Floor 43: Civil Rights, Equal Rights, Domestic Law, Assault Issues Between The Sexes....

Introduction To The Concept and Application of 'Dialectic, Democratic, Equal Rights Law'

2012-02-08T23:27:00.000-08:00

Discrimination Against, and Legal Abuse of, Separated/Divorced Fathers

2012-02-08T23:24:00.001-08:00

Reflections on Historical Determinism

2011-02-10T12:18:00.001-08:00

All words, all concepts, all theories, all paradigms are defined in great part by their 'polar opposite paradigm'... We think that each of these polar opposite paradigms contradict each other, that they are mutally exclusive from each other, and yet we are fooled because we have all been deeply taught in Aristotelean logic that states that 'A' is 'A' and 'B' is 'B' and never the two should meet. A and B are identified, each in their own right, and each relative to be distinguished from each other by their seemingly mutually exclusive characteristics and properties.

A wolf is a wolf (A), and a coyote is a coyote (B), and nobody knowledgeable in the mutually distinguishable characteristics of wolves and coyotes will ever confuse a wolf for a coyote. Right? Unfortunately, Nature is always capable of throwing curve balls at us. And changes of pace. Just when we think that we have a 'classification system' totally and cleanly mastered -- in Aristotlean style -- along comes a 'new creature', a new 'evolutionary specimen' that doesn't fit totally and cleanly into our just mastered classification system. A wolf mates with a coyote -- and our nice, neat classification system is thrown into chaos. Now we have a 'colf'.

This is what Hegel objected to about Aristolean logic. Many things in life are not neatly classifiable. People interact and are influenced by each other. The direction of 'causal influence' is not always neatly one way. We call one person a 'victim' and the other person the 'victimizer' and by using this 'Aristotlean either/or paradigm', we blind ourselves to the fact that the 'victim' could have also partly been the 'victimizer', and the 'victimizer' could have also partly been the victim'. Like in a hockey fight, perhaps one was the 'instigator' and the other was the 'retaliator'. We will get to the issue of 'historical determinism' in a minute, but bear with me for a minute, as I try to make crystal clear the difference between 'Aristotlean either/or, right or wrong logic' vs. 'Hegelian dialectic, two-way, logic'.

How come our police officers and domestic courts cannot see what any hockey fan can? Men and women often share the responsibility and the blame in the rise and escalation of an argument becoming a case of domestic violence. But when you have a police and court system -- fueled by political and lobbyist pressures -- with the unwritten mandate to 'protect our women from domestic violence', masked under the 'illusion of equal rights', you have an evolving -- or non-evolving -- legal system that is essentially just as 'matriarchally biased' now as it used to be 'patriarchally biased'. It used to be that a woman often had to walk into a court full of men -- both lawyers and judges. Now you have a situation that is just as common -- a man walking into a court full of women -- both layers and judges. 'Feminist bias' is just as inappropriate in a court of law striving for 'equal rights', 'fairness', and 'justice' -- as 'masculine bias' is...

A man should not be convicted -- or even arrested -- for a domestic transgression that a woman wouldn't have been arrested for. A man should have just as much right to 'personal space' and 'personal privacy' in his own home as a woman should. It makes no difference whether it is an angry man hounding a woman from room to room in their shared house, or whether it is an angry woman hounding a man from room to room in their shared house. You can say that the man is the greater physical danger, and that the woman should be more protected, but many angry women are no strangers to knives, threatening with knives, or threaten to do something drastic while her man is asleep... Power -- or the lack of it -- can easily be 'compensated' for.

A man should have every bit as much right to 'feel safe when he falls asleep' as a woman should. And yet, too often, 'threats' made by a woman -- which are not physical, but which threaten to be physical -- are not taken seriously by the police, usually they are not even phoned in, they tend to get 'swept under the rug' by both police and court systems alike, and when the man finally 'reaches his threshold of tolerance', she says something 'that pushes his intolerance button' -- and he 'snaps' -- not a complete snap, but enough to try to 'physically push' her out of his own room, so that he can lock his door and regain some sense of peace and privacy against a woman who has 'also partly snapped and gone verbally postal on him' -- 'Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned' , and then once she gets her man to 'snap', to 'lose it' and 'physically push her', she knows that she has the full weight of the domestic justice system that will paint her as an 'assault victim'...

She just makes the call, and her man is taken away in handcuffs....he may have never spent a day in jail in his life....but regardless, he will now be treated very seriously by the court system, be evicted from his house, separated from his children for the duration of the court case, probably demanded to take an 'anger management' course' which is partly laughable if there had been any videos and microphones in the house to see and hear who was going 'ballistic'....And this is what we call 'equal rights' today -- equal rights under 'Matriarchal Law'.

I use this example to get now to the issue of 'historical determinism'. Let us contrast historical determinism with its polar opposite concept -- 'existential freedom'.

Hegel was a 'dialectic historical deteminist'. He didn't believe in trying to predict the future: just understanding the past -- dialectically.

In this example above, we could say that there used to be 'Patriarchal Law' in which women were much 'abused', 'dominated', and 'neglected' in a male dominated court of law. For the past 10 or 20 years now . we have seen much of the reverse: men 'abused', 'dominated', and 'neglected' in a female dominated court of law. The anti-thesis or counter-thesis of Patriarchal Law is now very much at work in our domestic and sexual court systems. Call it 'Matriarchal Law'. To be sure, this is a generalization -- but still something that we all -- both men and women -- need to think long and hard about. Because what 'goes around comes around'. For both men and women.

Wherever there is serious bias, inequality, and discrimination in either direction -- against either men or women -- we are creating a breeding ground for escalating distrust between the sexes. We are seeing less and less marriages -- even less and less men and women who even want to experience the legal risks of living with each other. Both men and women are becoming increasingly 'paranoid' about protecting their own money and property due to the serious risk of losing it -- or a significant part of it -- in a 'combined' living arrangement.

Nobody -- neither man or woman -- wants to be 'robbed' by a 'golddigger' or by a love relationship turned bad to worse, to worst nightmare. Individuals should be legally required to do 'finanacial asset and liability statements' before they enter into a combined living arrangement. 'Pre-nuptual agreements' -- if that is what you want to call them -- should be 'legally required' so that nobody has to feel bad about asking their partner to sign one.

Both sexes should have their pre-marriage or common-law money and property legally respected and protected. I have seen situations where 'both men and women have been serially married numerous times'. With each passing marriage, I have seen men get progressively 'poorer', and 'women progressively 'richer'. And then 50 year old single women start looking around for divorced men who are as economically well off as they are. And all they find are men who have been through 'the court ringer' numerous times, still have financial responsibilities to pay past wives, and children now in university who are in their 20s' 'but divorced dad is still on the hook for paying their tuition and living expenses', even as married men are under no such court deman, and our poor divorced man may also be trying to help his own parents who are having a very tough financial time with their combined government pension which is not covering their expenses. It seems like everyone -- the courts, the past wives, the children, the parents, the new girlfriend, the tax man --- they all want a 'financial piece of dad' -- even when he has no more financial pieces to give.

Then when middle age dad starts to crumble under all the financial stress and pressure coming from all directions, if or when he can no longer live up to all his 'court committments -- we call him a 'dead beat dad'. I call it a 'dead beat court system' that is crucifiying men on court room crosses... I saw such a man -- with a very, very healthy income, far better than many men -- finally give up and move back with his wife who he had separated from, not because he had resolved to making a 'new loving committment to her', but rather, because he was a financially beaten man. He moved back in with her -- and two weeks later, he had a heart attack and died on his family room couch.

Again, this is a generalization, every case is always partly different, women can get financially crucified too, and women, as they move upward on the corporate ladder, climbing to loftier and loftier positions, all of a sudden like men have been for the last 20 or 30 years, are becoming 'increasingly paranoid' about losing all, or a significant part of, their financial assets in a possible divorce court case. Under such 'new' financial circumstances, suddenly, it is in their interest too, to get pre-nuptual aggreements signed -- and respected in court if their new partner has less money and property than them. Actually, this is not 'paranoia'. It is a real live drama, and messed up court systems that constantly find new ways to 're-distribute wealth' to people that the wealth shouldn't be going to, and never belonged to in the first place. The only exception should be a woman or man has thrown away a good possible career in order to stay home and play 'mother' and 'housewife' or 'father' and 'househusband'. Otherwise, why should a person who has only lived with a person for one or two years suddenly be eligible for 'winning the lottery' and getting half their partner's money and property?

I am getting totally carried away here and losing all contact with my main thesis on historical determinism....I hope you will trust me just a little bit longer to bring this essay together and make the title relevant.

One last area I will touch on before I bring this all together and hopeuflly become 'relevant'.

Now, because of constantly 'evolving' 'sexual laws, a man has to be careful about how drunk the woman he is with, is, before having sex with her, or possibly face horrific legal repurcussions the next day, when the 'Dionysian-- let's get down and dirty' -- part of her personality suddenly changes to the 'Apolloninan' -- how dare you did what you did to me last night! How could you have so taken advantage of me! -- part of her personality. The night before she had literally -- wthout you having made a move -- grabbed a couple of the fingers from your hand and put them in her mouth, and even so, you had thought better about the situation, the potential danger of it, and driven her home (this was probably the part she didn't like), still without having touched either her or yourself (unless you count her having put your fingers in her mouth) and now, the next day, there are words coming from other people to the extent that she is ready to call the police on you.

And you ask why there is a growing percentage of men who afraid to even reach out and touch a woman (as the inside of a courtroom becomes the dominant image). I am not sure that this 'growing distrust and touching paranoia' is totallly good for the direction that our society -- men, women, and children -- is travelling. More and more, we are becoming a 'touchless society'. Maybe good for robots.I am not sure that this is all good for people.

Okay, I have had my rant.

Now to make the connection.

The court system is partly politically determined, partly historically determined, partly lobbyist determined...

'Extreme individual cases' can often have 'extreme effects' on the historical evolution of the law. For every action, there is a reaction. For every inequality and injustice, there is a reverse and equally discriminative inequality and injustice. In the examples, and cases I have described above, sometimes thousands and thousands of men can be 'legally traumatized' -- not entirely by their own actions -- but rather, as much or more, from extreme cases causing extreme political and legal reactions, and then 'new, tougher laws' being implemented to protect the safety of women, in the examples above, but in a way that 'reverses the inequality of the court system' and in effect, punishes men for being men. Men who have had no previous trouble with the law, who have perhaps never seen the inside of a jail cell, are suddenly being charged -- and convicted -- for 'domestic crimes' or 'domestic transgressions' that a woman would never have been arrested for. Women are being taught to 'phone the police' at a moment's notice, 'the second your man touches you in a way that is angry and you don't like'....Meanwhile, a woman threatens a man with a butcher knife, or says that 'if you leave me, I am going to cut you into little pieces while you sleep' -- and no calls ever get to police.

But as soon as the man 'breaks' -- even if it is weeks or months later -- , and pushes such a woman out of his room because she is going 'postal' on him and he is sick as a dog with the flu -- the police, the feminist lobbyist organizations, the politicians, the court system, all want to turn this man into another 'nasty domestic male convict' because he has suddenly become labelled and stereotyped as the 'victimizer' while our poor victim in this case, a 'borderline personality' case if you ever wanted to see one, who was ready to issue a death threat in an attempt to coerce a man from not rejecting her, is lead away to be consoled by all the protective forces of the millions of dollars that have been spent in this direction.

What I am saying here is that all our social and political and legal and educational institutions need to do a better job at teaching "Hegelian Dialectic (Two-Way Influential) Logic as opposed to 'Aristotlean (One Way, Right or Wrong, Cause and Effect) Logic'.

Similarily, all of our justice systems (and the institutions that partly 'historically determine' them by putting pressure and directives on them -- our domestic courts in particular -- need to do a better job of practising 'case to case dialectic humanistic-existential logic and justice' as opposed to 'Aristotlean, cookie-cutter justice' where men in this case, are essentially put on an 'assembly line' and passed through the 'mashing and thrashing and meshing machine of this cookie cutter justice system' (sounds like a scene from 'One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest' -- which it at least partly is -- only many scenes, the whole movie done over again with the 'Domestic Court System' replacing the previous 'Pschiatric Hospital' and the female judge standing in for 'Big Nurse').

Sorry, I am a Pisces....my imagination can easily run wild...

Let me try to add a finishing flourish to this essay.

We are all very much like 'Janus', the Roman mythological figure who has two heads, one head looking to the past, and the other head looking to the future....with each and everyone of us -- both individually and collectively -- caught in 'the crossfire' between past and future, Hegel's historical determinism on the one hand, and Kierkegaard's 'anxiety of dizzying existential freedom', on the other hand.

Each and everyone of us can get caught in the stereotypes of 'the dominant paradigm' of 'political correctness' that is at least partly ruling each and everyone of our lives. There are many such 'historical deterministic paradigms'.

I write a lot about Freud and Psychoanalysis, as well as the 'Patriarchal -- Anti-Feminist -- Bias and Paradigm that at least partly dominates Classical Psychoanalysis, today as it did a hundred years ago. I am in the process of 're-building' Classical Psychoanalysis in order to take away this Patriarchal Bias -- at least as much as I can -- in order to help make Psychoanalysis a better personal experience for women as well as men.

'Transference' is a famous concept and phenomena that is central to the theory and therapy of Classical Psychoanalysis. If, say as a child, I tended to 'take for granted' my mother;s love -- and this translated into 'taking my mom for granted'; and now, say through 'transference-analysis', I become aware that I am doing the same thiing to my girlfriend or wife, then I become like Janus, caught between the crossfires of past and present. I can continue to follow a path of 'historical determism', continue to 'take my girlfriend or wife for granted, and then one day, suddenly wake up, and find that she is gone.

Or -- and this is particularly applicable to all you men out there with wives and girlfriends as we get closer and closer to Valentine's Day (but it should not by any means be restricted only to Valentitne's Day) -- I can turn and look into my wife/girlfriend's eyes, see a special beauty there that I have not seen for a long, long time, make sure that I put all other distractions aside, at least for this one special day, focus on everything that is important about her to me, and how much I would be devastated to try to live my life without her...

And in the 'dizzying anxiety of freedom'...

And the 'here-and-now, I and Thou...

Try the best that I possibly can to communicate everything that I feel about her...

And how important she is in my life...

In this crazy messed up world that we live in,

Where more and more things,

Tend to drive the opposite sexes into greater and greater distrust for each other,

It becomes more and more imperative,

If we are succesfully to live together,

To do all the big and little things that bring us back together again...

Not by the things that are historically and economically and politically and legally and socially and educationally determined around us...

And by 'introjection' or 'osmosis' -- in us.

But by 'the immediacy of the moment'...

By our humanistic-existential freedom...

And by communicating to our partner,

And to our loved ones....

Our family and closest friends...

Just how much they mean to us...

And how crucially important they are...

To our health and well-being...

It is in this moment....

That we escape the jaws of historical determism...

And experience the pognancy...

Of being human...

-- dgb, Feb. 10th, 2010,

-- David Gordon Bain

From The Seduction Theory Controversy To Justice and Harmony In The Workplace, The Family, The Courts...

2009-09-10T04:54:00.000-07:00

This essay is among the most painful I have ever written. I loathe going here. I loathe inept and/or narcissistic, corrupt politicians for bringing me to this point where I feel I have to write such an essay. I wish I could be just like Freud -- and just bury this whole inter-connected issue for the rest of my career as a hobby writer and philosopher.

What 'hobby writer' would ever want to go where I am about to go now. Much of this essay here is about the 'war of the sexes' and what man in his right mind would want to go here when, in my personal life, I have the best mother in the world, the best girlfriend in the world, and a whole host of good to very good women friends who are so important in my life that the last thing in the world I would want to do is to 'tarnish' any of my relationships with these women.

And yet I feel I have to write this essay. I would be philosophically and ethically irresponsible not to. I would be like Freud -- or maybe like Freud -- who according to Dr. Jeffrey Masson 'lost moral courage' when he was confronted with 'male professional, political, and potentially economic resistance' regarding his publishing and publicizing the issue of childhood sexual abuse in his very controversial little essay of 1896 called 'The Aetiology of Hysteria'.

So I am stuck -- or have been stuck for a long time -- and today I feel I have to write and not look back, not take my fingers off the keyboard, until I am finished.

And then, maybe, I can rest and perhaps leave this subject matter forever, believing at least that I have been honest with myself and my readers -- and said my piece.

Where it goes -- it may be nowhere -- or it may be everywhere. Once one of my essays is on the internet, I lose control over where it goes, who takes it, what they do with it, whether they idolize it or desecrate it, how they feel about it, whether they like my writing or not... in short my essay plunges into the dark or light abyss of other people's good or bad agendas, their interpretations of my writing, their judgments of my writing, their judgment of my person as a whole...

'Hell is paved with both good and bad intentions.

I hope my readers can see that my intentions are good here -- my wishes for men and women to live harmoniously and peacefully with each other are secondary to no other wishes. But it seems to me that I have to do some 'Nietzschean hammer bashing' to get to where perhaps we all need to go. In order to maybe one day get to that more harmonious, peaceful place for all men and women and children.

At least that is my sole intent here. I wish no one -- no man or woman -- any bad will (except for maybe my ex-boss who I am still fuming at and ethically outraged by).

Anyway, I am sure this is 'rhetorical overkill' but here goes.

Most people don't fully understand just how big an epistemological and ethical can of worms that Freud's infamous 'Seduction Theory' (meaning essentially his 'Childhood Sexual Assault Theory') was to the Psychiatry Society back when he introduced it by reading his provocative new essay called 'The Aetiology of Hysteria' on April 21st, 1896 for the first time (and then basically 'reversed field' and turned his logic 180 degrees in the opposite direction, abandoning this theory in the process, within a year or two afterwards).

Self-assertion was followed quickly (or slowly) by self-negation. Did the young professional Freud cower and submit to the intimidating power and coercion of the medical community at this time? Or did he have legitimate reasons for 'undoing' and 'wholly re-working' a theory that seemed to be 'just too politically and legally hot' for the medical community in the context of a predominantly Victorian culture and 'patriarchal system' of politics and law at this time?

Were there simply not enough 'active feminists' around at this time to support and encourage Freud -- and to confront these Psychiatrists with power who may have been just a little too 'narcissistically biased' in their epistemological and ethical stance against Freud's very unpopular new theory? Obviously, there were no women in the room, let alone any strong enough to stand up and support Freud's theoretical position on this most 'unpopular topic'.

Rightly or wrongly, Freud reversed his theoretical position shortly afterwards, introducing the ideas of 'Childhood Sexuality', 'The Oedipal Complex', and the idea of 'Screen Memories' -- memories hiding, disguising, but still alluding to other memories that are of more 'profound etiological significance' but not necessarily in any 'reality and experience-bound sense' other than to mask the fact that a 'so-called traumatic, childhood seduction and/or sexual assault memory' has been 'subjectively created' by the usually female client to hide her underlying sexual impulses, fantasies, and amorous feelings predominantly directed towards her father either as a child and/or as a developing teenager as her 'sexual hormones' started to kick in.

