7. FEMALE FASCISTS:-
AND THE NEW
NUGATORY MALE.
"I feel that man hating is an honorable and viable political act that the oppressed have a right to class hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -Robin Morgan, Ms, Magazine, editor. "All men are rapists and that's all they are." - Marilyn French "I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig." -Andrea Dworkin "The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness....can be trained to do most things." -Jilly Cooper, SCUM (unofficial acronym for Society for Cutting Up Males) "The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men." -Sharon Stone, actress "If life is to survive on this planet there must be a decontamination.......a drastic reduction in the population of males." -Mary Daly, former professor, US college * Imagine if in the quotes above the speakers were talking about Jews. Experiment by substituting the words men and males with Jew and Jews. By doing this you get a sense of how sexist and fascist these statements really are. If they were talking about Jews they wouldn't be tolerated. Yet by using the word men or male , or talking about men and males, you are harmlessly able to make sexist and fascist remarks. |
Male bashing has become so monotonous over the past four decades that the noise itself is passe`. And because the noise is delivered from soft featured females faces , covered in cosmetics, with a mumsy voice tone, the intended threats are somewhat masked. The female fascists usually present to the media using a "Mumsy" or 'Snow White" persona. Yet after this pleasant verbal and visual experience you should re-read what they really said or have said in the past. For example look at the quotes at the beginning of this Chapter.
Males like to take a "fatherly" approach with remonstrating females-- something many have learned with their own daughters who might carry on, whinge, or throw tantrums . Fathers have learnt not to react. Invariably it all blows over. Leave it up to the wife to handle. The Mother. They therefore subconsciously think its the best way to react to those female feminists they see on TV or occasionally headlining media articles. Despite the debate being one sided, males reason that debate is good. Also the feminists do have valid sounding points about equal pay and violent bullying males etc. Sure there is a bit of topsy-turvy but in the end the ship will right itself they reason. Meanwhile there is a life, and a job, to get on with. The males themselves are generally overworked and in between, a little lazy.
Well when women speak in a public forum like the media they usually have an official capacity. They could be politicians, sociologists, lawyers, writers and actors etc. And what they have to complain about, should be listened to very carefully, because its not harmless household squabble. Laws get changed and new ones are created, usually to increase the penalty consequences for males.
These new rules now impinge on males in ways most still don't imagine, or could have dreamt up even 30 years ago. Today the question needs to be posed. Does the modern male have any real rights that are instantly applied?... and not denied using farce and farrago? Females can now destroy their husbands family life on a whim and female accusers can now point the finger at their male bosses and claim sexual harassment, without needing proof. In Australia the onus of proof was reversed and legally the accusations are considered true, unless proven otherwise. Its up to the male, (at his own expense) to show they're not true. Guilty until proven innocent.
Now for some examples:
Some females have got away with killing their husbands in cold blood. One planned ahead to kill her husband by preparing some poisons, lacing the food, and when he finally fell asleep, stabbed him to death. Another bought some bullets for a gun a few days before, picked a time when the husband was fast asleep in the marriage bed and then blew his brains out.
Both of these instances happened in Australia and both women walked free from the Courts. One was acquitted by a Jury and the other pleaded guilty to manslaughter, despite the pre-meditated action, and was given a Good Behavior Bond (i.e set free) by the Judge. How did this happen? Well the women were able to use a defence, made legitimate about 20 years ago, that their killing was really a form of self defence. Its called the "Battered Woman Syndrome". The Victorian Court in Australia announced changes to homicide laws that allowed a woman to put evidence of prior abuse as part of her murder defence...even if there was no immediate threat at the time, or the killing was completely out of context to any physical assault that may or may not have been occurring. Now for this to work the woman has got to be able to show past episodes of abuse or " battering" and in the two examples above both women were able to show the court many instances of past abuse. There had been numerous, DVO's (Domestic Violence Orders), episodes of the women staying in women's shelters, episodes of the husband even following them interstate. One young teenage daughter was able to explain a sickening assault inflicted upon her own mother on the kitchen floor.
Well you may ask why didn't the women simply leave. Get out. Well it seems that the medical profession has been able to convince the Courts that the "battered person syndrome" means that a victim is unable to take any independent action beforehand. They end up too depressed to make a move. Still it ought to make males highly suspicious. For a start the males never tried to kill their spouses. They didn't seriously wound them, committing grievous bodily harm. No jail time for assault by the males was served and there's always two sides to a story. Conveniently when these females are cataloguing prior abuse and their tales of woe to the Court, there's no-one there to refute them.
