|
||||||||
Iknow what you're gonna say. "He's a misogynist." "Maybe he just hates women." "He must be gay." If you think any one of these things, stop right now; I'm not sure you'll ever get what I'm saying. I'm saying that the feminazis are lying to the world when they say they want equal treatment. They don't. They're not for women's rights; they're really for women's wrongs.
"Women's wrongs?" you ask? That's exactly what I said, and I meant it. If you don't believe me, look at the facts. Today, women are having men arrested almost for breathing air. Take one story from the Boston Globe in May 1998:
Extreme cases? Hardly. Men today are finding that the assumptions they had
made about wife beaters, child molesters, "deadbeat dads," and O.J. Simpson are now being made about them. Many see themselves as having been abandoned not only by their wives but by friends and family members, who assume they "must have done something" to deserve losing their children. What their children "must have done" to deserve losing the care of even an imperfect father is seldom asked.
Today, the legal system has developed an ingenious child-kidnapping and extortion machine that enables vindictive women to deprive men of their children without cause. Fathers who attempt to contact their confiscated children or separated spouses can be arrested for
"harassment" or "stalking," an offense that can be defined as "unwelcome conversation." A mother can have the father summoned to court and, without producing any evidence of wrongdoing, request that he be stripped of custody of his children and effectively ejected from his family, and in almost every case the judge will duly oblige. So much for the false notion that the law treats both genders equally. In effect, every father is wearing the Emperor's clothes from a legal standpoint. Once the mother goes into action, he is defenseless because the persons who allegedly uphold the law practice blatant gender discrimination and call it justice!
85 to 90 percent of custody awards go to mothers. One study in Arlington found that over a recent eighteen-month period, maternal custody was awarded in a hundred percent of decisions. Nobody denies that a child needs a mother, but what is being said de jure by the legal system is that a mother should wield arbitrary power to deny the child a father. Even an adulterous mother, even an admittedly violent, abusive mother, even a kidnapper-mother has the power to prevent the father from having any contact whatsoever with his children.
When it comes to gender issues, even the Bill of Rights becomes invalid. Freedom of religion, perhaps the issue that caused the first English immigrants to seek refuge in the New World, is not granted when a family dispute exists. In 1997, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled against a fundamental Christian father from taking his children to services against the opposition of the Orthodox Jewish mother. A judge in Virginia he enjoined a father in 1998 from taking his son to synagogue on Passover. The prohibition against "unreasonable searches and seizures" also does not apply in cases of paternal rights. Even the right to a speedy trial does not exist for fathers in cases of family disputes; cases abound in which men have spent weeks, months, and even years while being denied the right to trial.
In many cases, men have been compelled to pay child support for children that are not theirs, neither legally nor biologically. In 1994, the Maryland Court of Appeals refused to rescind a child support order against a man who, according to DNA tests, could not possibly have been the father of the child he was ordered to support, even though the biological father and the mother requested that the order be changed. The Los Angeles Times reported in October 1998 that in Los Angeles alone, each month 350 new cases of men required to support children who are established by DNA testing not to be theirs surface each month. Yet the Los Angeles County District Attorney insists that he has no intention of seeking to overturn support orders based on false identifications.
More than one American male has chosen to leave the United States permanently rather than to stay in a society that so obviously hates men and criminalizes them arbitrarily. The Clinton Administration is certainly not blameless for this situation. Take a case from April 1998, in which a custodial father in Illinois who stayed at home to care for his three children and who received no child support from the mother was arrested under "a little known state law that makes it a felony for a man to be 'deliberately unemployed.'" "Men in Illinois have become the target of a witch hunt," the man's attorney told Reuters. "Men are hounded if they owe child support and Mom is on welfare. Now Mom is the deadbeat parent, and the man is hounded because he is on welfare."
There are some signs, however slight, that indicate that some women have awakened to the reality that the feminazis do not represent their interests. The Independent Women's Forum speaks out quite frankly in affirming that nobody appointed the feminazis as representative of all women and that they lament the negative effect that feminism has wrought on modern society. In addition, fewer young men are marrying today and give fear of divorce as their principal reason for avoiding marriage. This development has deprived many women of doing something that they had always hoped to do: to raise a family. Because feminazis regard such a desire as betraying the female gender, it is not surprising that antipathy for feminism is growing among women at a rapid rate.
I can hear some of you asking: so what does this have to do with Israel? Is this guy so hung up in his rant that he doesn't realize that he's not talking about Israel? Now I'll tell you: it's a truism that bears repetition that almost every negative aspect of life in the U.S. ultimately makes its way to Israel. In this case, Israel has plenty of its own misandrist stories to tell. In 1996, a man was physically assaulted by his ex-wife in the presence of policemen in a police station. The woman was arrested and brought to trial, and in the trial, she was found guilty. However, the judge chose not to administer any punishment! If you say that it was an isolated incident, how can you explain that violent women are rarely, if ever, punished? How can you explain the fact that when a man who killed his wife was sentenced to seven years prison, Israeli feminazis took to the streets to protest, yet when Carmela Buhbut murdered her husband and received the same seven year sentence, Israeli feminazis protested the fact that she was punished at all? It's quite obvious that Israel has already become a U.S. satellite when it comes to feminazi injustice and misandry.
Another case in point: when it became known that a boy in Ra'anana was being locked up daily in a storage closet by the woman who ran his after-school program, no mention of the incident made the press until more than a year later. However, when a story in neighboring Herzliya surfaced about a girl whom her teacher locked in a basement became known, the story was published the next day! The two stories became public knowledge within 48 hours of each other, but clearly a girl being locked up was considered far more outrageous than a boy being locked up. It did not matter that the boy was known to be disabled, whereas the girl was without any known disability; gender was clearly the overriding issue that determined which story was newsworthy.
And some of you still say I am misogynist? Notice that I speak not against women, only against the Feminazi Big Lie. These stories are not fiction; they are the realities of today. The notion of the U.S. being the home of the free and the brave has been shattered for all time, thanks to feminazi legislation that legalizes women's wrongs. Is there any reason for me to reconcile myself to being a second-class citizen when the United States was founded upon the concept of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? And if Israel needs men to protect its people, why should the segment of the population that has no choice but to sacrifice itself on the battlefield to protect the country be treated like slaves?