Looked at it this way, some 113 years later, it almost seems like Freud had indeed engineered a rather 'massive cover-up' of the underlying phenomenon of 'fathers, uncles, brothers, and other males sexually assaulting female children'.

Nobody today, I am sure, familiar with this type of all too common crime against female children, would probably doubt the reality that these types of assaults did indeed happen, that some (if not all) of them were horrific in the extent of the attack, and that a certain breed of men -- because of the patriarchal, biased politics and laws back in this time -- got away with this type of crime far, far too often. Women and children simply didn't have the type of political and legal protection that they do now.

Anyways, it didn't seem to be a topic that Freud particularly wanted to deal with -- it was too 'politically hot' shall we say, and perhaps as Masson has suggested, Freud rightly feared for his career amongst medical and Psychiatric superiors and peers who had the choice of referring patients to him or not. Does this make Freud, to put it crudely, a 'moral coward'?

I don't think so. I think that we need to appreciate the full extent of the political context, and the narcissistic power and biases 'enjoyed' by men back at this time. The laws were in their favor. And events such as these -- sexual transgressions and crimes -- were probably not even likely to hit the courts, let alone put guilty men in prison. Furthermore, it is quite possible that some of these 'guilty men' existed even in the political powers of the medical community at this time -- and did not want this whole issue to become 'community and political news'. Using the economic and professional leverage that they had, it is quite possible that they intimidated Freud and in effect 'silenced his new Seduction (meaning again, essentially Childhood Sexual Assault) Theory.

Before we all point the proverbial finger at Freud -- like Masson did in the early 1980s -- we have to ask ourselves whether we would have behaved any differently under the same kind of political and economic pressures that Freud might have met head on, both during and after this April 21st, 1896 Psychiatric conference where the chair of the meeting, Baron Richard von Krafft-Ebing (1840-1902), the distinguished professor and head of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Vienna, told Freud -- 'It sounds like a scientific fairy tale!' (Masson, The Assault on Truth: Freud's Suppression of The Seduction Theory, p. 9).

Would any of us be willing to quite potentially jeopardize our fresh, new careers in order to epistemologically and ethically go against a much more professionally, economically, and politically powerful group of men who held our career potential in their individual and collective mindsets? 88 years later, Masson would do it -- and even though the women's movement and feminist groups had gained much more public exposure and power by then, it still cost Masson his career in Psychoanalysis. (He is doing fine right now in the field of animal psychology, and more particularly the area of 'emotions' in animals.) It perhaps shouldn't have cost Masson his career in Psychoanalysis -- after all, he was only exercising his right to free speech. But regardless where you are or were on the Psychoanalystic 'power hierarchy' (and Masson was right up close to the top with Anna Freud and Kurt Eissler), how many Psychoanalysts are going to get away with saying that Freud essentially 'lost moral courage' and that he basically 'manipulated Psychoanalytic theory, changing it around 180 degrees, just to 'cover up' and get away from this 'very messy political problem of childhood sexual abuse'? And still expect to hold his or her title as 'the man in charge of The Freud Archives'. It is not likely going to happen.

How many of us go into work each day and editorially stifle our particular opinions about the the workplace, the goings on, and the values, of the Corporation or Institution we belong to, even though our negative opinions of what we are seeing, experiencing, and judging in our Corporate environment, may be extremely strong? Most of us, unless we are extremely strong-minded and/or have a lot of power in the organization, are going to keep our mouths shut about our opinions in order to 'appease' or 'not rattle any swords' or 'stir up any negative Corporate animosity against us' -- in order to keep our jobs, and our careers.

What if Corporate Policies -- or the 'hidden agendas' under the Corporate Policies -- are 'narcissistically pathological' in favor of the Corporation and the leader(s) of the Corporation? What if workers, contractors, and/or customers are in effect being 'economically gouged' out of hundreds, thousands, or even millions of dollars.

In America, we have seen it with AIG. In Canada, we have seen it with the leader of eHealth who was giving out contracts to 'preferred Corporations' without the proper 'free market, democratic negotiation process', and who was running up huge personal expense accounts. We have seen it with the leaders of OLG -- Ontario Lottary and Gaming Corporation -- again with huge personal expense accounts in a time of recession where thousands and thousands of workers have either lost their jobs, or are just trying to do anything and everything they can to hang onto them.

Back in America, we have seen it with huge 'corporate payouts' to the banks and mortgage companies, and to the executive leaders of these banks and mortgage companies who were at least partly and significantly responsible for 'the collapse of Wall Street'. Where is the Corporate Responsiblity? Where is the Corporate Accountability? Where is the Corporate Justice? Is there any? Is it any wonder that the citizens of America are fuming about all this tax payer money that is being spent, not only under Bush's eye, but also under Obama's eye, much of it going to the very people who caused this whole financial and economic meltdown in the first place?

Back here in Ontario, I lost a $60,000 dispatcher's job because I was trying to help out and protect a dwindling Corporate fleet of taxi drivers in York Region just north of Toronto because these drivers were losing their best fares -- Airport runs and the like -- to a fleet of Toronto Limousine drivers, owned by the same company. The same company that these poor taxi drivers were paying their Corporate dispatch fees to (to the tune of some $500 for each driver, each month) was also essentially 'robbing' these same drivers of their best fares!

The drivers have no union to protect them. If you figure in the hours that they work, they probably make about $5 per hour. If that. Some drivers talked to me about having gone home with nothing -- absolutely zilch -- after a 12 hour shift of working. Meanwhile, their government licencing fees keep going up and each year to the tune of over $200 for a combination of licencing fees, medical fees, police screening reports, and driver's abstract -- all to make about $5 an hour. And this is assuming you can get through the 'commercial insurance' screening process where if you don't have any commercial insurance on your resume, you may not be able to get commercial insurance at all, or if you do, you may have to pay an additional premium of $100 a month -- on top of the $400 a month that either you or your employer is already paying.

I could go on and on about this type of thing. But I'm getting at least partly off topic because there is one further area of 'domestic and sexual justice' that I would still like to tackle.

Suffice is to say, in the context of the 'Narcissistic Corporate and Capitalism issues' mentioned briefly above, that I am very much looking forward to Michael Moore's brave new film: 'Capitalism: A Love Story'. A brief synopsis of the film is included below:

......................................................................

Capitalism: A Love Story examines the disastrous impact of corporate dominance on the everyday lives of Americans (and by default, the rest of the world). But this time the culprit is much bigger than General Motors, and the crime scene far wider than Flint, Michigan. From Middle America, to the halls of power in Washington, to the global financial epicenter in Manhattan, Michael Moore will once again take filmgoers into uncharted territory. With both humor and outrage, Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story" explores a taboo question: What is the price that America pays for its love of capitalism? Years ago, that love seemed so innocent. Today, however, the American dream is looking more like a nightmare as families pay the price with their jobs, their homes and their savings. Moore takes us into the homes of ordinary people whose lives have been turned upside down; and he goes looking for explanations in Washington, DC and elsewhere. What he finds are the all-too-familiar symptoms of a love affair gone astray: lies, abuse, betrayal... and 14,000 jobs being lost every day. "Capitalism: A Love Story" is both a culmination of Moore's previous works and a look into what a more hopeful future could look like. It is Michael Moore's ultimate quest to answer the question he's posed throughout his illustrious filmmaking career: Who are we and why do we behave the way that we do?

.........................................................................

Suffice is to say that what we might call 'Ethical Capitalism' -- to the extent that it exists and/or ever existed -- is being more or less completely suffocated and/or drowned out of the picture by 'Narcissistically Corrupt Capitalism'.

Let us go back to the Seduction Theory.

The lid to the can of worms called childhood sexual abuse was essentially put back in the can by Freud and put back into the storage closet, not to be talked about, or theorized about, much more in Freud's long, controversial career -- and that was essentially the last we heard, except for little bits and pieces about childhood sexual assault for almost a hundred years.

Enter Dr. Jeffrey Masson.

Dr. Jeffrey Masson, in 1984, 1992, published an equally controversial book called 'The Assault on Truth: Freud's Suppression of The Seduction Theory' in which Masson took Freud to task for what he did. He asserted -- and this did not go down very well at all with the whole International Psychoanalytic Community -- that Freud essentially 'lost moral courage', cowered in front of the power of the medical community at the time, and their potential to essentially 'ruin his career' before it really even got started. No patients, no career. Money or ethics? This -- in the eyes of Masson -- was Freud's essential moral/narcissistic dilemma a the time. And Freud found a 'creative way' to get around the problem of 'child sexual abuse' by essentially saying that it was created in the mind of the female child/teenager to mask an underlying sexual-romantic desire for her father. Read today, this sounds rather flimsy and far-stretched. Did Freud distort and manipulate the truth just to appease the righteous temper and power of the collective medical community at the time?

None of us will ever know for sure. But looking back at it now, it certainly does not look like Freud's finest moment.

But let us take this still very much alive controversy and move it in a different direction.

Let us now talk about the possibity of a dialectical bridge beween Freud before and after his short little essay, 'Screen Memories' (1899), the major turning point between his 'pre-psychoanalytic traumatic and seduction theories' and his soon-to-be 'Psychoanalysis-proper' as trumpeted by the publication of his famous book, 'The Interpretation of Dreams' (1900). If it was the issue of 'sexuality' that became one of the main dividing points between Freud and Jung, then it is to the issue of sexuality -- and the polarity between 'sexual traumacy' and 'sexual narcissism' -- that we must return.

Much has been made of this controversial theoretical and clinical turning-point in the evolution of Psychoanalysis: many -- particularly feminists knowledgeable with what went down here -- would say that Freud basically abandoned women -- abandoned alleged female victims of childhood sexual assault -- and turned Psychoanalysis into a much more 'chauvanist men's club' that suppressed and distorted all evidence of childhood sexual assaults under the guise of 'childhood and adolescent sexual fantasy' -- most particulary, relative to a girl's love for her father.

I remember running into this issue for the first time when I picked up Masson's controversial book in the mid to late 1980s, 'The Assault on Truth: Freud's Suppression of the Seduction Theory' (1984, 1985, 1992).

Now here is the point I wish to make. As much as I loved reading 'Final Analysis' and 'The Assault on Truth' and Janet Malcolm's 'In The Freud Archives'(1983,84), and I probably side closer to Masson's last published points of view, and Freud's pre-1897 point of view rather than Freud's evolving post-1897 point of view: still, most memories -- plain and simple -- from an 'objective, epistemological' point of view, cannot be fully or often even partly trusted.

Let us just look at the anectdotal evidence we have here. It has been at least 15 years since I last theoretically invested any time and energy into this remarkable controversy, so excuse me if my own memory is a little rusty here: I said that I picked up Masson's book, 'The Assault on Truth' in the mid to late 1980s. Wrong! I just fished the book out of my personal library here, dusted off the cobwebs, and found out that the last publication date on the book was 1992. That means that I obviously bought the book sometime in or after 1992 but I 'remembered' it to be in the mid to late 1980s. So much for my memory.

I read all three of those books that I just cited above but do I remember which book I read when, and in which order, and how far apart the readings were? I am obviously more than a little suspicious of my own memory at this point. Logically speaking, I would imagine I read 'Assault' first, then 'Final Analysis', then Malcolm's 'In the Freud Archives'. But don't quote me on that -- and I certainly would not want to put my hand on a bible in a court of law because if I did, I would probably have to say simply, 'I don't know'.

Do I at least partly make my point? A therapist has no right to totally or even necessarily partly trust' the 'objective epistemological correctness' of any memory that a client cites to him or her for the simple reason that it is a 'memory' and memories can easily fail, distort, embellish, discard...in short, they are very narcissistically biased'.

To trust a memory in a court of law -- without substantiating empirical evidence and other credible witness reports is downright ludicrous -- putting a man (i.e., it is usually but not always a man who is being accused when it comes to issues of 'past childhood sexual assaults') in jail on the basis of the unsubstantiated memories and testimony of an alleged victim is hugely dangerous and I would even say ethically and legally reprehensible unless these memories and testimony are otherwise substantiated.

And as far as 'narcissistic bias', let us not forget that you have lawyers who are functioning like 'pre-Socratic Sophist mercenaries' who are paid handsomely to deliver fancy rhetoric and persuasive logic that is designed to narcissistically serve their clients goals and wishes regardless of how close or how far their clients' goals and wishes are connected to any form of 'objective, epistemological truth'.

We have come full circle and the epistemological and legal dangers that Freud ran into in the mid to late 1890s when he started to have second thoughts, and then abandon, his infamous Seduction Theory, are as real and dangerous today as they were back then. 'Subjective clinical-therapy memories' have no business being called 'epistemological truths' -- regardless of how 'epistemologically real' they may seem. The same point needs to be made with a hundred times more force when we start to talk about an alleged 'unconscious' and/or 'reconstructed' memory. None of these memories should have any legal force in a court of law unless they can be 'empirically substantiated beyond any reasonable doubt' by other much more credible and stronger forms of evidence. And this does not mean a woman's 'psychological/emotional/physical symptoms' or a psychologist's so-called professional testimony.

Psychologists and psychiatrists can be hugely narcissistically biased simply by the orientation of their training. Who's giving the testimony -- an orthodox, Oedipal Complex believing, Psychoanalyst? Or a 21st century feminist psychologist who may have been sexually assaulted herself and who may be projecting her own situation onto her client (in Psychoanalysis this is called 'counter-transference') and 'subconsciously looking' for evidence of a sexual assault in her client in practically every symptom that she portrays, and in every memory, conscious or unconscious, legitimately told to her or 'interpretively reconstructed' by the therapist. This presents a huge 'epistemological and ethical danger' not only to psychotherapy in general -- regardless of psychological orientation, orthodox Psychoanalytic or the opposite -- but even more so once this whole psychological and epistemological charade moves into a court of law.

Do I believe that guilty men should be held accountable for their 'sexual assaults'? Of course, I do -- if they can be legitimately proven in a court of law -- and allowing for the fact that there is a very big difference between 'inappropriately making a pass at a woman' and 'rape'. They should not be treated the same -- and even as I speak there are many men terrified of making a pass at a woman, even having sex with a woman for the first time without the petrifiying thought that she could ruin his life just by 'turning on him' the next morning.

The laws for 'sexual assault' and nowadays 'domestic assault' are getting broader and broader, with less and less 'empirical evidence' needed to get a legal conviction.

In effect, this means that we are now getting more and more of the opposite kind of problem than we used to have. Now, instead of far too many men get away with serious sexual crimes that they should have been convicted of with significant sentences, now we are convicting men and throwing men into jail left, right, and centre, on the basis of laws that are narcissistically biased in favor of women and on the basis of 'narcissistically biased evidence' that would never have been considered 'empirical evidence' back before our domestic and sexual assault laws started to change.

In effect, the Seduction Theory rules again in North American law -- whether we are talking about recent adult or childhood memories -- with or without any kind of 'legitimate supporting empirical and/or witness evidence'. North American domestic law used to be narcissistically biased in favor of men. Now it is narcissisically biased in favor of women.

As if women are incapable of lying, manipulating evidence, embellishing and distorting facts, creating false testimony, making themselves out to be 'angels' and 'victims', noncapable of violence themselves of course, non-capable of 'instigating trouble', or 'retaliating to rejection' or 'seducing men in their own right'...all of these potential complications to the 'epistemological truth' in both a psychotherapist's office and even more so in a court of law go out the window in today's North American world of 'feminine -- and feminist -- overprotection'.

So how in the name of God or Zeus or Apollo could Freud give any pretense to 'finding epistemological memory truth' in his clinical office in 1895 when in 2007 we are no further ahead -- epistemologically poisoned equally from both sides by an overbelief in both Freud and/or the opposite pro-feminist, anti-Freud point of view on 'memories' and 'unsubtantiated narcissistcally biased, one-sided testimony'. 'Memories' and 'unsubstantiated, narcissistically biased, one-sided testimony' need to be thrown out of all courts of law until this whole 'epistemological and ethical mess' is put back into proper balanced perspective. Right now our domestic courts are making a mockery of the name 'justice'. Both Freud's Seduction Theory and his Childhood Sexuality and Oedipal Complex theories were one-sidedly biased but today in our domestic courts of law we are all seeing the evidence of his 'Seduction Theory Gone Mad'...

What is it -- I am only guessing because I don't believe that anyone has done the math, let alone released to the public, but let me take a speculative guess based on conversations with people who have come out of Lindsay, Ontario jail, that something like 70 to 90 per cent of all men in jail now (or at least the local, municipal and provincial ones) are there on 'domestic crimes'.

Where are all the women filling up the women's jails? I don't see the same problem in the women's jails these days. What does that mean? Women don't know how to throw a punch? Push a man? Grab a man by the ear? Throw a piece of furniture at a man? Seduce a man -- or consent to being seduced by a man -- and then 'flip' the next day when she has sobred up or things didn't turn out exactly the way she wanted them to?

The epistemological, ethical, and legal problem that we are facing today -- as originally uncovered at least partly by Freud in the 1890s -- is at least partly this: Is it better to 'have not enough men in jail who have committed sexual and/or domestic assault'? Or is it better to 'throw too many men in jail who are not guilty of the crimes they allegedly committed and/or are being punished for crimes that their accusers were at least equally guilty of -- and who are getting off scott free with no tarnishment of their legal reputations.'

Why should a democratic law that is supposed to be equal to all citizens, male and female, black and white, have an overt and/or covert standard of legal-moral-ethical conduct that is obviously much higher for men when it comes to transgressions committed by a man against a woman, than it is when it comes to transgressions committed by a woman against a man. And that is amongst those transgressions committed by women that even make it to a court of law. Most such transgressions are never reported just like many transgressions by men against women are never reported.

However, in this case, it would because most men would be too embarrassed or too protective of their woman to put in such a report, and even if it was reported, most men would not believe that such a report would be taken seriously by police unless the report is potentially too serious to ignore. Like, for example, 'my woman is wielding a butcher knife around the apartment. I don't know if she is planning to use it on either me or her, but I would guess that her first shot may be at me! Her second shot may be at herself.

And why are men being evicted from their domestic homes at a rate that is probably astoundingly higher -- probably in the 90 to 95 percent range -- than women? I don't think that there are any numbers available to document such statistics or if they are, I don't think anyone in the government or in the police force would want them published. We need some courageous journalist to implement the 'freedom of information act' in this regard, assuming it applies here. Because otherwise, we will never see such statistics in print. Because they will show blatant 'sexual profiling' by the police and the politicians (and indirectly the feminist lobbyist groups) who rule over them.

It is okay to evict men from their domestic homes for alleged 'domestic assaults' but it is not okay to evict women? Why? Because evicting women from their homes for the few 'domestic assault charges that they do get charged with' (the tip of the iceberg in my opinion) would not be 'politically correct'? And/or police and politicians do not want to face the potential wrath and intimidation power of all Women's Groups and Organizations who might finally begin to understand vicariously what it is like to be evicted from own home when you have never in your life had an assault charge against you.