Now this new defence for women, which relies on abusive men, has not just been used in self defence for homicide trials, its been used by women to get off in cases of Social Security Fraud, armed robbery, shoplifting, perverting the course of justice, and robbing their employers.
Now there are some out there who think some utter male bastards deserve to be killed. And I do sympathise. However one has to be sceptical when there are so many options for abused women with children. If there's serious trouble the authorities can be at the doorstep 24/7. I have lived in a block of flats and seen emergency teams arrive at 1a.m on a weekend to whisk away a woman and her young son from another violent person, female actually, a friend of the mother. In another example I was aware of a female mother who had pre-arranged with Police to leave her male spouse. Everyone was sitting at the kitchen table, including the husband, when there was a knock at the door. The Police. Straight away the woman got up from her half finished meal, grabbed the child, and went into the bedroom to collect the secretly hidden pre-packed suitcases. The Police just stood by on the front porch to make sure all remained calm. So I find it difficult to understand how females can claim to be trapped. There are also some rare evil women out there who may set up an unsuspecting male. So if you're a gentle husband with a crazy wife who goes to the cops for DVOs, over nothing, and returns teary and apologetic,... get out.
Back in the real world the male generally continues along in his own home, in control of his own children, with a certain respect, authority and relevance. This works out quite well while that relevance is allowed. But its a relevance that is really bestowed by the wife. It can be withdrawn instantly and the new nugatory male has no power to stop it.
For the next few paragraphs I would like to present a story of a male victim. And I declare that its out of context and biased. Yet ask yourself how far-fetched from the truth it really is.
There is a well formed perception in men's minds that in a family break up the wife gets the house and keeps the kids. There's no fault divorce and it doesn't matter if the husband has done nothing wrong, and the wife is being selfish and unreasonable, he stands to lose heaps. For a start its more than likely that the house he's paid off in 12 years goes to the wife, who has been at home helping to raise the 3 children. A genuine labour of love in between cleaning, shopping and usually morning and afternoon teas at home with her mother and other friends. The courts look upon that as a equal value and when factoring in everything the asset split is probably 70/30. Well that's great for the female, she gets to live in the house which she now owns outright with her 3 children and then collects about $700 a week with her unemployed parenting allowance, income from Family Tax Benefits A and B, and of course the ex-husband's child support, (about $150) a week. There's no change to her lifestyle and she has the house as an asset. Previously on the husband's low income the total household weekly take was about $900 for the 5 of them. Now the ex wife has to manage with $700 for the four of them. Of course she could top that up with her new boyfriend, who's contributes financially with lots of expensive "little things" like petrol, cigarettes, take away food etc. Meanwhile the ex-husband, has moved out into a dog-box flat to survive on his nett $750 a week of which $300 goes on rent and food, $100 for the car and $150 a week for the ex. He gets to have his children come over every second fortnight and he gets them for half the school holidays, so he puts aside an extra $100 a week for that. So each week $650 is committed which leaves $100 a week to enjoy his new free life. Well he certainly won't be saving up for another mortgage. And all of that is if he's even allowed to see his children once a fortnight. Many males are slugged "maintenance" and at the same time denied access to their children. The Courts don't usually make a direct order along those lines. Instead they cleverly circumnavigate this by stretching out the time in front of them before a final decision is made, mediations and adjournments. It can take months, maybe a couple of years. Meantime the father can't go near.
The male is made economically irrelevant here because the female doesn't need his income to raise the family. With 3 school age children she'll get, as I mentioned before, about $700 nett a week. And if there's no house to claim from the male its possible the Government will give her a free house. A Commission house. In this case she pays a nominal "rent" of $70 for the home which would otherwise be valued at probably $350 per week on the private rental market. This social system is wonderful for mothers to bring up their young families in peace away from arsehole husbands. And its ONLY these examples that you'll hear of from the female fascists. But what about the worthy and good fathers, hard working, who have done nothing wrong. The wife just gets bored and the options are there on a plate to choose from. The male can lose his wife, his house, his family and end up living in a "dog box' . And he can't change anything. No-one listens and fighting through the normal channels just doesn't work. The male feels rightly betrayed by the female and Society; that there's no real legal justice for him. So is anyone really that surprised when some of these tormented and now mentally sick males decide to kill themselves and their children in revenge?
