|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have already written my legislators about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would joint counseling of some sort be a prerequisite or recommendation for joint custody? I think a lot of couples would need it. Some people need to be taught cooperation, not just mandated into it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...barring proof of abuse, they will not be able to drive the other parent out of their children's lives...
Generally, I believe that Sacks is onto something with the exception of this clause. With the current elimination of most all due process laws and normal protections, it isn't difficult to make false allegations of abuse and have them stick.
In the absence of such protections, all that will happen is that the false allegations will further escalate with this proposed law.
Ultimately, how will this law will work depends on how much of the traditional due process laws and protections remain in place in TN. Otherwise, it actually has the potential to cause serious damage to men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I might add that there is a possibility that it could increase the flight risk. A parent averse to joint custody could flee the state or country with the kids and have more time to do it, thus preventing the other parent from ever seeing their kids.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I might add that there is a possibility that it could increase the flight risk. A parent averse to joint custody could flee the state or country with the kids and have more time to do it, thus preventing the other parent from ever seeing their kids.
I can't remember for certain, but I think we already have flight laws in place in Tennessee. To answer Warble's question, Tenn. like every other state, has its problems with false accusations and the presumption of guilt. However, I think this new law is a step in the right direction. Joint custody should be the default judgment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that joint custody would be the ideal, barring other factors such as abuse or substance problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, I think this new law is a step in the right direction. Joint custody should be the default judgment.
I would agree however, there is an epidemic of crisis proportions involving millions of false allegations against men. First, the laws protecting men against false allegations must be fixed. Otherwise, this new legislation will simply motivate women to increase the number of false allegations.
Remember, women don't play fair where children are involved, and it is deeply ingrained into this culture that it is acceptable for women to criminalize men in the best interest of the children. Women are not going to share custody of their children without a fight. Sacks has the righ idea, however, he lacks some key facts.
A fault of the law is that it presumes women are not vindictive and that they do not use the justice system as a weapon against men. Currently, women everywhere have been socialized to use the judicial system as an acceptable weapon of violence for inflicting harm upon x-spouses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's the PDF of the bill:
http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga /BILL/HB2338.pdf
Take a look at it and then tell me what you think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's the PDF of the bill:
http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga /BILL/HB2338.pdf
Take a look at it and then tell me what you think.
Sorry, but I tried the link and it fails to work. Anbody else have a problem with this URL?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's the PDF of the bill:
http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga /BILL/HB2338.pdf
Take a look at it and then tell me what you think.
Oh gees. I read it and find that it is full of holes. For example the bill reads,
"If a court finds that either parent has a long-term history of emotional or physical abuse of the child or children or the other parent, or if one parent does not encourage a positive relationship between the child and the other parent, unless there is a preponderance of evidence to the contrary, the court shall designate the non-offending parent as the permanent primary caregiver."
Please correct me if I am wrong but that phrase, "...unless there is a preponderance of evidence to the contrary..." is the most terrifying phrase I have ever seen. It is without a doubt the craft of a feminist sophist. What it does is give the woman the power to make an allegation of emotional abuse, and then the male must provide a preponderance of evidence to the contrary to prove innocence.
If I am reading this correctly, there is no question but that false allegations against men will exponentially escalate with the passage of this bill. Damn Sacks! You have got to do a better job of reading these bills before backing them!
He must have just read the summary and skipped the details or relied on the opinion of somebody else. I cannot imagine Sacks being fully informed and supporting this bill.
Like I said, I like the idea, but the bill and the TN laws are seriously flawed. It is an outright attack on men's rights. With this bill a man would have to prove fitness as a father to have any visitation at all. It is the same old guilty until proven innocent tactic.
Sacks got it wrong this time, and that is unusual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is without a doubt the craft of a feminist sophist. What it does is give the woman the power to make an allegation of emotional abuse, and then the male must provide a preponderance of evidence to the contrary to prove innocence.
I don't usually comment on my own posts however, I am just dying with laughter! I looked up the author of the bill and found that it was indeed written by a radical feminist. It was obvious because of the level of sophistry in the wording of the bill.
You can get a look at the following URL:
http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/house/members/h 87.htm
I do complement the Honorable Kathryn I. Bowers on getting this bill past Sacks. That isn't easy. She has the right idea, however, the devil is in the details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Sacks got it wrong"--Ye of little faith! Actually, the possibility of false allegations is the first thing that I mentioned to the sponsor of the bill when I saw it, and it did (and does) trouble me. The sponsor of the bill admitted that this may be a weakness, but believes, like me, that the bill is still an important step forward.