What I am talking about here is not 'egalitarian law between the sexes'; what I am talking about is an overt and/or covert policy of 'zero domestic and sexual agression tolerance against men' that is being applied by police here in Ontario and Canada for sure, probably America too, in a manner that wreaks and stinks of 'reverse sexual discrimination and profiling', not its 'professed egalitarian standard'.

I am certainly not trying to tar all women with the same 'narcissistically biased and prejudiced brush' here because I know personally that there are many, many very good and caring women out there who absolutely want to see 'fair, egalitarian legal and political treatment between the sexes'. Such ladies I have the greatest respect for -- who know how far their civil rights should extend, and not beyond.

But the problem is that 'power corrupts' and power can turn the most caring and ethical of people -- male or female -- into something narcissistically far less.

I have seen the most ethically minded of politicians -- before they get or got into power -- ethically collapse after they get/got into power, again male or female.

Money and power and emotional stress -- all can and do corrupt both men and women. Loving women -- and men -- can turn into 'narcissistic pillagers' in the heat of a divorce case. I emphasize women first here because usually it has been the man who has ended up giving up more personal money and property to the woman -- even money and property that he came into the marriage with long before he met and married his wife. But now because of women's rising incomes, personal money and property, we are also starting to see how women feel when the shoe is on the opposite foot -- when it is the man threatening to take a woman's house that she owned before she met the man, and/or to take half of all of the woman's money -- again money that she had before she even met the money. In a real 'democratically fair situation' both women's and men's property and money that they own(ed) before they get or got married should be protected by a domestic court of laws. Individual asset sheets should be filled out before a marriage is legalized. Then we would have no need for such things a 'prenuptial agreement' (some of which aren't even honored anyway) and there would be no rising 'marriage paranoia' about what happens and who gets whose money and property if things don't work out. 'Serial marriages and divorces' are becoming more and more common and I have a friend who has lost four small fortunes -- more than half a million dollars on four separate occasions to four different ex-wives and/or common law spouses including his first and favorite house which he owned before he even met his first wife. Tell me how any of you ladies would have felt if that had been your personally owned house that you lost in a supposed 'egalitarian, democratic court of law'?

An egalitarian-democratic -- and ethically capitalist -- court of law should honor individual spouse's money and property rights before they enter into marriage -- and should not allow 'marriage' to become an institution for 'profit pillagers' and 'gold-diggers'. Otherwise, the inevitable is going to happen: people -- both men and women who get burned more than once or twice and/or even know from both the current state of the law and from the experiences of others -- are going to start to develop 'marriage and common-law paranoia' and no one with more money and property than the other spouse is going to want to get married unless their eyes are so filled with 'romantic stardust' that they cannot bring into their state of awareness 'Economics 101'.

This is what I found from an informal pole of one woman who had recently separated and entered an 'upscale dating service' looking for a new match. The women who had paid quite a bit of money to get into this 'match up service' had all done very well economically from their past 'divorces'. The men had all done economically bad and now were being forced by the courts not only to give up half of their money and property regardless of whether it was obtained before the marriage or not. Plus they were being saddled with huge family support bills, sometimes alimony payments, often university tuitions -- and some of these men were 'renting townhouse rooms' off of me while their ex-spouses had full ownership of the family home.

With these types of huge 'economic saddlebags, leg irons, anchors...' attached to these men by the courts that had hit them mercilously, how many single, divorced, independently wealthy women would want anything to do with such men? Their debts from previous marriages were far too grievous for such men to even properly support themselves let alone a new girlfriend and/or prospective wife (or even to pay his half) -- the vision of one of these men 'bicycling off to work' while he was sending thousands of dollars to his ex-wife and son, the money of which was used by the wife to pay for a trip for her and her son to the Carribean just after they got the money.
Even when the son was staying here with us at the townhouse for the summer, he was still sending her 'the monthly support payment' even though he was spending hundreds of dollars on his son here at the same time. Before he arrived here, when he was unemployed for several months, he still had to 'catch up on those months that he got behind'. I just shook my head at this whole ordeal. The other friend with the four divorce cases behind him, says that, now that he has lost most of his life fortune, the last part of it going to help a sister who needed a costly operation in The States, the next time he gets married it will be to a woman who has money -- or not at all.

Back to women who need to be protected as best as possible against the sometimes brutal effects of male domestic violence.

Yes, women need to be protected from domestic violence in the home.

But so too, do men. And men, in this regard, are the marginalized sex -- discriminated against by politicians, judges, police, and narcissistic feminist lobbyist groups who don't know -- or care to know -- the difference between 'egalitarian fairness' and 'a narcissistic grab all you can get in the name of protecting women from men in the home'.

Again, what about the law protecting men from violent women -- or from women who learn how to overzealously work and manipulate the political and legal system in order to maximize their 'domestic power and narcissistic gain'.

Political and legal power corrupts all people, as otherwise good people -- male and female -- quickly learn how to 'manipulate the system to their narcissistic favor'.

Now it is time for politicians, judges, and lawyers to go back to the drawing board and start again. Because the present system isn't working -- directly for men, and indirectly for women. Men and women still need each other -- as the domestic and sexual courts are exasperating the 'wars between the sexes' and making relatively innocuous to bad situations much, much worse.

There are lots of people I blame for this current travesty of domestic and sexual justice. Sexual justice -- if I have enough nerve and courage -- I will write about elsewhere and at a later date. I am focusing on domestic (in)justice right now.

I blame hundreds of feminist political lobbyst groups who have 'crossed the line' from 'egalitarian treatment between the sexes' to 'preferential treatment for women, discriminatory treatment against men' -- and politically and legally -- 'getting from the government all they can get'.

I blame men for not becoming more politically and legally organized, and for not doing enough to stand up for their own civil -- domestic and sexual -- rights. It is a decidedly one-sided political and legal battle when women have literally hundreds if not thousands of political lobbyst grops lobbying Ottawa each and every day -- similarly probably, in Washington -- whereas men have precious few. That's like an individual lobbyst and/or protester having any chance against a huge Corporate lobbyist group.

I blame politicians for not having enough moral fortitude and backbone to stand up against this huge onslaught of decidedly one-sided feminist lobbyst groups. Nor to have the ethical common sense to get every lobbyst group -- Corporate Lobbyst Groups and Civil Rights Lobbyst Groups and all Special Interest Lobbyst Groups 'out of the cloak of darkness', from behind 'hidden walls' -- and push them all into one great big democratic forum where there ideas and issues can be dealt with fairly and squarely in front of the civil public, in front of millions of people, on television cameras, in front of newspaper journalists -- so all of these issues and interests can be talked about, discussed, and debated freely rather than one day waking up, and finding out that some Special Interest Lobbyst Group has pushed through a 'Special Law' or a 'Special New Bill of Rights' where all of a sudden one particular group of citizens is being 'preferentially treated' -- either over or under the table -- and another particular group of citizens has become discriminated against, marginalized, and just lost some of their 'precious civil rights' and may end up in jail to prove it!

Freud lived in a time of 'Patriarchal Politics and Law'.

We now live in a time of 'Matriarchal Domestic and Sexual Laws' that are blatantly discriminatory against men.

Women cannot lose their tempers? Women cannot utter a death threat? Threaten you with a weapon? Go 'postal' on you? Chase you from room to room in your house, giving you not an inch to breathe in your own home? Drunk or sobre? Push you or pull you? Intimidate you? Manipulate you? Manipulate politicians? Manipulate police? Manipulate judges? Stereotype themselves as 'victims' when they are just as much the 'victimizer'? Lose control of themselves in a 'fit of jealousy', a 'narcissistic rage', 'go toe to toe with you about a 'caller who hung up the phone without answering it', who she imagines was or is your 'new girlfriend' -- 'finally, in a barage of anger, pushes just the right button in you in order to finally make you snap, lose your own cool, lose your own temper, your own control -- trying to at least push her out of your own private bedroom, you push her -- and now she has you just where she wants you -- says she's calling the police, the police come, they ask what happened, who pushed who first, and you already know the bottom line of what is going to happen -- maybe not as much then as now -- you are going to get handcuffed, evicted from your mutual home, forced to pay for a lawyer to defend yourself, the odds are all stacked against you like a 'rigged Casino', forced to spend a year or two in court, in fear of actually receiving a jail sentence -- and then finally 'cutting a deal' with the prosecution where you are told to see a doctor to see if you 'need an anger management course' where everyone who is around you and who knows you, knows that your temper is only likely to show itself in very extreme, provocative situations while the woman who once told you that 'she would cut you upo into pieces in your bed if you ever left her' walks away from the court with a smirk on her face, angelically stereotyped by society as 'another female domestic victim of male violence'. Just another 'domestic violence stastic' that women's groups can use to press for more and more 'domestic protectionism, preferentialism, and special rights'.

And this is what we call 'egalitarian domestic justice'.

Society sees what it wants to see.

And right now society -- and particularly women's groups -- does/do not want to 'see the role that women play in their contribution to domestic violence'.

Domestic violence is generally a dialectically shared encounter and/or relationship pattern of being both the victim and the victimizer in the process, both men and women doing their own share, and needing to be mutually accountable for, any escalation of a domestic conflict to the point where the conflict gets out of control and police have to be called. And 'phoning the police' should not be used as a 'manipulative power ploy and/or tool' to be able to say, in effect, 'Gotcha!'

We need to re-think the laws of 'domestic justice' because right now these laws are pathologically one-sided against men.

In Freud's time, childhood sexual abuse may have been out of control without anyone doing anything about it.

Today, childhood sexual abuse -- and domestic spousal abuse -- is still a big problem.

However, in the case of domestic spousal abuse, we need to stop thinking in terms of the paradigm of 'either/or, guilty or not guilty' domestic justice.

Instead, we need to develop the idea and the practical application of 'dialectical-democratic, mutually accountable' justice.

And the goal here, should not be to put more and more people into jail -- especially people who have never been there before.

Rather, the goal should be to keep more and more people out of jail, especially the ones who shouldn't be there.

In this regard, we need to teach more and more the priniples of 'mutual escalation' that can take a couple from the starting-point of a domestic conflict (especially those based on jealousy, possessiveness, real and/or imagined cases of betrayal, rejection, abandonment...), perhaps even encourage -- or mandate by the courts -- that couples who want to stay together should or must attend mutual 'anger management courses' in which they both learn -- together -- how to 'de-escalate domestic conflict, anger, rage, and violence' before it gets to the 'point of no return'.

Discrimination is discrimination -- it doesn't matter whether it is against men or women, blacks, browns, or whites. It is still discrimination. And it comes in all forms, shapes, and sizes -- and from all places, overt and covert. It is perhaps worst when it comes -- cloaked as egalitarian justice -- from our own government, politicians, judges, and police.

Therapeutically speaking, neither Freud's abandoned Traumacy and Seduction Theory and/or his later Fantasy and Oedipal Theories should be either 'discriminated against' and/or 'preferentialized for'.

Individual context and case situation should be the main, driving and determining factor. That and perhaps a better, more dialectically--integrative theory that properly accomodates both theories as much as they both are capable of 'mirroring reality'.

Likewise with our domestic and sexual laws.

Neither sex should be discriminated against. Neither sex should be preferentialized for.

Individual context should determine how each invidivual case is handled. Throw out this written or unwritten rule of 'zero domestic or sexual tolerance against men'.

That -- whether any politician or government official will own up to it or not -- is blatantly disriminatory and sexist against men.

In an effort to protect women from the worst of our 'male domestic, serial violence offenders', the police -- with the politicians and women's groups riding their collective backs -- have reached in and grabbed even those men, husbands, and boyfriends who should -- but don't -- have very legitimate cases of 'self-defense'.

So from a psychotherapeutic and clinical point of view, the problem then becomes this: where do we find a 'workable bridge' between Freud's 'Traumacy-Seduction Theory' and his later 'Childhood Sexuality and Oedipal Complex' theories. Or put another way -- between 'Traumacy Theory' and 'Narcissistic (Compensation) Theory'.

And from a political-legal point of view, the analgous domestic and sexual problem of 'fair vs. unfair treatment between the sexes' becomes 'how do we create a more dialectically integrative and less hostile set of laws that support and encourage both men and women to more harmoniously live together and to better solve and resolve their mutual domestic conflicts without violence rather then to first batter each other in the home, and then batter each other in the court room.

Everybody loses -- and probably most notably -- the children who are left to try to grapple with, and understand all this when they could be learning through better, not worse, role models and through better, not worse, examples of conflict resolution. Conflict resolution for the children becomes: mommy and daddy are having a fight, it is getting out of control, something happens, mommy phones the police, the police come, daddy is led away in handcuffs, and dadd doesn't live here any more.

Come on. In 2009, we can't do any better than this?

We have enough broken families in our midst that we don't need the government adding to them -- not to mention helping more and more domestic lawyers get rich at the expense of more and more families that, now broken and separated, have to eat all of these legal bills -- most of which generally fall on the man -- after the domestic holaucaust is over.

When will this government holaucaust end?

What I am ultimately pointing my finger at here is a concept that Erich Fromm introduced to me in the early 1970s. (See Erich Fromm, The Sane Society).

Fromm called the concept 'the pathology of normalcy'.

Back then I understood the concept 'academically'. But I was still young and idealistic. Today, some 35 years later, I know exactly what Fromm was talking about -- experientially.

Back then, when Fromm wrote 'The Sane Society', he was writing about the dangers of 'Narcissistic Capitalism' although he may or may not have used the term 'narcissistic' in this context.

I would speculate that today things are probably about 10 times worse as we see the increasing influence of corporate monopolies, globalization, exporting of North American jobs to others countries, higher and higher corporate salaries, bigger and bigger, sweeter and sweeter, corporate 'goodbye deals', increasing corporate power in the context of a larger and larger unemployed workforce, increasing 'executive expense accounts', again even in a recession, corrupt, disciminative, undemocratic lobbying...need I go on?

And laws that mask themselves as 'egalitarian and democratic' -- when they quite blatantly are not.

-- dgb, originally written March 3rd, 2007, updated and modified, Mon. January 19th, 2009, Mar. 23rd-24th, 2009, and September 10th-11th, 2009.

-- David Gordon Bain.

..................................................................................

Psychology and Law: A Critical Introduction
Author(s): Andreas Kapardis
ISBN10: 052182530X
ISBN13: 9780521825306
Format: Hardcover
Pub. Date: 3/3/2003
Publisher(s): Cambridge University Press

New Price $99.45
List Price $102.00
eVIP Price $94.48
Quantity

New Copy: This item is temporarily unavailable from the publisher, but is expected in soon. Place your order now and we will ship it as soon as it arrives.

Used Price N/A
List Price $102.00
eVIP Price N/A

Marketplace Price $9.98
List Price $102.00

Take 90 Days to Pay on $250 or more
with Quick, Easy, Secure
Subject to credit approval.

This book provides a comprehensive, up-to-date discussion of contemporary debates at the interface between psychology and criminal law. The topics surveyed include critiques of eyewitness testimony; the jury; sentencing as a human process; the psychologist as expert witness; persuasion in the courtroom; detecting deception; and psychology and the police. Kapardis draws on sources from Europe, North America and Australia to offer an expert investigation of the subjectivity and human fallibility inherent in our system of justice. He also provides suggestions for minimizing undesirable influences on crucial judicial decision-making. First Edition Hb (1997): 0-521-55321-0 First Edition Pb (1997): 0-521-55738-0

This book is the authoritative work for students and professionals in psychology and law.

Divorce's atomic bomb: false abuse allegations

2008-04-26T07:56:00.000-07:00

Editorial Comments by DGB:

This is not my essay but one by an other author that contributes to the thesis that I will one day return to after spending a very painful and traumatic two years in this area. In the meantime, I must say that I thank my friend Whitney Haller for linking me with these Sarah Hamson, Globe and Mail, articles. Indeed -- an appreciative thanks to all three: Whitney, Sarah, and The Globe and Mail...
-- dgb, April 26th, 2008.)

Divorce's atomic bomb: false abuse allegations

Falsely accusing a spouse of abuse leaves many black eyes in its wake: for the accused, the justice system and especially the kids
SARAH HAMPSON

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

April 24, 2008 at 9:48 AM EDT

The charges were eventually dropped, and his criminal record expunged, but the action had the desired effect. He was traumatized. She had exacted her revenge.

They had been married for 20 years when she discovered, through an e-mail account, that he was having an affair.

So she hit him with the atomic bomb for warring spouses - false allegations of abuse - the proliferation of which alarms professionals in the divorce industry. It is, in essence, an abuse itself, not only of the charged spouse but also of the criminal justice system.

The father doesn't want his name used for fear his children would be identified. He is a well-known Canadian actor and he is still trying to repair the damage. His ex had involved their son, then 8, in the allegations of physical violence, saying that he not only witnessed the encounter between them, but that he had been beaten on several occasions, too. The Crown attorney eventually dropped all of the charges, but not until the divorce proceedings had been finalized.

His experience is just one of several that readers of this column have brought to me, complete with legal documentation, and they suggest why many lawyers saw the judgment by the Ontario Court's Mr. Justice Bruce Pugsley a few weeks ago as a welcome acknowledgment that some discrimination is needed about when charges of alleged assault are made and pursued.

In Judge Pugsley's courtroom in Orangeville, Ont., the case involved Stephen Edward Shaw, who had laid assault charges against his wife, Alison. He had waited a month to make the accusation after she allegedly punched him in a tavern. She was arrested, and bail conditions immediately barred her from the family home and stripped her of custodial rights of their two children. He then tried to establish the new arrangement as the status quo upon which permanent custody should be determined.

In his judgment, Judge Pugsley restored the mother's access to her children, noting how "rote treatment of all matters of domestic assault can lead ... to concocted or exaggerated claims of criminal behaviour."

A separation involving allegations of abuse is complex. "In many ways, it's dealing with Rashomon, there are so many different sides to the story," says family lawyer Marvin Kurz, invoking the famous work of fiction about differing perceptions of an event. "Abuse is the hot chili pepper on a meal that is pretty indigestible anyway."

Still, because no one wants to minimize the gravity of possible domestic abuse, there's a zero tolerance approach from law enforcement officials.

"It's charge first, think later," says Linda Meldrum, a family lawyer in Toronto who has handled several cases involving false allegations of abuse. "We have erred too far on the side of caution," she warns, adding that in an acrimonious divorce proceeding, the ease with which one partner can accuse the other allows him or her "to hijack the whole family law proceeding."

Abuse charges are an effective way to evict the other spouse from the matrimonial home and get sole custody of the children. They can also be a handy way to express the roiling mix of emotions that come with domestic discord.

Earlier this month in Toronto, Noellee Mowatt was jailed to ensure she would testify against her boyfriend after laying charges of abuse against him. She later testified that she tried to withdraw charges because she had made up the allegations "to teach him a lesson."

