Adderall online Cialis online Viagra online
Payday loans

LEGAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEN


LEGAL DISCRIMNINATION AGAINST MEN

by Joseph Miranda

The mythology is that the United States of America discriminates against women. The reality is to the contrary: with the one exception noted below, all US laws which discriminate on the basis of sex in fact discriminate against men, as will be demonstrated. This article has four parts:

1) Equality for women has been the law in the United States since the mid-20th century

2) Legal Discrimination against Women (the one case)

3) Laws and political institutions which discriminate against men in the United States of America

4) Quasi-legal ways in which men are the targets of discrimination

1) Equality for women has been the law in the United States since the mid-20th century:

  • Women have had the right to vote in the United States since 1920 via the Nineteenth Amendment. Women also had the right to vote in a number of states since the late 19th century.
    • Text of the Nineteenth Amendment to the US Constitution: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
  • The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on sex, in addition to race, color, religion, and national origin (Public Law 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, July 2, 1964).
    • SEC. 703. (a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer– (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or …[subsequent passages extend the protection of equal rights regardless of sex to other areas of public and private life].
  • The Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibits employers from discriminating in pay based on sex (Pub. L. No. 88-38, 77 Stat. 56, June 10, 1963).
o   Equal Pay Act of 1963 - EPA - 29 U.S. Code Chapter 8 § 206(d): "(1) No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions…

2) Legal Discrimination against Women (the one case):

Today in the United States there is only one law that discriminates against women: the exclusion of women from combat arms in the armed forces. Even so, this exclusion has been partially repealed as women can become pilots (and other aircrew) on combat aircraft. Moreover, women in the armed forces assigned to support and service support assignment are trained for combat and do in fact participate in combat, especially in insurgency situations such as the current war in the Middle East. In any event, women (feminist or anti-feminist) have not made an issue out of ending combat exclusion.

If there are any other laws in the United States which currently discriminate against women, please e-mail them with proper citations.

 

3) Laws and political institutions which discriminate against men in the United States of America:

