Home » Uncategorized » San Diego Domestic Dispute Industry Equal Protection Conspiracy Centerpiece: The “Universal Female Victim” and “Universal Male Perpetrator” Ideology

San Diego Domestic Dispute Industry Equal Protection Conspiracy Centerpiece: The “Universal Female Victim” and “Universal Male Perpetrator” Ideology

RSS News From Weightier Matter-CCFC’s Family Court Litigant Resources

Board GreedCalifornia Coalition’s July 24, 2013 letter to the City of San Diego and the San Diego Family Justice Center lays out the Family Justice Center’s ideology for law enforcement: “It’s always the guy’s fault. Period.”  Easy enough if you’re a social worker, cop, or a judge–but is it?  Oddly, the Family Justice Center is deaf to the equal protection conspiracy implications of their publications and teachings–publications and teaching that go directly to judges, law enforcement, social workers, and attorneys enforcing domestic violence laws.

Exhibit A to the letter breaks down the ideology with references to relevant law and exhibits exemplifying the crime.  This Exhibit explains “Universal Female Victim” and “Universal Male Perpetrator” ideology as evidenced by the Alliance’s own writings.

[More at Weightier Matter]

Advertisements

7 Comments

  1. The FJC’s ideology is clearly feminist in nature. Sun Tzu advised us to understand our enemies, and ideological feminism can only be understood from the perspective of gender narcissism. It rationally explains the psychopathology of why these women (and their male toadies) need women being victims of men and society to be “true.”

    My forthcoming book explains this. You are welcome to have a pre-release read. themirrorbooks@gmail.com if you are interested. Test reader feedback is at this post: http://navigator1965.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/how-to-write-the-book-that-malcolm-gladwell-wished-he-had-written/

    You might also find this Canadian newspaper article of interest: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/04/16/barbara-kay-childrens-aid-societies-gone-rogue/

    • Thank you Navigator. Spot on observations as usual. Thank you for the link and the reference. I’ll pass this along to our parent list too, if you don’t mind.

      And don’t fret the narcissists. It’s true, they are abundant, and abundantly blind. Another quote from your source: “Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance.” ~ Sun Tzu

      Please pass along our humble American best regards to your Canadian narcissists, and tell them how much we think about and admire their accomplishments in achieving their objectives of power and control.

      Regards

      CCFC Editor

  2. NewsViews says:

    I would caution generalizing personal experience as the experience of the industry as a whole. There are many, many cases where the opposite is true and where the “guy” can do no wrong, no matter what evidence is presented and where escalation is allowed to continue unabated as the belief is that a person and children are the personal property/chattel of someone else deserving of such behavior. There are outrageous cases on all fronts involving children where their parents, male or female, have been victimized by the court. In some cases it can be traced back to the religious belief of a presiding judge who allows his/her religion to influence the procedures and treatment of certain litigants and their children.

    • Excellent points–we agree completely that generalization is error and that women in the court system are equally disadvantage–often even worse. Our many mom members attest that the system is something of a “double-double” standard–bias both ways, but different for women than men.

      We also agree it’s a bad idea for moms and dads to blame their ex, or opposite gender only without seeing the larger picture. Many litigants are distracted by the dynamics of their personal situation and miss the institutional discrimination against family court litigants generally.

      This is one reason our equal protection claims focus on the “parent-child” class-all parents are being discriminated against–moms and dads-by a system that deprives them of fundamental rights of due process, speech, jury trials, and honesty/fairness in representation and other professional services.

      Ditto with the “domestic relations class”–California has created a special class by statute–then proceeds to dump on them with deprivations of rights litigants in other courts regularly receive. Both classes are legitimate equal protection classes, and both are represented in the lawsuit. We also name a “male’ gender class, primarily because I’m a male and have standing. If we could find a mom who wasn’t terrified of losing her kids to stand beside me, we could easily name a female class too–the two classes are not mutually exclusive because both are discriminated against in different ways.

      Our beef with the Alliance isn’t from personal experience–but their own documentation. Their own materials show heavy influence by feminist dogma. We’re not a men’s or women’s rights group in the sense that those interests are adverse to each other, and we don’t pander to any organized “pro-” or “anti-” any gendered philosophy (some members are, but their perspectives are similar to the writer–the bias can cut both ways). The UFV/UMP table that is the subject of this article isn’t drawn from personal experience, but primarily the Alliance’s own materials, and interviews of Alliance clients and others they associate with. The evidence is fairly uniform–they recite what most people would recognize as feminist ideology (which may be rght or wrong–but it’s identifiably feminist). Not only that, but they recite some of the most controversial studies, and draw from some of the recognizably extreme groups.

      Some of the philosophies the Alliance draws from are understandably anti-male–rape and incest survivor support groups. This community is quite rightfully outraged at one or more men as their experiences are likely unspeakable. But the Alliance imports that justified rage into it’s facially-moderate “family justice” (sounds pro family doesn’t it?) model. The Alliance’s face is kids playing at camp and assault victims getting housing to leave an abuser–but it’s soul is something different. Our concern is that soul is driving policy at all levels–from the intense intervention and prosecution necessary for heinous crimes of rape and incest, but also to ordinary domestic disputes or divorce cases. One source of data we found showed Alliance centers cater to relatively middle income women. The result is a perspective and ideology that is heavily weighted by the experience of victims of terror is driving a service to people who don’t share that history or level of need.

