Drone Strikes for College Boys?

[Ubiquitous]

The New York Times website has one of those online "Room for Debate"
features on whether college students accused of rape should receive due
process. Seriously, some of the contributors actually say they
shouldn't, including Dana Bolger, "a law, jurisprudence and social
thought major at Amherst College":

The criminal justice system notoriously fails rape survivors:
police disbelieve victims, prosecutors refuse to take on the
majority of cases because they lack witnesses, the standard
of proof is impossibly high and juries buy into the rape myths
that saturate our society and acquit perpetrators. In the end,
only three out of every 100 rapists ever spend even a day in
prison.

The advocacy group Bolger links to claims that a majority of rapes
aren't reported to police, so it's unclear where that denominator even
comes from. Anyway, remember this the next time someone from the Times
insists that terrorists are entitled to due process.



--
"Right now, the president is not solving the budget chaos because he
doesn't want to cut federal spending. That's the truth. And the spinners
are misleading you. They are lying to you. That makes me angry. So you
saw that and will most likely see it again in the future."
-- Bill O'Reilly

[Marcus Aurelius]

Thank you for the original post. Read "Feminist Gulag- No Prosecution
Necessary" an article by Baskerville and " Legalizing Misandry" a book
which demonstrate how radical feminism and radical feminist
jurisprudence are destroying basic legal rights and guarrantees and
resulting in the massive legal, social, economic, and political
discrimination against and oppression of men.
" 'Rape is an expression of...male supremacy... the age-old economic,
political and cultural exploitation of women by men. ' Does this sound
like a modern radical feminist? Guess again. It is from a 1948
American Communist Party pamphlet entitled " "Woman Against Myth" by
Mary Inman." (American Communism and the Making of Women's Liberation"
by Henry Makow Ph.D., July 12, 2003, p.1)There is horribly unfair and
discriminatory law in the U.S.A. and Canada against men, unbalanced
favoritism of the legal system in favor of women against men through
horribly unfair legislation.
"This book has identified one fundamental feature of the laws,
American and Canadian, that now govern relations between men and
women: systematic discrimination against men. By 'systematic
discrimination.' we refer to several things.
First, legal discrimination against men is part of a pattern with deep
roots in culturally transmitted beliefs, nor merely and isolated
phenomenon. Anyone who looks can see this pattern in laws governing
affirmative action, pay equity, maternal custody, child support,
pornography, prostitution, sexual harassment, and violence against
women. In all cases, directly or indirectly, men are identified
exclusively as the villains (even though that sometimes amounts, as in
the case of affirmative action, to the villainy of their ancestors).
Second, legal discrimination against men is pervasive, not merely a
collection of anomalies. The same arguments are used over and over
again, differing justly slightly from one context to another. The most
obvious example is provided by those who believe that rape is only one
extreme point along a continuum, which begins with the mildest
expression of heterosexual interest and ends with murder.
Third, legal discrimination against men is the result of both
conscious and subconscious motivations.
This is more complicated than it sounds
Ideological feminists are certainly prejudiced against men, and they
are certainly aware that men are paying the price for legal changes
that benefit women.
-----The result is a mentality that accepts systematic discrimination
against men. Almost anything can be said about men or done to men, in
short, without the expectation of a public outcry. Only now is that
mentality being questioned and even challenged.
The premise that underlies systemic discrimination against men is that
women need to be protected from the power of men in every aspect of
daily life. And underlying that premise are the various characteristic
features of feminist ideology."
( Legalizing Misandry-From Public Shame to Systematic Discrimination
Against Men by Paul Nanthanson and Katherine K. Young, McGill-Queen's
University Press, Ithaca, 2006, p.311-312)
Feminist Jurisprudence provides the framework for this unbalanced
favoritism of the legal system in favor of women against men through
horribly unfair legislation
American feminist jurisprudence is the study of the construction and
workings of the law from perspectives which foreground the
implications of the law for women and women's lives. (Feminist
Jurisprudence- International Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
This study includes law as a theoretical enterprise as well as its
practical and concrete effects in women's lives. Further, it includes
law as an academic discipline and thus incorporates concerns regarding
pedagogy and the influence of teachers.
On all these levels, feminist scholars, lawyers, and activists raise
questions about the meaning and the impact of law on women's lives.
Feminist jurisprudence seeks to analyze and redress more traditional
legal theory and practice. It focuses on the ways in which law has
been structures that deny the experiences and needs of women.
Feminist jurisprudence claims that patriarchy ( the system of
interconnected relations and institutions that oppress women) infuses
the legal system and all its working and that this results in an
unacceptable state of affairs. (Feminist Jurisprudence-Encyclopedia of
Philosophy)
"Feminist legal theorists, despite differences in schools of thought,
are united in their basic belief that society is patriarchal--shaped
by and dominated by men. Feminists jurisprudence, then, provides an
analysis and critique of women's position in patriarchal society and
examines the nature and extent of of women's subordination. It
explores the role of law in maintaining and perpetuating patriarchy.
It also examines methods of eliminating patriarchy. Feminist legal
theory essentially has two major components. The first is an
exploration and critique of theoretical issues about the interaction
between law and gender. The second is the application of feminist
analysis and perspective to concrete areas of law: for example,
family,work, criminal law, reproductive freedom, pornography, sexual
harassment with an eye toward effectuating law reform." (from Feminist