  • Selective Service registration. Young American men are required by law to register for Selective Service. In the event that military conscription (the draft) were to be reintroduced, only men would be subject to being called up for involuntary public service. Men who do not register for Selective Service can be penalized legally (via criminal prosecution) and civilly (for example, by being denied student financial assistance, by being denied federal employment [though the latter was repealed via court decision, apparently]).
  • Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The US Congress has passed various violence against women acts since 1994 and has established an Office on Violence Against Women. Under VAWA, the federal government funds numerous programs regarding “violence against women” and, apparently, considers domestic violence victims to be women only. There is no similar government law or office to protect men against violence. Therefore, according to the law, women are a privileged group with special laws for their protection.
  • Domestic violence law. In some states, the law defines domestic violence as “the infliction or threat of physical harm against…female intimate partners,” such as California’s AB 2051, which refers to domestic violence victims only as “battered women.” These laws have been challenged by Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) and in some cases have been overturned, but even so, they clearly indicate that both government and feminists openly discriminate against men.
    • For example, the Los Angeles Police Department apparently considers domestic violence to be primarily a crime of men against women. See: http://www.lapdonline.org/get_informed/content_basic_view/1398
    • The US Center for Disease Control indicates that men are victimized by domestic violence at rates similar to men - though men are less likely to report these assaults. See: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172837.pdf
  • Primary Aggressor law. Numerous studies indicate that men and women commit domestic violence equally. In response to MRAs insisting that women who batter men be arrested, feminists have invented the doctrine of “primary aggressor”, which seeks to blame the man in an abusive relationship, even if he is defending himself.
  • Denial of government services. Taxpayer supported shelters for domestic violence victims have been limited largely to women; and where there are shelters for men, they are frequently in remote locations. This situation has changed recently owing to activism by Men’s Rights Activists and women allied to them, but even so it is nowhere near equality.
    • http://www.sacbee.com/latest/story/1319004.html
  • Enforcement of laws. The government has created a massive bureaucracy which enforces child support laws. These laws are directed against men the majority of times and include various denials of due process such as canceling professional and drivers licenses against alleged offenders via bureaucratic fiat and with no due process: the accused is not immediately given the opportunity to immediately defend themselves in court (Sixth Amendment), nor to have their property secure against seizures (Fourth Amendment). This has resulted in innocent people (mainly men) being victimized. At the same time, women who commit paternity fraud (by falsely claiming a man to be the father of their child) are rarely held accountable by the criminal justice system.
    • One particularly egregious case is that of Taron James, a US Navy veteran who was victimized by a woman’s paternity fraud, aided and abetted by the child support bureaucracy. Despite the clear evidence of fraud, neither the woman in question nor the corrupt child support bureaucracy was held accountable. See http://www.reason.com/news/show/29035.html
  • Legal accountability. The government has launched a massive campaign to dehumanize men who do not make child support payments as “deadbeat dads”. At the same time, the child support enforcement system provides criminal and civil penalties to men who miss child support payments, including loss of driver’s and professional licenses, without due process. There is no similar enforcement or propaganda system to hold women accountable for paternity fraud (lying about the father of a child thereby defrauding a man out of at least 18 years of support payment).
  • Public universities. Many taxpayer funded universities have “women’s resource centers” or similar organizations. These generally promote a feminist party line, especially when it comes to issues of domestic violence and rape. Many taxpayer funded universities have “women’s studies” departments, which again promote a feminist party line. At the same time, there is little in the way of resources or departments which provide support to men on campus who may be the target of false charges of rape, or who have been discriminated against by other means.
  • “Date Rape” hysteria. Publicly funded universities have perpetuated myths such as “one in four women will be raped” and have established rape crisis centers to deal with a non-existent crime wave. This is an issue of discrimination against men because taxpayer funds are being used to support propaganda and programs which demonize men. At the same time, there is little in the way of taxpayer support for men who have been falsely accused of rape, leading to cases such as the legal lynching of the Duke University Three over a false charge of rape.
  • Even more “date rape” hysteria. Pharmaceuticals such as rohypnol have been banned by the government owing to feminist-inspired hysteria over “date rape drugs”. But studies have demonstrated that most of the claims for “date rape” laws have proven to be fabrications. As a result, the government has banned useful pharmaceuticals and further demonized the image of men as “rapists.”
  • Government-corporate media propaganda. Feminists created the myth that Superbowl Sunday sees a surge in “violence against women”. In pursuit of this, public service announcements (PSAs) were broadcast which perpetuated the stereotypes of men as aggressors and women as victims.
  • Affirmative action for women. These programs include preferences for women in hiring, university admissions and job applications.
  • Small Business favoritism. The federal government’s Small Business Administration has special programs for women. These programs are intended to increase the numbers of woman owned business, this despite the fact that the United States supposedly has a free enterprise system in which market forces are supposed to determine business creation.
    • http://www.sba.gov/aboutsba/sbaprograms/gc/index.html