      I would urge readers to review the article’s exhibit entirely–it draws directly from the materials in Exhibit B (search it here). These are the Alliances own literature–publications, powerpoints, brochures, videos–all right out of the Alliance’s library. If you still feel that our perspective is inaccurate, we welcome your voice and criticism. Discussion-including debate–is an important step toward mutual understanding and, hopefully, broader joint efforts at reform.

      • My experience in Ontario, Canada has been that feminists have rigged key definitions such that a mother not automatically getting exclusive child custody (and hence child support payments) in divorce now constitutes “child abuse.” Even if she is a child abuser.

        Are you familiar with / have I sent you a crucial peer-reviewed paper co-authored by Professors Don Dutton and Kenneth Corvo? “Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychology and science in domestic violence research and practice.” It’s worth a read, as feminist domestic violence “theory” (ideology) is embedded into courts as a standing bias, in too many instances.

        Every initiative to chip away at the feminist influence on our social organs is a noble and worthy endeavour. I’ve read Canadian academics who’ve stated that feminism has been more successful here in entrenching its ideological dictates into the fabric of society than in the U.S.

        This is an example of what we have to content with here: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/04/16/barbara-kay-childrens-aid-societies-gone-rogue/

      • Thank you for the thoughtful reply Navigator, and thank you for the reference and link. I would be very interested in Professors Dutton and Corvo’s article–if you have a link or copy and would be kind enough to forward here or via email I would be grateful.

        I see your points and am aware of that Canada experiences a different dynamic than that of the States. The ideological drivers are definitely sourced to themes that are common among some feminists, including the narcissism we’ve discussed earlier.

        I reviewed the National Post story and recognize the themes from our experience here. Fortunately the judge was principled to see through the ideology. We agree that such mindful judges are too rare—and many in the U.S. too have, as we mentioned in our complaint, “abandoned law and reason” in favor of the allure of ideology and power-play. I am a lawyer with advanced scholarship in theology and ethics–to see my professional colleagues who are adequately trained in law, morality, and social science so easily seduced by convenient “isms” is extremely disappointing. Their undisciplined thinking approaches intellectual depravity, if not treason.
        I do see your points and am aware of that Canada experiences a different dynamic than that of the States. The ideological drivers are definitely sourced to themes that are common among some feminists, including the breed of cultural narcissism referenced above.
        But I sense the battle lines are no longer drawn to “pro-“ and “anti-“ feminists. A development we’re seeing in the States is that feminism has undergone something of a split–or perhaps it should be viewed as a natural evolution–among those who cling to the more dogmatic ideologies and those who recognize the immaturity of rigid gestalt. The later still retain a “feminist” identity and core values, but have matured to recognize the flaws of a “black and white” world view and accusations of a “paternalist conspiracy” to oppress all women. More gracious feminists see the issue not as a social revolution, but an evolution in society’s preconceptions about women’s roles. Many reflect a highly sophisticated recognition that women themselves contribute greatly to those misconceptions, and see the solution as encouraging men and women to relinquish rigid assumptions and look for more practical solutions. When ideological consistency is the first test for beginning a discussion about how to improve the everyday situations of gender relations and family well-being, the discussion simply can’t evolve beyond the assumptions each side saddles itself with, and progress is simply impossible.
        We encourage a more agnostic process—throw off the assumptions about gender roles, conspiracy, history, and blame, and think about what the goal is (not who’s at fault for the problem). In custody issues, clearly the goal is well-being of the child, and that goal is greatly impeded by conflict. By reducing conflict we immediately improve the chance for success of our goal. Remarkably, once the distorting effect of ideology is removed (or at least diluted as much as possible), the source of most conflict disappears. Now facing a greatly simplified problem parents can and often do see the practical solutions more clearly. Like your Canadian heroes Alex Lifeson, Neal Pert, and Geddy Lee have written, “Now there’s no more oak oppression, for they passed a noble law, and the trees are all kept equal, by hatchet, axe and saw.” http://youtu.be/zXeUvDOMgGY. An excellent resource for this process is UpToParents.org, who note “If parents can agree on one thing they’ll agree on everything—what do we want our child to look like in 20 years?”

        Thank you again for your insight Navigator. Godspeed in your endeavors, and please stay in touch.

      • Sir,

        You indeed have me smiling, with that reference to Rush. Well am I familiar with “The Trees,” both in terms of the rudimentary political philosophy expressed therein and Alex L.’s brilliant English classical guitar work. A personal favourite.

        Completely off topic, I am vulnerable to discussions regarding vinyl, turntables, and tube amplifiers. A minor Achilles’ heel, perhaps.

        I would have to describe your last response as being superb. Much of it contents, I am in agreement with. Those areas in which I would respectfully dissent, such dissent is of a civil nature that seeks a similar noble end.

        For example, your observation of the black-and-white (Manichean) perspective of ideological feminists is, I would argue, a manifestation of the narcissistic split representation of objects. I can see that we are going to have some wonderfully interesting discussions in the future. My background is more of a military-generalist one, but sometimes an eclectic perspective produces interesting interpretation.

        Please email me at themirrorbooks@gmail.com, and I’ll reply with the Dutton paper. I also have an advanced .pdf of my forthcoming book available, should this ever be of interest. It specifically analyzes our malignant feminist CAS (child “protection”) behaviour, such the case Barb Kay wrote about.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

CCFC Posts and Info

%d bloggers like this: