Should No-Fault Divorce Be Abolished?

As I understand the story (and I am open to correction on this, though I think the broad outlines are correct), Ronald Reagan led the way for the adoption of no-fault divorce when he was governor of California in the 60's-70's.

Prior to that time, divorce in every state had required a showing of some fault on the part of one or the other partners. This was because marriage was considered a contractual matter which required some sort of basis for dissolution of the contract.

But that a showing of fault was necessary led to couples who were simply determined not to live together anymore engaging in what was disparagingly called "collusive divorce," in which one party would admit to some outlandish infraction that they had, in fact, never committed, in an attempt to end the marriage. This had, in fact, happened to Reagan. His first wife had informed him that she was, ummmm, otherwise engaged, shall we say, and that she did not intend to continue the marriage. While he fought for his marriage for a time, he eventually relented and agreed to confess in a divorce court that he was guilty of "cruelty" to his wife. This was, in California, the most common ploy for "collusive divorce."

Rethinking later, Reagan decided that it was a horrible blot on his character to have people believing that he had ever been cruel to the woman that he so loved. He vowed to do something about it, and spearheaded no-fault divorce legislation, signing it into law in 1970.

He obviously never foresaw the moral wreckage that would follow.

In Reagan's day, some people did decide to stay married rather than perjure themselves in court. They worked on their marriage and generally things turned out well. Since no-fault has spread, however, there is now no longer any brake on divorces and more kids will grow up without two parents than grow up with two parents.

In North Carolina, divorce is no-fault, but the division of assets can be based on fault. I know of one case in which the couple divorced on a no-fault basis (the only choice in the state) , but the husband received all of the marital property except for his wife's IRA as a result of his wife's continued adultery.

I would suggest the following modification, which would both avoid the "collusive divorce" of the past and would also place a brake on the unrestrained divorce of the present: Any divorce in which both parties agree - let it be done on a no-fault basis. But any divorce in which one party does not agree for any reason whatsoever (i.e., a contested divorce) should be dissolved only on a fault basis and only at severe cost to the separating party - loss of kids, loss of assets, loss of everything.

Marriage is more important to society and to the people invovled in it than is the "freedom" of any one party. Marriage is more important to society than is the feminist ideology which opposes it and seeks to destroy it. Marriage is (and prior to feminism had always been treated as) a contract - and in no other area of life would we allow a person to simply walk away from a contract without any consequences merely because she "wasn't happy" with it.

The social cost of divorce has become too high. Too many men's and women's lives, finances, and psyches are being ruined by a too-easy divorce law. Too many children are growing up frustrated, neglected, angry, and lost without two parents. It is, imho, time to end this thing.

Do away with no-fault divorce. And while you are at it, let's do away with child support, the subornation of perjury by women's shelters, and the presumption of female fitness in child custody disputes. Feminism has befouled the waters of justice for too long and the evidence of its cancerous nature is plain for all to see. The legacy of irresponsibility and attendant moral chaos begotten by no-fault divorce will be felt in this country for generations to come.

Tactics of Women's Shelters 3

In one DVPO (Domestic Violence Protective Order) proceeding, a woman alleged that her husband had beaten her severely in a Sadomasochistic event, and alleged that he had beaten her so severely that he had left bruises in the area of her buttocks.

What she did not know was that her husband had her credit card statement for a card that was only in her name and had been utilized at sex shops while he was out of the country. He testified that he had noticed bruises on her buttocks area numerous times and his wife had told him she had "fallen down the stairs." She admitted to having told her friends the same thing.

Despite her own admission of lying in court, the credit card statement showing that she had been frequenting sex shops while he was out of the country, her admission that on one of those occasions she had purchased "an S&M kit," and the husband's allegations that she was coming home with bruises in her buttocks area, the DVPO was continued.

This should indicate everything that you need to know about "Domestic Violence" in the modern family court system - it is not a concept that responds well to evidence. Because, as stated previously, "Domestic Violence" is to law what the "widget" is to economics - it is anything that you want it to be. The continuation of a DVPO and the consequent criminal and civil penalties that almost necessarily follow is not dependent upon evidence, but rather is based upon the "subjective fear of the woman." Therefore, what you will hear in a DVPO proceeding is not truth, but rather a template. This is a key issue that men must recognize in order to protect themselves.

By a template, I mean that what is needed to find liability of "Domestic Violence" is not evidence of violence, but rather to show that a man acts in such a way as to fit the neurotic, fear-fueled, hate-charged stereotypes pushed by feminists. Many men, once served with a notice of hearing for "domestic violence" have the attitude - "I have never hit my wife or even so much as pushed or grabbed her. She is not going to be able to produce any evidence in court. I don't even need a lawyer."

This ignores two basic facts: 1) The Domestic Violence Industry is fueled by perjury. 2) "Domestic Violence" has nothing to do with any act of "violence" that the average person would recognize. In fact, in my experience there are three issues that are normally at the center of a DVPO hearing: a man is mean, a man is negligent, or, by far the most popular, a man is controlling.

And here are a few of the specific, often used strategies encouraged, taught, and practiced by women's shelters that help women catch their men in acts of "domestic violence"....

First, be aware of any sudden changes in sexual preference on the part of your wife (I will use "wife" throughout, recognizing that by far, most of the perjury associated with allegations of Domestic Violence seem strangely coordinated with alimony, divorce, and custody proceedings, but keep in mind that any "intimate partner" could file such spurious charges). A woman who suddenly develops an interest in S&M, and insists that you participate with her, could be up to something.

Victoria, because she could not simply "leave" her husband without risking the disapproval of her strict Baptist and Catholic family members, tried to lure her husband into inflicting bruises on her through S&M "play" and based a DVPO allegation on that. Charlotte says that she was encouraged to agree to watch pornography with her husband, and then claim in court that she was "made to watch pornography." In any DVPO hearing, being "made to" do thus and so is a recurring theme. Though such allegations never survive the first question (i.e., "HOW did he MAKE you...?"), it is part of conjuring up the appropriate template for a judge to base his decision on: women are helpless victims and men are cruel, dangerous ogres.

