Author: Super User

As I’ve noted on many occasions, female violence against men is not treated seriously, and is often considered funny. Philadelphia Daily News reporter Dana DiFilippo’s article A GENITAL REMINDER (5/18/06) from last year is a good example. DiFilippo wrote:

“With their wedding anniversary less than two weeks away, Howard Randolph was thinking romance. He hoped to take his wife, Monica, out for an intimate dinner and maybe an oldies-but-goodies show to celebrate 11 years of matrimony.

“But yesterday, his mind was more on divorce and jail for his wife after she almost became Philadelphia’s own Lorena Bobbitt.

“Monica Randolph didn’t need a kitchen knife. She took matters into her own hands.

“The Nicetown man said he had been sleeping peacefully in the couple’s bed Tuesday night when his wife pounced on him without warning, grabbed his groin, dug her manicured fingernails in and flayed him, leaving his gore-slicked gonads dangling much lower than normal.

“‘She didn’t use no weapon – this was just sheer brute strength and fingernails. She grabbed me by my [scrotum] and ripped it apart with her bare hands,’ Randolph said yesterday from his hospital bed at Albert Einstein Medical Center, where he was in stable condition with stitched and bandaged genitals…

“A neighbor who heard the commotion also called police, who took Monica Randolph into custody and charged her with aggravated assault and related offenses.

“Talk about a strict violation of the penal code…

“Monica Randolph told arresting officers that she had attacked her husband because he was cheating on her. But her husband denied having any affairs. He remains mystified as to his wife’s motive and demanded that she receive a stiff punishment…

“News of the genital mangling aroused a mixture of horrified gasps and guilty giggles in the Randolphs’ neighborhood, where few knew the couple who had moved into the brick rowhouse on Pulaski Avenue near Bouvier Street in April.

“Meanwhile, neighbors were left to speculate on explanations for the attack.

“‘She got to be crazy,’ said Dionne Martin, 18, who basked in the spring sunshine on friend Rochelle Odd’s porch steps.

“Odd, 21, agreed: ‘That woman was crazy, but I’m on her side. I don’t think no guy deserves to have his balls ripped off. But she’s got to be deep in love – that’s what would make a woman do this. If they was together all those years and he cheated on her, she wanted him to feel what she was feeling. There’s a lesson to be learned here: Don’t cheat on your woman.'”

No mention of the phrase “domestic violence.” And Rochelle Odd’s comment? Talk about a vindictive woman. Does this mean a man has the right to beat his girlfriend up if she cheats on him? I guess so.

And while our opponents fall all over themselves to deny that there is such a thing as Parental Alienation Syndrome, is there any doubt that vindictive women like this would attempt to alienate their children from their children’s fathers?

[Note: If you or someone you love is being abused, the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women provides crisis intervention and support services to victims of domestic violence and their families.]

“Child support became politicized by the early 1990s, when parents who allegedly fail to pay–‘deadbeat dads’–became the subjects of a national demonology, and child support went from being a minor matter affecting a few people on the margins of society to a sacred political cow in the national vocabulary. ‘On the left and on the right, the new phrase to conjure with is ‘child support,”‘ writes Bryce Christensen, who notes that politicians see it as ‘the best rhetoric in the world’: ‘a rhetoric unifying political figures’ from both parties.

“Although Ronald Reagan seems to have coined the term deadbeat dads, it was Bill Clinton who took it on the campaign trail. ‘We will find you!’ he famously intoned at the 1992 Democratic National Convention. ‘We will make you pay!’ During the debate leading up to welfare reform, George Gilder warned of the bipartisan bandwagon being marshaled to punish private citizens who had been pronounced guilty by general acclaim:

“‘The president wants to take away their driver”s licenses and occupational accreditations. Texas Governor George W. Bush wants to lift their hunting licenses as well. Moving to create a generation of American boat people, Senator Bill Bradley is leading a group of senators seeking to seize their passports. Congressman Henry Hyde wants to expand the powers of the IRS to confiscate their assets. Running for president, Lamar Alexander wants to give them ‘jail time,’ presumably so they won”t vote. Also running for president, Alan Keyes suggests caning, recommending ‘a trip to Singapore to learn how to administer a civil beating.’ Governor William Weld in Massachusetts wants to subpoena their DNA, put liens on their houses, and hound them through the bureaucracies of 50 states.'”–Stephen Baskerville, PhD

Stephen Baskerville’s new article on the child support system is aptly titled–“From Welfare State to Police State” (The Independent Review, Volume 12 Number 3, Winter 2008.) Baskerville explains:

“Welfare reform in the United States has shifted the role of welfare agencies from distributing money to collecting it–not from taxpayers but from divorced fathers. Despite the stereotype of the “deadbeat dad’ as a wealthy playboy squiring around his new trophy wife in a bright red Porsche, federal officials have acknowledged that most unpaid child support is uncollectible because it is owed by fathers who are as poor as or poorer than the mothers and children.”