Legal Theory: Foundations, D. Kelly Weisberg, ed. 1993).
Catharine A. MacKinnon is widely regarded as the foremother of
feminist legal theory.
Her first book, Sexual Harassment of Working Women: A Case of Sex
Discrimination, was published in 1979.
While studying at Yale Law School, MacKinnon developed the theory of
sexual harassment with a collective of lawyers and activists.
The conceptualization of sexual harassment as a legal theory to
address the situation that so many women encountered in the workplace
and in school is a clear example of the power of feminist legal theory
to transform women's lives. Today, women enter the workforce with a
new set of entitlements and opportunities. (The Language of Violence:
Feminist Legal Theory)
Consequently, feminist jurisprudence is not politically neutral but a
normative approach as expressed by philosopher Patricia Smith :"
Feminist jurisprudence challenges basic legal categories and concepts
rather than analyzing them as given. Feminist jurisprudence asks what
is implied in traditional categories, distinctions, or concepts and
rejects them if they imply the subordination of women. In this sense,
feminist jurisprudence is normative and claims that traditional
jurisprudence and law are implicitly normative as well."(Feminist
Jurisprudence-Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Feminist jurisprudence sees the workings of law as thoroughly
permeated by political and moral judgments about the worth of women
and how women should be treated.
Given the foregoing feminist philosophical and legal constructs, the
determinants of the same are premised upon destroying traditional
Western legal concepts of the individual application of the law in an
unbiased manner and replacing the same with differentiating the
formulation of the law and the application of the law based upon
gender (and other class determinants) and how the formulation and
application of the law promulgates the goals of women (and, through
implication, other groups) against the oppressive "Patriarchy" as
represented by men individually and collectively.
Although feminist jurisprudence revolves around a number of questions
and features a diversity of focus and approach, two characteristics
are central to it.
First, because the Anglo-American legal tradition is built on
liberalism and its tenets, feminist jurisprudence tends to respond to
liberalism in some way.
The second characteristic is the goal of bringing the law and its
practitioners to recognize the law as currently constructed does not
acknowledge or respond to the needs of women and must be changed.
(Feminist Jurisprudence- Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Again, the essential concept of civil society, " the social contract",
as the basis for law itself and Western philosophical and legal
thought is considered inadequate and hostile towards women (and other
groups) such that they must be made subordinate to the goals of women
and other groups who have been traditionally exploited by the
Patriarchical ( Western Civilization) concepts of law, equity, and
politics.
Inherent in the same, of course, is the subordination of men
(especially Western men) and Western civilization and it's replacement
by authoritarian concepts which can only be reasonably be defined as
tyrannical, sexist, and racist.
"As a critical theory, feminist jurisprudence responds to the current
dominant understanding of legal thought which is usually identified
with the liberal Anglo-American tradition. (This tradition is
represented by such authors as Hart 1961 and Dworkin 1977, 1986.) Two
major branches of this tradition have been legal positivism, on the
one hand, and natural law theory, on the other.
Feminist jurisprudence responds to both these branches of the American
legal tradition by raising questions regarding their assumptions about
the law, including:
1.That law is properly objective and thus must have recourse to
objective rules or understandings at some level.
2.That law is properly impartial especially in that it is not to be
tainted by the personal experience of any of its practitioners
particularly judges.
3.That equality must function as a formal notion rather than as a
substantive one such that, in the eyes of the law, difference must be
shown to be "relevant" in order to be admissible/visible.
4. That law, when working properly, should be certain; and, that the
goal of lawmaking and legal decision-making is to gain certainty.
5.. That justice can be understood as a matter of procedures such that
a proper following of procedures can be understood as sufficient to
rendering justice.
Each of these assumption, although contested and debated, has remained
a significant feature of the liberal tradition of legal understanding.
Feminist jurisprudence usually frames its responses to traditional
legal thought in terms of whether or not the critic is maintaining
some commitment to the tradition or some particular feature of it.
This split in responses has been formulated in a number of different
ways according to the particular concerns they emphasize.
The two formulations found most frequently in American feminist
jurisprudence characterize the split either as a reformist/radical
debate or as the sameness/difference debate. Within the reformist/
radical debate, reformist feminists argue that the liberal tradition
offers much that can be shaped to fit feminist hands and should be
retained for all that it offers. These feminists approach
jurisprudence with an eye to what needs to be changed within the
system that already exists. Their work, then, is to gain entry into
that system and use its own tools to construct a legal system which
prevents the inequities of patriarchy from affecting justice.
Those who see the traditional system as either bankrupt or so
problematic that it cannot be reshaped are often referred to as
transformist or radical feminists. According to this approach, the
corruption of the legal tradition by the patriarchy is thought to be
too deeply embedded to allow for any significant adjustments to the
problems that women face. Feminists using this approach tend to argue
that the legal system, either parts or as a whole, must be abandoned.
They argue that liberal legal concepts, categories, and processes must
be rejected and new ones put in place which can be free from the
biases of the current system. Their work, then, is to craft the
transformations that are necessary in legal theory and practice and to
create a new legal system that can provide a more equitable justice."