And while fathers' rights activists like to make the point that more men than women are charged, anecdotal reports from lawyers - there are no official statistics on false charges of domestic abuse - suggest that men are as likely to lay false charges as women.

"It's a complete perversion of the whole criminal justice system," says Robert Rotenberg, a lawyer who has handled several abuse charges laid against wives and husbands. To make matters worse, he says, the criminal justice system is underfunded, which means it can take months, even years, before the charges are dropped. "It's absolutely scandalous to bring in zero tolerance - arrest everyone, charge everyone, hold them in the bail system - and then not properly fund it. If you're going to force people to go through the sledgehammer process of the criminal justice system, at least give them the dignity of being able to go through it rapidly, " Mr. Rotenberg points out.

Even when the accused party is eventually exonerated, the damage is significant.

The Canadian actor mentioned earlier describes the process as "completely humiliating." When he was brought to the police station to be charged, he was fingerprinted, and for his mug shot, "I was slotted between a drug dealer and a hooker. My ex couldn't have done anything lower. It was all about control."

He had to live with the charges for two years. In therapy with his children, it emerged that his son felt he had to support his mother in her allegations. He got many well-known Canadian entertainment personalities to write character references. It was agreed that all charges would be dropped, once their divorce was granted, a further indication of how criminal and family law are often inappropriately intertwined.

He now sees his children regularly (his son is almost 14 and his daughter 16) although they don't talk about the accusations. "The best I can do is keep putting out unconditional love to the kids," he says, his voice breaking. "It was the most horrible, horrible thing to have happened."

Hugo Aguirre of Ottawa says he was the victim of false allegations of abuse, including sexual abuse, of his daughter. He was later exonerated in court and eventually won unsupervised access to his daughter Saturday until Wednesday every week, plus holidays, birthdays and activities. "I did not have a bad experience with the judges," he says. "Some radical activists, here in Ottawa, do not like [it] when ... I talk about the judges in good terms because I am not a 'good example' of the biased judicial system."

Still, the consequences of what he calls "an abuse of power" cause many men, including himself, to suffer depression, loss of income, friends and social status. His experience pushed him to start up a fathers' support group. His advice? Fight to clear your name.

"It's like the rug has been swept out from under them," says Riki Kwinta, a social worker in Toronto who often deals with spouses in the divorce process who have been falsely accused of assault. "It's the stuff of TV and movies, but they are unable to turn it off. They are living it. As adults, we feel that we have control over our lives. In essence, that control has been stripped away when someone is falsely accused. Their life is upside down. The devastation is huge," she says.

Of course, the worst part is that the people who are most affected by such allegations are the children. That's the greatest crime. No warring parent ever thinks about those they purport to be protecting.

shampson@globeandmail.com

Ghost dad, not deadbeat

2008-02-17T12:38:00.000-08:00

Here's a radical thought: Instead of vilifying fathers who fade from their children's lives after divorce, we should try to understand them
SARAH HAMPSON

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

January 17, 2008 at 8:47 AM EST

They are the ghost fathers, the ones who disappear from the lives of their children in the years following divorce. According to experts, fatherlessness is an epidemic problem. But let me make a radical proposal: Rather than vilify them, which feels easy, perhaps we should try to understand them.

And yes, it is a male problem. "There's a pretty good body of research that non-custodial mothers, who are smaller in number, are more likely to be involved with their children, post-divorce, than fathers," says Nick Bala, a family law professor at Queen's University in Kingston.

Mothers deal with the epidemic in silence, understanding the deeply painful irony - something Senator Barack Obama, whose biological dad disappeared from his life when he was 2, alluded to in his eloquent autobiography, Dreams from My Father.

In the book's preface, the Democratic U.S. presidential hopeful writes that, upon the death of his mother, he thought "had I known she would not survive her illness, I might have written a different book - less a meditation on the absent parent, more a celebration of the one who was the single most constant in my life."

Enlarge Image
(Graham Roumieu for The Globe and Mail)

Fathers, by their absence, have a huge and overriding presence in the lives of their children. Ghost fathers haunt them.

These disappearing dads are not deadbeats. They pay support; their current address is known. But what can mothers do? To help enforce support payments, there is a government agency. But who can help with the plea: "Please make my ex see his children more?"

I am not talking about abusive fathers. Everyone agrees that children are better off to have those men out of their lives.

But the fathers who simply fade away?

They are black holes, with the potential to suck much of the devoted, compensatory efforts of the mothers into their centre.

I am one of those mothers. I have three grown boys.

It's true that some men are pathological in their ability to divorce their children - the kids are lucky if they get a card on their birthdays and are rarely, if ever, invited to visit.

But there are many divorced dads who fail to remain involved in their children's lives for reasons that have more to do with the emotional restrictions of their gender than an absence of love.

"It's difficult for men to express their hurt," explains Calvin Sandborn, author of Becoming the Kind Father, and a professor at the University of Victoria who participates in a weekly men's group.

For much of his life, Mr. Sandborn emulated his alcoholic father's example of hiding emotions, which he believes was a factor in the breakdown of his own marriage after 25 years and three children.

Mr. Sandborn credits the need to learn how to express his emotions, in the aftermath of his divorce, for the bond he enjoys with his three daughters, 25, 21, and 16.

"My relationship with my kids is way better than it would have been if I hadn't gone through that process," he admits. "I was an ignoramus as far as what was going on in my inner life."

Men see their lives in terms of doing, not feeling, he says. "We have been taught to regard ourselves as a body with a job to do, like a machine ... to cut ourselves off from our heart."

Anger is a substitute for heartbreak, he says. Instead of expressing to their ex-wives how terrible they feel about losing daily contact with their children, they view the vulnerability they experience - not being in control of their emotions - as an assault on their masculinity.

"A man feels sadness," Mr. Sandborn says. "But on some level he thinks, 'I'm not supposed to feel sadness,' so the way men react is to blame the person who is making them feel sad. They get angry. There's an adrenalin rush. And that makes them feel powerful again."

Tellingly, in a study conducted by Constance Ahrons, an American author of several books on divorce, including The Good Divorce and We're Still Family, men who have faded from their children's lives reported anger at not having sufficient time with their children following separation. They disappear because of repeated feelings of loss with occasional visits.

To a woman, that seems completely backward. Someone deals with feelings of loss by creating more loss?

But that is only one contributing factor to the phenomenon of ghost fathers. According to experts, conflict over child support, perceived court bias toward mothers, stepfathers who usurp the biological fathers' role, the custodial mother moving away and remarriage, which brings added responsibilities, can also play a part. There is also the problem of custodial mothers criticizing the father in front of the children, which encourages his marginalization.

Another issue many divorced dads face is a difficulty in creating intimacy with their children.

"Dads are often less experienced as parents because, in the marriage, they were not the primary caregiver. That's just how the couple divided up the responsibilities," says Barry Willie, founder of a divorced fathers' group called Kids and Dad in Kitchener, Ont. "We have a course called Redefining Yourself in which dads have to think through what they want in a separated family."

I'm not saying that single mothers should become enablers of their ex-husband's lack of responsibility. Many women who have been in unhealthy marriages know that excessive compassion for their husband's actions is a form of permission for the poor behaviour to continue.

At a recent party, I was explaining to a divorced dad how hard it is to understand why fathers often choose not to be as involved as possible with their children, even when the mothers do everything to encourage and facilitate visits.

"It's about cruelty," I said.

"No," he replied, rather sadly. "It's about shame."

In the world of masculinity, you're either a winner or a loser, he suggested. It's black and white. Divorce is seen as failure, ergo you're a loser. Who wants to be reminded of that?

The revelation practically knocked me off my high heels, and I was overcome with generosity for these ghost fathers. I felt like sending my ex a gift certificate for a session with a shrink.

The next Generation Ex looks at what parents can do to compensate for fathers who disappear.

My Reponse to Sarah Hampson's Article From The Globe and Mail, Jan. 17th, 2008

2008-01-18T18:49:00.001-08:00

Below i have copied an article from the Globe and Mail by Sarah Hampson. I hope I'm not transgressing any copyright laws here. I give Sarah Hampson full credit for writing the article and the Globe and Mail full credit for publishing it. It is high time we push through the fortress of 'political correctness' to get down to the toxicity of domestic discrimination and injustice against men in the Family Courts of Canada. The issues at stake are: support payments, money and property division, domestic assaults, and even sexual assaults -- or should I say 'alleged sexual assaults' -- outside the home.

Sarah Hampson pushed through the fortress of political correctness 'gently' offering a token of 'empathy' for the stressed out father. The email feedback she got from a small cross-section of divorced/separated fathers gave a much better picture of where the whole domestic court issue really stood for men -- in the mud and swamp and deepest, dingiest holes in Canada -- a prelude to how the Family Courts of Canada can make Canada a living hell for separated/divorced men, in effect, a prison outside of prison for those men who are coerced into following its economic directives. Separation/divorce is stressful enough for any man or woman who has been together for any length of time in an extended relationship -- far worse, when there are children involved. The Family Courts of Canada have a responsibility to find the 'right economic and emotional homeostatic balance' between all three of the major parties experiencing significant stress here: the woman, the children -- and the man.

To pamper one sex or the other -- and to throw the other sex to the wolves, man or woman -- is a gross travesty of 'justice', and an inexusable error of judgment on the part of the politicians and judges who have passed the laws and/or are governing these laws on the behalf of every citizen of Canada -- again, not just one sex or the other, any more than 'black', 'brown', or 'white' should make a difference in our regular court system.

The pendulum has swung 180 degrees. Years ago it was the women and children who were getting 'blugeoned' in the Family Courts of Canada. Now it is the men. Both situations are equally inexcusable. With all due respect, Sarah Hamson comes at this issue with a feather; I -- like many of the men in the feedback emails that she got -- come at this issue with a 'Nietzschean hammer'. Pardon the violent metaphors but there is a time in philosophical writing where 'gentle' just doesn't cut it anymore. The feminist lobbyist groups -- and I distinguish here between 'egalitarian' feminists (aiming for political fairness) and 'narcissistic' feminists (aiming for all they can get) -- have had their say in the political arena for the last 30 years or so, with most men saying barely a peep. We, as men, have endured the feminist, political onslaught either with ignorance of what has been happening, and/or with a Clint Eastwood type of 'masculine stoicness'. Let the women have their say. Well, they have been having their say for almost 30 years now in their pamphlets and their books and their lobbyism -- and one has to ask in the absense of any 'compensating' masculine rights groups, 'Where have all the male politicians and judges and lawyers been to say, 'Enough is enough! You are killing the economics and the spirit of all the divorced/separated men in this country!' Single women in their 40's and 50's complain that they can't find any 'good men' out there -- at least 'good men' who still have some money and property left to their name that hasn't disappeared, or isn't disappearing, to some ex-spouse (or spouses) who has/have taken the lion's share of the man's money and property -- and his spirit with it. The man may still be making $50,000 or more -- and be left with $15-20,000 to try to live on, after Revenue Canada and Family Responsibility have both gotten through with him. Revenue Canada doesn't care about the man's financial responsibilities to Family Responsiblity -- they couldn't care if he is married, divorced, or single; they still want the same cut. And Family Responsibility doesn't give a 'rat's ass' about the man's responsibilities to Revenue Canada, or for that matter, for the man's ability to economically sustain himself to any degree -- after they have both gotten through with him. They don't even care if the child the man is still supporting has passed the age of 18, has moved out with a boyfriend or girlfriend, is working full time, and is no longer in school. 'That' -- they say -- 'is for the courts to decide. Fill out the 20 pages of technical court documents, hire yourself a lawyer if you wish -- even if you can't afford one -- and wait for your time in court. A judge is the only person who can tell us whether to stop your payments or not, no matter whether your son or daughter is half way through his or her twenties now and making more than you are. We may stop the flow of money to the mother -- but we will still keep the money for the government umtil a judge tells us to stop collecting it.'

This is 'equal rights' for the separated/divorced father today in Canadian society. It is high time that these 'equal rights' laws are trashed and we start all over again -- with both men and women at the bargaining table.

My aim in Hegel's Hotel, short and simple, is for domestic justice in the courts of Cananda and in the homes of separated/divorced mothers and fathers in Canada. I don't want women to be walked over by men who taken off on them seeking to run away from all family responsiblities -- and I don't want men to be walked over by the Domestic Courts of Canada who are practically robbing separated men of all the money and property they have earned, and/or are still earning.

And people wonder why there are so many 'ghost' fathers in Canada. How about counting the dead and dying separated/divorced fathers who feel -- or can't feel anymore -- the depth of the alienation and lack of support that they feel for their own country. I, myself, went through a period where I didn't want to call Canada 'home' any longer. I was sick and tired of listening to all the articles about 'dead beat fathers'. I was more interested in getting out my 'Nietzschean hammer' and verbally attacking the 'dead beat politicians, judges and lawyers' who let this legal travesty of so-called 'equality' and 'justice' happen. The lawyers, you can partly understand. They tell you how unfair the Family Courts of Canada are to men -- as they take another large cheque from you and pad their already high income. Welcome to Canada! Home of eqaulity and justice for all!

Meanwhile, much closer to the truth of the matter, is the fact that separated fathers have become a marginalized, scapegoated, victimized sect of Canadian society. It is time that separated fathers started speaking up for themselves. Because 30 years of feminist lobbyist has more than proven the point that nobody else is going to do it for them. Gentlemen, keep up your silence, and you might as well jsut lay down on the pavement and let these feminist lobbyist groups steamroll over top of you. The same net result.

The government of Canada needs to find a way to make divorce and separation trials less lengthy, less costly, less adversarial, and less 'trashy'. More couples should go to conflict mediation rather than court. And court should not be a place where there is a huge 'winner' and a huge 'loser'. Of course, the longer a couple spends in court, the more the likelihood that they are both going to walk -- or crawl -- out as huge losers -- along with the children.

It would seem that I am stating the obvious when I say that a domestic court settlement should be 'as fair as possible' to both sides. However, it pains me to say that either of two things are likely to happen: either, 1. the person with the best lawyer and/or the best capability of paying legal fees is going to win the settlement; or the man is going to get 'trashed' and often actually 'povertized' in a way that women who are old enough should remember how the opposite types of settlements used to come down like a sledgehammer on them.

Again, welcome to Canada -- not that it is likely any better in the U.S. It seems to be a North American thing, maybe Europeon too. Maybe the whole world has beomce a land of greed and selfishness -- 'narcissism' is the technical philosophical term that I generally use. Everyone for themselves -- and teach this fine ethical system to your children. You don't even have to teach it to them. Just model it for them. Lord of The Flies. Land of 'Screw your friend, your business partner -- and your ex-spouse.' The word 'screw' is not meant in any nice sense of the word.

Everyone grab a safety net. Those who don't, tough luck. Your problem, neighbor, not mine. Our 21st Century Schizoid World. Our Brave New World. Everyone try to find a politician that you can trust and respect. That's like trying to get rich in a Casino. Like the sound of one hand clappin', it just ain't gonna happen. I think Bob Dylan wrote that.

It is time to stop this nonsense and re-establish some ethics and integrity. Some 'fair play' that is not just a couple of rosy words meant to disquise what is really happening. Narcissism kills equal rights and democracy. Only ethics and integrity will get back on track. And that will take the will of the people -- a large and active, not alienated -- political group of normal people like you and me -- working people, the salt of the earth, the Silent and Suppressed Middle Class -- to mobilize enough power and influence in this country, in this world, to get it back to something even partly resembling what it idealistically should -- and can --be. Black, Browns, and Whites working together. Christians and Muslims working together. Men and Women working together -- and neither one trying to take the other one to the cleaners. And regardless, a set of judges that won't let it happen.

Because in the end, we will all live together. Or we will all perish together in a world that is socially, politically, legally, economically, ethically, and/or environmentally not hospitable enough for human existance and survival. Even now it is not hospitable enough for many a human spirit. Will any politician ever be able to repair what has happened in the last 5 years in America and The Middle East. They are both being dragged down together on an anchor to the bottom of the ocean.

The same csn be said for many a divorced or separated man or woman trying to survive the onslaught of lawyers and the judicial decision of The Domestic Courts of Canada -- particularly the men who seem to be taking by far the largest brunt of the economic pain. One spouse might walk away a 'winner' and the other a 'loser'. But in the end, both sexes are the losers. Because we need each other. And when you destroy the fabric of trust and respect -- and economic equality and/or fairness -- between the sexes, they you have a problem that is not going to end with any one messy divorce or separation.

Indeed, we are all going to have to deal with the accumulative total of 'massive family court traumacy' -- and the fact that no one wants to involve themselves anymore with the opposite sex if it means that they could end up going back there again. Better to live alone than to live in a court-imposed economic prision outside of prison. There is no 'sexual equality' in these courts. Men have learned what it is really about. For the most part, unless the man has a really good lawyer, it is about a transfer of money from men to women, or from men to the government with no one caring how much 'net income' the man has left, and with the newspapers and feminist lobbyist groups still marginalizing, scapegoating, and victimizing separated fathes as as 'ghost' or 'abandoning' fathers and nobody willing to dig deep enough to find out why this is really happening.

What we have, in effect, is collusion happening between the feminist lobbyist groups and the politicians of Canada -- no more or no less than would seem to also be a rather apparent collusion between the gas companies and the politicians of Canada (the politicians like both the gas taxes and the separated fathers' support money) -- and the separated fatherrs are the 'marginalized, left over pieces' that are on the outside, not the inside, of the equation.

That's how politics works in Canada. Just look at the Gomery Report as another example of what I am talking about. Two in bed with each other -- and one getting shafted on the outide. I call it 'narcissistic politics'

dgb, Jan. 19th-20th, 2008, updated Feb. 17th, 2008.