Well what could be fairer? Bring back at fault divorce. If the male has done everything right, worked hard and committed himself, why should that be torn apart on the whim of his wife? If a marriage partner simply wants out, fine, but they should leave the kids behind.Or at least let the children decide who they want to stay with. Whoever keeps the kids keeps the house. This would stop some women choosing men as a sperm donor and economic feeder for 6 or 7 years and then dumping them. When some of these women know that its not so easy to collect a house, and $700 a week, and having the taxpayer fund all your legal action, they'll think twice.
Anyway that's just my opinion. It won't happen. That means more broken hearted fathers are going to end up killing their children and themselves in revenge.
The female fascists can give all sorts if statistics about reported violence in the domestic home, committed by males. But the 'abuse' spectrum has widened. Abuse is not simply striking someone or threatening to strike them. These days abuse covers areas such as " emotional abuse", which has its gammit of variables which can even include upsetting the family dog. However both males and females can be troublemakers of course and there are statistics to show that women can be just as physically "violent" as males. And in line with those statistics its claimed there is considerable under reporting by males of this female-initiated violence. However even if the "violence" is not physical, women are particularly good at Passive Aggression. Passive aggression are subtle "actions" like snide innuendo, stubbornness, evasiveness or ambiguity. And their number one weapon here which can simultaneously hurt and infuriate males is: The Silent Treatment.
But what can the male do. If she's genuinely angry she can simply call the Police and have him removed from his own house that night. The male is recognised physically and mentally as the biggest potential threat so he is removed immediately. The real reasons, and fall out, can be sorted out later. Something for the ousted husband to ponder that night, sitting in a cheap motel room, with his mind spinning.
STORY 1.
Lets move on to my first narrative. Lets assume that so far our male has survived the first two hurdles. The first being that he can sleep comfortably knowing that he won't be murdered in his sleep; and the second that he's a happy family man, with a couple of children, a "happy" wife and that the household is secure.
At this point our modern father should have it good. A healthy family and a secure job and a secure home.
Until he comes up against the Child Abuse Industry.
The father regularly reads the news and notices Police at their wits end about juvenile crime in his neighborhood. Usually in all these articles a Police spokesman blames the parents for the breakdown in community standards and says that discipline starts in the home. As well there are concerns about school attendance. Too many children were skipping school and Police were now threatening to get involved and fine the parents.
Our lucky father agrees with the sentiment of the article, in his cosy loungeroom chair, and agrees with the Police. Discipline should be enforced in the home. On that point he's been a little concerned lately about the behaviour of his 14-year-old daughter. He's noticed that for quite a while she doesn't seem to be doing her share of the housework. There have even been blazing rows between the wife and the daughter which he steers clear from. On that point he's noticed that the daughter spends an inordinate amount of time on the computer in her room and doesn't appear to be doing any homework. He sneakily asks his younger daughter what her older sister was up to and is shocked to learn that she was communicating with strange boys on social networks. On hearing this the father bans computer use in the short term. However he allows the girls to continue using their mobile phones. After a week or so he notices that the housework still wasn't being shared around and that the oldest daughter was always going off to her room or outside to speak on the phone.
This sort of behavior goes on for several weeks and then one day his wife informs him that the oldest daughter is regularly coming home late from school. He quizzes her about this and is told that she regularly goes to her friends' houses after school. The girls would apparantly help each other with their hair. Or so he's told. The father said he wanted the girl back home from school at the regular time and if it was about hair then they could go to each other's houses on the weekend. He said he would drive them. Things settle down for a week or so, but the following week the bad habits return. The oldest daughter would sometimes appear 2 hours after school. This started with one night a week which the father didn't worry about. 'Then it stretched to 2 nights. Then one Friday evening the girl didn't return home at all. The parents frantically rang around all her friends, but no-one knew where she was. They were just about to call the Police when the girl walked in. It was now 9 o'clock. The father was furious. The girl said she got caught up in an emergency and had to take a girl, who was just new to the school, to hospital. She couldn't get away because the girl was waiting for her mother to show up. The daughter said she couldn't ring home because her phone wasn't working. She said she'd dropped her phone earlier and it wouldn't work, although it was ok now.
