"ABA's predatory feminist lawyers" on WorldNetDaily

Submitted by Matt on Wed, 2008-06-04 16:35

TEN’s Senior Policy Analyst, David R. Usher lands premier exposure on WorldNetDaily for his latest piece, ABA's predatory feminist lawyers. Backed by RADAR’s latest special report (.pdf file), Dave exposes some of the inner workings of the American Bar Association’s ( ABA ) attack on American parenthood for profit. This no holds barred piece is a must read, as will be the follow-up pieces forming his first major investigative series. Excerpt:

'The ABA Domestic Violence Standards of Practice displays overt sex bias obvious to even an untrained individual. The victim is repeatedly defined as female. For example: "The lawyer should discuss with the client her wishes regarding temporary custody and visitation, keeping in mind jurisdictional issues."

The additional commentary attached to ABA Standards of Practice document extends sex biases even further: "May a client flee for safety to another state with her children without being charged criminally?"

Justice is not served by pre-defining victims as female. The wide body of 209 empirical reports measuring both female and male-perpetrated violence indicate women are at least as likely as men to be perpetrators of serious domestic violence. In cases of non-reciprocal IPV, women are the initiators of 70.7 percent of domestic violence.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

David R. Usher seems to have a split personality when it comes to addressing men's issues.

On the one hand, he has a solid grasp of the legal tryannies that men face in the feminist Family Court system, especially with regard to fathers. He clearly understands the need for substantive legal reforms to restore some semblance of equal due process for both genders under the law.

But Usher's solution for men's problems is to launch a "pro-marriage" movement to achieve political leverage, make divorce difficult,and eliminate the welfare safety net that bleeds taxpayers to pay for the assaults on the family.

I have read most of Usher's pro-marriage literature, and for me there is nothing in it that would benefit men in any way.

To promote marriage as THE SOLUTION for myriad forms of social discrimination against men is simply delusional, not the least because it relegates men to the subordinant status of domestic wage-slave in service to women and children without regard for the man's own wellbeing.

In the prevailing misandrist society we inhabit, marriage is a very bad choice for men. It is the culturally preferred means for harvesting men's wealth and for stealing one gender's liberty.

And yet marriage is what David R. Usher prescribes as the best pathway for restoring men's rights.

It may be just me, but I see a serious disconnect between Usher the capable analyst and social critic and Usher the befuddled and confused proposer of false solutions.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Roy on Wed, 2008-06-04 17:13

Even if marriage/divorce were fixed so that men actually had equal rights and responsibilities, it could always be broken again. The government screwed us over once and will have no problems doing it again and again. Until the government is fixed so that it protects the liberty of ALL its citizens, marriage/divorce will remain broken.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by canaryguy on Wed, 2008-06-04 20:32

The RADAR stats given here say,

"Mothers get primary residential custody in 93.4 percent of divorces, men only 2.5 percent of divorces."

Those numbers are significantly different from the ones given in another linked article on this board, the 'feminization of America' thread, which apparently come from somewhere other than RADAR:

" Fathers get custody of children in uncontested cases only 10 percent of the time and 15 percent of the time in contested cases. Meanwhile, mothers get sole custody 66 percent of the time in uncontested cases and 75 percent of the time in contested cases"

These sets of numbers cannot possibly both be true - seemingly regardless of the specific meaning of "residential custody". Would someone care to elaborate, or cite original sources?

-ax

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by axolotl on Fri, 2008-06-06 02:40