2008-01-18T18:47:00.001-08:00

Ghost dad, not deadbeat
SARAH HAMPSON

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 1:37 PM EST 17/01/08

Here's a radical thought: Instead of vilifying fathers who fade from their children's lives after divorce, we should try to understand them, writes Sarah Hampson ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

Skip to the latest comment
Shawn rodie from Mississauga, Canada writes: Good article. Another reason why men disappear is because in many cases I have seen, the separated or divorced man's new girlfriend is not encouraging of a relationship that brings the man into contact with the ex wife. These men have difficulty with their new home lives because of this. Frequent arguments about the ex, or always spending time with the child, can wear a man down after a while. Although it is an easy fix to say rid yourself of this new relationship, sometimes years after divorce when you find a special someone it is not easy to do that. You are caught between a rock and a hard spot. I agree one should never trade family for a new love, but men need to feel loved too.
Posted 17/01/08 at 9:26 AM EST | Link to Comment

Dad gentian from Canada writes: You may wish to include in your definition those fathers who simply give up the battle to exercise their court ordered access. I am prepared to substantiate that the court has found against my ex 8 times (including 2 contempt convictions) for frustrating my court ordered access. This was after Manitoba Child and Family services directed me to leave the house with them as a result of her threats of serious bodily harm. My choice, and that of many non-custodial parents (usually men) is to balance the cost of litigation (and my children's heritage) against the certainty I could not abandon them. My older daughter is now living with me and Legal Aid continues to fund lawyers for the mother. It is no wonder there are absent parents when they must overcome enormous cultural forces simply to exercise parental responsibilities.
Posted 17/01/08 at 9:40 AM EST | Link to Comment

hockey mom from Canada writes: Yes, and it is very important to add parental alienation (PAS) to that as well - do not assume that just because a father is not involved in his children's lives that he does not want to be. Often, mothers actively discourage contact and thus undermine any hope of a relationship between father and child.
And to Shawn,... it is not always the new wife/spouse who discourages the relationship between a father and his children, but the old wife/spouse who discourages a relationship between her children and the new wife spouse, thus compounding the issue even further.
First and foremost, we need to create a legal system that makes a child's parents equal under family law. Then we need to ensure that all parents have equal access to and an equal say in their children's lives.
Posted 17/01/08 at 9:46 AM EST | Link to Comment

P. Duddle from Canada writes: >> Divorce is a failure... you're a loser... who needs that? Add teens that constantly remind you of your failure, and blame-shift thier problems on top of them, and it is a no-win situation. I know fathers who find visitation unbearably depressing as they get loaded down with crap and guilt from the mother and the kids from the moment it starts until the moment it ends.
Posted 17/01/08 at 9:58 AM EST | Link to Comment

EA S from Ottawa, Canada writes: I have to say that for the most part, my other half and his ex get along. She has remarried, and the children seem to be very happy (they were quite small when their parents separated, one an infant and one a toddler).

We wish we could spend more time with them and actually develop a relationship with them, but we live in Eastern Ontario, and they live in South-western Ontario. Compound onto that, my other half's commitments to the CF, and mine to my job, and we simply can't afford the time or the money to travel to see them more than once or twice a year.

It's far from an ideal situation, we know, but other than making sure they get the monthly support and contact at Christmas and birthdays (if they'll even talk on the phone), what else can we do?
Posted 17/01/08 at 10:09 AM EST | Link to Comment

M B from Canada, Canada writes: Having lost my children after the divorce, I can attest to the actions of mothers that do their best to alienate children from their fathers. My ex was pushing my two children to call her boyfriend 'daddy' weeks after moving in with him. She then moved away and made it impossible for me to have any meaningful access to the children (in spite of the court order that guaranteed my access to the children). I love my children and I am plagued by nightmares as the loss continues to haunt me. However, I am calling less and less often and I feel that I am becoming the 'ghost dad.' It is perhaps a means of managing the pain and sorrow: as my wife has made it impossible for me to have a meaningful relationship with my children, the only option I feel that I have left is to distance myself emotionally from my children. I do not have the money or the energy to fight what will invariably be a lost cause in court given the existing biases favoring mothers in family court. Under the circumstances, it is best to try and move on, even if that means that I become a stranger to my children.
Posted 17/01/08 at 10:19 AM EST | Link to Comment

Eileen MacNevin from Canada writes: If these 'ghost dads' are reluctant to accept their emotions, why do they so willingly embrace anger? Or do men not think that anger is an emotion?
Posted 17/01/08 at 10:30 AM EST | Link to Comment

John Robinson from Canada writes: Wow, I expected to see harsh criticism of Non-Custodial Dads on here. Thanks Hockey Mom. The new woman idea is quite cogent. What I have found is that girlfriends tend to desire a relationship with the kids but when they realize that they aren't going to be Mom in any case and that every other weekend is tied up they usually split. It isn't their fault but it creates problems to be sure. Add to this the certainty of child support and they realize that your financial position thus ability to contribute to the purchase of a house or anything is limited. Under the current regime the more you work the more you pay so overtime doesn't help either, in fact it digs you in deeper, as the next time the custodial mother takes you in all that is considered is the tax assessment. So in fact they raise the support. If you don't work the OT the following year the support doesn't go down, they accuse you of 'intentional underemployment'. If you want to pay a lawyer to help it costs more than you save, the courts know this and I have had this trick blatantly played on me too. Not for 'intentional underemployment' though. To try to improve your situation by education is very very hard, you have to find the money and the time. Forget about studying every other weekend. Living alone means you have no help with day to day things so finding the time to study through the week is difficult too. I was able to acheive though. It meant no relationships for years and a life of near starvation with constant obligations. Tough trade off but for me my son was more important than anything, not as an abstract thought either. I followed through. I wouldn't wish this on anyone. The point of the above is to illustrate that non custodial Dads do indeed have it tough and there is a lot to get depressed about. The idea of a happy go lucky single Dad driving chics around in a corvette is a myth as far as I can see. I genuinely believe that there needs to be some kind of support for Dads.
Posted 17/01/08 at 11:11 AM EST | Link to Comment

Jennifer Rollison from Canada writes: It is very simple. Get involved with your kids. Yes, failure for anyone at anything is humiliating. Get over it. Kids need both parents and men backing off for their own egos is total and utter B.S. Even the comment about his ex wanting the kids to call her new live in 'daddy' is manageable. Tell her and the kids they only have one daddy and that is you. Tell the new guy that, too. Assert yourself and be a presence in the lives of your kids. Nothing is easy, especially the ending of a relationship but, for goodness sake, leave your own sh$% at the door and put the children first.
Posted 17/01/08 at 11:17 AM EST | Link to Comment

Lowen Wrainger from Canada writes: From what my 'low paid' aquaintences tell me. It's all about the money honey! No money, no access and shunned as a real person. Sadly we're living in a world of increased material expectations and consumerism where the 'musical chair' parent game rules the family court system.
Posted 17/01/08 at 11:22 AM EST | Link to Comment

GM Blogger from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Eileen, anger is a reaction to a series of situations which have no immediate remedy. It is a reaction to having the odds stacked against you, as some other posters have pointed out the precedings of a divorce are frequently subject to emotional and logistical manipulation with the purpose of impressing upon those you love that you don't. It's simply a reaction to frustration. As a man, I have been told countless times about how my emotions simply don't matter. From employers, family, co-workers and girlfriends. Women are, not to stereotype, generally encouraged to discuss their feeelings. Men are told to suck it up and keep on working. Only when the balance of the scales tips badly are you ever encouraged to discuss how you feel, and even then only enough to make you a productive member of society again. The result was bottling up things for 15 years until work finally burned me out. I've been working on things that have upset me for 15 years finally, and starting to feel better. But only when my ability to interact with others declined to the level that my work suffered did anyone even notice. Not saying it's right, but that was my experience with emotional support as a male. Non-existent. So when things bother you you think you failed somehow, and some people get angry because they aren't sure how to display their frustration.
Posted 17/01/08 at 11:22 AM EST | Link to Comment

john hadfield from Vancouver, Canada writes: I am a single father with two grown children still at home. Your article is interesting, as seen from my viewpoint, as, I guess, I can now characterize the 'former' as a 'Ghost mother'. I have always had a very close bond with my children. I was a 'Mr Mom' before that movie came out and labelled me. I was honoured that the children chose to stay with me, the firstborn. I have come to an understanding of the former,the lastborn, that gives me peace and shows me, in a way, that men and women are not necessarily as different as we may think. An unwillingness and/or an inability to deal with our own inner selves seems to be at the core. It manifests in the difficulties one can have communicating, expressing emotion and being intimate. The fruit does not fall far from the tree. The family of origin is the first place to look. We choose the mates for our primary relationship to work out conditions we have carried since birth from our immediate family and our ancestors. The work involved in transformation is formidable. The likelihood of a person becoming aware enough to address their own problems is less than the likelihood they will think the 'other' is to blame. If you want to change someone else....change yourself. Relationships are a wonderful way to 'find' ourselves. It can be very painful but if one has the courage...... life opens up and forward.
Posted 17/01/08 at 11:26 AM EST | Link to Comment

carol c from Canada writes: This is a really good article, and the comments from Father's are very enlightening. Men are traditionally discouraged from sharing their feelings, and that must be a huge pressure.

I'd love to see some lobbying from divorced fathers who want more access to their children. The system doesn't seem to be fair at the moment and Fathers are hugely important in children's lives. Mine hardly ever shared his feelings, or really even talked, but I felt such love and affection in his presense that in the end it didn't matter too much.
Posted 17/01/08 at 10:41 AM EST | Link to Comment

Tommy Shanks from Canada writes: As a divorced dad who managed to end up with primary custody, I am always asked for advice by distraught fathers on how to 'win' custody, or at least a co-parenting role on par with their ex. I tell them to keep a diary of the number of times they got up to settle an unruly child back to sleep, or taken time off work to take their children to the doctor, or sacrificed their career for their kids etc. Sure enough, almost all these guys roll their eyes at the amount of work they have to do to even come close to matching the pareting work their ex's do.

Sure, the courts are biased, but so what? As long as you really are a parent to your child, and not just a visiting uncle or second banana to their child's mother, the system is fair. But no judge is going to give a co-parenting role to someone who never was more than a visiting uncle when the other parent was always the primary caregiver.
Posted 17/01/08 at 10:42 AM EST | Link to Comment

roy f from van, Canada writes: I'm suprised that theres no mention of mothers who make it as difficult and unpleasant as possible for dads to stay involved with their kids, a situation I believe most of us have witnessed. Obviously most divorces involve a lot of anger and animosity from Mum as well as Dad. I think in a lot of cases fathers just give up in frustration.
I see I'm not the first reader to notice this oversight.
Posted 17/01/08 at 10:43 AM EST | Link to Comment

The Skipper from Canada writes: Good article, but I always wondered why we call the male part of the equation a deadbeat. Given my observations over the years of this litigation nightmare , I have advised both my children, 'please don't make me a grandfather.' Go out and consume education, vacation time, travel, go buy a little farm to play with, but don't have children. The money spent on lawyers dealing with the contractural issues of the marriage contract, ranks right up there with the GDPs of many countries in this world. Don't send the lawyers to Hawaii, just don't have kids.
Posted 17/01/08 at 10:49 AM EST | Link to Comment

raine turner from Canada writes: Interesting- I have made many mistakes in my life- this one I did not make. My sons' father and he have a terrific relationship- we live close to each other- I have included his father in special family dinners- Christmas- Thanksgiving, Easter and of course my sons' birthday parties.... we are not what I would call friends- but we are on friendly terms.
The man I choose to be my childs father was one that I knew beforehand -as he had a child from a previous marriage- was one that would stick around a be a great parent regardless of what happened in our relationship----. This was a trait I actively looked for. I am also the daugher of a deadbeat- ghost - and a whole bunch of other words I would print here--father.
I wanted and choose a man that would be agreat father-- I am sorry kids dont have great fathers- but we do have to put that in our wish list- perhaps ahead of 'tall, good looking, rich, funny, great cook-- and of the course the bedroom talents...
Posted 17/01/08 at 10:53 AM EST | Link to Comment

Dave Toronto from Canada writes: This is a great article. I lived through a very difficult divorce and fought for shared custody, which was granted. I went so far as to have a separate phone line installed (approved by the court) in order to maintain contact with my kids, and religiously called morning and night to maintain that contact. Fortunately, although there are days when my ex and i can hardly speak to each other, she has been very supportive of my relationship with the children. Even having them contact me when i have slipped recently and providing extra time beyond our agreement. In spite of all this, it is extremely difficult to maintain a relationship after divorce. The time spent with them is broken, hurried and busy. It is much more difficult to find those quiet moments to have a conversation. Our space is limited when they are with me (I pay a lot of support) and our connection is compromised. One solution we are working on is spending one-on-one time with the kids for each of us, to provide time to connect on an individual basis. And there are the feelings of shame from the divorce (I worked hard at a marriage for a reason, it is a failure to be divorced) and the difficulty of separating after each visit. And even with great kids, there is still a feeling that you've let them down in a significant way. It is difficult for everyone involved, but it is important to remember, this was not the childrens doing. It is up to the adults to act like adults and be there for their kids to the best of their abilities and beyond.
Posted 17/01/08 at 11:42 AM EST | Link to Comment

Wilma De Bruyn from Toronto, Canada writes: And then we have the 'JUST US' system whereby since 1962 they
got involved with Family Law and families, in translation more dollars
went to the Courts, lawyers and government. Who cares about the
'families', it's big business, government business.
Posted 17/01/08 at 11:43 AM EST | Link to Comment

R Lam from Calgary, Canada writes: Eileen MacNevin from Canada: I think you're missing the point. It's okay for men accept 'emotions', but only a select few are socially acceptable in man terms (Anger and Happy). Feeling sad and hurt didn't make the cut and thus were bannished from mandom way back in pre-civilization times. When such feelings arise they are quickly repressed, turned into another more acceptable emotion (anger), scapegoated on others, or just plain avoided. The reason why is because sadness and being hurt are emotions of weakness. In evolutionary times the alpha male would keep his minions in check by being the stronger and most dominant male. Expressing these emotions would show weakness and lead others to challange for their role.
Posted 17/01/08 at 11:45 AM EST | Link to Comment

Michel FromBC from Prince George, Canada writes: Jennifer Rollison from Canada writes: 'Nothing is easy, especially the ending of a relationship but, for goodness sake, leave your own sh$% at the door and put the children first.'

Perhaps you should be telling mothers and ex-wives this instead of fathers who try and have their efforts blocked at every turn by ex-wives.
Posted 17/01/08 at 12:03 PM EST | Link to Comment

gbl gbl from Calgary, Canada writes: The answer is obvious. Unless you believe mothers are genetically and socially superior parents to men, the odds would suggest that men should be granted custody of children about 50% of the time...instead of the very rare instances that occur now due to the blatant bias of the judicial system. When you have no control whatsoever over where the children live, their schooling, the use made of support payments or their new family relationships and so on it is inevitable that many fathers become less and less involved with their children. Many (most?) fathers would be capable and eager to take on these responsibilites. To the extent you believe the financial welfare of the children should be a consideration and given the fact men still generally earn more than women (unfairly) they should be taking on child rearing responsibilities more often. This would allow more women to focus on their careers and get out of poverty. It would force men to make the kind of career choices women make all the time---creating more opportunities for women in the workforce. More fathers would be intimately involved with raising their children and the stigma they are not as good a parent as a mother would be ameliorated.
Posted 17/01/08 at 12:07 PM EST | Link to Comment

Bob Fugger from Victoria, Canada writes: The only value that this article brings is the resulting discourse in this forum. There are a lot of great reasons, justifications, etc., being brought up about why non-custodial fathers are marginalized in their relationships. I know of many custody agreements where the only reason the mother gets the children is simply because she is the mother. The treshold for becoming a custodial father is SO much higher, which often results in legal fees that - once you factor in the alimony/support of the gynocentric divorce paradigm - want-to-be custodial fathers cannot afford.

But Sarah Hampson shows us that we don't need to think, especially about other factors - she makes it really easy for us by latching on to ONE theory; and a caveman-ish one if I ever heard one! Men no good emotion, unga bunga!! Perhaps this theory provides her with the easiest rationalization of her own (single mother, three boys) reality.
Posted 17/01/08 at 12:10 PM EST | Link to Comment

Winston Churchill from London, Canada writes: The article is a good start in understanding this important issue. I am not one, but I know several 'ghosts', and I volunteer for big brothers and see the other side. I think that sole/soul custody mothers who tell their kids day in, day out, that their dad is a deadbeat loser is a major part of the problem. Who wants to be part of that? Who wants to spend time with children who may never know the whole story, but generally are well indoctrinated in the mother's half? What father would want to defend himself by telling his half -- that the custodial mother sought the divorce, and possesses some severe flaws perhaps? Easier, and better for the children probably for the father to be vilified and absent. I think also that many men feel disenfranchised in most familial matters. The decision to have children is alienated almost entirely. 90% of divorces (I believe that's correct) are sought by women. Men are left with no choices, but some pretty hefty obligations, generally: to pay, to pay, and to continue to accept responsibility when they would mostly like to move on. Remember: no responsibility without consultation. No consultation, in any case, makes irresponsibility easier. I think also that men and women feel emotions differently. As I recall, psychological experiments suggest that 'pride in ownership' and 'love' are mostly the same thing, for men. Ultimately, therefore, if you don't own it in any significant way, the love will fade.
Posted 17/01/08 at 12:14 PM EST | Link to Comment

J J from Kelowna, Canada writes: I am in this situation right now, and I do think that mothers have a lot to do with it. My (soon to be) ex does little to encourage or facilitate contact with the children. I have to make direct contact with teachers and others to find out what is going on in their lives, so that I have something to talk to them about. It certainly is tempting to say goodbye to that part of my life and move on. However, my kids are important to me, and in spite of the heartache, I am doing everything I can from where I am - long ways away - to maintain contact. I guess I can only hope that some day they will see the efforts I put in to remain an active part of their lives and appreciate how much I do love them.
Posted 17/01/08 at 12:16 PM EST | Link to Comment

Biff Mukluk from Canada writes: There are a variety of reasons why fathers disappear from their children's lives after a divorce occurs and it often relates to what I like to call 'the f--- it factor'. It's not fathers don't wish to parent their children, it's just the myriad of obstacles that exist ranging from post divorce conflict with mom to the adversarial family court system force many dads to simply say 'f--- it' and walk away. One comment here suggests that dads simply 'get over it', I would suggest to the person making the comment: try to imagine what it would be like to lose your kids... now try to imagine getting on with your life. Having worked in the family law system for over ten years and being a divorced father myself, the system does little to reward collaboration between parents and that tired old gender bias still exists. It's a shame really, as a middle aged man who is probably from that first generation of kids from what used to be called 'broken homes', I was raised to believe that I should throw an equal hand into all aspects of child care. What I learned (and I suspect that most fathers would agree) is that mothers want fathers to co-parent but only to the point where mom might feel her role as mom is somehow threatened by dad becoming intimately involved in primary child care. If we want to encourage fathers to become more involved after a divorce, we need mothers to allow fathers to explore fatherhood and define it for themselves before a divorce happens.
Posted 17/01/08 at 1:48 PM EST | Link to Comment

Call me Dad Please from Ontario, Canada writes: I’m a father of four great kids. Two years ago my wife asked that we separate. We had been married for about 22 years. In actual fact we actually married twice. We had been married about 10 years and two children at the time when she requested that we separate. Needless to say many emotions ran through my body unfortunately as the days and months went by the pain from seeing my children and then having to leave them grew unbearable and I could feel myself being drawn away form them. (Love hurts) Needless to say after a one year separation and divorce my ex wife and I remarried. I call it our musical interlude. We got most issues out on the table and ultimately had two more children. Twelve years passed and here we are again with my wife requesting a separation. The two oldest live with me and the two youngest with their mom. This time the family is broken in two. Because of the age differences the older kids don’t have much time for their younger siblings and the ghost has come in a new form not discussed in the article. I pay support for the two with their mother and have them overnight every Friday and all weekend every other weekend. It kills me during the week when I don’t see them and as a man I have a hard time dealing with it. I love all my kids and yes my ex wife, (I made a vow). Men deal with pain head on saying things we don’t mean, (we don’t think before we say things in tense situations) or back away with hopefully a shred of dignity. We are not deadbeats but men trying to deal with our emotions the best way we can. Some do it better than others. Fathers regardless of the relationship with thier ex wife have to be there to encourage, mentor, scold, get the kids out of trouble and support them as they get older. My word of advice is, if you are a ghost dad due to the separation issues eating away at you, come back to life as the kids get on with their life. They need you regardless.
Posted 17/01/08 at 1:57 PM EST | Link to Comment

glenn hoefer from Forks, USA, United States writes: The post male society at its inception and duly enacted.
Posted 17/01/08 at 2:34 PM EST | Link to Comment

Steve Gibbons from Calgary, Canada writes: As Jennifer Rollison clearly displays in her words of 'get over it,' men's feelings are somehow less important. Women in general expect Men to 'get over it' but at the same time expect support and understanding of their most minor emotional problem. Jennifer, you need to get over your sexism and perhaps try to understand the causes of this situation. Its a lot easier to solve the problem after that happens.
Although not regularly a fan I thought Sarah Hampson does a great job in pointing out the underlying issues in this situation.
Posted 17/01/08 at 2:40 PM EST | Link to Comment

Brian Turney from Kingston, Canada writes: FIRSTLY...