Feminist legislation has resulted in the explosion of men incarcerated
in the U.S.A. through the criminalization of conduct that women
consider to be inimical to their political, economic, and social
interests.
"Claiming to be the freest country on Earth, the United States
incarcerates a larger percentage of its population than Iran or Syria.
Over two million people,or nearly one in 50 adults, excluding the
elderly, are incarcerated, the highest proportion in the world. Some
seven million Americans, or 3.2 percent, are under penal
supervision.----
But traditionalists upholding law and order were not an innovation of
the 1970s. A newer and more militant force helped create the "carceral
state." In The Prison and the Gallows (2006), feminist scholar Marie
Gottschalk points out that traditional conservatives were not the
prime instigators, and blames "interest groups and social movements
not usually associated with penal conservatism." Yet, she names only
one: "the women's movement." (Feminist Gulag) Baskerville
In the United States, there are discriminatory sentencing disparities
against men.
In both the United Kingdom and the United States there is concern
about the extent to which there may be false accusations of rape.
Lenient sentences for false accusations and lack of anonymity for the
accused are also concerns.
Sentencing for those convicted of making false accusations of rape in
the United Kingdom is often perceived as being too lenient in
comparison to the severe penalties imposed upon rapists. (Wikipedia-
Mens Rights).
Men accused of rape today enjoy few safeguards. "People can be charged
with virtually no evidence," says Boston former sex-crimes prosecutor
Rikki Klieman. "If a female comes in and says she was sexually
assaulted, then on her word alone, with nothing else-- and I mean
nothing else, no investigation-- the police will go out and arrest
someone."
" A defendant who can absolutely prove his innocence--- can none the
less still be convicted, based solely on the word of the accuser,"
write Stuart Taylor and K.C. Johnson in Until Proven Innocent.
In North Carolina, simply "naming the person accused" along with the
time and place " will support a verdict of guilty. Crime laboratories
are notorious for falsifying results to obtain convictions.
(Baskerville- Feminist Gulag).
The feminist dogma that "women never lie" goes largely unchallenged.
"Any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape
is one of the most falsely reported crimes, " says Craig Silverman, a
former Colorado prosecutor known for his zealous prosecutions. Purdue
University sociologist, Eugene Kanin, found that "41% of the total
disposed rape cases were officially declared false" during a nine-year
period, " that is by the complainant's admission that no rape had
occurred."
In the infamous Duke University lacrosse case, prosecutor Michael
Nifong suppressed exculpating evidence and prosecuted men he knew to
be innocent, according to Taylor and Johnson. Nifong, himself, was
eventually disbarred, but he had the willing accomplices among
assistant prosecutors, police, crime lab technicians, judges, the bar
and the media.
"Innocent men are arrested and even imprisoned as a result of bogus
claims, "writes Linda Fairstein, former head of the sex-crimes unit
for the Manhattan District Attorney, who estimates that half of all
reports are unfounded..
Innocence projects are almost wholly occupied with rape cases ( though
they try to disguise this fact). Yet no systematic investigation has
been undertaken by the media or civil libertarians into why so many
innocent citizens are so easily incarcerated on fabricated
allegations. The exoneration of the Duke students on obviously trumped-
up charges triggered few investigations-and no official ones- to
determine how widespread such rigged justice is against those unable
to garner media attention. (Baskerville-Feminist Gulag).
In many jurisdictions, alleged victims of rape are given anonymity
while this is not extended to the accused. The British government
announced plans to grant anonymity to the accused but withdrew plans
after criticism from campaign groups such as "Women Against
Rape." (Wikipedia-Mens Rights).
In most states in the United States, it is possible to get a
conviction for rape without corroborating evidence. Thus, the issue of
false accusations of rape is very serious. (Wikipedia Men's Rights)

