Page under construction. Information incomplete and unedited.

Legal inequity is the single most dangerous area of Men’s Equity. Legal inequity can be broken down to several areas of law.

It doesn’t matter what area of life we look at. There has never been a period in history where females have been so empowered. Likewise, Females have never had the freedoms they currently have. In itself, that should be a good thing. I notice my own language there saying SHOULD. Why?

Because in the history of the world, women or at least some of them, have never been as angry, demanding, entitled or unhappy as they are now. Law after law, campaign after campaign, insult after insult. Our society needs to question this.

If men want to have any form of relationship with females in this era, they have just too many risks. To have to hand over the keys to everything you’ve ever worked for just to even find out if you’re compatible.

Right of Reprisal

A central theme throughout the revisions, changes, combined alterations being demanded by the Radical Feminists show clear and deliberate intent.

  • Females can choose to do as much damage to a male as they choose.
  • Females can sue, claiming damages any time they feel aggrieved by a male.
  • Men have no ability to respond to Female attacks.
  • Males can never claim damages for unfair, inappropriate or illegal damage Females do to a male.

If you think this sounds like hate speech or worse, sound ludicrous, read the detail in the linked pages, do your own research checking validity then read the information below

Females can choose to do as much damage to a male as they choose.

Whether by family law, control of the children, stripping a male of assets, false allegations of either violence or Sexual assault and so forth, females can unfairly choose to destroy virtually any part of a Males life. When I say unfairly choose, I’m differentiating between acting fairly with honesty, truthful integrity as opposed to acting unfairly with dishonesty, untruth and deceptiveness. Sometimes the latter is guided by lawyers to maximise damage, other times it’s premeditated.

Females can sue claiming damages any time they feel aggrieved by a male.

Females are very enabled to pursue financial damages in many cases they feel aggrieved by men. Usually a cornerstone of civil action is to have the man convicted of a criminal offence to provide a basis for action. False allegations of Domestic violence are rampant through the Family Court and False Sexual Assault cases have been steadily growing as lawyers, universities and Radical feminist groups educate women on how easy and profitable it can be.

With new, completely unrealistic Active Consent laws introduced in some states, what has been normal “in marriage” sexual activity now constitutes Sexual Assault, making sexual interaction within most homes illegal. With a complaint, the man will be convicted and damages are almost certainly assured.

Men have no ability to respond to Female attacks.

The police and the judicial system all follow The Duluth Model very closely. In some states, nominal adjustments have been made with psychology and mediation to justify no longer calling it Duluth, however the patterns of psychology and mediation follow the Duluth pattern of blaming men for everything and accepting the female is blameless. Police and the courts refuse in all but the most severe and damaging publicised cases, to take action for false allegations of many offences including assault, Sexual Assault, false AVO applications etc. As per Duluth training, refusal to prosecute females is on the basis it MAY discourage other victims to come forward.

This is outright ludicrous. If I own a bank and report a fake robbery in an attempt to scam insurance, I would certainly be prosecuted. No other robbed bank would feel discouraged to report the robbery. The only possible EXCUSE to accept this moronic justification would be if women were seriously unequal to men such as under Sharia Law.

Males can’t claim damages for unfair, inappropriate or illegal damage Females do to a male.

If False allegations are neither investigated or prosecuted when those offences have been committed, it’s much more difficult or outright impossible to prove responsibility for the illegal damage consequences. Clearly, this puts females in a position where they’re virtually immuned from consequence of any type when scheming, planning and executing illegal attack on men. See this page for explanation.

We’ve all seen how the Duluth Model combined with this attitude and a refusal to penalise female perjury has shifted the Family court to be a completely one-sided Male-Destroying and stripping institution.

As everyone knows, the stance of the Family Court is that it’s not in the best interests of the child to prosecute the mother for planned, premeditated and prefabricated lies specifically designed for maximum character assasination of the males. It’s equally as understood in both Australia and many countries where foreign brides target Australian men that if a male cannot substantiate with undisputable documentation, every statement he makes, he will probably be charged and imprisoned for perjury as I discovered in my experience.

These same principals are now being applied to Female Criminal behaviour with AVO’s being handed out to men like lolly bags and Men being wrongfully convicted of Sexual Assault .

Flailing Rights for Males

When you combine the potential for damage men are exposed to in Child custody, Property Division, Domestic Violence, Criminal law, False Allegations, Kangaroo Courts with virtually no Rights of Reprisal, how can anyone possibly consider this is EQUALITY?

Sadly, I’ve retired from all this to play with my Big Boy toys, with friends. Men with assets to lose are remaining permanently unpartnered, specifically because this is just so far out of balance and getting worse annually. Young adult men know it too. I don’t know what he’ll do in the future but he’s seeing this for himself now when he has to work on Family Law cases in his job.

How many females have ever considered these factors or considered the effects on availability of respectable men, prepared to either enter or fully commit to relationships. Please, as long as you can discuss this constructively, let me know.

If men try to discuss these issues, they’re Mansplaining. If men try to break the Feminist Monolog, they’re Manterupting and If men are dissatisfied or walk away, they’re Manbabies. Men are painted into so many corners, with their hands tied behind their backs, to the point there are no viable options but walk away. What’s really hysterical is when you say that, you’re told by Feminists to “Man Up and get over it” or “Need to work out how to satisfy women better”.

If women are genuinely not capable of discussing genuine requirements honorably and have to hide behind Sleazed in One sided Deliberate INEQUALITY legislation, you’ve made your own beds. This has become so bad legally, we have to pray a woman will be nice or fair if we’re trusting (aka stupid) enough to put our ghoulies in your left and a bread knife in your right.

The only two options we have under all these new rules is become Manpuppies, roll on our backs hoping for a Tummy rub or walk away.

Author’s choice

Joke Of The Day

Q: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb? A: The fact that you think that it’s not society, but the light bulb that should change is problematic.

Leave a Reply