Some women have been encouraged to engage in whatever sexual interests they may have - orgies, threesomes, gloryholes, porn, even sex toys (one woman claimed that her purchase of a vibrator was evidence of her husband's "abuse") - then claim in court that their husband "pimped them out" or "forced them to have sex with women."

Men should be very careful about 180-degree turns on the part of their wives. Since a marriage that is on the rocks almost always has sexual problems that are central to the conflict, men may misinterpret their wives' new sexual "openness" as a sign that their marriage problems are on the way to being solved. It may be just as likely that you are being set up. Beware! Make sure that your marriage is on a firm footing long before you delve into new sexual horizons with your wife.

Secondly, women are encouraged to get evidence of a controlling, cruel, or negligent husband recorded either on paper or on tape. When you are having marital problems, do not write anything about your marriage and do not sign any documents authored by your wife!

Victoria was committing adultery with a married father of three when her husband found out and insisted that it stop. Weeks of conflict ensued. One night, she "repented" to her husband, asked his forgiveness, and said she wanted to start anew on a "second marriage." She had him draw up a marriage contract for the "second marriage" stating all the things that they both agreed she had done wrong and stating the resolutions for change that she was willing to make. She then signed the document and posted it on the refrigerator. In the DVPO hearing, the central piece of evidence was the marriage contract, which, of course, Victoria alleged that her husband had "forced her to sign."

This desire for written evidence goes both ways. Angie G. says that she was encouraged to get her husband to write her cards and letters confessing to her any time he had committed some sin against her. This all, of course, became evidence. A boxful of evidence.

Another common tactic is taping. Be careful when your wife is wearing bulky clothing indoors when it doesn't seem indicated. She could be hiding a hand-held tape recorder in a large pocket or inside a sweatshirt. Women are taught to stand in doorjambs and talk across the room to their husband so that he cannot see the tape recorder in their hand. They are taught to place the recorder behind a cushion or pillow and record while they sit.

Beware of any conversation that starts with a series of naked allegations, for which a woman seems to simply be seeking your response. If you hear this, you are likely being taped for some legal proceeding! Look for conversations structured like this:

She: I want to talk to you.
He: OK.
She: You beat me.
He: Huh?
She: You beat me and you are an adulterer and you are controlling and you always hated my family.
He: I beat you?

Note how this conversation can be twisted to be used in court. He is so flabbergasted by the false allegation that he beat his wife that he cannot even respond. But the final question, "I beat you?", can be twisted into an admission, on the theory that, if you did not beat your wife, you would flatly deny such. If that doesn't fly, the attorney can allege, "Well, you didn't deny adultery or being controlling or hating her family, did you?"

And these types of subjective, neurotic, adolescent offenses are all that is necessary to fit one into the radical feminist template of a "domestic abuser."

Beware of conversations that simply come out of left field, and again, are phrased as naked allegations. Imagine a guy at work with his instant messenger turned on, and his wife pops up with an instant message:

She: You love my blow jobs.
He: Hey baby, how are you? Yep, your blow jobs are GREAT.
She: You want my blow jobs all the time.
He: You know it.

In court, this becomes, "He makes me give him blow jobs all the time. We can't even have normal sex. He doesn't care about my pleasure at all. I hate giving blow jobs." Remember, most instant messengers have a record conversation feature.

If a woman knows a long-standing marriage boundary, look for her to start violating it and assume that she has a tape recorder so that she can record her response. If you have asked her time and again to let her watch your favorite sports team in silence, or not to cook fish, or to not wake you during a nap, etc., women are taught to start violating these boundaries of consideration with impunity and to record the result.

One man had a study in which he did extra work at home. He had asked his wife not to bother him for anything unless it was very important while he was working. One day, she walked in, wearing shorts and a sweatshirt. Under the sweatshirt was a tape recorder.

She: I want to talk to you.
He: I am working, is it really important?
She: No. I just want to talk to you.
He: What is it?
She: I don't know. I just want to talk. What do you want to talk about?

Now, look at the position this man is in, who does not know that he is being recorded. His mind is focused on something important for work, and perhaps for years it has been a known boundary in his home that he is not disturbed while he works. His wife has honored this boundary. Her behavior has become peculiar of late - she is gone a lot (committing adultery or attending "Community Support" meetings at the local women's shelter) and seems to be picking a fight with him all the time. She has become uncivil, and has crossed every boundary of simple respect that the two of them have established. He is exasperated.

If he yells at her, it is evidence that he is mean. Anything he says beyond "Get out!" is probably also abusive.

If he calmly reminds her of the fact that he is working and, absent a compelling emergency, he is not to be bothered, he is controlling.

If he ignores her, he is negligent, distant, and does not regard her "feelings."

And remember, above I stated that in the 100+ DVPO hearings that I have witnessed, the issues are normally that the husband is cruel, negligent, or controlling.

Women's shelters encourage women to keep logs of any and all physical contact between themselves and their spouse. Angie G. says, "They didn't really encourage me to lie as much as they encouraged everyone to put everything that happened in the worst light possible."

One of the most effective means of getting a man to "get physical," giving birth to some event that can be presented in the "worst light possible," is for a woman to start feigning psychological problems or otherwise acting out.

One woman would scream and yell at her husband while her tape recorder was on, hoping that he would yell back. When he didn't, but rather approached her quietly and knelt on the floor attempting to embrace her, she kicked him and yelled, "Get off me!" In court, she was kicking him because he was "wrestling her and would not let her go." She, of course, was merely "defending herself." Without video, it is difficult to argue with that kind of story.

One woman would act out by screaming, yelling, and hopping in the middle of the floor while spinning around. Her husband, obviously, thought she was having a mental breakdown. He offered to "get her some psychological help" but she constantly refused because it might threaten her professional career. She would talk to people who were not there, talk to the dead, and zone out in public. Eventually, he became so unnerved by her screaming, waving her arms, and rotating in the floor that he started wrapping her up in a bear hug when it would happen, to keep her from falling and hitting her head on a coffee table or squashing the dog.

