The Bloodsport Of Divorce by Allen Green

Reproduced under the Fair Use exception of 17 USC § 107 for noncommercial, nonprofit, and educational use.

• Imagine how a woman would feel if a man could petition for divorce and have her thrown out of the marital home?

• Imagine how a woman would feel if men were automatically given custody?

• Imagine how a woman would feel if they could only see their kid every other weekend?

• Imagine how a woman would feel if her ex-husband denied her visitation to be vindictive and the system did nothing about it.

• Imagine special laws where a man could persecute his former wife by falsely accusing her of sex abuse or physical abuse.

• Imagine a system where a woman would have to spend thousands to prove her innocence while a lying ex-husband had no liability for telling such lies?

Women would scream that such a system was sexist, paternalistic, unjust, unfair, irresponsible, and injurious to both genders and the kids — and they would be right. But this is the current system, except fathers are the victims and mothers smugly accept the maternal monopoly over children that the system has handed them.

This has been the system for at least forty years and social engineers are getting exactly the results they want. What are some of the consequences of this state-enforced matriarchy? By destroying the balance of power in the family the state provides a wonderful incentive to divorce. If custody weren't a certainty, many young women would find a way to resolve conflicts instead of resorting to divorce.

Consider some of the problems:

1. Divorce is expensive, more expensive than most people understand. Often it leads to bankruptcy. Because the state provides financial assistance and medical care, many young women joyously jump into the social safety net only to hit the bricks. Life is then composed of harder options than in the lost marriage.

2. Although there is aggressive collection of child support, there is not aggressive enforcement of visitation. Women generally understand that they can use the children to formalize acts of revenge. Turning the children against dad is a favorite sport. Denying or frustrating visitation is a standard post divorce strategy for most women.

3. Post-divorce the kids quickly learn that dad is a big, dumb, powerless fairy that you hustle for bucks. Mom has all the power. The kids quickly learn how to work both ends against the middle. The disadvantage of disempowering dad is that there is no enforcer of a family moral order. Especially for boys, mom is not an obstacle to early entry to sex, drugs and crime. However, there is one advantage; in this manner millions of clients are being created for the welfare state and criminal justice system.

4. The system has no ethical standards at all about post divorce co-habitation. It is not uncommon for children to have to live with a succession of unrelated renegade males. The system does not even protect the children from mom moving in an ex-con, a child molester, an alcoholic, a drug addict or a known child abuser; this over the objections of the father. The dangers posed to children contradict the state's claim that it is acting to promote the “best interest of the children.” Such a claim would be laughable if it weren't so utterly tragic.

5. The matriarchy reveals the depth of its malice toward men in abortion laws. A wife can abort her child without consent of the father. Even if the father desires to assume full responsibility of his unborn child, the mother has the dictatorial right to kill the child anyway. In essence the system regards men as “sperm donors.” The system strips the father of his fatherhood and then identifies him as a mere “visitor.” He's a wallet for sure and nothing more.

6. It has long been the goal of socialistic utopian planners to destroy the traditional family and replace it with a socialistic, collectivist, blended family; one that's been through the blender. For example the Communist Manifesto clearly identifies destruction of the traditional family as a prerequisite to installing a totalitarian system. If one seeks insight into why family law is what it is, one will arrive on the doorstep of the state's hidden agenda. The goal is to destroy the traditional family. By shifting the balance of power in the family, the state could essentially eliminate divorce. By imposing joint physical custody and paternal family custody (where appropriate) the state could greatly reduce the incentive to divorce.

I am not optimistic. The divorce industry is a bloodsport and is run by predatorial attorneys (a redundancy) who support subjective laws, social engineering, and universal female custody upon demand. The goal of the state is to destroy the traditional family and it solicits the help of the guild of attorneys who exploit divorce conflicts for money.

To “reconstruct” society one must first “deconstruct” it. That is the goal.

Top

| Chapter 2 — Divorce, Twenty-First Century Plague |

| Next — Till Dosh Us Do Part by David Rowan |

| Back — The Politics Of Family Destruction by Stephen Baskerville |

Added January 25, 2006

Last modified 4/20/20