Later that night the father waited until about 3am and snuck into his daughter's bedroom. He knew where his daughter kept her mobile phone. He went to the kitchen and scanned through the messages. He came across a message from one of her friends he'd telephoned earlier: "Ur fathr rang. Lied my guts out, cvred fr u, u owe big sis!" Go girl! Next day he spoke with his wife and they both decided to sit down with the 14 year old and talk about boys, and the potential dangers. The father said that he could only talk about so much and would leave the rest in private between mother and daughter. The father told the daughter that she was never to be home late again, for whatever reason, and to call reverse charge if necessary. He didn't let on that he'd read the incriminating text message. The father also said that she could only talk with boys her own age and that they could visit the house. However she was not to have any contact with older boys. Especially boys with cars. Following that heart-to-heart talk he was sure his daughter, who was quite intelligent, understood so the father allowed her to use the computer again.
The following week the daughter was at least one hour late home from school each night. On the Wednesday she was two hours late, then that Friday night she didn't return home again. The father didn't bother calling her friends he just waited in the loungeroom waiting for the phone call which never came. It was about 10 o'clock when both parents thought of calling the Police. Then they heard a car pull up out front, and then their daughter's voice. As the father went to the front door he heard the screech of car tyres and a dark car speeding off into the night. He then noticed his daughter walking across the front lawn toward the house. However you wouldn't call it walking. Staggering. His daughter was drunk! And only 14! As she walked past him she giggled and muttered "hi" and then something about the phone not working. As soon as she entered the house he heard his wife's raised voice. He walked in. The wife was standing in front of her daughter at this stage. The rowing continuned and then the daughter picked up a vase and smashed it on the floor. "SHUT UP YOU CUNT!'" he heard his daughter scream at her mother. The father had never heard his daughter swear before, and had certainly never used the c-word. The father was shocked and quickly lept to his feet and slapped his daughter across the face. He only had time in his mind to pull back the force of the slap so it was really only a half slap. But it was the first time he'd hit her like that. At that his daughter stood with her hand across her face. Then before he had time to properly react, he watched as his daughter bunched up her feminine fist and tried to king hit him in the face. She was still quite drunk but the father realised that his daughter was going to put every ounce of her weight into that punch, which luckily missed but grazed the side of his face. Then she started pummelling him in the stomach with her fists. He held her off with one arm. "Get to bed"! he yelled at her. "FUCK YOU!" was her reply back which shocked him again. First time she'd ever said that to him. He certainly wasn't going to slap her again and then noticed a long black electrical cord used to connect the DVD player with the large TV monitor. He quickly disconnected the cord and doubted it over in a threatening manner. "I said bed!" he yelled. At that the daughter tried to make her way outside. The father quickly spun her around by the shoulders and noticed that she was wearing full length jeans, so he thought he better make it a good one so she'd feel it. He used the cord to whip the lower half of her jean covered legs. Hard. Once, twice, then three times. "BED I SAID"! he yelled. At that the girl started screaming at the top of her voice and ran down the hall. She went into her bedroom, slammed the door, kept screaming for a bit then continued sobbing. The father sat down and looked over at his wife in shock. "Just let her cry it off, " his wife said. Then I'll go in and find out whats wrong." she said.
They sat together in the lounge waiting for the audible sobs to subside. The father started thinking he wished he'd got the registration number of that car. He was also thinking to himself....'what do we do now?' Then his wife's mobile phone rang, and it was one of her friends. He noticed his wife jovially talking away with her friend as if nothing had happened. Sometimes he just couldn't understand this life, he thought.
Ten minutes later there was a knock at the door. It was the Police.
The two armed male police officers explained that one of the neighbors had called. There was a complaint of a female screaming. The father quickly explained that there had been an argument with his daughter over her late arrival home; that everything was ok and they could talk to his wife, who joined him at the door.