How about some simple legislation that would legitimately put the CHILDS best interest in the forefront and make the Family Law Act soley for the interest of the child not the interest of the parent that can afford the best lawyer.

SECONDLY...

How about the PROOF factor. If you claim your spouse is abusive...PROVE IT. Have the law require the accusor to prove their claim. If your abused and you dont report that abuse how can you still claim you have your childs best interest in mind. The protection of that child from abuse is part of your parental rights, weather is abuse towards the child or the child growing up where the parents are abusive to each other.

I know the idea of making parents responsible for their actions is not common place in family law..but hey change can be good!!!
Posted 17/01/08 at 12:19 PM EST | Link to Comment

John Williams from Ajax, Canada writes: and yes we continue the ugly bias here against men. Men are discriminated against by the courts in divorce, they are forced to pay support, then the 'mother' is given the kids. Why aren't the father given 50/50 of access to the kids and only 50/50 of the support money. That would be true EQUALITY, but we don't have that, we have a grotesque bias against men.

Then the mothers very often frustrate the father, put obstacles in his way, alienate him, bad-mouth him to the kids, cancel him at the last minute with bogus excuses to get revenge about something in a passive-aggressive manner, and even write articles shaming the father, which makes a bad situation even worse.

There are also many women who have kids out of wedlock, who want to use the CONTROL of access to the kids as a power-trip over the man. One of my brothers is a wonderful father, yet his ex-wife has done EVERYTHING you can imagine to try to screw up his relationship with the kids.

It ain't about 'Ghost Dads' its about a screwed up system, and messed up human relationships. The bottom line is that most men are pushed out of the loop by the biased system, and by the mother who wants control, and even revenge against the guy. Lets see the father perspective on this too.
Posted 17/01/08 at 12:31 PM EST | Link to Comment

Blue Father from Toronto, Canada writes: Last night, as a father whose wife left in the last year, I went to a parent-teacher meeting. My estranged spouse greeted me with, 'what are you doing here?' I said, 'the same as you.'

I honestly don't know how I am going to deal with the humiliation and conflict for years to come. The child will inherit the rudeness and disrespect toward me from the mother. The mother will have the opportunity to move another man into our home to replace me in her and the child's life. Like many ex-wives, she is already enjoying complete control of the home and the children while still relying on the financial security I am able to provide. There would be absolutely no incentive for her to consider reconciling or even allowing me to have a larger role in the children's lives. She is actually better off materially without me.

Unfortunately, Sarah Hampson's article represents many of the stereotypes of the divorced father: psychologically damaged, shirking responsibility, and being incapable of loving and caring for children.

Perhaps she is just irritated and jealous that she does not enjoy the free, occasional babysitting that a lot of divorced fathers provide for their ex's while having no real role in the upbringing of their children.
Posted 17/01/08 at 12:35 PM EST | Link to Comment

Mia Pinion from Canada writes: Excellent comments- I agree with the writer- it is all about hurt and pride. But I also say - Grow up! Divorcing is tough on everyone. Just because one spouse loses custody, and has to pay c/s - doesn't mean they have to crawl under a rock and hide! Even if a spouce has been badmouthed, and they use that excuse to say what keeps them away, (but sometimes someone really is a jerk and the kids can see it for themselves!) thats just too bad! Its what you do from here on that counts!! Get over the hurt, and loss- thats part of divorce! Everyone involved hurts and has loss!! Start being a parent that cares. Pay your c/s, do regular visitation, call, and be a part of the kids lives! Notice I was NOT blaming all men- women do it too!!! My Ex is a 'deadbeat ghost dad' and I cannot have patience and concern for him beyond just understanding this is his issue- but that it affects more than just himself! My kids wait for birthday cards that never come- christmas presents that never materialize. They have lost faith in a man who once was in their lives and cared. He tells them he has a 'new life', with a new woman and new baby.Are they supposed to say - 'Oh, good for you Dad! forget about us!' ??? And while he hides away, in self pity and pride, making a new life, ignoring the 'old life'- don't tell me the kids don't hurt. How do you think that affects a 14 yr old boy? There is no reasonable excuse. Ghost-deadbeat parent- You are dispicable!
Posted 17/01/08 at 12:35 PM EST | Link to Comment

Betty Davis from Toronto, Canada writes: When my husband's children were younger his ex-wife made visitation next to impossible. She moved an hour's drive away and when he arranged to go pick up the children he would arrive to an empty house - she would manage to 'foget' he was coming or 'forget' a prior appointment - even though he had called earlier that day to confirm. Funny thing is he never 'forgot' to make a child support payment. There are two sides to every story. Unfortunately too often it's only the Mother's side that is heard.
Posted 17/01/08 at 12:47 PM EST | Link to Comment

Pat Gesner from Canada writes: Eileen MacNevin, of course it is an emotion. The article has not clearly stated the issue of how some emotions are deemed sex appropriate. Trouble is, some 'emotions' are classed as male or female and appropriate scorn and ridicule is cast on those children who do not show sex appropriate emotions. “Crying is female. Not showing emotions is male' is still standard in English speaking societies. (Ask any 5 year old –they also will tell you women cannot be Doctors without remembering their doctors were female.) In western society, anger is an acceptable masculine emotion - angry women are deemed un-feminine.
Posted 17/01/08 at 12:49 PM EST | Link to Comment

A ZZ from Canada writes: I think Tommy Shanks has described a situation that is more frequent than the activist fathers lobby likes to admit. They are always talking about mothers trying to deny fathers access, but barely mention the responsibilities of fathers when it comes to the tough tasks around raising children - instead they just spout off about 'rights.' In my case, we live in a different province from my ex-husband and so he doesn't pay child support, instead (the theory goes) using that money to visit his son. I would be fine with this arrangement except for the fact he seems to have unlimited funds to keep starting frivolous court actions against me to try to get even more money out of me (he invariably loses, but he keeps trying). In the meantime I am raising our son alone and without any support from him. If my ex wanted anything approaching an equal parenting role I would be more than willing, but instead he wants to paint himself as a victim whose 'rights' have been stolen. Sad to say, I think this attitude is fairly prevalent among lobby groups demanding equality for fathers (the child seems almost an afterthought in their statements). I am sure there are many fathers out there who are genuinely hard done by but they do not seem to have a voice - hence the ghost dad scenario.
Posted 17/01/08 at 12:50 PM EST | Link to Comment

George Hall from Canada writes: When the Family Support System was created in Ontario under Bob Rae not one iota of input was allowed from fathers or chilodrens groups. I know because I was there at the time.
The system is set up to favour the woman and the woman alone.
The courts are forced to choose between the parents and understandably they choose the mother.
Fathers should in no way be paying child support but instead be providing the support themselves.You can't pay someone else to father your children. The women for the most part only care about the money and their own lives and are either don't care or are oblivious to the paternal needs of the children.
Posted 17/01/08 at 12:50 PM EST | Link to Comment

Mark Daye from Toronto, Canada writes: As a father of two sons, from two wives, I think I have some experience on this topic. As Hockeymom stated '...it is very important to add parental alienation (PAS) to that as well - do not assume that just because a father is not involved in his children's lives that he does not want to be.'. The mother of my eldest son and I have always worked cooperatively together to put the needs of our son first. I should note that this breakup was mutually decided. The mother of my younger son has always worked as much as possible to alientate me and control my life, even after I walked out of her control-based marriage. Now, I can understand hurt, anger, etc. However, after a certain amount of time sane people realize that no matter how they feel about the other parent the child should come first. I have not seen my younger son in over two years. I endured humiliating and unnecessary supervised visitation for several years and the situation with the mother never, ever changed. I should also mention that I share custody of my eldest son with his mother, we have a close loving relationship and I see him regularly. I was a child who grew up with an abusive father and know first hand how it feels to long for a fathers love. It is sad that so many angry women are allowed to drink at the tap of public sympathy and men continually get a bad rap.
Posted 17/01/08 at 12:51 PM EST | Link to Comment

NR Connor from TO, Canada writes: Congratulations to Ms. Hampson on her wonderful discovery -- yes, Sarah, men are human too.
Posted 17/01/08 at 12:51 PM EST | Link to Comment

Cyrus Of Persia from Canada writes: Wow. For me it's the precise reverse. My wife abandoned our four beautiful sons and me. She continues to maintain a double life, being a highly successful VP in a public school, while involving herself with a deadbeat dad who doesn't declare any income so he can avoind paying support to his own kids.

My wife does this with astonishing energy and what she thinks is secrecy. She has profound family-of-origin issues that she refuses to address. While the boys stay primarily at her place, they and I are together more than she is with them. We live one minute apart.

I can't relate to men who are not completely smitten with their children. I loved and still do love my troubled wife. And for me, any time apart from my family is time lost. A necessary loss at times, of course.

For me the struggle is to deal with my sons' pain (while negotiating my own) at the realization that what was impossible--the betrayal of our family by the mother--has actually happened. We are a rare case, I know.
Posted 17/01/08 at 12:52 PM EST | Link to Comment

Cyrus Of Persia from Canada writes: Sorry Skipper, I can't relate to your sentiment about not having kids.
Posted 17/01/08 at 12:53 PM EST | Link to Comment

Bob Fugger from Victoria, Canada writes: Wow, I had what I believe a really valid, thoughtful comment about the called the columnist's subjectivity into question and it was removed! I suppose the truth hurts.
Posted 17/01/08 at 12:58 PM EST | Link to Comment

Robert West from Canada writes: The problem is often the mother.
It seems that some women are creaturs that can hold a grudge for decades and they drive the men away.
Posted 17/01/08 at 1:08 PM EST | Link to Comment

John Williams from Ajax, Canada writes: Here's a radical thought. Why not have the father's perspective in this represented too? After all, its supposed to be about Equality, right? So lets have the fathers experiences represented as well. Just for the record, I don't have any kids, but many of my male friends have gone through this NIGHTMARE. What happens to dad, when mom moves away and makes things difficult? What happens to dad, when mom is dating a new guy every month-week, and saying bad things everyday about dad? What happens when mom starts dating dads former best friend, and then marries him? What happens when mom marries her divorce lawyer, and then uses every trick in the book to hammer the former dad, who earns less money than she does? You know, men are not monsters, contrary to what many people think.They want to be good fathers more than anything in life. Lets hear about how the system treats the man as a wallet and gives him no rights and the effect this has on these guys. I have seen many many really good guys worn down, abused and beaten by the system. Lets hear about some of that for a change. Why not have a little true Equality in information? Its worth a try, even as some wild experiment...imagine, lets try a wild experiment, and let fathers have their say too...
Posted 17/01/08 at 1:09 PM EST | Link to Comment

Gerry Wood from Halifax, Canada writes: None of those reasons are why I don't see my 5 yr old. 1) My ex- gets SO much money from me in child support that I can barely feed and house myself (and pay off my student loans)... & I have a substantially lower standard of living than she does. 2) I don't trust even slightly that after spending the money on a credit card to fly half-way across the country to see him for '2 hours, under the supervision of a social worker' that she wouldn't have had to 'go on a trip' so that he wouldn't be available and the money would be wasted. Also, he needs a 'Dad' far more than the 2h a month I'd be able to see him if I could afford to fly there. 3) I don't trust even slightly that if I DID get to see him that some accusation of 'abuse' wouldn't suddenly surface weeks or months later. 4) As any guy who has dated a woman with kids knows, you have to date the ex- too...& that can considerably contribute to the breakdown of any relationship. The disputes & emotional upset involved with having two 'father' figures also contributes. I don't see my son because I want to maximize the opportunity for his mother to find a long-term stable relationship so that he can have a full-time Dad. My breathing oxygen in the same province would reduce those chances (she'd prefer I wasn't breathing....my insurance would benefit her considerably). She doesn't (clearly) want me to be a full-time dad (or else why do they now live 2000 km away?) so as far as I'm concerned it's her responsibility to find him one...he NEEDS a full-time Dad...so getting him one is her job. Why are 'ghost' fathers held to blame so often? A woman in difficult circumstance decides to put her child up for adoption (even, horrors, by a single parent) & she's considered to be a saint. A father (like me) making a like decision is villified. Guess what? Knowing my ex-, I'm doing what's in my son's long-term best interests. Everyone else can second guess me if they want to, but they'd be wrong.
Posted 17/01/08 at 1:09 PM EST | Link to Comment

George Hall from Canada writes: The vast majority of fathere are reduced to the privledge of visitation rights and paying money which usually goes to the care of the mother.
The neds of the children mean nothing to the courts..society says men cannot be nurturing.
Posted 17/01/08 at 1:13 PM EST | Link to Comment

Matthew MacDonlad from Canada writes: I'm surprised that this article doesn't talk more about the difficulties a divorced father faces with his ex-wife and the courts. As M B from Canada has illustrated, it's not as simple as picking up the phone to see your children, it's a constant battle. And the court system is set-up against the father. It's near impossible for a father to get custody. The fact that there are so many ghosts father's makes perfect sense. It's a long hard fight that few can last through. I feel bad for them, and I'm not a angry divorced father, I'm someone who grew up without his biological father.
Posted 17/01/08 at 1:18 PM EST | Link to Comment

C S from Canada writes: An element that shouldn't be ignored is how women wield power through their children, particularly after separation or divorce. In some cases I believe that a father's absence can be the result of a refusal to continue to allow the mother to exercise power over him. Obviously, this will usually be harmful to the children.

The father's culpability for this kind of misguided response is undeniable. But it is unrealistic to suggest that the improper pursuit and exercise of power by mothers in these situations is not a contributing factor that should be addressed.
Posted 17/01/08 at 1:28 PM EST | Link to Comment

can I vote again from around-Kingston, Canada writes: [roy f from van] and you won't be the last, neither!
Posted 17/01/08 at 1:37 PM EST | Link to Comment

Comments are closed

Email From My Friend Whitney Haller

2008-01-18T18:44:00.000-08:00

Thought you might find this interesting.globeandmail.com: Ghost dad, not deadbeat
http://www.theglobeandmail.com...
They are the ghost fathers, the ones who disappear from the lives of their children in the years following divorce. According to experts, fatherlessness is an epidemic problem. But let me make a radical proposal: Rather than vilify them, which feels easy, perhaps

Toxic Pudding/Or: The Woman Who Opened The Hole In The Dyke

2008-01-18T18:40:00.000-08:00

Boy oh boy, Whit. I'm not sure you want/wanted to get me riled up again on this issue. Open up this subject matter and I'm like the faucet you can't turn off; the dyke you can't plug the hole in; the wound that is oozing with underlying infection. Having already written this email, and having taken hours to write it, I will now give it a name. In fact, I will give it two names:

Toxic Pudding -- Or: The Woman Who Opened Up The Hole in a Dyke

I think i may use this as my opening piece in:

Hegel's Hotel: Part 1: Reverse-Discrimination, Reverse-Preferentialism, and Inequality in The Domestic/Sexual Courts of Canada

Hi Whit,

I'm not sure whether to thank you or to curse you for opening up some old and new emotional wounds. Perhaps both. Given the fuel to relight my rage against the domestic court system in Canada, it is very hard -- practically impossible -- for me to present anything but a highly biased male perspective on what I see as the 'prolific increase in feminist rights groups pounding Ottawa and creating a hugely discriminative domestic court system against men that sucks men financially dry while men lay bruised and beaten and anally raped on court room floors and then finally stumble out of the court room and do absolutely nothing except alternate between rage and misery in their 'rooms' and 'basement apartments' -- licking their wounds and saying nothing about them -- men who make $50,000 incomes and more and yet who may be trying to live on a net income of $15,000 or less -- that's less than $1500 net a month, having to borrow money for their food and/or transportation -- until an article like this comes along to break the silent male pain and rage'

The article itself was pretty tame by a woman who was trying to partly move in the right direction -- i.e. trying to see things from a male perspective in a way that does not vilify all ghost fathers -- but the article paled in comparison to the feedback comments it generated mostly from separated/divorced men who have experienced much the same thing as I have -- indeed, many of these men have experienced things much, much more harshly than I have both in court and in their support payments.

I was lucky -- very lucky. I met a woman ten years ago, Sharida, who has been supportive to me through all of my worst days, both emotionally and financially. I got off easier than a lot of men with payments of $235 per month compared to many men who pay $500 per month or more.

Even so, with Revenue Canada problems due to not paying enough tax on my cashed RRSPs after I left/was downsized out of the TTC, with lost income at the time from taking a huge cut in pay to start over again in the taxi business, with debts from my old income, and lawyer fees of $180 per hour when my ex was getting her lawyer paid by the government, there were many days when even with Sharida's help I was a combination of miserable, despairing, and raging anger and hated against Canada for its domestic bias against men and particularly separated fathers.

I saw my roomate paying over a thousand dollars to his ex for back payments in support money for several months in which he was unemployed. I heard him talking about her using the money to go on vacation with his son somewhere in the Caribbean while he was bicycling to work and working 60 hour weeks to pay for this vacation -- a vacation that neither he nor I have had in probably a decade or more, at least not while either of us have been separated which in both our cases is a decade or more. I have seen my roommate continue to pay a thousand dollars or more in a month to make up for back payments owed to his wife while he was unemployed -- even while his teenage son was staying with us at the townhouse for the summer.

I've heard of many well-to-do single, separated or divorced women in their 40s and 50s who are despairing themselves of the many single, separatedor divorced men out there who may be making great income but are losing it all or have lost it all in court battles with the exs. Some may be supporting two and three families.

I say what goes around comes around. "Ladies, you partly created this monster of financial inequality amongst separated/divorced men and women.
You are now looking at older, single, divorced men -- like your ex -- who have been financially taken to the cleaners if you have had kids -- by women like you."