In the current state of the law, men can and will, with just an
allegation,lose all of their money, their kids, their house, their
job, their respect, their self-respect, their friends, their standing
in the community, their families,;and, above all, their souls if a
woman decides, one day, in one minute, to snap and cast him into the
abyss of hell by calling 911 and lying.
When a police officer is called to the scene in a domestic dispute,
the statistics demonstrate that it is overwhelmingly the man in the
relationship who is arrested and not the woman.
It happens thousands of times a day in the USA.
With regards to any type of allegation of Domestic Violence (what
these types of cases are called), any Police Officer, Prosecutor, or
Lawyer will tell you that a woman's word is 100 times stronger than a
man's, even in the absence of any evidence to substantiate this. And,
the police officer will blindly arrest and the prosecutor will
doggedly pursue that man.
Other incarcerations are also attributable to feminism. The vast
preponderance of actual violent crime and substance abuse proceeds
from single-parent homes and fatherless children more than any other
factor far surpassing race and poverty. The explosion of single
parenthood is usually and resignedly blamed on paternal abandonment
with the only remedy being ever-more draconian but ineffective child
support "crackdowns." Yet no evidence indicates that the proliferation
of single-parent homes results from absconding fathers. If we accept
that single motherhood is precisely what feminists say it is-the
deliberate choice of their sexual revolution-it is then apparent that
sexual liberation lies behind not only these newfangled sexual
crimes,but also the larger trend of actual crime and incarceration.
Feminism is driving both the criminalization of the innocent and the
criminality of the guilty. (Baskerville-Gulag)
We will continue to fight a losing battle against crime,
incarceration, nd expansive government power until we confront the
sexual ideology that is driving not only family breakdown and the
ensuing social anomie but the criminalization of the male population.
Ever-more-repressive measures will only further erode freedom. Under a
leftist regime, conservatives must rethink their approach to crime and
punishment and their unwitting collusion with America's homegrown
Stalinists. (Baskerville-Feminist Gulag).

