December 16, 2016

How Family Courts are destroying fatherhood

Rebel Staff

There are many reasons why almost half of children, 41%, grow up without knowing their fathers. 

Most of the reasons are attached to liberal economic policies like the massive welfare-state and liberal cultural norms like having an unrestrained, unfulfilled sex life.

But the most jarring example of fuelling fatherlessness in society is the family court system—the largest governmental institution directly responsible for fatherless and, arguably, discrimination in the crumbling family.

Watch as I explain the problems with the family court system.

We live in an increasingly feminist society where it is the accepted norm that women should demand equality in the public sphere, while maintaining special privileges in the private sphere.

In this case, it leads to millions of children being fatherless and men childless in our society.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2017-01-10 03:24:43 -0500
amazing man everything that’s not right is 7 or 8— family courts – government mental health /psychiatry- human services- prisons- their all majorly wrong and abusive entities— in so many ways- it would take three pages at least to list some- the family court for instance, has between 75% and 80% of its staff workers employed female so the whole vibe is feminine- female- oriented- I mean how much does that mean- alone- unless your part of it of course then it matters not- a bit like government really they look after the top 20 to 30%- and crap on the rest- particularly the lower of that percentage. Allowing for -expert sleazes and their fees stealing from the kids and the families future – allowing-fighters – and not just the honesty you get or don’t get talking to someone in a normal way- usual way- is absolutely criminal- its a theft special language special people- theft deal.
commented 2016-12-20 18:02:13 -0500
Shit—- Family courts excel at destroying Father hood. . Are they as destructive for Blacks—-as they are for Whites?
commented 2016-12-18 13:18:59 -0500
Bugs Potter—-You have great advise for a happy marriage. Constantly remind your husband how expensive it will be for him to divorce you. Isn’t that an illegal bribe?
commented 2016-12-17 12:14:32 -0500
Family courts = official enforced misandry and child abuse
commented 2016-12-17 02:11:22 -0500
The moral of the story? Men need to be careful who they marry.
commented 2016-12-17 00:01:18 -0500
Glen Craig. You might want to get in touch with Justin Trottier of CAFE, as he initiated a program for fathers to send in their stuff – fyi.
commented 2016-12-16 23:55:04 -0500
And now Wynn wants to further reduce fathers, by cutting them out from the get-go. A new law coming, that if a couple signs something saying the man has no responsibility to the child, it’ll stand up in court.
She’s doing this to make men nothing more than sperm donors! The Lesbian Dyke hates men, and isn’t afraid to let show!! (if you’re willing to see it for what it is!)
commented 2016-12-16 23:51:08 -0500
The War Against Boys, by Christina Hoff Sommers is an old book now, but still worth reading if you haven’t already!
commented 2016-12-16 23:47:49 -0500
I have to disagree with Jay for the first time, when he says the courts are not necessarily biased, it’s the judges and our own personal biases of gender roles. WRONG!! (sorry Jay!)

The Attorney Gen’s office and the Law Society are 100% stacked with hard line socialists and radical feminists. The judges are doing what’s expected of them!! And if they don’t, they’ll get drummed out.

Our courts are “pretending” that the Federal Human Rights Act doesn’t apply to divorce laws. If they acknowledge that it does apply, the judges have no choice, but to hand out Shared Parenting, and nothing else would come into it – PERIOD!!

If you question this, I welcome you to ask any family law lawyer or judge. In fact, I challenged Judge Waldman in Toronto court, and that’s exactly what she said to me – it doesn’t apply!

The reason they want to pretend it doesn’t apply, is so that women can win. So that women can “be in charge”. THAT, is what it’s all about. Who’s in charge! Here’s the HRA, and you point to me where it says it doesn’t apply to divorce laws;

The purpose of this Act, is to extend the laws in Canada, with a purview to matters that come before the legislature, to the effect, that all citizens shall have equal opportunity, to make for themselves the lives they wish, and are able to have, in accordance with their duties and obligation in society, and are not to be hindered or prevented from doing so, based on; race, creed, colour, sex, family status, marital status, or a charge for which they’ve received a Queens Pardon.
commented 2016-12-16 23:03:08 -0500
Jay, I have years of stuff on archive files, if you would be interested in research material just say so.
commented 2016-12-16 22:19:04 -0500
Jay, You’re rapidly becoming one of my favourite reporters. I’m also pleased that you’re tacking some of the “taboo” issues like the insidious war on boys & men. Keep up the great work!
commented 2016-12-16 21:18:52 -0500
Well said Jay. We have gone from a culture of Mothers to a culture of female workers who have few, or even any families today. Tack on your valid points and its depressing our society I think..the family unit is now much more rare.
commented 2016-12-16 20:56:15 -0500
I have the one and only solution for this problem and its called MGTOW. if more men would start becoming this “which there are many more every day” all these family court problems will soon disappear. its just that easy folks.
commented 2016-12-16 20:30:23 -0500
Jay Fayza is spot on!
Especially in Ontario, where fathers, husbands, men in general, are all fair game for the Ontario Courts.
I was a single father with my oldest son for nearly five years when he was still in diapers.
He moved out, and I found myself a single father again, six years and counting.
All three sons are outstanding young men, the oldest has a great job and career in front of him, the second oldest son is in the military, and the youngest is still in highschool.
Both ex wives made out like bandits, even though they both broke the bonds of matrimony.
I can tell you all, that the courts are against a husband and father long before they ever appear in court.
I personally know husbands/fathers that came home from work one day, and no longer had a family.
Several came home after a shift, to find their wives drunk and in bed with another man. All the husbands did the right thing, they called the police to remove the guy screwing their wife.
Which, at that point, the police forced them out of their own homes!
So here’s the lesson gents;
If you catch an asshole screwing your wife, in your own bed, in your own house, beat the living shit out of him before you call the cops, as you thought he was a rapist……
commented 2016-12-16 19:43:13 -0500
And for some reason men still get crapped on for the effects of them getting crapped on.
commented 2016-12-16 19:42:08 -0500
Peter i had a buddy who did get his daughter , but the mother locked her in the closet to go out partying when she was a baby. The stupid part is that he still had to fight for her after that , when we both know if he had done such a thing she would have gotten the kid instantly. The mother then never saw the kid much after that then just stopped seeing her.
commented 2016-12-16 19:38:34 -0500
Bugs Potter it would not be a healthy marriage if someone felt trapped into it. And screwing men over does not bring about positives.
commented 2016-12-16 16:46:35 -0500
It has been common knowledge for many years the in a divorce most men lose most everything.

The men that I have know that came away from divorce court did so with not much more than the clothes on their back and massive monthly expenses that can barely be sustained with his employment.

It is a lopsided system that treats all men as if they are devils and women as if they are angels.

Sickening.
commented 2016-12-16 16:16:56 -0500
Maybe…but you could also argue that some kids DO remain in a stable, 2 parent family due to our family laws. I gave up a well-paying career to stay home and raise our four kids. I wouldn’t have been able to feel secure enough to make this choice were it not for family laws that financially protect caregivers (most often women) in the case of divorce.

True — we have a very solid marriage, but could that partly be due to the compromises we’ve made since my husband knows all too well how expensive it would be to divorce?