A Man And His Castle by Charles E. Corry, Ph.D.

This site is copyrighted, supported, and maintained by the Equal Justice Foundation.


 

| EJF Home | Join the EJF | Comments? | Get EJF newsletter | Newsletters |

| DV Home | Abstract | Contents | Authors and Site Map | Tables | Index | Bibliography |

 

| Chapter 9 — The Male Perspective |

| Next — Defensive male actions under current law |

| Back — Violence and mankind |


 
"You do not become a 'dissident' just because you decide one day to take up this most unusual career. You are thrown into it by your personal sense of responsibility, combined with a complex set of external circumstances. You are cast out by the existing structures and placed in a position of conflict with them. It begins as an attempt to do your work well, and ends up with being branded an enemy of society."

Vaclav Havel


 

In dealing with any problem in a free country, first and foremost, the civil rights and liberties of the citizens must be preserved if we are not to descend into a police state. In addition, any workable laws to control domestic violence must recognize human biology and sexuality. However, current laws, and the feminist viewpoint, attack the problem by forcibly separating male and female when they quarrel.

Removing the King from his castle may quiet things down inside the battlements, unless of course it is the Queen who is stirring up rebellion. But a King forcibly removed from his castle is hardly likely to extend his protection to the citizens remaining in the keep.

Woe unto them!

Is that what we want for families? Wouldn't peace between King and Queen be preferable to the death and destruction that so commonly follows a palace uprising? Lets try and solve the problem rather than simply blaming the male.

Women and, most particularly, children need the security, protection, balance, and instruction of a male. Except in extreme cases, to forcefully remove those safeguards in the name of whatever movement, be it 'domestic violence' or any other fanatical ideology, is detrimental to the children and, ultimately, to the society.

We seem to be making the problems worse instead of better with our present approach, particularly where children are involved. Our evolution, and present sociology, all suggest that removing the male from child rearing retards the human infant. Human males have evolved to protect their women and children.

Studies clearly show that the safest place for a child is in the presence of their biological father. There is a sound evolutionary basis for that. Fathers who don't protect their children don't have many grandchildren. There is also clear evidence that more than half the time when couples fight, it is the woman who initiates the violence. To punish the King because the Queen has gone mad is the height of folly and a perfect path to anarchy.

If we looked, perhaps there are better ways than the current draconian laws to handle a couple who quarrel. Few couples don't at some point. Education is one of the most successful of human endeavors. Conversely, arrest and jails reflect a failure of society, as well as individuals, and are the tools of tyrants. Why do we chose the latter, and forbid the former, for the treatment of problems in the most basic unit of our society?

Shouting, pushing, shoving, and even some hitting are common in relationships between men and women and, in most cases, should be regarded as normal inasmuch as a large percentage of the population behaves in this manner. Further, it is estimated that 10%-15% of couples engage in some level of sadomasochism (S&M). Our jails are not large enough, nor should they be, to hold that percentage of our population. Revolution is the most likely outcome of attempting such draconian measures. The objective should be to keep such arguments civilized, the violence by either party at a minimum, and out of the courts.

Lawmakers and, consequently, the courts have been micromanaging marriage and relationships between men and women over the past 50 years with regard to divorce. As a result we now have the American-style divorce where the male gets to keep what falls off the truck when she drives away.

One consequence of these divorce laws is that about 70% of Colorado marriages now end up in divorce court and attorneys have multiplied like locusts.

Is destruction of families in America the intent of the legislature?

Clearly it is the intent of feminists such as Lenore Walker.

Top


 

| EJF Home | Join the EJF | Comments? | Get EJF newsletter | Newsletters |

| DV Home | Abstract | Contents | Authors and Site Map | Tables | Index | Bibliography |

 

| Chapter 9 — The Male Perspective |

| Next — Defensive male actions under current law |

| Back — Violence and mankind |


 

This site is supported and maintained by the Equal Justice Foundation.

Last modified 10/7/16