MEDIA COMPLICITY

The world of rape accusations displays features similar to other
feminist gender crimes; media invective against the accused,
government-paid "victim advocates" to secure convictions, and
intimidation of anyone who defends the accused. "Nobody dependent on
the mainstream media for information about rape would have any idea
how frequent false claims are, " write Taylor and Johnson.
"Most journalists simply ignore evidence contradicting the feminist
line. " What they observe of rape characterizes feminist justice
generally: "calling a rape complainant 'the victim'-- with no
'alleged'." 'Unnamed complainants are labeled 'victims' even before
legal proceedings determine that a crime has been committed,"
according to CMR.
Rape hysteria, false accusations, and distorted scholars hip are
rampant on university campuses,which ostensibly exist to pursue the
truth. " If a woman did falsely accuse a man of rape, "opines one
"women's studies" graduate, "she may have had reason to. Maybe she
wasn't raped, but he clearly violated her in some way."
This mentality pervades feminist jurisprudence, precluding innocence
by obliterating the distinction between crime and hurt feelings. A
Vassar College assistant dean believe false accusations foster men's
education: " I think it ideally initiates a process of self-
exploration....'If I didn't violate her, could I have?"
Conservative critics of the Duke fiasco avoided feminism's role but
instead emphasized race--a minor feature of the case but a safer one
to criticize. Little evidence indicates that white people are being
systematically incarcerated on fabricated accusations of non-existent
crimes against blacks.
This is precisely what is happening to men, both white and black,
accused of rape and other "gender" crimes that feminists have turned
into a political agenda. ( Baskerville- American Gulag).
"Boyce (1994) analyzed Canadian media coverage on victimization and
found that, despite the fact that men and women suffered roughly equal
rates of violence, of those newspaper articles that referenced gender,
98.1 per cent emphasized women and 1.9 per cent emphasized men. Men,
it would appear, are not even worthy of being victims." (Men and Women
FAQ The Evolution of the Sexes- Martin Sewell)

FEMINIST DISSENT TO FEMINIST EXTREMISM

Ellen Frankel Paul, deputy director of the Social Philosophy ad Policy
Center at Bowling Green State University in Ohio, warns of the danger
inherent in using the courts as a way of policing behavior. ' Do we
really want legislatures and judges delving into our most intimate,
private lives,' she asks, ' deciding when a look is a leer and when a
leer is a civil rights offense? Should people have a legally
enforceable right not to be offended by others? At some point, the
price for this protection is the loss of both liberty and privacy
rights.' To which we would add another price: the rejection of
personal and collective maturity as a goal worth seeking."( Legalizing
Misandry-From Public Shame to Systematic Discrimination Against Men by
Paul Nanthanson and Katherine K. Young, McGill-Queen's University
Press, Ithaca, 2006, p. 221)"
"We have not yet heard from Camille Paglia.
As usual, she has a lot to say about feminism (or at least ideological
feminism, in our parlance) and its effect on society. For her, the
hostile-environment policy is
'grotesquely totalitarian. It offends free-speech rights and is
predicated on a reactionary female archetype: the prudish Victorian
lady who faints at a sexual innuendo. This isn't feminism; it's
Puritanism. The Anita Hill case, far from expanding women's rights,
was a disaster for civil liberties.
That Hill, an articulate graduate of the Yale Law School, could find
no job-preserving way to communicate to her employer her discomfort
with mild off-color banter strained credulity.
That Thomas could be publicly grilled about trivial lunch time
conversations that occurred 10 years early was an outrage worthy of
Stalinist Russia...
Feminist excesses have paralyzed and neutered white, upper-middle-
class young me as should be obvious to any visitor to the campuses of
elite schools... While men must behave honorably ( governors and
presidents should not be dropping their pants in front of female
employees or secretly preying on buxom young interns), women must also
watch how they dress and behave.
For every gross male harasser, there are 10 female sycophants who
shamelessly use their sexual attractions to get ahead.
We don't want a society of surveillance by old maids and snitches.
The proper vision of feminism is to encourage women to take personal
responsibility without running to authority figures for help.' "
Ellen Frankel Paul, deputy director of the Social Philosophy ad Policy
Center at Bowling Green State University in Ohio, warns of the danger
inherent in using the courts as a way of policing behavior. ' Do we
really want legislatures and judges delving into our most intimate,
private lives,' she asks, ' deciding when a look is a leer and when a
leer is a civil rights offense? Should people have a legally
enforceable right not to be offended by others? At some point, the
price for this protection is the loss of both liberty and privacy
rights.' To which we would add another price: the rejection of
personal and collective maturity as a goal worth seeking."( Legalizing
Misandry-From Public Shame to Systematic Discrimination Against Men by
Paul Nanthanson and Katherine K. Young, McGill-Queen's University
Press, Ithaca, 2006, p. 222)



DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Roberts notes that a recent scholarly article locates severe partner
violence with the female partner at a rate more than twice that with
the male partner (4.6% to 2.1%). Of course, this flies in the face of
the feminist hack that goes:
"Though women also engage in physical violence, severe violence is the
sole domain of the much stronger and much more evil male partner!"
Insert heavy breathing soundtrack here.....
And while " domestic violence" is painted in the media (and in the X-
rated masochistic dreams of feminists) as the exclusive domain of the
male, the fact is that when men are involved in anything that appears
to be actual "violence," they are generally responding to an attack by
a women. When only ONE party was involved in an act of violence,
Roberts states (referring to the research of one Murray Straus),
female-only violence is TWICE as common as male-only violence. And
this statistic holds true for 32 nations around the world. Insert wide-
eyed look of surprise icon here...
So the entire "domestic violence" hysteria, no matter from which angle
it is viewed, simply points to a departure from reality that is so
severed that, if it is an unwilling departure, is indicative of severe
psychosis. But if "domestic violence" hysteria is a willing departure
from reality, it points to a dishonesty and manipulation of the
ignorant masses so extreme as to place feminism as a movement in the
same propaganda stream as that indwelt by Goebbels himself. (Objectify
Chicks:Feminism is a Mental Disorder)
Like rape, domestic "violence" is defined so loosely that it need not
be violent.
The U.S. Justice Department definition includes "extreme jealousy and
possessiveness" and "name calling and constant criticizing."
For such "crimes" men are jailed with no trial. In fact, the very
category of "domestic" violence was developed largely to circumvent
due process requirements of conventional assault statutes. A study
published in Criminology and Public Policy found that no one accused
of domestic violence could be found innocent, since every arrestee
received punishment.
Here, too false accusations are rewarded. "Women lie every day,
"attests Ottawa Judge Diane Nicholas."Every day women in court say,'I
made it up. I'm lying. It didn't happen'---and they're not charged."
Amazingly, bar associations sponsor seminars instructing women how to
fabricate accusations.
Thomas Kiernan, writing in the New Jersey Law Journal, expressed his
astonishment at "the number of women attending the seminars who
smugly--indeed boastfully--announced that they had already sworn out
false or grossly exaggerated domestic violence complaints against
their hapless husbands, and that the device worked!" He added,"The
lawyer lecturers invariably congratulated the self-confessed
miscreants."
Domestic violence has become a "backwater of tautological pseudo-
theory," write Donald Dutton and Kenneth Corvo in Aggression and
Violent Behavior. " No other area of established social welfare,
criminal justice, public health, or behavioral intervention has such
weak evidence in support of mandated practice." (American Gulag-
Baskerville)
" After laying charges, police are significantly more likely to take a
man into custody than a woman, even when factors such as the level of
injury inflicted and prior criminal record are taken into account. Nor
do prosecutors tend to mitigate this disparately harsh treatment of
men. On the contrary, prosecutors appear to pursue cases involving
male suspects more vigorously than those involving female suspects.
Thus men are more likely to be found guilty and are less likely to
benefit from withdrawn charges, even though they are suspects in
proportionately more of the no-injury cases.
Men are also less likely to benefit from favorable plea bargains,
despite the fact that they have committed, on average, less grievous
offences.
And men are significantly more likely to receive harsher sentences
than women, even when all other relevant factors are taken into
account. Indeed, gender is often the most significant factor in
predicting how the law-enforcement system responds to incidents of
partner violence. "( Legalizing Misandry-From Public Shame to
Systematic Discrimination Against Men by Paul Nanthanson and Katherine
K. Young, McGill-Queen's University Press, Ithaca, 2006, p.246)
" One result of these misconceptions about domestic violence, is a
difference in the way that men and women are treated by the courts
'As a result of the invisibility of the female methods of killing,
women who do kill benefit from the stereotype of women as innocent and
are treated very differently by the law: thirteen percent of spousal
murder cases with women defendants result in an acquittal vs. 1
percent of murder cases with men defendants. Similarly, the average
prison sentence for spousal murder (excluding life sentences and the
death penalty) is almost three times longer for men than for women-
17.5 years vs. 6.2 years. And, thus far, a woman has never been
executed for killing only a man. When we can only see women as
innocent, the law becomes equally blind.' " ( Legalizing Misandry-From
Public Shame to Systematic Discrimination Against Men by Paul
Nanthanson and Katherine K. Young, McGill-Queen's University Press,
Ithaca, 2006, p. 245)