The full, 22 page article can be seen here. Baskerville also deals with this subject in his book Taken Into Custody.

The child support enforcement system has enormous powers, and is rife with abuses. To learn more, click here or see my recent co-authored columns below:

Passport Rules Unfair to Child Support Debtors (San Antonio Express-News, 9/8/07)

Child Support Enforcement System Victimizes Military Personnel, Innocent Citizens (World Net Daily, 6/27/07)

Most Illinois ‘Deadbeats’ Aren’t ‘Reprehensible’ — They’re Broke (Chicago Daily Southtown, 6/20/07)

“You were once my one companion / you were all that mattered / You were once a friend and father / then my world was shattered…”

Though it’s not talked about much, the theme of fatherneed runs through much of The Phantom of the Opera, and is powerfully displayed in the video clip below.

In the story, Christine Daae (pictured) was very close to her father, who died when she was seven, leaving her an orphan. Christine is still devastated by her father’s death even a decade later. The Phantom is able to capture her heart because he is a father figure, and Christine believes that he may be the “Angel of Music” who her father, a famous violinist, promised he’d send Christine after his death.

In the clip below, Christine, now age 16, is still agonizing over her father’s death, and visits his grave and sings a powerful ode to him–“Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again.” The Phantom begins to lure her in by pretending to be the spirit of her father, until her suitor Raul arrives and shakes her out of her delusions.

To watch the video of the scene, click here or see below. The lyrics to Christine’s song to her father are also below.

Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again

You were once my one companion . . .
you were all that mattered . . .
You were once a friend and father,
then my world was shattered . . .

Wishing you were somehow here again . . .
wishing you were somehow near . . .
Sometimes it seemed if I just dreamed,
somehow you would be here . . .

Wishing I could hear your voice again . . .
knowing that I never would . . .
Dreaming of you won’t help me to do
all that you dreamed I could . . .

Passing bells and sculpted angels,
cold and monumental,
seem, for you the wrong companions –
you were warm and gentle . . .
Too many years fighting back tears . . .
Why can’t the past just die . . .?

Wishing you were somehow here again . . .
knowing we must say goodbye . . .
Try to forgive, teach me to live . . .
give me the strength to try . . .

No more memories, no more silent tears . . .
No more gazing across the wasted years . . .
Help me say goodbye.
Help me say goodbye!

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5rsc4GLrd0#”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5rsc4GLrd0#]

This story illustrates both society’s double-standard on domestic violence and how vastly far ahead of us the feminist advocacy organizations are. According to Schools will give time off to domestic-violence victims (Palm Beach Post, 12/5/07):

“School district employees who are the victims of domestic violence can now take off work to get counseling, seek a restraining order or recuperate from injuries. A state law passed this year requires all employers with more than 50 employees to provide three days of leave if a worker or anyone in the worker’s family or household has been a victim of domestic violence or is seeking to protect themselves from it…

“Domestic-violence advocates say the law not only serves victims, it serves employers. Each year, domestic violence costs nearly $728 million in lost productivity, according to a 2003 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report.

“‘It’s good for business,’ said Dia Kuykendall, spokeswoman for the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence. ‘When you have a law like this, it allows employees to get time off to make their lives safer. They’re not at work thinking about their domestic violence situation.'”

Leaving aside the fact that some will falsely assert that they are domestic victims in order to get the leave, I have no problem with this law and think it’s generally a good thing. But consider this–every year hundreds of thousands of men are thrown out of their homes on ex parte protection/restraining orders. Some of them are innocent, some are guilty, but few of them have been afforded any meaningful opportunity to defend themselves. They’re immediately made homeless and largely possessionless, and often have been cut off from their bank accounts and money.

If there’s one group of people who could use some leave in order to get their affairs straightened out–find a place to live, scrape together money, try to get legal representation–it’s these guys. Yet if you went before the legislature and asked them to include men targeted by restraining orders in this law, they’d look at you like you were nuts. Somehow it’s OK to give a woman leave based on her word, but not to a man based on his word.

Background: Mary Winkler–who shot her husband in the back and then refused to aid him or call 911 as he slowly bled to death for 20 minutes–walked away a free woman last summer after serving a farcically brief “sentence” for her crimes.

Mary Winkler”s claims of abuse were largely uncorroborated during the trial. According to the testimony from Matthew Winkler’s oldest daughter, Patricia, the dead father–who as he lay dying looked at his wife and asked “why?”–was a good man and did not abuse her mother.

