from Reality
“We’re from the Government, and We’re Here to End Your Marriage.”
by Stephen Baskerville
If anyone cares you can find this story at:
http://tinyurl.com/8c2tys

As a social worker for Los Angeles County I was involved in hundreds of cases presented in dependency cases. Those cases were almost always the result of severe emotional abuse or neglect by the child mother. Severe because in most cases DCFS would bend over backwards to provide services and voluntary contract to keep children from becoming county dependents.

Federal statistics show that 80% of all cases of child abuse and neglect are perpetrated by the childs mother.

When I was working as a social worker there were about 80,000 children detained each year by DCFS. Almost none of these cases were ever prosecuted for any criminal violations. Though they could have been.

Yet during that same time there were about 2,000 arrests for Domestic violence of which 1,300 were prosecuted.

It's time to reconsider our definition of domestic violence to include physical abuse and neglect against children.

Nancy - you have been placed in a terrible position. It seems that the only solution is to legally divorce your current husband but continue on as before with your relationship. Maybe that would eliminate the courts ability to count take your assets. Test the waters with that idea with an honest lawyer if you can find one.