Feminist Gulag: No Prosecution Necessary

Stephen Baskerville , in his essay, "Feminist Gulag: No Prosecution
Necessary" stated:
"Feminists, despite Gottschalk's muted admission of guilt, did lead
the charge toward wholesale incarceration. Feminist ideology has
radicalized criminal justice and eroded centuries-old constitutional
protections:New crimes have been created; old crimes have been
redefined politically; the distinction between crime and private
behavior has been erased; the presumption of innocence has been
eliminated; false accusations go unpunished; patently innocent people
are jailed without trial."
"The new feminist jurisprudence hammers away at some of the most basic
foundations of our criminal law system, " Michael Weiss and Cathy
Young write in a Cato institute paper. "Chief among them is the
presumption that the accused is innocent until proven guilty."
"Some women have the courage to acknowledge this.

FALSE CLAIMS A STRATEGY

Scholars and practitioners have repeatedly documented how "allegations
of abuse are now use for tactical advantage" in custody cases nd
"become a part of the gamesmanship of divorce." Domestic abuse has
become "an area of law mired in intellectual dishonesty and injustice,
" according to the Rutgers Law Review.
Restraining orders removing men from their homes and children are
summarily issued without any evidence..Due process protections are so
routinely ignored that, the New Jersey Law Journal
reports one judge told his colleagues, " Your job is not to become
concerned about the constitutional rights of the man you're
violating."
Attorney David Heleniak calls New Jersey's statute "a due process
fiasco" in the Rutgers Law Review. New Jersey court literature openly
acknowledges that due process is ignored because it " perpetuates the
cycle of power and control whereby the [alleged?] perpetrator remains
th one with the power and the [alleged/] victim remains powerless."
Omitting "alleged" is standard even in statutes, where, the
Massachusetts Lawyer Weekly reports, " the mere allegation of domestic
abuse...may shift the burden of proof to the defendant."
Special " integrated domestic violence courts " presume guilt and
then, says New York's openly feminist chief judge, " makes batterers
and abusers take responsibility for their actions. " They can seize
property, including homes, without the accused being convicted or even
formally charged or present to defend himself.
Lawyer Walter Fox describes these courts as "pre-fascist": " Domestic
violence courts ...are designed to get around the protections of the
criminal code. The burden of proof is reduced or removed, and there's
no presumption of innocence. "
Forced confessions are widespread. Pennsylvania men are incarcerated
unless they sign forms stating, " I have physically and emotionally
battered my partner." The man must then describe the violence, even if
he insists he committed none. " I am responsible for the violence I
used, " the forms declare. " My behavior was not
provoked." (Baskerville- Feminist Gulag)

ABORTION, PATERNAL RIGHTS

In all but 15 countries, husbands are not required to authorize or be
notified of an induced abortion.
Egypt, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Iraq, Japan, The Republic of Korea,
Kuwait, Malawi, Morocco, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and
the United Arab Emirates all legally require that an abortion must be
authorized by the woman's husband. However, in some countries, this
authorization law can be overridden if there is genuine concern for
maternal health.
In China, the law states that a woman has no overriding priority over
her spouse in deciding whether to have a child.
In the USA in 2006, the court case Dubay v. Wells concerned whether
men should have an opportunity to decline all paternity rights and
responsibilities in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. Supporters
said that this would allow the woman time to make an informed decision
and give men the same reproductive rights as women.
In it's dismissal of the case, the U.S. Court of Appeals (Sixth
Circuit) stated that " the Fourteenth Amendment does not deny to [the]
State the power to treat different classes of persons in different
ways."