I know there are opposite horror stories that many a separated or divorced woman could tell you but I am here -- like the many men who commented on this particular article -- to tell the man's story, not the woman's. The woman's story has been documented many, many times before. It is time for the miserable, raging separated man to break the wall and impasse of Clint Eastwood like silent pain -- and speak up. Indeed, do something other than keep your pain and misery and anger to yourself.

Here is the icing on the cake -- for me at least. I thought I would be 'free' of my support payments when my daughter turned eighteen -- especially since she was working full time and not living at home with her mother anymore but rather with her boyfriend.

I asked Family Responsibility in Nova Scotia what they could do to help stop my support payments from coming out of my bank account each month, even as my daughter passed her 18th birthday. I had no problem helping my daughter financially if and when she needed it as I would and have even after my son turned 18. But I wanted to do this as any normal family father would do -- with an eye towards the family budget as a whole; not out of coercement and intimdation from the government.

Family Responsiblity said they could do nothing about my situation -- I would have to go through a legal process and fill out about 20 pages of legal documents -- to have a judge hopefully stop my payments. Otherwise, I was told, I could still be paying support payments til my daughter was 24 or even older! When did this law pass without men knowing about it?

The legal documents I signed with my ex back around 1992 have become worth about the same as the toilet paper in my bathroom upstairs. Laws keep passing in the woman's -- and the government's -- favor, and the separated fathers in Canada/America have become the financial scapegoats and Whipping Posts of all that is wrong with Canadian -- and American -- family life.

There is a collusion going on, you see, between the Government of Canada and aggressive feminist political lobbying groups. Most people miss this part of the equation but it is there just as covertly and sneakily as the collusion between Big Government and The Big Gas Companies. The more the Big Gas Companies charge for their gas -- until people start screaming -- the more government makes on gas taxes. When the people start to scream, the price of gas finally starts to go down again -- at least until the people are placated and the whole process of increasing gas prices starts over again. Both the Government and the Gas Companies gain from gas increases until the people start to complain hard and loud.

The same goes with Casino Revenues. The casinos 'slowly tighten the screws to increase revenues and lower payouts while the government pays little attention to what is happening because they are gaining revenues too -- until the people start to complain loud and clear. It is the old principle of 'the squeeky wheel gets the oil.'

And so it is with the collusion between aggressive Feminist lobbyist groups and the Canadian government. The government has no masculine lobbyist groups to contend with -- at least none with much clout or power. So the squeeky wheel gets the oil. The government wants the feminist vote. And the men sit on their hands with apples in their mouths (I could say worse.) -- and say absolutely nothing.

Until an article like this comes along and opens a hole in the dyke. And water starts to come gushing through. Pretty soon a tidal wave of masculine pain and rage starts to destroy the dyke. The dyke is our Canadian Domestic and Sexual Court System.

The story only continues to get worse. After a huge email argument in August in which my daughter got between myself, my ex, and the goverment, I am now totally alienated from my daughter. Since our argumetn in August we have had only one other significant set of email transactions in December which only solidified our mutual anger (if not rage). I regret the fact that my daughter got into the middle of this horrible mess but I also hate the fact that she can only see her mother's -- and her own -- perspective. My daughter seems to think that as a father I should be (financially) supporting her for her entire life. I shook my head in disbelief on this perspective but even more shockingly she seems to have the Government of Canada currently on her side.

Forget the fact that this money I send to Nova Scotia every month could be used to help prop up my parents rather paltry pension -- a minute portion back from the much, much larger portion that my parents paid the government. Forget the fact that the money could be used to help prop up my non-existant penison. Forget the fact that the money could be used to prop up my own standard of living and/or helping to finanially equalize the relationship between myself and my girlfriend of ten years who has propped me up to the tune of thousands of dollars over the years.

Forget all of this. The proof is in the pudding -- and here is the most bacterially infected, rancid part of the pudding.

My ex phoned me about a week ago for the first time since about August. She was drunk like she usually is when she calls me. She told me that she hasn't been receiving any support payments from the government since August -- even as they have kept coming out of my bank account every month since August.

If this is true, then what other conclusion can we draw from this than to say that the Government of Canada -- or at least one part of it -- is totally fraudulent. Money is being taken from me on the pretense that it is being passed to my ex to help support my daughter -- and yet neither my ex nor my daughter have been receiving any of this monthly money that continues to be taken out of my bank account under false pretenses.

If this situation were reversed, and the government was aware of what was happening, I would be up on fraud charges. But the government of Canada -- even with Stephen Harper's alleged 'Accountability Act' and 'Ethics Committee' -- remains like all Canadian governents that we have experienced in the last 30 years or so, if not longer: immune and invulnerable to all charges of fraud. The worst/best that happens is that some political culprit/scapegoat gets politically nailed to the cross (but he still gets to keep his gold-plated pension), and then the Government of Canada continues to carry on business as per usual -- and I can think of a lot of synonyms here -- non-transparently, covertly, deceptively, deceitfully, manipulatively, fraudulaently...the type of adjectives and/or adverbs that the people of Canada -- and America -- have become used to thinking of, when referring to the actions of our respective narcissistically corrupt governments. There's another good adjective -- narcissistic.

Yes, the proof is in the pudding -- the bacterially infected, rancid, toxic pudding -- that makes up the Government of Canada, and more particularly, in this case, the Domestic and Sexual Courts of Canada.

Amen.

db, January 18th, 2007.

So Whitney, do I thank you or curse you for bringing this article to my frontal attention? To my 'frontal lobe'? I think I thank you.

My email to you was at least partly 'psychotherapeutic'.

However, I would not blame you at all if you did/do not completely buy into my obviously tainted masculine bias.

Furthermore, I would not even blame you if you stopped reading this email half way through it -- or before.

Like the Canadian Government and Domestic/Sexual Courts, my email is oozing toxicity from its pores.

Sometimes, you just have to throw out the pudding and start over again.

Would you like to start a fresh topic?

Thanks for bearing, or I will assume to be at least partly bearing, with me through this righteous onslaught.

I think you poked a hole in my dyke.

But I feel better.

Cheers,

dave

Binary Opposites (Polarities), Icons, Shadows, and...The Gaze...

2007-10-16T05:07:00.000-07:00

Some of the best philosophical work of the 20sth century was done by a combination of two men: Michel Foucault (1926-1984) and Jacques Derrida (1930-2004). I mention them together because I view their work as being similar, as being 'post-Hegelian with an edge to it', and as being 'deconstructionist' (as focusing on the 'anti-thesis' portion of the Hegelian triadic 'thesis', 'anti-thesis', 'synthesis' cycle).

Now the term 'deconstruction' is Derrida's (I added the 'ist' to make it 'deconstructionist' which Derrida wouldn't have liked -- he wanted to keep the term as a 'verb', not a 'noun', a 'process', not a 'structure'. I understand where he is coming from -- call it the 'Heraclitus/Korzybski-Hayakawa/Gestalt' influence of 'You can't step into the same river twice. -- Heraclitus; or 'Everything is subject to change.' -- Gestalt Therapy. I acknowledge this but I also note that it is very difficult to talk in English without using nouns -- you just have to be careful how you use nouns and not to turn 'crystalized nouns' into 'crystalized generalizations' and 'crystalized thinking' that fails to detect change in the normal life process of evolution and/or entropy/aging/disintegration).

Foucault emphasized the connection between power, knowledge, categorization, and good or bad things happening to you -- on the 'good side', acceptance, credibility, normalcy, money, even fame and idoltry; on the 'bad side', rejection, discrimination, marginalization, restraint, suppression, jail, mental institute, violence...

As I have written in previous essays, we live in an 'either/or' society and this is not always good because oftentimes both the 'either' and the 'or' contain elements of both 'good and bad', 'right and wrong', 'health and pathology'. This idea is also contained in Hegel's dialectic or triadic formula (thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis). This is why we have 'left' and 'right' political philosophies, 'conservative' and 'liberal', 'Democrat' and 'Republican', 'capitalist' and 'socialist', 'orthodox' and 'alternative', 'modern' and 'post-modern', 'righteous' and 'rebellious', 'structuralist' and 'post-structuralist... Health in biology, psychology, philosophy, economics, law, biology, religion, architecture, art, language...all usually entail 'working polar (or 'binary') opposite perspectives, philosophies, lifestyles, processes, phenomena...towards a position of 'homeostatic balance' or 'central stabilization' (if only for a passing length of time before something upsets the homeostatic balance and puts the Hegelian formula back in motion again).

Now here is the problem according to both Foucault and Derrida. 'Power groups' (people with money, fame, beauty, prestige positions, power positions, accreditations, degrees...) can distort and disrupt the natural Hegelian evolutionary process by 'freezing the dialectic interplay between the dialectic or binary opposites (polarities)'. This creates 'artifical or arbitrary icons' that are categorized as 'good', 'right', 'healthy' etc., spotlighted, pedestalized, thrown into centre stage, referred to as 'fact', 'knowledge', 'truth', all that is wonderful, etc...; and at the same time it also creates artifical or arbitrary 'shadows' -- discriminations, marginalizations, stereotyping, exclusions, stigmitization, victimization, violence, poverty, misery, restraint, jail, hospitalization, etc.

Now according to Foucault, this whole process of 'categorization' and, in bad cases, potential for stigmitization and ostracization can happen in a matter of minutes if not seconds through what he called 'The Gaze'. This, in my opinion, is one of the most fascinating -- and scarey -- philosophical concepts of the 20th century.

The Gaze as Foucault meant it was more or less a metaphor -- and/or a real facial component -- reflecting underlying judgment, diagnosis, reductionism, categorization, and in particular, negative categorization that includes all the previously mentioned stereotypes -- alienation, discrimination, stigmatization, ostracization, restraint, jail, institutionalization, unemployment, poverty, violence, war, torture, etc.

To be sure there are other types of 'gazes' -- romantic gazes, sexual gazes, affectionate gazes -- but none of these types of gazes are what Foucault had in mind by...'The Gaze'...

Now, personally speaking, I think one has as much to worry about in 'the non-Gaze' as one does in 'The Gaze' but both can be completely relevant to what we are talking about here, and to what Foucault was talking about. 'Context' is everything.

Some examples of The Gaze in history pulled from my own head in no particular order, and some more horrific than others: The Roman Catholics, Jews, and The Spanish Inquisition; Hitler and the Jews, Salem and the witchhunts; the orthodox Jews in Holland and Spinoza; the Greek politicians and Socrates; to other varying degrees of The Gaze depending again on context: doctor and patient; policeman and protester; the rich and the poor; Conservatives and Liberals, Republicans and Democrats; blacks and whites; masters and slaves; insurgents and Americans; Americans and Talibans; Talibans and Americans; the Taliban and women; women and the Taliban; King Henry Vlll and his six wives; The Government of Canada and the Women's Movment in the 1920s; The Supreme Court of Canada and their decision in the famous 'Persons' Case (1928)...Oftentimes, The Gaze can be both ways but with one side holding significantly more power than the other, the discrimination, the injustices, the atrocities, the violence, tend to be blatantly one-sided and one-directional...

Fresh in the newspapers today, is a genocide I never knew about until I started exploring it on the internet tonight: The Armenian Genocide (anywhere from hundreds of thousand to 1.5 million Armenians starved or otherwise killed) at the hands mainly of the Young Turks (1915-1917) who were governing the Ottoman Empire at the time. Personally, I think it was another U.S. international blunder to bring up this genocide at this present time when an already very bad war in Iraq could become that much worse if the Turks decide to invade northern Iraq. However, in the context of this much smaller and less public forum, the genocide does much to emphasize an extension and application of Foucault's concept of The Gaze...

Young Turk memoirs show us very clearly how aware they were of the growing gap between Muslims and non-Muslims. Born in the traditional Muslim quarters they gazed in awe at the villas the Greek and Armenian industrialists built along newly laid-out avenues with tramways and streetlights. The contrast defined their loyalties… The Young Turks developed a fierce Ottoman-Muslim nationalism, which defined the “other” very much in religious terms… [T]he Muslim – Non-Muslim divide would completely dominate politics and lead to the tragedies of the expulsion of Muslims from the Balkans and Greek-Orthodox from Anatolia, as well as to the wholesale slaughter of the Ottoman Armenians. (Wikipedia, Armenian Genocide)

What these concepts by Derrida and Foucault show, as perfectly illustrated in the example above, is the inherent danger of any form of political, nationalist, religious, and/or ethnic extremism, the inherent danger of delving into 'either/or', 'Us' vs. 'Them' thinking in a way that is 'divisive', 'exclusive' and 'negatively categorical'. Two religious groups or racial groups or ethnic groups grow to dislike, even hate, each other but one group has significantly more power than the other. (The Armenian Christians were not allowed to carry guns whereas the Muslim Turks were). Atrocity, disaster, and mass tragedy ensues. The more things change, the more things stay the same. Are things really any different -- particulary in the Middle East -- today?

dgb, Oct. 17th, 2007.

On The Distinction Between 'Natural', 'Civil', and 'Equal' Rights

2007-10-12T20:10:00.000-07:00

The very thorny set of issues I am about to tackle here is critical to the well-being of both men and women in the 21st century. It dates back to that period of philosophy called 'The Enlightenment' which was associated with at least two revolutions -- The American Revolution (1775-1783) and The French Revolution (1789-1799).

In Canada, our investigation will take us back to The original British North America Act (1867), the Women's Movement in the early 1900s, to the Canada Act and The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and to modern day issues of Canadian Family Law, and for lack of better wording, 'The Battle of the Sexes'.

We would like 'reason' as much as possible to prevail in these matters but as tends to invariably happen in these types of controversial issues, reason will invariably evaporate at least partly into passion and narcissistic bias. I am no different than anyone else in this regard. Abstract principles are often easy to agree about but when these abstract principle start to get interpreted in terms of practical applications involving 'either/or' decisions, then all hell is likely to break out as everyone seeks to protect their own concrete narcissistic interests.

Call this 'humanism' in a more than slightly satirical, cynical Hobbesian sense. (Hobbes believed -- rightfully so in my opinion -- that 'total human freedom' would result in total anarchy and corruption; thus, government must step in to impose serious restrictions on freedom to seriously deter if not stop people from killing each other and stealing each other blind. (Like Schopenhauer, Hobbes had a pretty good understanding of 'unbridled human narcissism' -- at least in the case of many people. See the internet, Wikipedia, Natural Rights, Hobbes)

While I don't agree wholely with Hobbes' philosophy, and the 50 million dollar question becomes: 'Where do you draw the line between too much freedom and not enough freedom?', still, I at least partly agree with his argument, and the older and more jaded I get, the more I tend to agree with the extent of Hobbes' cynicism about man's 'narcissistic impulses and their corruptive, self-serving, anti-civil nature' (particularly in a culture that promotes and trumpets 'unbridled narcissistic impulses, philosophy, and lifestyle', directly and indirectly, overtly and covertly).

To go to the opposite philosophical corner, I love the philosophical idealism of The Enlightenment period. As naive as the philosophy in this period partly was, it was still a great period of philosophy -- a period of remarkable political and economic philosophers from Locke to Adam Smith to Diderot to Voltaire to Tom Paine to Thomas Jefferson...to the partly post-Enlightenment German Idealism of Kant, Hegel, and Marx.

However, with all due respect, John Locke's and later Tom Paine's theory of 'natural rights' which found its way both into the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States -- is unfounded, assumptive, 'pseudo-firepower'. Before I get tarred and feathered here, let me clarify.

There is no such thing as 'natural rights'. The concept is a myth aimed at giving an argument more force -- just like people/preachers/politicians who use the name 'God' or our 'Creator' to rhetorically try to give their argument more 'kick' and 'juice' with the assumption/myth of 'Divine Authority' (as if any of right up to and including the Pope have any contact with this 'Divine Authority').

The same is true with the use of the term 'Nature' and 'Natural Rights'. I am a big fan of 'The American Declaration of Independence', 'The American Constitution', of Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine. Add Locke, Diderot, and Voltaire to the list and these are five of my favorite political philosophers. Add Adam Smith and Karl Marx to the list and we have my 'Super Seven'. Round out the list with arguably my favorite three philosophers of all time: 1. the best German Idealist and Dialectic Philosopher -- Hegel; 2. the best 'Wholistic and Spiritual' Philosopher -- Spinoza; and 3. the most firey and hard-hitting 'Deconstructionist' -- Nietzsche, and you have arguably my 'Top Ten' Philosophers. (This list could change tomorrow but it is a pretty good list of some of my top philosophical influences.) Honourable mention off the top of my head relative to my purposes and influences in 'Hegel's Hotel' go to: Anaxamander, Heraclitus, Confucious, The Han Philosophers, Hobbes, Schopenhauer, Freud, Jung, Adler, Korzybski, Hayakawa, Perls, Derrida and Foucault.

The best two arguments against the use of the term 'Natural Rights' I found on the internet yesterday. They come from Jonathan Wallace and Jeremy Bentham...

...............................................................................

From the internet, Wikipedia, 'Natural Rights':

Jonathan Wallace has asserted that there is no basis on which to claim that some rights are natural, and he argued that Hobbes' account of natural rights confuses right with ability (human beings have the ability to seek only their own good and follow their nature in the same way as animals, but this does not imply that they have a right to do so).[2] Wallace advocates a social contract, much like Hobbes and Locke, but does not base it on natural rights:

We are all at a table together, deciding which rules to adopt, free from any vague constraints, half-remembered myths, anonymous patriarchal texts and murky concepts of nature. If I propose something you do not like, tell me why it is not practical, or harms somebody, or is counter to some other useful rule; but don't tell me it offends the universe.

Jeremy Bentham, a utilitarian philosopher, famously stated:

Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense — nonsense upon stilts.

.................................................................................

All human rights are civilly and/or legally bestowed; they don't come from God or Nature. All rights depend on some sort of 'social contract' between the members and government of a particular society or nation and since this social contract will never, ever totally be agreed on without dissension -- i.e., with 'perfect agreement', this 'contract' will always at least partly be in a state of 'flux'. The 'homeostatic balance' may stay steady if it is a good contract, fair to everyone, but inevitably over time, with changing people and a changing world, any social contract, any 'legal template' (legal document or any section or sub-section of it), and its interpretation, is going to come under scrutiny and review again. This is true of The American Declaration of Independence, and The American Constitution. It is also true of The British North America Act, The Canadian Constitution, and The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And it is also true of all the constantly changing 'equal rights' Acts in both Canada and The U.S (as well as in the rest of the world).

Governments may lay out Constitutions or legal templates and these legal templates may then be interpreted by judges and/or juries but there will never, ever be total and perfect agreement on what the exact content of this 'social contract' should be, and how it should be interpreted. It will always be the subject and content of philosophical investigation, editorializing, narcissistic bias, power-mongering, dialectic-democratic disagreement, and everything else that makes us 'human'.

It isn't the 'rights' that make us human; rather it is the disagreement over these rights that make us human. This disagreement is generally the product of 'narcissistic bias' and different types of reasoning processes that usually at least partly are meant to 'prop this narcissitic bias up' to give it a more 'civil tone and justification'.