Mary Winkler is currently in a custody battle with Matthew Winkler’s parents, who have been raising their three daughters for the last two years. The Winklers seek to terminate Mary Winkler’s parental rights and adopt the girls. I support their position. In September Mary Winkler was granted supervised visits with her daughters–an important step towards getting custody of them. Shortly afterwards an appeals court blocked the visit after a last-minute application from the children’s paternal grandparents, but this appeal was recently set aside.To learn more about this horrendous injustice, see my co-authored column No child custody for husband-killer Mary Winkler (World Net Daily, 9/14/07), or click here.The article below–Doctor: Winkler’s Oldest Daughter Afraid Of Her–details the latest in Matthew Winkler’s parents’ struggle to keep their grandchildren away from the woman who murdered their son. In the story, Mary Winkler says:“I long for the day when Dan and Diane [Winkler] will sit down and talk with me and let us please work this out.”

Funny, but she didn’t take the same approach when dealing with her husband Matthew. He didn’t have a chance to try to “work things out” when Mary Winkler shot him in the back as he slept.

According to the article:

“The court filing indicates that the children exhibit fear and confusion toward their mother and her role in their father’s death.

“A doctor testified that the 9-year-old girl said, ‘She killed my father. I don’t know if she will kill me. I want to ask her if she will do that to me. It scares me, kind of, if she did. Well, I guess I would see my father’…

“Dan Winkler testified that her phone calls to the girls triggered flashbacks and sparked sleeping problems that included graphic nightmares and sleepwalking.”

I can believe it.

Jim Todd, a Nashville attorney, says that the Winklers must convince the court their former daughter-in-law is a threat to her children, and that Mary Winkler will probably regain custody. It makes me wonder–if shooting the children’s father in the back doesn’t indicate she “poses a threat,” what on earth could?

The full story is at Doctor: Winkler’s Oldest Daughter Afraid Of Her. The three children–none of whom Mary has killed–are pictured above.

Background: I’ve complained on numerous occasions about the way the media trivializes domestic violence against men, and makes it into a joke, misreports it, and ignores it. For a few examples, see:

Woman Hits Husband with Car, Drives 1/2 Mile with Him Clinging to Roof, Injures Him–but Don’t Call It ‘Domestic Violence’

TV News Reports Woman’s Excuse for Her Domestic Violence Even Before It Mentions the Violence

His Side with Glenn Sacks radio commentary Road Rage or Domestic Violence?

Ex-Wife Rams Ex-Husband’s Car While His Three Kids Are Inside–Don’t Call It ‘Domestic Violence,’ Though

I’ve also criticized some of the New York Post’s sensationalistic reporting–for one example, see NY Post Hatchet Job–In Defense of Judge James Michael Shull (Part IV).

Feminist blogger Melissa McEwan of Shakespeare’s Sister criticizes the headline pictured, explaining:

“[This is ] the ‘hilarious’ headline the New York Post gave to Ike Turner’s obituary…Ha ha! Get it?! Get it?! Because Ike Turner used to beat the crap out of Tina when they were married! Oh my aching sides! Even for the trashy New York Post, that’s appalling.”

I agree. Domestic Violence against either gender shouldn’t be trivialized or made into a joke. It’s wrong when it’s done to male victims, and it’s wrong when it’s done to female victims.

[Note: If you or someone you love is being abused, the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women provides crisis intervention and support services to victims of domestic violence and their families.]

How many damn times have I received a letter like this?

Dear Glenn:

I share joint custody of my daughter with my ex-wife. She was granted physical custody. A few weeks after the custody hearing, my ex-wife brought my daughter back to me and I’ve had physical custody ever since (almost 4 years).

Our divorce decree came a short time later and it stated that I should pay $700/month to her in support of my daughter. Since I had already gotten my daughter back I never paid her.

Recently I received a letter from the Department of Social Services stating that I am being sued for child support on behalf of my ex-wife. It seems she has been collecting welfare and my daughter is on her budget as a dependent.

The magistrate at the hearing refused to listen to the fact that my daughter lives with and has been living with me for the past 4 years. He entered an order for me to pay her $700 starting 1/1/08. Help!

He raises the kids, she commits de facto welfare fraud, and the government wants him to repay the money she filched. No mention of getting the money back from her or going after her for her welfare fraud. And of course, the judge won’t hear a word of it–he just wants dad to shut up and pay.

Granted, dad was foolish to fail to resolve the situation several years ago, but many of those inexperienced with the child support system are under the illusion that the system is rational. They don’t understand the nefarious financial incentives that underly it.

Some fathers even think that the system isn’t biased and stacked against men. They’re in for a rude awakening.

Now this guy has to pay stiff child support arrearages for a kid he’s raised largely by himself. When he’s unable to, he’ll be a “deadbeat dad” and will be lucky to stay out of jail. Refresh my memory–how exactly does this help his daughter?