ADOPTION

Fathers' rights activists seek a gender-neutral approach in which
unwed men and women would have equal rights in adoption issues.
In Oregon, a U.S. state, an adoption may be granted without the
consent of a married woman's husband if it has been determined that
her husband at such time was not the father of the child. In this
case, consent of the husband (or father) is not required.

CHILD CUSTODY

Many men feel that they are discriminated against and that they do not
have the same contact rights or equitable shared parenting rights as
their ex-spouse. The United Kingdom and the United States were cited,
with several other unnamed countries, as affected regions where child
custody issues have become complicated by higher divorce rates, less
father-child time, while there has been greater expectations for
fatherly involvement in their children's lives. Authors of Unfamiliar
territory write: "The current struggles of the fathers' rights
movement can be understood as part of this complex and painful
renegotiation of intimate relations against a backdrop of changing
lifestyles and expectations." Men seek to change the legal climate for
men through changes in family law.
In the United States, fathers were awarded custody in 17.4 percent of
cases in 2007, a percentage that has statistically not changed since
1994.
From the Chapter on The Marital Relationship:" Contrary to government
propaganda (and Common Law tradition), child support today has little
to do with fathers abandoning their children, deserting their
marriages, or even agreeing to a divorce. It is automatically assessed
on all non-custodial parents, even those involuntarily divorced
without grounds ("no fault"). It is an entitlement for all divorcing
mothers, regardless of their actions, and coerced from fathers,
regardless of their fidelity. The "deadbeat dad" is far less likely to
be a man who abandoned the offspring he callously sired than to be a
loving father who has been, as attorney Jed Abraham writes in From
Courtship to Courtroom , "forced to finance the filching of his own
children." (Feminist Gulag-Baskerville)

PARENTAL ABDUCTION

"Men's rights activists" state that children of men on Indian descent
have been abducted from their homes in Canada, the United States and
Europe and moved to India where the national courts do not recognize
foreign child custody orders. The country is not subjected to the
Hague Convention and men accused of dowry harassment may be arrested
at Indian airports.

PARENTAL LEAVE

There is a wide variance in parental leave provisions across 24
western countries which are primarily European countries, Australia
and the United States.
The most liberal allows the couple to chose how to split the family
leave time between mother and father. In the countries where parental
leave is available and defined, it is, generally, for 2 to 12 days.
Where maternal leave is available and defined, all but the United
States and Australia, the period of time is, generally, 14-20 weeks.
However, four countries have extended leave periods.

PARENTAL FRAUD

Parental fraud occurs when a mother intentionally identifies a man as
a biological father who she knows is not the father.
Estimates in the United States have ranged that there might be as many
as 800,000 incorrect paternity judgments in California alone (because
of defaults). Once so judged, it is extremely difficult or even
impossible to get liability for child support removed. In some cases,
a husband is responsible for his wife's children no matter what. Even
if the child is not his own.

REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS-PATERNAL OBLIGATION

The woman's right to choose to have a baby or not determines the
father's obligation to pay child support for the child's life.

Affirmative Action

According to the University of Pittsburgh, affirmative action is
"predicted to lower the performance requirement for women and result
in reverse discrimination towards men." (Wikipedia-Mens Rights).

Social Security and Retirement

Previously, in some countries that award some form of social security
or pension women qualified for benefits earlier in life than men.
However, this is currently being phased out. Australia and the United
Kingdom provisions are no longer offered to women after 1955.
Widow Allowance in Australia is awarded to a woman born before 1 June
1955, with no recent workforce experience and with low income if she
becomes widowed, divorced, or separated from a spouse or de facto
partner (of either sex). The provision is available to women only and
not to men in identical circumstances,
In the United Kingdom, women's earlier qualification for State Pension
has ended for anyone born after 1955. (Wikipedia- Men's Rights)