Of course, in court, he was "squeezing the breath out of me and wouldn't let me go." He was "trying to kill me."

Admissions of wrongdoing are calculated to provoke an angry, and perhaps physical, response. Women's shelter counselors urge the women who attend "Community Meetings" that they must "live their own lives," "live authentically," "expect your spouse to authenticate your feelings and needs," and other Oprahized claptrap.

What this means is this: tell your husband about the affair and tape the result. If he doesn't respond in a way that is helpful to you, keep talking about it and taping it until he does.

Women's shelter counselors have suggested to some women that they convince an especially attractive friend to flirt with their husband prior to the filing of a DVPO. The results are, of course, admissible in court, and this works especially well to nullify evidence of adultery on the wife's part.

And all women's shelters have a bevy of attorneys and private investigators that can be contacted, so traditional black ops tactics such as bugs, videotaping, tracking by P.I.'s, and general harassment tactics are always possible.

A couple of my favorite tactics under this "traditional black ops" category are these:

A woman admits to her husband that she is cheating on him. She tells him, over a period of weeks, "I am going to X on Thursday. You are not invited." "I am going to Y on Friday. You are not invited." Eventually, he realizes something is up and decides to follow her and catch her with her boyfriend. Of course, he does not realize that a P.I. has been hired to follow him following his wife. In court, this is evidence that he is "controlling," though apparently he is not "controlling" enough to stop his wife from committing adultery.

A man slapped with a DVPO hires an attorney. The attorney begins to delay the hearing, knowing that speed is his enemy (it does take time for lies to start to unravel, so don't get upset when your attorney starts to file continuances and generally tries to gum up the works before your DVPO hearing). In the time between the filing and the month or two that an attorney may be able to delay the hearing, the man who has been falsely accused begins to receive three or four telephone calls per night. Every time he picks up the phone, there is nobody there, but rather a robocaller then dials someone else's number. After the 15th time the poor sap is fussed out by a total stranger for "calling in the middle of the night," and after the fifth straight night without a full night's sleep, he is willing to do most anything - including just give her the assets in return for her dropping the DVPO.

An attorney or police agency obtains a warrant to track your cell phone signal as a way of making sure that you are not "stalking" your wife, since you, as an accused domestic abuser, are also a potential murderer. Now, don't be ridiculous - neither your wife nor her attorney (and probably not the judge either) actually believe that you are a threat to her - they just want to know where you are going and what you are doing on the chance that it may help their property division or alimony case! You are not informed that your cell signal is being used to keep tabs on your location. When you show up for your hearing, you are asked, "Have you ever been to a strip club?" "Who lives at 123 Main Street? You've been spending a lot of time there, haven't you?"

And remember, the attorneys that are accessed through a women's shelter are generally not paid by their clients (i.e., your wife). They are paid by block grants to "Community Organizations (women's shelters) from the federal government under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). So don't think that the same cost restraints that you face with your attorney will be faced by your wife. There are plenty of cases of attorneys still performing pro bono work for a woman that contacted them through a women's shelter even two years or more after the DVPO hearing. Free.

These are but a few of the tactics routinely encouraged or made available at women's shelters. Do you see now why the tactics of women's shelters are not admissible in court in my state?

When you see inexplicable behavior on the part of your wife, whether it looks like anything recounted here or not, protect yourself. The perjury-driven Domestic Violence Industry may be setting you up.

View a four-part video series on Women's Shelters at Opposing Feminism.

Tactics of Women's Shelters 2

Every woman that I have talked to that has attended the monthly meetings held by most women's shelters (alternately called "Support Meetings," "Community Outreach," or something equally as drab and nondescript) agrees that one of the primary subtexts of such meetings is how to catch your man in acts of domestic violence.

Now think about that.

Based on what Joe and Josephine Sixpack on the street consider to be "domestic violence," there would hardly be any need to manipulate circumstances or do anything to "catch" your man in acts of DV, would there? I mean, consequent to DV there are bruises, and broken bones, and burning beds - oh, wait, maybe the burning beds go in the other direction, but you get the idea.

But it is a point worth noting: if "domestic violence" bears any sane relation to the connotation that most of us carry around in our heads, then it is certainly a good portion of overkill to attempt to "catch" someone in such acts, as the injuries large and small will be evidence enough, thank you.

Again, this is a clue that what is going on inside of women's shelters is not exactly what the carefully coiffed image presented to the public might suggest.

So let's delve into the question - what exactly is "Domestic Violence" (DV)?

I have said many times that "Domestic Violence" as a legal concept is not real - it is no more real than the idea of a "widget" is in economics. In fact, DV is to law exactly what the widget is to economics - a catch-all abstraction into which we can fit any conceivable thing, and therefore which represents nothing. Now, don't get me wrong, as a legal concept, assault is real and battery is real, but "domestic violence" is not real, as we will demonstrate below.

Family law attorney Lisa Scott says of "Domestic Violence":

"Domestic violence has become whatever the man does that the woman doesn't like. Finding out she is having an affair and demanding she stop is seen as 'abuse.' This often triggers the woman to file for a restraining order, where no real evidence is required. In my 18 years of family law practice, I have seen this pattern occur over and over."

Think about that: a woman who is a lawyer, who has practiced family law for 18 years says that the real definition of DV, as it is actually applied in real court cases is "whatever a man does that the woman doesn't like."

She couldn't possibly be telling the truth.

At the University of Virginia's Women's Center for Sexual and Domestic Violence Services (hereinafter UVSDS), "Domestic Violence" is defined as

A pattern of physically, sexually, and/or emotionally abusive behaviors used by one individual to maintain power over or control a partner in the context of an intimate or family relationship.

So we see that the definition of DV revolves around physical abuse, sexual abuse, and emotional abuse. So tell me, what is "abuse?"