"Everything's ok officers, "she told them. At that point the officers explained that they were legally obliged to check to make sure the daughter was ok. The father said he'd get the daughter. At that the police told him, no. He was to remain standing where he was and the other officer would find the girl. And could they direct him to where she might be? The father was a bit taken aback and stupidly said that he thought Police needed a search warrant before they could enter a house by virtual force. One of the police officers explained that the Laws had been changed and where there was the possibility of a child being in danger police could enter immediately...."in danger"... those words hit the father like a stomach punch. How could his daughter be in danger. He was the father. This was the mother and this was the family home. "Go for it," the father meekly replied as he waved the police officer in the direction of his daughter's bedroom. As the officer disappeared down the hallway the second officer starting explaining to the wife something about "just doing our job". However the father wasn't paying attention. His head was elsewhere. This was his house. That was his daughter yet in a surreal situation he felt as if had simply no control over anything. At that point the second officer walked past the father with his daughter following close behind. He noticed that the daughter just looked at the ground and didn't make eye contact with him or his wife and she followed the first officer out the front, across the lawn, and then into the police car parked out front. The father then asked the first officer what was going on. The first officer who remained standing on the porch handed the father a card, and said that they needed to ask the daughter some questions, and if they weren't back within the hour to call that number on the card. At that the first officer left, joined the others in the car which drove off.
The father sat in his lounge shell shocked trying to fathom everything while his wife put the other daughter to bed.
An hour later when the Police hadn't returned, he rang the number. Eventually a nice sounding Policewoman answered and told him that his daughter had been taken to hospital for observation, and that she was under the custody of Child Safety for the night, following a special order granted by a late night Justice of the Peace, and that she would probably be brought home tomorrow. On hearing this the father asked which hospital. The policewoman told the father which hospital but said neither of the parents would be allowed to visit her until the "investigation" finished. The only family individual that would be "allowed" to see the girl, if they all came to the hospital, would be the younger sister.
The father stayed home from work the next day, and it was around lunch time that a police car pulled out the front. Two policewomen came to the door and handed the father a formal piece of paper which looked like a court document. The document indicated that the daughter had been taken under the protection and custody of the Child Care Department, in an "interim" measure until a decision could be taken by a Magistrate in the Children's Court. A court date was set down for 3 days time. Both the father and the wife, anxious about their daughters' whereabouts asked where she was staying. The policewomen assured the couple that their daughter was being well cared for in a special type emergency foster accommodation for situations like this. Hopefully the matter would all be resolved in Court very shortly. In the meantime one of the policewomen said that they needed both the husband and the wife to attend the police station, later that afternoon to "make a statement".
That afternoon with their other daughter in tow the parents attended the police station and were interviewed separately about what happened the night before. Both the husband and wife explained honestly and frankly about what happened. In the father's interview he was intrigued how the policewoman seemed to want a chronological explanation, step by step, about what exactly happened, and about the approximate time of each step.
The next day in the afternoon a Police car pulled out the front. This time it was the same two male officers from two nights ago. One of the officers explained that in light of the statements made yesterday by the couple, and the statement made by their daughter, the Police Prosecutions office had decided to pursue certain matters....."statement made by their daughter"....these words shocked the father. He just thought she had been taken to hospital, where they would immediately see that his daughter was fine, and that it would all be resolved tomorrow when they attended Cout. If necessary, he thought, he would explain it all to the Magistrate, who was obviously a reasonably intelligent individual like himself he thought probably a family man too, and that common sense would prevail. While thinking of this he glanced down and looked at the paperwork, it had a Court date set down for 6 weeks away. He then read down and then it hit him. The paperwork was a Court Summons with his name on it. My God! he'd been charged with something! He looked at the charge which read......"...is charged Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm, whilst armed, and in Company. He then looked at a second document which was a charge sheet for his wife's which read...."accessory to Assault Occasioning Bodily harm whilst armed and in Company". According to the Criminal Code, the crime of Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm carried with it a potential maximum jail term of 7 years. However if that offence was committed "whilst armed" then the potential maximum was increased to 10 years jail. So the husband and wife were to exposed in theory to a 10-year jail term. The police officer then gave some more shocking news to the Father and that was the Department of Transport had suspended his DA (Drivers Authority) to work as a Tour Bus driver ferrying international travellers around town and explaining the sites of the city. The Police officer explained that as soon as any assault charges are laid against an individual, his authority to engage with the public, such as a tour bus operator, was suspended until the matter was resolved in Court. It didn't matter whether an individual was guilty or not. The Police then apologised to the Father and said that they only collected the daughter and took her to the hospital on instructions from "the office". He then advised the father to seek legal advice before his Court appearance in 6 weeks. He then indicated that the Children's Court hearing involving his daughter and the one 6 weeks down the track were separate. The Father then thanked the Police officers who then left. He went inside and started scouring the telephone directory. He was now without a job, without a daughter and wondered whether both he and his wife could end up in jail. The charges, despite being completely outrageous, sounded ominous. He would need a lawyer.