The Michigan Parental Parity Bill is better because it demands "clear and convincing evidence"--a higher legal standard--before violating the bill's presumption of joint custody.
--Glenn Sacks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Considering she's from Memphis, another poster here might have better insight into her politics, but I don't think we can label her "radical feminist" just because she's involved with two women's organizations in that area.
Also, the wording of the bill just doesn't sound all that ornery to me. I've already given my support to it. If the bill fails its purpose, I will retract it. Until then, I'm behind it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...the wording of the bill just doesn't sound all that ornery to me. I've already given my support to it. If the bill fails its purpose...
I agree that it doesn't sound problematic. However, in CA the laws have a similar tone. They are written in a gender neutral manner, sound quite reasonable, and they even have a noble goal. After all, what reasonable person would not want to have laws that protect the best interest of the children?
Nevertheless, when the bills are enacted we find that liberal activist judges use the vagueness in the phrases and wording to exploit the law and impost their own agenda. This practice is called judicial activism, and it is used to create laws from the bench that would not otherwise exist.
This bill has all of those vagaries and characteristics that judicial activists love. That is what makes it so dangerous to men. It lacks key definitions and allows for a wide latitude of interpretation. That is by design, and that is a key tactic of radical feminist.
I would support such a bill if the vagaries were removed, and if there were mandatory penalties attached for making false allegations. Until then, I believe that if that bill is enacted, the men in TN are in for a rude awakening. When that happens it will be too late to withdraw support.
….but I don't think we can label her "radical feminist" just because she's involved with two women's organizations in that area…
Perhaps labeling her a radical feminist is a bit premature. However, I note that she is divorced with two children. Again, it is the tone and the subtlety of the wording that is alarming. That is why I view her as a radical. I believe that she is fully aware of how an activist judge can reinterpret the wording to make new law. Again, this is a key tactic of democratic feminist throughout the U.S. .
For example, the bill states, “…or if one parent does not encourage a positive relationship between the child and the other parent… .” A liberal activist judge can easily have a field day with this gold mine of words. In effect, what will happen is that an activist judge will make a ruling on the meaning of this phrase.
One ruling will be that it means a woman can claim an x-husband isn’t proactively encouraging a child to have a positive relationship with the mother. So, when an x-husband is neutral in his comments towards the x-wife, the x-husband looses all rights to his children simply because the x-wife alleges that he was neutral towards her in the presence of the child. In effect the bill will coerce the x-husband to make false positive statements in order to retain his parental rights. I can list these kinds of defects all day long. It needs to be fixed and the definitions of the terms need to be documented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...label her "radical feminist" just because she's involved with two women's organizations in that area.
Better take a second look. LOL! Actually, it gets even more scary when one learns the hidden politics that she secretly supports. You don't see her telling her constituents about her real views. I doubt very much that they have any real idea of what this person stands for. Here are a few links:
Bowers encourages women to vote for only women:
http://www.wand.org/qtr-bull/fall00/message.html
She is WAND President and the primary influence of their agenda:
http://www.wand.org/abtwand/bdbios.html
Bowers is against having a missile defense system:
http://www.wand.org/issuesact/nmd.html
Bowers is against the war on terrorism and vocally opposes our president:
http://www.wand.org/9-11/five-r.html#bombing
Here is one of the defining WAND statements that Bowers supports:
"WAND believes that the bombing of Afghanistan is not helping to secure national or global security or achieving the stated objectives of the war on terrorism. Instead it is killing innocent civilians, escalating violence, increasing the likelihood of retaliation, causing instability in the region, eroding the support of our allies, attracting sympathizers to the terrorists' cause, and leading to the possible use of nuclear weapons. "
Clearly, this is the stuff we only hear from the radical left! Nobody can credibly argue anything different.