Is it like the Supreme Court says about porn, "I know it when I see it?"

Actually, at least that standard has the benefit of some minor objectivity. Again and again, those who have attended these "Community Support" meetings hosted by women's shelters have declared that they were told that abuse was "anything that makes them feel abused." And that is thoroughly consistent with the subjective definition of abuse urged by UVSDS:

Remember, when one person scares, hurts or continually puts down the other person, it's abuse.

So if I feel scared, or hurt, or put down, it is because someone has abused me. Because obviously, people - especially hormonal women - are always in control of their emotions and never "feel" anything that is not justified. And of course, nobody would ever go into court and testify on the stand that they "felt" scared just as a means of getting their way, would they?

But of course they would. Because women's shelters teach them to do just that.

It has everything to do with changes in the Violence Against Women Act enacted during the administration of Bill Clinton, in which the standard of evidence for obtaining a Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO) was lowered to the most ridiculously low standard in the history of jurisprudence (other than, perhaps, "Thus saith the King..."). Consequent to changes in VAWA enacted in the 1990s, a DVPO can now be obtained in the U.S. under the outrageous standard of "the subjective fear of the woman."

So it is apparent why an honest female attorney who practices family law, and sees these cases day after day, would say that when "domestic violence" is alleged, "no real evidence is required."

But exploring the UVSDS site further, we are told that some things are objectively either suggestive of an abusive relationship or are abusive themselves. Things like:

• Embarrass or make fun of you in front of your friends or family?
• Put down your accomplishments or goals?
• Call you names?
• Make you feel like you are unable to make decisions?
• Use intimidation or threats to gain compliance?
• Hit walls, throw things, try to scare you?
• Tell you that you are nothing without them?
• Pressure you sexually for things you aren't ready for?
• Act jealous...?
• Deny your feelings?

Notice that nothing on this list is even remotely related to violence. But everything on this list sounds like it was compiled by a 16-year old girl whose neurosis had finally overcome whatever reason she once had. It is an excellent list if your goal is to make male-female relationships illegal on their face (or parent-child, or employer-employee, or any relationship), or if your ultimate goal was simply to motivate women to leave men on any pretense and fortify them for such a move by criminalizing the very ability to exist as a man as a means of transferring wealth, en bloc, to women. And, in fact, the only solution proposed by UVSDS for this type of "abuse" is...

The information provided here is designed to empower both survivors and their significant others in making decisions about their lives, in breaking free of an abusive relationship, and finding the support they need to get to a place of healing.

So, the "abuse" of "denying a woman's feelings" is a situation so heinous that the only possible solution is the abandonment of a relationship, ripping a father from his kids, sending a "feelings-denier" into the pen with gangstas, murderers, and cannibals, and transferring all imaginable assets to the woman - no doubt in an attempt to help her "get to a place of healing."

The odd thing, of course (and you will find that in feminist jurisprudence there is always an "odd thing") is that one of the signs of abuse is "Blam[ing] you for how they [the male] feel or act?"

Now wait a minute. If a woman blames me for how she feels or acts, ("I am abused because he denies my feelings."), then I, the man, have committed Domestic Violence. But if I, the man, blame a woman for how I feel or act, then I, the man, have committed Domestic Violence?

And at the end of the day, it is, in fact, the "feelings" of a woman that determines whether she has been abused, not whether a man has actually done something to her.

Do you...?
* Sometimes feel scared of how your partner will act?
* Feel like, no matter what you do, your partner is never happy with you?

And note that, at the bottom of the page linked above, readers are encouraged to call the UVSDS, because otherwise, "the abuse will continue." So obviously, all of this nonsense is, in the mind of those who run UVSDS (and why what these femtards believe is significant is described below), actually abuse.

But thankfully, the UVSDS does give us some inkling as to what can objectively be considered to be "domestic violence." Unfortunately, most of it doesn't have any relationship to actual violence. A "healthy relationship," ostensibly one in which abuse is not occurring, has (in part) the following characteristics:

* Equal decision making power.
* Neither partner restricts the other to gender roles.

Now note - if you are an evangelical Christian, a conservative Catholic, a Muslim, or just someone who believes the family ought to function like old episodes of Leave it to Beaver, with nothing else added you are involved in an abusive relationship. To simply believe in rigid gender roles, to believe that the male ought to be the leader in the home, is an act of abuse.

* Sharing of thoughts and ideas.
* Opinions of each partner are valued equally.
* Partners use respectful language and gestures, even in disagreement.

So if a man suggests that reason is superior to a hormonal bout of irrationality in which his wife is indulging, he is abusive. If a man, to avoid a fight, refuses to allow the "sharing of thoughts and ideas" to escalate by simply turning and walking away, he is abusive. If he stays and argues as the "sharing of thoughts and ideas" escalates, and points, or waves his hands, or yells in order to be heard, he is abusive.

In fact, in one proceeding, a female alleged abuse based on the male pointing at her (which made her "feel scared, like he was going to hit me") and reading the Bible to her. And for good measure, she threw in, "He's tall. About 6'2. And he lifts weights." And in response to the attorney's question, "And how did that make you feel?", she answered, "Very frightened."

* Both partners accept the validity of each others' feelings.
* Partners are emotionally supportive and caring.
* Safe sharing of fears or insecurities.

So any man (and this does NOT run both ways - in the history of DV hearings, no man has ever alleged that a woman was being violent because she did not "accept the validity of his feelings") who says, "I hear you say you are angry. But there is no reason for you to feel that way, and here's why..." is guilty of "domestic violence."

Feeling better about "domestic violence," now? Are you comfortable that men are in jail right now for violating these irrational, neurotic precepts authored by bedwetting whiny adolescents in Women's Studies departments?

But wait, you say, most "domestic violence" proceedings revolve around actual violence. Broken teeth. Bruises. Chaining someone up in the closet.