Writer's note: At this point in the story of our responsible family man, he has become
irrelevant even in his own home with his own children. The example above shows
a normal family squabble. The male father has tried to impose some discipline
that Police implore the Parents to do---but while they pay lip service to parental
discipline in the media they don't outline all the new restrictions and traps that
the authorities will employ within "the law" against those same parents. Instead
of reinforcing in the child's mind that her parents are in charge and to be
respected, the authorities are quick to show the children that their parents have
no real power. The male has had his home virtually invaded by
the authorities, using Child Safety as a pretext, and now you'll see how the
cannibalistic abuse industry comes into full swing. These sorts of scenarios are
happening in their hundreds every week in modern Western female dominated
bureaucratic environments, in Australia, Britain, the US and particularly
Canada.
The husband and his wife attended the Court hearing the next day. They hadn't had time to secure a lawyer but the husband was seeing one that afternoon. Anyway he reasons he will be able to explain matters to the Magistrate. At the Court hearing the husband and wife enter the courtroom and a kindly looking female Magistrate motions them to sit at one end of a long desk. At the other end of the desk sits a middle aged woman and a well dressed male with a stack of folders in front of them. The other woman quickly gets to her feet and explains briefly about the "alleged" assault in the family home, how the child was taken to hospital, how the child had made a statement "allegedly" implicating her parents, that the parents were the subject of a separate Court action involving their daughter as a witness, that the daughter was now in the custody of the "director-general", and that the daughter had "expressly wished" to remain in such custody and did not want to return home.
At this point the Magistrate turned to the husband and asked whether he was representing himself or seeking legal advice. Stumbling over the question, the husband mentioned that he was seeking legal advice that afternoon. At that the Magistrate enquired of the well dressed woman whether "the Department" had been in contact with the parents. The woman said not yet but a meeting would be arranged within 7 days. At that the Magistrate ended proceedings and adjourned the hearing for two weeks. Two weeks! The husband couldn't believe his ears. That meant that he and his wife wouldn't have any contact, or know the whereabouts of their daughter until then. Outside the Courtroom another woman approached the husband and his wife, and said she was an investigator with the Department, and wanted to talk with the parents at a convenient time. She said hopefully all would be resolved and that the daughter would be home "as soon as possible." She arranged to come out and meet the parents the next day.
That afternoon the father met with the lawyer and explained the whole situation. The lawyer looked glum. He said in his experience whether the daughter returned home or not was usually up to the daughter. He said the Court would be very reluctant to force her to return home if she wanted to stay in Child Care. The parents would have to prove that the home was safe and considering the pending charges that would be hard. He also said that the daughter was the "star witness" even against her own parents and that Police would not approve her return home until the Court matter was dealt with. The husband asked how long would that take? Depends, said the lawyer. Whether they decided to plead Guilty ot Not Guilty to the charges. Guilty! The father couldn't believe his ears. He wasn't guilty of anything. It was just normal domestic discipline and according to that Act (which the father had read the night before) the father could get away with even striking the daughter provided it was deemed "reasonable". Yes, said the lawyer but that means a trial by jury, and then the jury has to agree with you. And of course there are the legal costs. How much? asked the father. A minimum trial could run to $30,000 or $40,000. How long? Well a trial could take at least 1 year maybe 2 before it starts. And the parents probably wouldn't get the daughter back before then. The father then asked the lawyer whether his daughter's evidence in Court could work in his favor. He reasoned that if he could get the chance to talk with his daughter, and when he explained everything to her, the complaint would be withdrawn. The lawyer quickly put paid to that hope. You see, he explained, it doesn't matter what the daughter says because they have it all on tape which they'll play to the Court. The only way out is for the daughter to say it was all lies, but you've both given statements about what happened--and its very risky asking a child to perjure herself.
The next day the father met with the Child Care worker who came to the house. She said hello to the husband and then spoke entirely with the wife before leaving.
Two weeks later at the subsequent court hearing, the father's lawyer explained to the Magistrate that the parents wanted their daughter home. The child care advocate then got to her feet and said that the Department opposed such a move, they said the child was still indicating that she didn't want to return home that there were "issues of other abuse" in the home that were of concern and then she handed forth a report which was tabled, with a copy given to the Parents lawyer. At that the Magistrate adjourned matters for another 2 weeks.