Still, we all must seek a 'working, homeostatic balance' whether this be between the sexes and/or between different races, religions, cultures...and this is why these social contracts are made and solidified from philosophical and then political documents -- into law.

To get along harmoniously, we all must go back to the bargaining table -- dialectically, democratically and in 'good faith' -- when things start to sour and civil harmony turns to civil strife. We are in such a period now. Partly, indeed largely, suppressed under the name 'political correctness' for some time now, the civil strife I am talking about is a volacano seething underground but capable of 'blowing to the top and over' at any time. It is already blowing over the top in England. I am talking about 'men's rights' issues due to the constantly changing family law ammendments which in turn are largely due to a barrage of constant 'unbalanced laobbying on the part of hundreds of feminist lobbying groups. We are no longer in the 1950s and 60s. Viewing women as a 'minority group', as 'discriminated against', as 'marginalized', as the 'victims of patriarchal laws' and 'narcissistic masculine bias' is, at this point in time, a collosal, anachronistic myth. Indeed, the teeter totter of Canadian justice (I can't speack too much about American justice in this area but can speculate that it is very similar) has swung from 'low to high' in the area of women's family and sexual protection rights' and from 'high to low' in the area of men's family and sexual rights. The scales of family and sexual justice have reversed themselves due to excessive feminist lobbying unbalanced by masculine lobbying -- we still haven't gotten it right -- and it is time to get back to the dialectic-democratic bargaining table again, and get it closer to being 'right'.

In Canada, I will examine the civil destructiveness and misery caused by too much one-sided, unbalanced feminist lobbying and its 'reverse-discrimination' effect on the family and male-female 'assault' laws in Canada, and the unfair misery and silent rage of thousands of men.

Let me be perfectly clear here. I support 'egalitarian feminism'; I do not support 'narcissistic feminism'. Women too, need to decide where they ethically stand on this matter and whether they want to be viewed as an egalitarian feminist or a narcissistic feminist (the latter basically being the femaile equivalent of a 'male chavanist').

Narcissistic (unbalanced, one-sided) feminism has grown out of egalitarian feminism in a way that is no different than any other philosophical, political, legal and/or lifestyle perspective is bound to become 'narcissistically out of control' if it is left 'unchecked' by the opposite perspective (i.e. in this case unchecked by 'egalitarian masculinism' in a dialectic-democratic dialogue, debate, negotiation and integration process that reflects the Hegelian cycle of: thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis).

Without this dialectic-democratic dialogue and debate -- which is why we have a 'left', 'right', and 'central' political philosophy; a 'prosecutor', 'defense', and 'juge/jury' in the legal system; and an 'orthodox' and 'alternative' medicine in the medical field -- the political, legal, and economic outcome is a foregone conclusion: 'Unchecked power ultimately leads to corruption' -- no different with women than with men.

Just as unchecked masculine power has led to unbridled masculine narcissism and corruption in the past -- and still is active in business and some/many cases of law today -- the opposite phenomenon can no longer be ignored, denied, dismissed, or suppressed as 'political incorrectness' and must be properly labeled and identified for what it currently is: feminist power and matriarchal law over-running the family, domestic violence, and sexual transgression courts of Canada.

To be sure, every case is different. Some cases are more moderate than others. Some cases still involve women being taken advantage of by men -- manipulated, abused, victimized, and/or violated.

However it is long past time that a pattern of legal and civil 'counter-abuse' and 'reverse-discrimination' needs to be identified here as definitely not 'equal rights' and definitely not fair to men, particularly separated fathers.

The goal of this section is to explore more fully the concrete nature of this present civil strife, how unfair one-sided, feminist lobbying has had much to do with the current pattern of discrimination and marginalization against men and particularly separated fathers in the family courts, and what we can do about this situation to bring our family and domestic violence laws back to a 'better working homeostatic balance and centre' that is fair and protective to both sexes; not just women, mothers, and children.

dgb, October 13th-15th, 2007.

The Socio-Economic-Political-Legal Dynamics and Results of Over-Compensation: Lobbyism, Reverse-Discrimination, Reverse-Marginalization, and Reverse (Silent) Civil Rage

2007-09-05T01:15:00.000-07:00

Not all rage is bad. It depends on where it is coming from, how it is handled and how it is channeled. Some forms of rage can be extremely constructive, providing the badly needed energy and sharply focused direction to help balance out and/or compensate for traumatic personal, social, economic, legal, religious, and/or political injustices. Off the top of my head, MADD comes to my mind -- Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Another good example is John Walsh, host of the popular tv show, 'America's Most Wanted'. Walsh's young son Adam, six years old at the time, was abducted and murdered in 1981.

(From the internet on John Walsh, host of 'America's Most Wanted')

'July 27, 2006 will go down in history as the day that changed how America protects its children from sexual predators. At a ceremony in the Rose Garden, President George W. Bush signed a new, tough-as-nails law to track and apprehend convicted sex offenders who disappear after their release from prison. The date wasn't chosen randomly. It was exactly 25 years earlier that John Walsh and his wife Revé suffered the most horrendous loss that any parents could endure: the abduction and murder of their beautiful six-year-old son, Adam. Since that day in 1981, John has dedicated himself to fighting on behalf of children and all crime victims. As a result, thousands of victims have found justice, and dozens of abducted children have been safely brought home. The new law signed by President Bush is also a result of John's fight. It's called "The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act."'

The American Civil War was based on the principle of 'equal rights' and 'rage against slavery'.

Even further back, The American Revolution was based on rage against British 'overtaxation' (The Boston Tea Party). Same with the French Revolution which bacame nasty and horrific (as if war in itself is not nasty and horrific enough) when it turned into 'The Reign of Terror' where all Enlightenment sense of reason was lost in the wind amid a blood bath of torture and executions after the revolution.

I am not advocating the connection between rage and violence. I am however, advocating the connection between rage and the correction of dialectic-democratic injustices. The main problem with the people of Canada -- and I am speaking of myself too here -- is that we are, as a whole, both politically apathetic and politically inept. There is plenty of silent rage in Canada -- I have as much or more than many -- but there is not enough open, democratic, civil rage towards the political and legal correction of political and legal injustices.

Who has more power in Canada?; The politicians of Canada? Or the people of Canada? Except at election time, undoubtedly the politicians of Canada do. They say that they are working for the people of Canada, have the interests in mind of the people of Canada, when they make their political decisions and laws. But although I can only speak for myself, I would surmise that most people would probably very much believe differently. A distinction can be made between an 'equal rights' poliitican and a 'narcissistic' politician. The two categories are not totally black and white -- it is impossible for all people not to have some degree of narcissism in them; indeed, this is very much one of the main distinguishing features of our time and culture. However, how many people of Canada do not believe that the poliitcians of Canada are very much alienated from the people of Canada and visa versa. Alienation is another primary feature of 21st century Canadian 'pseudo-democracy'.

Democracy should not be over-rated. Democracy is not the 'be all and end all' of Utopia. Every concept, every philosophy, has a weakness. And the biggest weakness of democracy is its 'inefficiency'. So that becomes one of the most challenging philosophical questions of the 21st century: 'How do you make democracy more efficient?' A second and equally challenging question and problem relative to 21st Century Democracy is this: 'How do you get the people (of Canada) more 'engaged' in 21st Century (Canadian) Democracy? The answer to this question is partly simple. We saw it just recently in American politics. The internet. But this is not sufficient. How else can we re-invent 'Participatory Democracy'? The internet could play a huge role in re-inventing Participatory Democracy but we need more. How can we re-invent Participatory Democracy in the spirit of Ancient Greece or is that a laughable pipe dream? Where there is a will, there is a way. Let us reword the question: 'How do you get a country of 33 million people to speak politically in small public political forums in every city, town, and village in Canada?' Perhaps we can 'kill two birds with one stone' here. And I know I am throwing a lot of 'shotgun ideas' at you, at one time here.

Canadian Political Lobbyist-Special Interest Groups (CPLSI Groups) as they are currently constructed and function -- or shall we say 'dysfunction' in Canadian society -- need to be 'deconstructed'. Destroyed, Killed. Anihilated. Re-invented under different rules, laws, structures, and processes. This means something else at the same time. Political Party Funding (PPF) through CPLSI Groups need to be deconstructed as well. Destroyed. Killed. Anihilated. These groups are at the heart of 'un-democratic forces' at work in Canadian society that are hurting the Canadian people because they spread 'preferential VIP treatment' to these CPLSI Groups while spreading second class treatment and 'unequal rights' to the rest of the people in Canada in a supposedly democratic society.

Does anyone know how 'feeding' works in the taxi industry. You should. It is a very simple phenomenon and it goes right to the heart -- as a metaphor -- of what is wrong in Canadian society. It goes right to the heart of 'unadulterated narcissism' in Canadian (as well as American) Society.

I am a taxi dispatcher so I know at least partly what I speak of. I have not been directly involved with some of these forces at work so I do not know all of what I talk about. But I know some. It's kind of like the 'steroid scandal' in baseball or 'Ad-Scam' in Canadian politics. (The latter is an example of a much bigger type of 'feeding' than the type I will talk about here.)

It is very simple. A taxi dispatcher gets an 'out of town' run from a customer. Say it is worth $150. Instead of dispatching the call on the radio so that all the company's drivers have a fair shake at it -- the essence of 'democracy and equal rights' -- rather, the dispatcher calls his taxi cab buddy on his cell phone and gives him the call. (This is the driver being 'fed'.) Later, this driver may 'slip' the dispatcher $20. (This is the dispatcher being 'fed'.) All the other drivers are left out in the cold -- no preferentialism, no favoritism, no out of town orders. They are not being 'fed'. The principle here is that 'two parties feed each other or scratch each others backs' while the third party, usually the largest party -- i.e., the general Canadian public -- is left out in the cold, or worse -- fleeced of the proper use of their tax money.

This is what happened in 'Adscam' in Canadian Politics and it is what happens in general in Canadian Lobbyism. One CPLSI Group funds the political party in power a lot of money (in this case, the Canadian Liberal Party). For argument sake -- I'm just making up these numbers because I don't know the real ones -- let's say the private advertising company in question funds the Candian Liberal Party $100,000. (Here the Liberal Party is being 'fed'.) Now a very lucrative public/private governament contract comes up for bidding. Say it is worth 10 million plus. The contract involves advertising 'federalism' to the province of Quebec. Now instead of conducting a 'democratic, above-the-board bidding process', a member of the Liberal Party gets on the phone -- just like a taxi dispatcher would -- and gives the lucrative government contract to the private advertising company that funded the Liberal Party $100,000. And/or a 'scam-below-the-table bidding process' takes place where we know what the inevitable outcome of this bidding process would be -- and was: the private, corporate Liberal Funding Lobbyst Advertising Firm 'wins/won' the bidding. (Now the Liberal funding advertising firm -- the CPLSI Group -- has in turn been 'fed' at the expense of all other Canadian advertising companies who may have (or did) also put in a bidding even though the bidding was already a 'done deal'. This is the essence of Canadian Lobbyism and why it needs to be 'deconstructed'. It is know different than how it works in the taxi industry and in Canadian industry in general. Many a cab driver knows how to 'privately lobby' a taxi dispatcher. Bring him (or her) coffee. Chat him up. Become 'friends' with him. And in turn generally eventually look for 'economic favors'. That is why an 'ethical' taxi compay will for the most part try to keep drivers and dispatchers apart. 'Close the dispatch door to all drivers.'

Same with the hotel industry. And the restaurant industry. And the pharmaceutical industry. And every other industry in Canada. Private 'lobbyism' is rampant everywhere and destroys Canadian ethics and equal rights. It brings Canada down to a prace of raw, unadulterated, unbalanced narcissism. Lobbyism sucks. It brings down Canada and America to a shared culture of uncontrolled and unbalnced narcissism.

A taxi driver approaches a doorman at a big hotel or (visa versa). He 'slips' the doorman $20. In the code language between the two, he gives the doorman a 'cookie'. )Or the doorman asks for a 'cookie'.) The next 'airport run' the doorman gets from a customer, who do you think is going to get it? Of course -- the taxi driver who gave the doorman the 'cookie'. Again, lobbyism and narcissism at work.

A customer at a high end restaurant 'slips' a waiter $20. Anothr 'cookie'. The customer gets a 'preferred seat'. A customer arrives at a busy night club and 'slips' the bouncer $20. His group gets into the club immediately. Many other people -- some who have been waiting in line at the club for an hour or longer -- don't. 'Cookies win private favors while ethics, naivety, and ignorance don't.' Ethical, naive, and/or ignorant people are always 'left out in the cold'.

I know very little about pharmaceutical companies and how they operate. However, one does not need to be a rocket science to 'guess' how they operate -- or at least how the more 'unethical' ocmpanies operate. The 'government lobbyists'. Every now and then a newspaper article will hit the papers and the public's attention to reveal a 'pharmaceutical-government' scandal. It gets the public's attention briefly. But then the story fades away and you have to know that pharmaceutical lobbying does not fade away -- is not going to fade away -- unless and/or until the people of Canada and America demand that it does. This is all hypothetical with no substantiating actual cases within my easy grasp. But you have to know that pharmaceutical lobbying is real -- and goes on all the time. Just like steroids in baseball although maybe the latter has been harnessed or at least, for the present time, been brought down to a dull roar. A membr of a large pharmaceutical company approaches a government inspection agent. The pharmaceutical company wants to 'lobby' him or her. The company wants a particular, potentially very lucrative, drug passed -- but there are issues about its safety. That is what the government inspection agency is supposed to be there for. To protect the people of Canada (or America) from potential drug harm. Drugs 'passed' by the government inspection agency are supposed to be 'safe'. But the drug isn't safe. There have been some 'deaths' in trial experiments. Now it may be hard to actually pinpoint the 'cause' of the deaths in the experiments. Maybe it was the drug. Or maybe it was the 'disease' the experimental subjects were being treated for. (This easy source of 'unclarity and possible confusion' between 'drug and/or the disease as the main causal source' has taken many a doctor and/or surgeon off the hook for potential cases of medical malpractice and/or criminal negligence.) Anyway, the pharmaceutical company doesn't want any government hold-ups. It just wants it potential lucrative profits from its unpassed drug. So it 'slip' a government inspection agent -- let us say, for argument sake, $10,000 -- and the inspection agent passes the drug. Another 'cookie'. Another example of government lobbying and 'mutual feeding'. So much for the protection of the Canadian (and American) public.

This is only a very small part of my silent civic rage. There is much, much more. The rest is much more personal. At work relative to drivers being coerced to work 16 and 17 hour shifts while only getting paid for 12. The rest goes into the company's coffers.

Who's lobbying for the drivers? They get threatenedd with firing if they mention going to The Labour Board or bring up the management-hated word -- Union. (Which is exactly why unions exist in this country -- and in case like this, should exist, which is not to say that unions can't be abusive towards both management and/or workers in their own right.) Most of the drivers choose to decline civil action and keep their jobs and the abuse over the prospect of not having a job and money to pay their bills. Some quit or are fired, but for most of them, the prospect and anxiety of poverty keeps them in line and under control over the reality of management abuse of work hours.

The issue of Feminist Lobbyism is a huge can of worms for Canada -- not for women but for men -- because Feminist Lobbyism is unbalanced by Masculine Lobbyism. That is partly men's fault because they continue to keep their mouth shut -- and don't organize civilly to balance the power of Feminist Lobbyist Groups (of which their are 100s bombarding Ottawa with demands for 'new rights'.)

Right now, men are the 'donkeys' of Canadian society for two reasons. One, they are too stupid and/or too proud to organize civilly into 'Counter-Lobbyist Groups' to offset and compensate for the power of Feminist Lobbyist Groups. And secondly, many of them -- at least the divorced and separated men out there, particularly with children, are getting financially reamed in The Family Courts of Canada to a legislature that does not bear any resemlance to the parameter of 'equal rights'. These men are being legally coerced into carrying financial loads -- often trying to support two families at once and/or not being able to even properly support themselves, not being given an inch by Government (Revenue Canada doesn't even know or care that they are often making overbearing support payments) -- indeed, separated men are in effect being coerced into the playing the role that Welfare and Mother's Allowance used to play in Canada -- a collosal savings to the Government and to Canadian Taxpayers as a whole, but in exchange, divorced and separated men are being scapegoated, being treated as the 'overburdened donkeys' of Canadian society.

There was a time, 30 years ago and longer, where women were being neglected and marginalized by the law, both in the home and in The Family Courts of Canada. Not any longer. That has all changed. For good -- and then for bad. Over the last 20-30 years, the pendulum has swung hard the other way and now it is men who are being neglected and marginalized in the home and overpowered and abused in The Family Courts of Canada. This subject, this phenomenon, will be the subject of the rest of this section.

Now there is an important note to be added here. The argument started above and which will be continued below relative to massive feminist lobbying over the last 10-20 years in Canada and its flagrant effect on biasing Canadian Family Laws and the judges who use these laws in favor of women -- are generalizations. As such they hold the same caveat emptor that any generalization should hold. In particular cases, things can be different. Women can still get unfairly treated in court if the man has a good enough lawyer. And some, indeed many, women obviously still do get 'stiffed' by ex-husbands or boyfriends who get away with making not making the support payments that they should be making. But this is not about that. There are hundreds of feminists groups who have written and/or argued articulately about that. This is about the opposite. A man giving an admittedly subjective, masculine opinion about all the men who have, and are continuing to be, subject to laws of reverse-discrimination against men -- men who have been used and abused in their homes by women who have simply picked up the phone, dialed 911, and had their husbands or boyfriends arrested, thrown in jail, and evicted from their mutual home at a moment's notice even on unsubstantiated evidence; men who have been used and abused in their wallets and in their bank acounts (if they have any) through The Family Courts of Canada and by follow up government enforcement agencies who 'just happen' to only ben overseeing and enforcing the behavior of men, not women. I am talking about the type of cases where the women are still living in the 4 bedroom house and taking regular vacations -- with the children -- on the man's money -- while the man is still making a good gross income but struggling to come up with rent money for a furnished room in a house. No vacations. No 4 bedroom house. No car. Not even enough money for a taxi to work. A bus, a bicycle, or walking -- these are often the separated father's modes of transportation to work. I know this because I have seen it as a landlord who rents rooms to these type of men, usually 45-55 years old. I hear the stories about the types of large houses these men lived in with their families for many years, and I get them after the 'Hiroshima' that has hit their lives, the emotional devastation of the separation itself from their family, and the economic devastation that hits them in the form of a particular branch of The Family Court of Canada -- full of female judges and female lawyers in all probability deserving to be there -- but no less biased than a court full of male judges and male lawyers 30 years ago passing judgment on a separated female. This is the Brave New World for men in the 21st century, in Canada at least, as they try to pick up their shattered lives after their pockets, their bank accounts, their property, and their paycheques have all been picked clean by The New Family Courts of Canada.

dgb, Oct 9th, 2007.