  • Workplace safety laws. Failure of the government to enforce workplace safety laws, when the majority of workplace injuries and deaths are male, disproportionately affects men. Males accounted for 93% of all deaths and had a work-related fatality rate approximately 12 times the rate for females (6.9 per 100,000 workers versus 0.6).
    • Workplace deaths: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5613a1.htm
    • Effects on male reproductive biology: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/malrepro.html
  • The family. “Family” courts which award custody of children to women the majority of times, and do not enforce visitation rights for men. This can work both ways, and many women are victimized, but even so, the majority of victims are men. Despite government propaganda about “family values”, the family court system demonstrates a tendency towards breaking up families.
    • http://framedfathers.blogspot.com/2009/02/family-court-judge-arrested-released.html
  • Government created “women’s” and “domestic violence” commissions. These frequently promote a radical feminist party line, especially when it comes to law enforcement. One example is by “training” law enforcement using feminist propaganda models of domestic violence which hold that men are the “primary aggressors” because men have “power” or “privilege”.
  • Sentencing. Courts give women lighter sentences for the same crimes as men. (There are many other factors involved, though, including the socioeconomic status of the defendant, their criminal history, and whether or not a woman is judge-female judges tend to equalize sentences more than male.) Some criminal justice systems release women from prison prior to completion of sentences (usually for minor drugs offenses, but sometimes for murder) but not men. And state laws give women (but not men) in prison visitation rights with “their” children.
  • Right to Choose. The government has recognized women’s right to choose abortion (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)). Generally, if a woman is pregnant, she has the options to choose an abortion, to give up the child for adoption, or even to abandon it at designated hospitals. However, the father is obligated by draconian child support laws to support the child, even if the woman lied about using birth control or (sometimes) committed paternity fraud. This state of affairs has been challenged by MRAs, but the courts have generally rules against men and in favor of women. The Matt Dubay case (Dubay v. Wells, 06-11016-BC (E.D. Mich. 2006)) highlighted this disparity. Mr. Dubay sued his girlfriend for her lying about birth control and thereby involuntarily obligating him to eighteen years of child support; the courts ruled against Mr. Dubay.
  • White House Policy. The highest office in the United States have advocated and signed off on feminist policies. Republican President Gerald Ford and Democratic President Jimmy Carter both publicly supported the Equal Rights Amendment. President George W. Bush signed the Violence Against Women Act. President Barack Obama signed an executive order creating the White House Council on Women and Girls. (The mission of this Council will be to provide a coordinated federal response to the challenges confronted by women and girls and to ensure that all Cabinet and Cabinet-level agencies consider how their policies and programs impact women and families.)
  • Legislation and court decisions. Despite the feminist claims of the USA having “male dominated” legal and court systems, legislatures have passed many items of feminist advocated legislation (such as VAWA). Many pieces of radical feminist proposed legislation have been cheerfully implemented by the government: “sexual harassment” laws (promoted by among others, radical feminist Catherine MacKinnon); the Lautenberg Amendment (removing the right to own firearms from those suspected/accused of domestic violence laws); and IMBRA (Internet Marriage Brokers Registration Act). These laws have been generally upheld by the Supreme Court. While feminists may claim that “women have no power”, feminists clearly have been able to dictate the law.
  • Trashing of the Bill of Rights. There are numerous feminist inspired laws which are in direct violation of a literal reading of the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights, as noted throughout this article. The Lautenberg Amendment, calls for confiscation of the firearms of someone who has been merely accused of domestic violence - and given the way that domestic violence law is defined in some jurisdictions as only acts by men against women — this affects men disproportionately (violation of the Second and Fourth Amendments). Rape shield laws deny the defendant the right to confront one’s accuser (violation of the Sixth Amendment!). IMBRA criminalizes free speech between Americans and foreigners (violation of the First Amendment). The various “violence against women” acts violate various Civil Rights Acts by denying men equal protection under the law.
  • US Foreign Policy. US foreign policy has recently supported rigging elections in Iraq to favor feminist policies. The Iraq Transitional Law (TAL) states that women should hold 25 percent of the political positions in the Iraqi government. Requiring a certain percentage of any political positions to be from one sector of the populace removes the right to choose among voters and demonstrates the anti-democratic nature of these policies.
    • The actual public law is at: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/news/docs/iraqwomact04.pdf

 

4) Quasi-legal ways in which men are the targets of discrimination:

  • Human Rights. Amnesty International has in recent years adopted several radical feminist initiatives on international violence against women, thereby abandoning its original mission of supporting prisoners of conscience. As is typical with the “violence against women” industry, there is no similar call for protection of men against violence.
  • Civil Liberties. The American Civil Liberties Union has a Woman’s Rights Project. There is no similar ACLU project for Men’s Rights, despite the systematic discrimination against men described above.
    • http://www.aclu.org/womensrights/
  • Economic equality. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as the Foundation for International Community Assistance, provide micro-loans to women in third world countries. Clearly, they believe that poor men are not to have the same economic opportunities as poor women.

Note: It can be argued that the above three cases involve private organizations which have a right to advocate whatever policies they please. Nonetheless, NGOs such as these wield enormous political power and de facto create policies which are enforced by governments against men.

Related Websites

EOF


You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Bookmark and Share


Site Meter