Bowers supports Eve Ensler who wrote a play (Vagina Monologues) that has a scene in the original script which glorifies female pedophilia and teaches male hatred:
http://www.wand.org/events/index.html
When one reads the history of the organization they will find there is a hidden agenda of forming a female only political party. Looks like Bowers supports that agenda also:
http://www.wand.org/abtwand/herstory.html
This agenda is also apparent in her membership with a female only organization called
”Women in Government.” Note the complete absence of any men and the false claim of political neutrality. They cannot be politically neutral when an entire political group is excluded by design.
http://www.womeningovernment.org/news_002c.htm
This organization is a special interest group that has direct access to the legislatures. With this access they are able to control the agenda on legislation from a women’s perspective. There is a mission statement which specifically states this fact in the following quote:
“The State Directors' Program was designed to provide a liaison between the legislators and the national Women In Government headquarters in Washington, DC.”
Bowers supports laws that discriminate on the basis of race, she supports radical gun control laws, and she supports enacting radical DV laws designed to criminalize men via false allegations:
http://www.wand.org/issuesact/agenda.html
I can easily go on. I have only just started. This women has left a trail all over the country. However, by now it should be clear that there is in fact a hidden radical activist side to Ms. Bowers just as I suspected. It took a while to find the documentation but it is out there.
To me, it was clearly apparent in how the bill was written, and it is most certainly apparent in her political and social affiliations. I don’t have to make this stuff up. The patterns of radical feminism are really quite easy to spot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Michigan Parental Parity Bill is better because it demands "clear and convincing evidence"--a higher legal standard--before violating the bill's presumption of joint custody.
LOL. Thanks Glen! Now please help men everywhere to work at getting this bill fixed. I really thought you must have seen this or there must have been some kind of mistake. Personally, I believe that Bowers is baiting you in bad faith or she would have fixed it already. Feminists are quite good at this strategy. I doubt very much that she has any intention of sponsoring legislation to fix the bill at some future date. If it isn’t in writing it probably isn’t going to happen.
Therefore, I must respectfully disagree with you Glenn. I believe that this bill is extremely dangerous as Bowers has (in effect) admitted to you, and it will cause serious damage in its current form to men without the proper modifications as you have now pointed out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warble:
The Tennessee bill was written and sponsored by a fathers' rights group. I'd like to put you in touch with the leader, Daniel Lee (formerly of the ACFC) so you can tell him your concerns. E-mail me at GlennJSacks@cs.com and I'll ask him to get in touch with you.
Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warble:
The Tennessee bill was written and sponsored by a fathers' rights group. I'd like to put you in touch with the leader, Daniel Lee (formerly of the ACFC) so you can tell him your concerns. E-mail me at GlennJSacks@cs.com and I'll ask him to get in touch with you.
Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
Glenn,
I must say that this invitation is a great honor. However, for legal reasons I must retain complete anonymity. My attorney advises me that I am doing something very unusual, and it requires playing hardball with a genuine male-hating feminist DA who has an agenda of systematically criminalizing men.
Nevertheless, for whatever reason, I have been deeply touched to the core, and now my life is permanently changed. That makes it almost unbearable for me to have the knowledge that over 1 million men, most of them disadvantaged, are in jail because of false allegations made by women. To me, these innocent men are the literal casualties of a war being waged against American men by feminist.
Therefore, I would be honored to debate Daniel Lee in this forum, provide any documentation, or answer any questions that he might have regarding this law (HB 2338) and the resolution of the false allegation issue.
Best Regards,
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The isue isn't debating him--I just want you to tell him your concerns so when they're working on the final version of the bill and he's testifying he can try to incorporate them into the bill. As I said, the false allegations thing was the first thing I thought of when I saw the bill and, as much as I respect Daniel and what he has done for fathers, I don't think he has adequately dealt with the issue. There's no need to use your name--just e-mail me at GlennJSacks@cs.com and I'll put you in touch with him.--GS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like a source for this "1 million men imprisoned under false allegations." I keep seeing it, but I haven't seen its origins. I'm not denying that many men probably are jailed incorrectly, but 1 million seems high.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like a source for this "1 million men imprisoned under false allegations." I keep seeing it, but I haven't seen its origins. I'm not denying that many men probably are jailed incorrectly, but 1 million seems high.
I already gave it to you in another post because I knew that you wouldn't believe me. You ignored it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Remember, women don't play fair where children are involved..."
