Home Recommended Products Contact Us
Resources & Links
Fatherlessness Statistics
Child Support
Legal Resources
Search This Site
Bad Judges List
Free Templates
Restraining Orders
Judicial Abuse Stories
Father's Stories
Legal Help & Referrals
Constitutional Rights
Table of Contents
Terms & Conditions
Signup for Newsletter
Search Site
One-Sided Stories About Men Abound
They are Often Feminist Propaganda Taking The Exceptional Circumstance,
and Pretending It is The Rule or a Basis to "protect" women from Men.
Overly Favorable Treatment Under the Law For Women in the Courts That is Unconstitutional,
Illegal and Sexist Seems to be the Only Real Rule In Family Courts Today.
Almost every story supports this, not just an exceptional few.
I won't publish this feminist propaganda on this web site - it is abusive, silly and not based in facts, statistics or anything scientific. These stories are rare and used over and over again. Talk to ANY man who has been through this process and you will find a story of bias, illegal actions by courts and unconstitutional ruling - in VIRTUALLY EVERY CASE!  These feminist stories are just that, stories, maybe blown out of proportion and some not I am sure, but certainly not the average case, and certainly not a basis to support the HUGE bias in the courts that exists OR change the law or remove more constitutional rights from fathers and men.  I am disgusted by the self-interest of these people that knows no bounds and will take away every right of a man so as to have some some benefit for women. The time for change has come and is very near. It is time men created a balancing power for NOW and other groups that are out of control, biased one way and have no sense of fairness whatsoever.

Dear Editor,

Thanks for Cynthia Tucker's opinion in the Atlanta Journal Constitution on the nature of fathers in America circa 2005. Many societal changes have occurred in the last 200 years overcoming racial, religious and sexual biases. Imagine, blacks were lynched, homosexuals thought psychotic, and wives and children in the USA were considered property just 100 years ago. The individual and groups' rights movements have changed many things for the better.

However, Cynthia Tucker's opinions of "angry, selfish noncustodial father ...centered on their needs, their wants, their frayed cuffs, worn soles and tiny black-and-white TVs" do nothing to advance the "best interests of children" as individuals and a group and reflect the current sexual bias toward dads in the family court system and perhaps in current society as well.

With her broad stereotyping, Cynthia Tucker even mirrors earlier opinions of women in the workplace:
"Imagine an article stating, for example, that 'mothers are far less qualified to work in professional positions than fathers. They take off more time to have and care for children, and suffer from a lack of business acumen due to the fact that they are more emotional and prone to hysteria.' Such writing would rightfully be labeled as inflammatory, stereotypical, gender-based discrimination. Our culture currently condones a double standard when it comes to evaluating female/male attributes: it is acceptable to communicate generalized, discriminatory comments about men, but in turn it is unacceptable - and in some cases downright illegal- to communicate discriminatory comments toward women." (source, Cynthia McNeely "Lagging Behind the Times: Parenthood, Custody, and Gender Bias in the Family Court", 1998 Florida State University Law Review).

Georgia HB221 does not hold Dads unaccountable but in fact holds both divorced parents accountable: There is no longer a presumption of a super-parent
(custodial) and under-parent (non-custodial) with regard to their children. Both are equal, leading to balance in their children as close as possible to an intact-home.

George Mason
Non-custodial citizen Dad with a color-TV, good soul (although my shoes do need polishing), who wants and needs his kids and whose kids want and need their father.
Holden, MA

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/991nmrow.asp ** *"Another troubling new issue is Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, the federal government's child support collection and enforcement program. Originally designed to track down the welfare fathers of illegitimate children, the measure has increasingly targeted middle income households affected by divorce. There is mounting evidence that the system now encourages marital breakup and exacerbates fatherlessness by creating a winner-take-all game, where the losing parent--commonly a father wanting to save the marriage--is unfairly penalized by the loss of his children and by a federally enforced child support obligation. Here we find objectively false feminist views--the assumption that men are always the abusers and women are always the victims--driving public policy. And here we find still another newly indentured class of citizens--noncustodial parents--being squeezed financially by the state. If you think this an exaggeration, I refer you to no less an authority than Phyllis Schlafly, who calls this runaway federal law the most serious danger facing American families today." *