Outside the father looked at the report that the Child Care worker had prepared following the meeting at their house about 12 days earlier. And he couldn't believe what he was reading. In it the Care worker stated in her opinion the home was not safe. She said she "knew and have spoken" with the mother and "knew and have spoken" with the father. What! The husband couldn't believe what he read. The care worker obviously knew who he was, and had said hello, but had not actually interviewed him. The report then went on to explain that she had interviewed the daughter and there were concerns about "significant psychological and emotional abuse" in the home, and that it was uncertain whether the father was a drug user! Again the father couldn't believe it. He remembered discussing with his daughter the perils of drug use, even marijuana. However he did tell her that he'd smoked it a couple of times at parties while he was at University as a young man and that it was awful.
At the next Court hearing another meeting was arranged with the family, a "family consultation" where the daughter would be brought to the meeting where everyone could discuss the situation. This time the next Court hearing was set aside for 4 weeks. In a meeting room outside the Court one of the Care workers presented a piece of paper asking whether they could sign it. The father read the paper which stated that the Parents willingly gave the Department permission to continue the care of their daughter until the next Court date. The father refused to sign.
At the arranged meeting everyone was there. Four members from the Child Care Department. Both Parents were there with their lawyer. But the daughter wasn't there. The father couldn't believe it. This was what the whole meeting was supposed to be about. To meet with his daughter face to face. The Parents lawyer then asked the spokesperson for the other 4 where the daughter was. "She couldn't make it," came the reply. "She's on a school camp". At that stage another meeting was arranged when the daughter would be brought forward, they said. Another 2 weeks. All up that meant his daughter would have been away now for two months. At the next scheduled meeting the daughter still wasn't there. When the father asked why he was told "she doesn't feel safe". Well why didn't you bring her her by force, he yelled at them. " My God"! he yelled." There are 6 adults sitting around this table being dictated to do by a child"!
At the next Court hearing the Department woman told the Magistrate that matters were still not resolved and that they wanted to appoint the girl her own lawyer, to represent the girl in meetings from that point. The magistrate agreed and adjourned the Court hearing for another 4 weeks.
At this point the father was suspicious, despite all the Court appearances the Magistrate had never asked him directly what his opinion was. It was all about adjournments and meeting with Department officials which amounted to nothing. Later on he wondered why the Department could lodge a report with the Magistrate and why his lawyer hadn't been asked to lodge a report. He spoke to his lawyer who indicated they could lodge a report but the Magistrate hadn't asked for one and preparing one might antagonise the situation. On hearing this the husband thought about it, and wondered why his lawyer went politely along with the court scene, addressing everybody politely and giving the Magistrate no indication of the inner turmoil that he and his wife were going through. The lawyer should be screaming from the rooftop that the parents should have rights, he thought. The next day he rang the lawyer and sacked him. From now on the Court would have to deal with him direct.
Later that week he met another father who was in the waiting area of the Department. In this man's situation, he had separated from his wife, and was only allowed to see his children once a month on a "supervised visit" when the children would be brought to the downtown office. The man explained to the father that it was in the financial interests of everyone to keep the child in care. The child became another funding statistic for the Department to justify their jobs. Everyone was making money out of it and the child generally enjoyed it. The foster carers, sometimes with 3 or more children in their care, were earning a reasonable income each week. And then there were the Court appointed lawyers, all on their $200 hourly rates getting paid by the Government. Every adjournment means another payday in Court. Then there's the children themselves. "They love it", the man explained. Adults are at their beck and call and they're treated like rock stars. Each day after school someone would pick them up in a car and drive them home. They get driven to school. On weekends they were driven to places to be entertained. The man said it was in the schools that the children were virtually encouraged to rebel against their own parents by special speakers brought in to instruct the children. They would learn from other children in foster care about their new gravy-train life. Some children felt immortal, completely unaccountable, and wanted to experiment with these powers to break up the boredom. Then finally there was the Police. They had tapped into a 'goldmine' of extra assault statistics, many simple family squabbles, to help justify the vast Police empire needed because of the high 'crime levels'.
The father thought carefully about this then realised that the Department was in a no win situation. Damned if they acted; damned if they didn't. However he suspected that the males were all treated suspiciously, especially if the children were obnoxious and hostile. He also suspected that the rare tragic cases of abuse were used as a pre-text to easily assume the worst in all other cases, take the reported actions out of context, and deny Parents rights in practice (weeks/months of adjournments, meetings/hearings) while in theory (the Law) rights were protected (eventually).
