Men's Rights In The Courts 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 — The dark side of women |

| Back — Why radical feminists concern us |


 
How would you feel if well over half your salary were forcibly taken from you with no accountability for its use, if your ex-husband had total control over your children and wouldn't honor your visitation rights and the courts wouldn't either, and the father of your children were filling their heads with vindictive lies about you? How long could you deal with that sort of abuse and heartbreak?

Question for women by Ms. Rikki Klieman, attorney

Ah, yes, divorce, from the Latin word meaning to rip out a man's genitals through his wallet.

Robin Williams


 

There are a number of organizations that champion men's sorely abused rights in divorce and custody disputes. More and more these just causes have become intermingled with the issue of domestic violence as women have perverted the process to obtain domestic violence and abuse restraining orders for their own ends in divorce and custody disputes. Many of the Web sites for these organizations are listed in the references .

It is unquestionable that women have used charges of domestic violence, as well as child and sexual abuse, against their mates in divorce and custody battles. One indication of how common this is the divorce-related malicious mother syndrome.

When feminist advocates and their friends in the legislature do acknowledge the potential for the misuse of restraining orders, it is usually to say that no safeguards can be adopted without endangering victims. The almost inevitable response when the question of civil liberties for men comes up is that we are "blaming the victim." However, the entire purpose of our system of laws and criminal justice is to determine who, in fact, is the 'victim', and whether the 'accused' actually committed a crime. Feminists have short-circuited freedom and liberty by the judgement that it is always the male who is the "batterer" and always the female who is the "victim." Kirby Inwood has dubbed this the Salem Syndrome. History shows how often a rush to judgement is wrong. Thus, the current domestic abuse laws are simply lynch law.

Unbiased studies clearly show that very often it is the male who is actually the victim, not only from his mate, but the police, courts, laws, and state-funded social programs as well. Male victims of domestic abuse, and many counselors as well, report that when men do seek help that they encounter:

• A bias against believing that males are victims at all.

• No one asks them questions about what happened and their statements are not believed or, worse, they are ridiculed and ignored.

• An absence of shelters or other social services for male victims, and they have no advocates in the taxpayer funded 'victim's assistance' programs. In fact, they often find the assistance program actively working against them.

• The female offender, even if convicted, is treated lightly by most judges.

There is considerable anecdotal evidence to support these beliefs, as well as our personal experience. Again. quoting from her 1998 article in Reason, Cathy Young points out that:

"At a 1995 seminar, dispensing advice to incoming municipal judges, Judge Richard Russell of the Ocean City, New Jersey, municipal court declared, 'Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you' re violating as you grant a restraining order. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, see ya around...The woman needs this protection because the statute granted her that protection...They have declared domestic violence to be an evil in our society. So we don't have to worry about the rights.' [emphasis added]

Judge Russell's comments, captured on tape and printed in the New Jersey Law Journal, raised a few eyebrows. However, he suffered no consequences beyond a mild chiding from the Administrative Office of the Courts. By contrast, recently in Maine, Judge Alexander MacNichol was denied reappointment by Gov. Angus King after battered women's advocates complained about his alleged insensitivity to women applying for restraining orders — which, the judge's many defenders said, meant simply that he listened to both sides of the story."

Is this happening in Colorado? A judge in Boulder is noted for bias against men. Another judge in Boulder was recommended for retention despite the fact that 55.6% of court and probation employees responding to a poll wanted her removed. Conversely, a magistrate in the same district court is under attack by feminists because he has shown fairness to males and refused to make restraining orders permanent unless cause was shown that such orders are, in fact, necessary and there is a reasonable basis for the allegations.

Is it too much to ask of our laws and courts that fairness and impartiality be shown to all citizens?

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 — The dark side of women |

| Back — Why radical feminists concern us |


 

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

Last modified 10/7/16