False. Because if anyone ever broke someone's teeth, they would be charged with assault and battery. If they ever chained someone up in the closet, they would be charged with false imprisonment.

Sometimes it is true that a DVPO hearing is paired with an actual criminal proceeding such as an assault charge. But the vast majority of DVPO hearings are based on the DVPO complaint alone. And in my time, I have witnessed over 100 DVPO hearings, and only one actually alleged anything that would be considered "violence" by the average guy on the street.

The rest of them were based on the kinds of neurotic nonsense described above.

And all but one of the DVPO orders were continued - and as you remember from the first post in this series, "continuation" is a finding of quasi-criminal liability in a DVPO hearing.

In the vast majority of the cases that I have personally witnessed, at issue was whether a man was "controlling" or trying to be "controlling" toward a woman.

Of course, the issue of being a "controlling man" is ultimately only an issue of whether a man cedes control to a woman.

But wait!, you object again. These are the neurotic beliefs of a bunch of man-hating, bedwetting, Maoist lesbians! Ultimately, judges don't fall for this neuro-prissy nonsense!

If only you were right. Remember up above when I promised to let you know why the beliefs of these man-hating, bedwetting, Maoist lesbians were so important? It is because though the law often requires an actual act of violence in state enactments of VAWA, the law is interpreted through the lens of judicial education seminars (and attorney continuing education) run by... wanna guess?

The man-hating, bedwetting, Maoist lesbians who run women's shelters, of course. So the shrill neurotic whining that is found on the UVSDS website, though it is not law, has the force of law because judges are trained to find "domestic violence" based on the ideas propogated by women's shelters!

Every single woman that I have interviewed who has been inside a woman's shelter has stated that women are encouraged to allege that actual physical violence has occurred. An allegation like this ensures a slam-dunk. But if a woman maintains that such violence never has occurred, then they are taught that there are "many kinds of violence" and are taken through a checklist filled with statements and questions like those above. If a woman maintains that a man has ever "denied her feelings" or "felt scared of how her partner might act" or "not shared feelings and ideas" or "believed in Biblical gender roles," she has been abused and her husband is an abuser.

Step two in the process, after convincing a woman who has lived with an Average Joe for 20 years that she has been abused, is attempting to help her gather evidence of such abuse.

This explains why most of the time, allegations of "domestic violence" occur weeks or months after a woman first enters a "Community Support Meeting." Because next on the agenda is a series of manipulations and tactics that are designed to produce actions on the part of the man that are admissible as acts of abuse in court.

Look for a discussion of these in the third entry in this series.

View a four-part video series on Women's Shelters at Opposing Feminism.

Tactics of Women's Shelters 1

The role of women's shelters, in my state, is considered so important that their tactics cannot be discussed in a courtroom.

This is your first clue that something is up, and it probably isn't kosher.

I've been talking to women, in both formal and informal contexts, for a period of about five years about what goes on in women's shelters. All of the women that I have talked to have been on the inside of the shelters, and all of them have signed confidentiality agreements. So I will refer to them with alternate names on the remote chance that there might be liability involved for them. But they all agree on the essentials of what happens, and what happens is, quite frankly, both frightening, and is evidence of the fact that women's shelters have very little to do with protecting women, and are rather local fortresses for the war against men and the family.

I post the following for a variety of reasons. First, I think that men need to be sensitized to watch out for the behaviors discussed below, and should be forewarned as to the potential significance of the behaviors. Secondly, most people who support women's shelters with financial or in-kind contributions believe that the places simply exist to protect women - they have no idea what is actually going on inside. Hopefully, knowledge of what is really going on will go a long way toward helping private individuals and organizations - especially churches! - to reconsider their support for such radical, anti-family hate organizations.

Thirdly, evil loves a cloak of secrecy. Turn on the lights, and the roaches scatter.

Elizabeth F. gives a basic overview of what happens when a woman shows up at a woman's shelter. "I was told that I could stay for 24 hours, no questions asked. But if I was going to take advantage of the programs offered at the shelter or if I was going to stay longer than 24 hours, I had to file a Domestic Violence Protective Order" (DVPO) against her intimate partner.

Angie G. tells that there were several instances in which the police were actually brought into the shelter to "help" a woman fill out a DVPO "adequately." A responding officer, a detective, and the head of the sex crimes unit all came in with the "leader" of the women's shelter to "help" women fill out the DVPO for maximum impact.

Now, a few notes about DVPOs. A DVPO hearing is what one law professor has called a "quasi-criminal hearing." It is not criminal because, to have been found liable for "domestic violence" in a DVPO hearing does not result in a criminal conviction, nor even criminal charges being filed. However, the following things either normally happen or routinely happen when a DVPO is "continued." A "continuation" is a finding of liability that would be the equivalent of "guilt" in a criminal proceeding.

* For one year (or longer in some states), the person found to have committed "domestic violence" loses their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

* The person found to have committed "domestic violence" is generally immediately removed by governmental force from his home.

* The person will immediately lose custody of his children, and the fact of a DVPO will be a central finding in any custody hearings which follow.

* His paycheck may be taxed for alimony and child support without even so much as an initial hearing. Further, rest assured that a finding of liability for "domestic violence" will be a consideration of many courts in asset division, permanent alimony rulings, and permanent custody hearings.

* In my state, a DVPO that is "continued" can be used, on its face, as evidence upon which the police may base criminal charges.

Think about that. Think long and hard about that. A woman comes into a women's shelter with a desire to have some privacy for a few days. She is informed that, unless she makes allegations against her husband/intimate partner, she must leave first thing in the morning. The police investigators are summoned to help her fill out a DVPO complaint in such a way that it will "pass muster" in a DVPO hearing. Consequent to the hearing, the DVPO is "continued." Now, the police use the complaint that they themselves have helped to fill out as the sole basis for the filing of criminal charges.

One must assume that people who work in "Domestic Violence Units" or "Sex Crimes Units" would be peculiarly adept at recording evidence - or allegations - in such a way as to maximize the possibility of criminal conviction, no? It is a vicious cycle in which (in some cases certainly, and in every case potentially) the police help form the very allegations upon which charges will eventually be based.

