I’m currently in the process of reading Taken into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family by Stephen Baskerville. It really is an amazing indictment of the two-tiered legal system that men face when confronted with divorce and the loss of custody of their children. As the whole book is full of horrific examples of what men face, I’ll just quote this one segment, referenced by Baskerville (p.79), of an article that appeared in the Observer:
“One applicant had cancer which …’could be upsetting’ for his child. A man might be said to ‘lack sensitivity’ or be ‘over-enthusiastic’ or even ‘father-centered’ – for which tendency one man was denied all contact with his child. In one case, it was noted disapprovingly that a father had told his son he preferred Scrabble to Monopoly and thought hyacinths smelled sweeter than roses. This was seen as ‘taking the lead in contact’ – a form of emotional abuse, according to the reporting officer. One father wore a black shirt, which ‘could be intimidating.’ Another stood accused of ‘losing his temper with customs officials in a French airport’ … and was therefore said to have an ‘unfortunate disposition.’ One report could find no reason why a child should not see more of his father but went on to conclude: ‘Nonetheless, the mother must be concerned about something.’ The father’s contact was limited to two hours every six weeks.”
I just chose this segment to quote because it offers several examples within a few sentences…and I’m very lazy. Denying visitation rights for the reasons listed above is not the worst of it. There are some absolute horror stories, and I’m not even a third of the way through the book. I’m just too lazy to go back through the pages I’ve read and pick them out. The trampling of constitutional rights, judicial abuse, discrimination in favor of the wife/mother, arbitrary imprisonment, and Kafkaesque administrative procedures are the norm. You really should read this book. It’s like electro-shock therapy for those of you men out there still laboring under the delusion that you’ll get a fair shake in the American legal system. If you can’t afford the book, or just don’t have time to read it, here are two good articles by the author, on the same topic:
What’s amazing is the completely and totally hateful way in which these women, who are overwhelmingly the ones filing for no-fault divorce, treat their husbands, who in most cases have done nothing wrong. They falsely accuse them of the worst things imaginable, and completely deny them the right to visit their children either out of spite or “just because they can.” Welfare is widely acknowledged as one of the key factors causing the destruction of the black family beginning in the 1960’s. America’s “child-support enforcement” regime is probably THE key factor in the post-60’s destruction of the white family. Prior to welfare, a father was necessary for the mother and her child to have around at the very least due to the financial resources he provided. Once welfare filled that role, he was superfluous, and single-motherhood among blacks soared. It increased for whites as well, but at a much lesser rate. The main reason for that is simply that welfare use is socially stigmatized among whites. “Child support payments” collected from “deadbeat dads” (the widespread existence of which Baskerville proves is a myth) is not. Women turned on their men in a heartbeat. In most cases, yes…you really are nothing more than a wallet to her. Yet another difficult truth white males will need to…yet will probably refuse to accept. June Cleaver doesn’t live here anymore.
This appears a little later on (p.81):
“A 1997 ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Court prohibiting a father from taking his children to Christian services received some media attention but no opposition from either churches or civil libertarians. In Arlington, Virginia, a judge’s 1997 injunction prohibiting a father from taking his son to Bar Mitzvah was reversed only after a protest in front of the county courthouse.”
So…a Christian father is denied the right to take his child to religious services, he complains, but to no avail…a Jewish father is denied the right to take his child to religious services, and all of a sudden it’s an injustice to be remedied . At least a dozen words could describe what popped into my mind when I first read that. “Shocked” definitely isn’t one of them. This is why Jews can continue to support social and political movements designed to weaken family structures. Because when it comes time to actually implement these “universal” laws to specific individuals and their cases, Jewish fathers can count on Amy Totenberg, or any of the large number of Jews that dominate American institutions, to uphold at least some of their parental rights, while simultaneously denying those rights to white gentile fathers. Our Hebrew Overlords will always be taken care of in the end.