Woah, there, kimosabi. Just because you have had bad experiences with your spouse doesn't mean women as a whole are vindictive and don't play fair where children are involved. Many of us would encourage our exes to be involved with the kids; it would help us out tremendously. And my SO has a great working relationship with his ex where the kids are concerned. My mom and dad are divorced 20 years and get along so well, that when my dad is in town he stays with my mom and her husband. I think I like my friends better than yours. Jeesh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Right on target with that one. Whether paternal will help the CP is totally irrelevant to the question at hand. This is grade A narcissism at work. "Women aren't all selfish, some of us really DO think it would be great if you could make our lives easier!"
It must be said that wiccid is right about her main point: broadly-worded remarks like the one she was responding to do indicate a subtle sense of generalization and female bashing. It isn't kosher, any more than saying "Men are abusive" is kosher.
Sorry, wiccid, I do understand your point but that one phrase was kind of funny. I'm sure that's not really what you had in mind, so don't think I'm trying to give you a lot of hell here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I *am* talking about the welfare of the kids. You try explaining to a little girl why her father doesn't show up on birthdays and Christmases. I don't need his money, but she needs a dad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was misworded, but the intent was that any really good parent wants what's really best for our kids, and that is as much love as possible from both parents. Even if the marriage doesn't work out, if there are kids involved you still have to work together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I think I like my friends better than yours.
Ya know, back in the mid-80's one of the TV networks did a big 2-hour special in which they were going to explain everything about rape. Being a sensitive, caring guy, I watched. It was quite disappointing. It turned out there were only 2 things to know about rape, which they repeated over and over, ad nauseum.
1) Rape is an act of anger and violence. It's not about sex.
2) Men are raping women all over the place. Any man can be a rapist. There's no way to tell.
This confused the hell out of me. Partly because, in my naivety, I wondered why they didn't tell us what was making these men so angry, but mainly because I was not by any stretch of my imagination a potential rapist. I considered it unthinkable and had never had the slightest urge or even thought of it in any of my relationships with women, even when things were at their stormiest.
That was also my view of the men I knew, especially my circle of friends. Whoever this program was talking about, they weren't talking about anyone I knew. (It turns out rape probably wasn't nearly as ubiquitous as they claimed, but that's another issue. As well as the fact that they had just told any woman watching, including my girlfriend, to view me as a potential rapist.)
I finally resolved the disconnect between my experience of men and the way they described men by thinking back to high school, where you are thrown in with the full social spectrum, not just self-selected companions. There were plenty of teenage boys in that sample who I had no respect for and could imagine becoming violent and/or capable of rape.
Thinking back to that time and remembering that "people don't change, they only become moreso" I concluded that 70% of men are assholes. I'm just smart enough to live my life in a way that screens most of them out. Over time, experience broadened that conclusion to include ANY demographic - men, women, whites, blacks, straights, gays ... whatever.
70% of men are assholes. 70% of women are assholes. If your friends aren't, good for you. However, think back to high school and just how many girls you wouldn't have trusted to ... well, just trusted. They went out into the world, too. What do you think the odds are that they would "play fair" in a divorce?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would agree however, there is an epidemic of crisis proportions involving millions of false allegations against men. First, the laws protecting men against false allegations must be fixed. Otherwise, this new legislation will simply motivate women to increase the number of false allegations.
And it needs to be given teeth - both motivation for prosecutors to seek to prosecute such cases, and stiff penalties, such as making a false accusation becomes a near unrebuttable presumption of unfitness as a parent.
Remember, women don't play fair where children are involved, and it is deeply ingrained into this culture that it is acceptable for women to criminalize men in the best interest of the children. Women are not going to share custody of their children without a fight. Sacks has the right idea, however, he lacks some key facts.
What you have is a myopia here as far as women are concerned. That they should not be awarded primary custody is unthinkable to women, it is seen as their manifest destiny, men's only function is to "help" them. Hence, in those few and far between cases where men are awarded custody, they become convinced they have been railroaded, and the (in)famous female moral pragmatism kicks in, justifying anything so they can retain control of what they see as their "property."
A fault of the law is that it presumes women are not vindictive and that they do not use the justice system as a weapon against men. Currently, women everywhere have been socialized to use the judicial system as an acceptable weapon of violence for inflicting harm upon x-spouses.
It's as much a fault of men, having been socialized and conditioned to protect women by a matriarchal society. Were in fact paper procedures under law to be followed, the women's prisons would be full to overflowing with women sentenced for perjury. What needs to be done away with is the outdated, long discredited and paternalistic myth that "Women Don't Lie."
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