And in fact, my own personal experience (which is certainly not exhaustive, but I have no reason to believe that it is abnormal, either) bears this out. I have witnessed over 100 DVPO hearings in approximately five years. Only once has anything been alleged that the man on the street would recognize as "violence." Yet only once in that 100+ hearings has a man failed to have his DVPO "continued" against him.

This would all be bad enough if women's shelters were merely passive organizations that waited for the abused to wander in to assist them. In fact, this is not the case. Women's shelters recruit heavily. I have personally seen stacks of business cards, posters announcing local organizations, schedules for local meetings, and placards bearing state hotlines in courthouses (conveniently hanging over the ubiquitous free forms to file for separation, divorce, custody, and of course, DVPOs), doctor's offices, the local free clinic, the Deparment of Social Services, universities, and even local gas stations.

My wife and I saw a poster which depicted a barefooted woman walking on the beach with her back turned to the camera, dressed all in white, holding a transparent white shawl above her head with both hands thrust in the air in a sign of victory, with a caption that read: "Need a new start? The State of _________'s Office of the Attorney General can help you relocate without a trace with your children if you have been the victim of domestic violence. Call 1-800-xxx-xxxx for more information."

These publicly-advertised meetings are not necessarily what you would think.

The average person seeing these posters saying, "Call xxx-xxxx for information on our next meeting" would undoubtedly assume that the meetings were to help women who were suffering from abuse to find a way out.

Yet Angie G., Elizabeth F., and Amy P. all agree that dealing with actual "violence" is only a subtext at such meetings.

Angie G. says, an unnamed woman "came in September and just sat through the meeting. She was asked if she had ever been abused, and she said, 'I feel emotionally abused by my husband.' She didn't really say much more. Everybody else said their piece, and the counselors continually reminded them that phrasing their story in certain ways was important to a finding of domestic violence in court. They made these recommendations even for the women who had already gotten their DVPOs continued. Every once in a while, they would get back to the new, 'emotionally abused' woman. One time the counselor even said to her, 'See how it's done?' When the 'emotionally abused' woman came back in October, she had this whole story about how she was being beaten, controlled, accused, and everything." [Emphasis added]

When I asked Angie G. if she had been encouraged to lie, she said, "No, not so much lie. The counselors and police are very adamant that you take things [that happened to you] in the most negative way possible." It is not so much lying as not giving anybody the benefit of the doubt. If it can be construed in a negative manner, then it becomes part of my complaint.

However, Amy P. states clearly, "When I said that I didn't have any physical abuse at all - I just wanted to be done with a cheating husband - they coached me on what to say."

Every woman that I have talked to on this subject agrees that one of the primary topics of discussion in these locally-advertised "meetings" is how to catch your man at domestic violence.

That will be the subject of the next entry.

View a four-part video series on Women's Shelters at Opposing Feminism.

Even Cops Admit: Women Use Claims of "Domestic Violence!"

It is the dirty little secret of America's family courts and the legal system generally. Liberals will not admit it because it is politically incorrect, and conservatives will not admit it because they have been brainwashed into believing that it sounds unchivalrous.

But inside the legal system, there are faint whispers of recognition that all feminist jurisprudence is a failed experiment. Repeatedly, I have heard from lawyers statements like, "The pendulum has swung too far...."

The false allegation is one of the primary weapons in the arsenal of feminism. Feminist organizations suborn the perjury of individual women as part of the larger war against men, promising them a brighter day of happiness and the transfer of assets consequent to their lies. Feminist leaders glaze the eyes of the public with ridiculous assertions that women do not lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse (despite all evidence to the contrary). And feminist jurisprudence covers for the perjurers by insisting that any attempt to properly punish these feminist-favored perjurers will result in legitimately-wronged women being made afraid to "come forward."

Yet even among professionals who work in the Feminist False Allegations Industry (FFAI), the strain is beginning to show. Liberal constitutional scholar and appellate lawyer Alan Dershowitz has stated, "Rape is such a serious crime that deliberately bringing a false accusation of rape should be an equally serious crime - and women are not being punished for those crimes."

In my own personal experience, lawyers who work on both sides of the FFAI refer to Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO) hearings as "show trials," "star chambers," and "kangaroo courts." And even cops, who routinely arrest men based on what they know are false allegations, will secretly admit that perjury is a common occurence when a woman is committing adultery, seeking custody, or desires to be rid of a man but keep a hefty sum of his assets.

But rarely does one hear a policeman publicly decry the FFAI.

In an April 27 story, Tulsa's news channel 6 carried a story on its webpage by Lori Fullbright titled "Tulsa Woman Falsely Reported Rape." Fullbright quotes Tulsa Police Sergeant Gary Stansill of the Tulsa Sex Crimes Unit, "It's just a fact, in sexual assault investigations, we have false reports."

Two points: First, this is the evaluation of someone whose livelihood and profession is intertwined with the FFAI. This is brutal honesty masquerading as understatement. And unfortunately, it appears that our investigator has become jaded enough by all of the false reporting that he simply accepts it as "just a fact" of life.

Secondly, note that from the perspective of the annoyed police investigator, what the FFAI calls the "cries of the victim" and what courts call "perjury" is merely a "false report." Clinical. Clean. Administrative. No real harm, just a waste of time.

From the perspective of the falsely accused, however, it is a false allegation. A lie. A lifechanging slander. Vicious. Brutal. The needless persecution of the innocent.

And keep in mind, though feminists, with their amoral newspeak, continue to call such miscreants as the still unnamed criminal liar who slandered a man for no reason a "victim," there is only one innocent party here: the man who for years to come will still blanch anytime that he hears the word "rapist."

I recently picked up a book by an ex-Miami cop, ex-FBI agent, and former instructor of cops on the issue of "domestic violence." The book is titled, "Arrest-Proof Yourself" and the author is Dale C. Carson.





The book is decent enough, giving general advice on how to appear (or disappear) so that cops can't see you, how to be polite and protect yourself. The book is targeted to a general audience excepting two chapters: one chapter pertains to minorities, helping them overcome the propensity cops have for arresting minorities.

The only other chapter narrowly targeted is titled, "When Girls Tell a Tale that Sends You to Jail." That chapter begins, "This chapter is addressed to men. It will infuriate women.... It advises men how to defend themselves against women...." Odd way of putting it, don't you think? Because if the author were merely trying to get men to obey the law, wouldn't he say "here is how to protect yourself from cops!"? But rather he says, "You need to defend yourself against women."

Odd.

He then notes that, unfortunately, when a "girl tells a tale that sends you to jail," men often find themselves dealing with predominantly female judges, cops, and lawyers. This can be a dangerous spot, asserts the ex-FBI agent and teacher of cops on the subject of domestic violence, because "some of these women are on a mission from God to make men miserable."

Again, odd. Shouldn't these women be on a "mission from God to enforce the law?" But the author does not choose to put it that way....

He then goes on an extended discussion of avoiding arguments with women. He states, "Arguments that once might have been resolved by participants now result in arrests and imprisonment." Now note, he is not talking about beatings here, he is talking about arguments. The ex-FBI agent is admitting that merely arguing with a woman puts one at risk for imprisonment.

If so, that certainly lends credence to the idea that a controlling man is merely a man who refuses to cede control to a woman.... And of course, the greatest felony in the feminist rulebook is to be a controlling man.

Our author then continues, "Men and women argue. They yell. It may be a natural occurrence, but it can also be a crime." Wow, what an admission. Arguing is a crime. That which our author describes as a "natural occurrence" is, under feminist jurisprudence, now a crime? How long before belching, another "natural occurrence," is similarly criminalized?

But wait. This chapter is written to men, not to women. As a matter of fact, the author warned in the beginning that the chapter will "infuriate women," doesn't he?

Could this be an implicit admission on the part of our ex-domestic violence teacher and ex-FBI agent that arguing is only a crime for men? That which is "standing up for your rights" for women is "domestic violence" for men?

It seems that is precisely the conclusion at which one is to arrive. For in the practical advice section which follows, our ex-cop advises men, "Do not talk with the woman for at least three days.... Telephone calls, answering machine messages, or notes may be considered stalking.... [D]o not be in the woman's presence without a witness." No corresponding advice is sagely distributed to the woman.

Why in the world would such advice be granted to one sex and not to another? Glad you asked. For our ex-domestic violence teaching hero advises us at the end that such absolutist abandoning of a relationship is necessary for the following reasons:

* "The woman might lie and induce others to lie."

* "The woman might injure herself before police arrive so as to increase the charge against you from misdemeanor disturbance to felony battery."

* Women can recruit the power of the state to take their side in disputes with men, with disastrous consequences."

The moral? Cops who are honest know the following:

1) The law is written to place the state on the side of women in relationship disputes, regardless of who is ultimately at fault.

2) Women routinely act out and lie in order to recruit the state to help them dispose of inconvenient men, secure child custody, or capture assets.

3) Men are by default guilty of wrongdoing in any dispute with a woman, under feminist jurisprudence. There is no presumption of innocence, and the only "evidence" needed in most cases is to determine where the male is so that he can be locked up.

What is most disturbing about these stories is the disjuncture between what cops know to be true in real life and what courts actually suppose to be true. Cops know that women lie, and lie repeatedly, when it comes to issues of rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse. They lie because they are vindictive. They lie to get their way. They lie because they are encouraged to do so and because there are no consequences to being found out.

Yet, for a man accused of any of these sins in either civil or criminal court, there is an assumption of guilt not found anywhere else in the law because of the most outrageous lie in all of feminist theory: "women don't lie about sex."

The Biggest Feminist Lie: Domestic Violence

It is commonly stated by feminists that 1 in 4 women will be victims of domestic violence. Remember, these are the same people that told us about 10 years ago that "Super Bowl Sunday is the most dangerous day of the year to be a woman," because supposedly every woman's husband would beat her at halftime. That ridiculous assertion, after it had been used to raise money for femtard organizations for a few months, was disproven. And the "1 in 4" statistic is just as much a lie as the "Super Bowl Sunday" claim was. The "1 in 4" statistic is only true if you accept a feminist definition of what comprises "violence."

In the U.S., the Violence Against Women Act was changed by the Clinton administration as a payoff to the feminist lobby in the mid-1990s. Where the act had formerly dealt with instances of real violence, the feminists were not getting enough federal money into their women's shelters and academic programs to suit them. So they argued that the definition of the word "violence" ought to be changed. As a payoff for their support (and likely because Hillary - a flaming Marxist feminist to begin with - supported the idea), Clinton changed the VAWA to accommodate feminist notions.

Not only was the definition of violence itself significantly broadened, but the standard of evidence required was changed. In the English common law tradition, there have traditionally been only two standards of evidence: for criminal cases, beyond reasonable doubt. For civil cases, a preponderance of the evidence. Beyond reasonable doubt has traditionally been explained to mean something approximating "the evidence must be so compelling that no other explanation is reasonably believable." The preponderance of the evidence standard has variously been explained as "most likely," "51%," or "more likely than not."

However, given that many allegations of "domestic violence" have traditionally not occurred until a child custody, divorce, or alimony case has arisen, feminists became perturbed that women seemed to not "win" enough of these cases. Sometimes, the claims were so outlandish that the cases were not even heard - a situation which feminists likened to "squelching the voice of the victim!" [Keep in mind here that most of the "victims" of "domestic violence" in America these days are slightly less credible than Crystal Gail Mangum.]

So feminists decided that the standard of evidence for the issue of domestic violence was all wrong. The important question to ask was not, "Did something happen?", but rather the important question is, "Does a woman believe that something might happen?"

So the standard of evidence was changed to something brand new in the history of the common law tradition: the standard of the subjective fear of the complainant. If you can convince a judge that you are "afraid," then you can have that judge issue a DVPO (Domestic Violence Protective Order, a specialized form of restraining order that incorporates this new standard of evidence; traditional restraining orders required a showing of "likelihood of harm.") and deny a man access to his home, his savings account, his tools, his car, even his children.

"Domestic Violence" thus became an exercise in prevention rather than a claim to be made for someone who has actually done something wrong. Claims of "domestic violence" are based on what a woman fears a man might do, not what a man has done.

Imagine this ridiculous standard of evidence in any other case:

PLAINTIFF: Your honor, I am bringing a suit today for Breach of Contract against Defendant.
JUDGE: All right, tell me what happened.
PLAINTIFF: Your honor, we made this contract, see?
JUDGE: (waiting impatiently) Is there more?
PLAINTIFF: More what?
JUDGE: Where is the breach? What has the Defendant done that was a breach? Has he failed to pay you on time? Has he not delivered promised goods or services?
PLAINTIFF: Oh, no, nothing like that. It is just that I FEAR that he might breach the contract!


DISTRICT ATTORNEY: We are here, your honor, in the matter of State v. Jones, a case of first degree murder.
JUDGE: Very well, what are the facts of the case?
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Mr. Jones is very mean. Frankly, he is a prick. And he owns guns. And he yelled at his wife. And he got in a fight when he was 17. And many of his co-workers think he is quite odd. He is one scary dude.
JUDGE: Very well, now, tell me about the murder.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, your honor, the State FEARS that there might be a murder someday.

I have sat in on over 100 "domestic violence" hearings. In the 100+ hearings that I have witnessed, only 1 time was the man not found to have committed domestic violence (A "conviction" rate that is unimaginable with any other offense - even DWI convictions in which someone has blown above the legal limit have a conviction rate of only in excess of 80% in my jurisdiction.). But, in only ONE of those 100+ hearings has anything that approaches the layman's definition of "domestic violence" even been alleged - and then so incredibly that it was obvious that the woman was lying.

Rather, the following are allegations for which a man has been found liable for "domestic violence" in hearings that I have witnessed:

* A man threw a sock at his wife.
* A man pushed his girlfriend off of him to try to escape while she was beating him about the head.
* After being hit in the head by a candle thrown by his wife, a man picked it up and threw it back on the bed on which she was sitting.
* During an argument, a man ran into another room, and in a fit of anger, punched a hole in a window.
* During a disagreement over separation, a man threatened to use his family's extensive wealth to win sole custody of his children.
* A man who discovered his wife was an adulteress called her a c**t, a w***e, and a s**t.

None of these, obviously, are domestic violence. But under the redefinition of domestic violence enacted in the 1990s, each of these men were found liable for committing domestic violence.

"Domestic Violence" and "Violence Against Women" don't really have anything to do with violence in the traditional sense. Rather, these ideas are a part of a complex social engineering strategy designed by feminism to do three things:

1) To make men more willing to "settle" in a manner advantageous to women upon the dissolution of a marriage or relationship, so that women have a constant stream of money from ex-husbands and ex-lovers, increasing the assets of women without making them work for it.

2) Increasing the flow of federal dollars and private grant monies into ideologically-driven "women's shelters" where radical feminists are employed and where future feminists are recruited.

3) Undermining the stability of the family so that the feminist utopia of "independent" women who totally control the rearing of children without any non-monetary contribution from men is easier to achieve.

Doubt me? I encourage you to take a look at the University of Virginia's Sexual and Domestic Violence Services website, where you will learn:

1) Failure to listen to a woman's opinion is a sign of a relationship that is susceptible to Domestic Violence.
2) Holding strong conservative, Biblical, or traditional convictions about gender roles, such as those held by most deeply religious people, is an act of Domestic Violence.
3) Saying hurtful things is an act of Domestic Violence.
4) Threatening to kill HIMSELF is an act of Domestic Violence against YOU! (This one really puzzles me!)
5) Failure to acknowledge the "feelings" of a woman is an act of Domestic Violence.

Poke around the website (link provided below), and then ask yourself, "If this is what 'Domestic Violence' is all about, then is it really true that 1 in 4 women are victims?"

And the answer, of course, is no.

Just as a postscript - I am always entertained by the propensity of feminists to engage in sheer contradiction while never even suspecting that such lunacy is evidence that their silly little theorems are bogus.

Think about it - women are capable of fighting on the front lines in combat (a feminist axiom) but are being "sexually harassed" by a bikini calendar in the workplace and are victims of "domestic violence" if I fail to properly acknowledge their "feelings?"

My, my, my... feminism just gets curiouser and curiouser.


Source:
http://womenscenter.virginia.edu/sdvs/

U.S. Air Force Study on Rape

The United States Air Force did a study during the mid-80s concerning false rape allegations within their own ranks. They found that 30% of all rape allegations were proveably false - and frankly if 30% are proveably false, we are safe in assuming that 35%-40% or even more are actually false.

Of course, feminist congresswomen found out about the investigation and demanded that the investigation be stopped for the usual political reasons. But the damage was done and it is now believed among non-ideological professionals (i.e., people that are not feminist lawyers or who do not work at women's shelters) that roughly half of all such allegations are false.

And since VAWA actually made filing false allegations easier than it was in the mid-80s, I am of the opinion that false allegations are probably a significant majority of all allegations today.

Human nature being what it is, we have no reason to believe the majority of allegations of rape, domestic violence, sexual harrassment, or even child abuse given the current legal and political climate.

We may never know the actual numbers on rape itself, but we can have a reasonable certainty that, among reported rapes, more than half are false allegations.

Read some comments on this subject appended to this article. Be warned - people often read the article at the top of the page and come away saying "This article supports feminist nonsense on rape." The top of the page represents the blog owner framing the issue, while the comments appended to the article are the real discussion. The Air Force article is mentioned a couple of times.