Later that week the father returned home from the city. As he entered the house his wife said that his daughter had telephoned home. It was her first contact. She said she would call again later that night.
Later that night she called and the wife handed over the phone. The father couldn't believe it. The daughter had done a complete about face and sounded like the daughter she used to be about two years ago. She said she wanted to come home. She told her father that she was sorry. She said that she'd told the Policewoman everything on the night because she was angry and that the Policewoman told her to simply "tell the truth". "She said by telling the truth it would help everyone, " the daughter said. She then went on to tell her father that it was good where she was staying. "They've got a swimming pool!" she exclaimed. Her father said that was nice. He then told her she had nothing to worry about, that everybody loved her, and when she was ready to return home she could. He said it sounded like she was having a "good holiday" there and she might as well enjoy it.
The next day another Child Care worker arrived--again with a piece of paper to sign giving the Department permission to keep the daughter. Again the parents refused. At that the Care worker said that it might help to arrange access visits and to "get things moving" otherwise everybody had to keep going back and forward to Court. The father said he still wouldn't sign. About a week later he returned home to find his daughter in the lounge sitting talking to her mother, with a Care worker sitting in an opposite chair. The father said it was nice to see his daughter home. The care worker said that the Department had decided to arrange "supervised" weekly visits. The father couldn't attend the next Court hearing, so his wife went. That evening his wife told him she's signed a consent form for the Department to keep the daughter for 12 months, at which time a review would be undertaken.. "What's the point of fighting them?'" she said. "If she doesn't want to come home we can't force her. And we can't force the Court". The wife said they were both sick of going backwards and forward to Court for adjournments and more "meetings".
The daughter came for the next visit and was looking glum. On speaking with the Care worker he discovered that the Department had moved the daugther out of the house where she had been staying and into another house, where she wasn't as happy. The first foster family had gone for an overseas holiday, with their 15 YEAR OLD SON! On hearing this it twigged. His daughter probably had a crush on this boy. The following week his daughter telephoned him from the new foster house. She said that this time she "really" wanted to go home but the Department care worker and her new foster carer said she couldn't, that there was a Court order and that it might lead to her father getting into more trouble. The daughter then asked her father whether she had got him into trouble. The father said that she hadn't. The daughter then told the father that she had to pretend that she wanted to stay in foster care because she was scared that they might not bring her for any weekly visits. The father then had an idea, but he didn't want to communicate the idea to his daughter in case they were listening on another phone in the house. He just said. "Is somebody else listening to our conversation?" He heard her daughter pause. "I don't know," she said. He then added."Look its best you stay in foster care. Help keep me out of trouble. Touche?" The father used the word "touche" . He hoped she'd remember it from a board game they used to play. When one player trapped the other player following a devious move, which would score the maximum points, they would declare "touche!". His daughter paused again and then replied: "touche."
After the phone conversation he thought back to what the other father had told him. He said it didn't matter what actions the Courts made, or recommendations of the Department case managers. The power rested solely with the children. They couldn't get away with anything unless the children were complicit. They had to have the children onside because their actions could backfire dramatically if the children were angry. The father then thought of a way to reverse this Alice in Wonderland logic back onto the System itself.
The children had the power. Now the father knew the game and knew exactly what to do.
At the next supervised visit, the father told his wife the plan. His daughter would refuse to budge from the chair. Yet the wife was to pretend by telling the daughter that she had to go. The wife would even pretend to try and grab her daughter's arm to get her out of the chair. He then went over to the younger 12 year old sister and explained the plan to her. She was to tell her sister to stay in the chair and not move, no matter what, that no-one could legally touch her, not the Care worker or even the Police who might come. That no-one could force her to leave. Luckily everyone in the house could speak Esperanto, it was a little secret language that his daughter demanded to learn after hearing him speak it with his friends.
As soon as the daughter arrived the younger sister rushed up to her and enthusiastically babbled away in Esperanto. The older daughter looked at her father and nodded. Then she went out to play with her younger sister while the father offered thr Care worker a cup-of-tea and biscuits. For the next hour they sat and talked about general things, and life in Canada where the Department worker came from. After an hour the Care worker looked at her watch and then mentioned to the daughter that it was time to leave. At that the daughter sat in a chair opposite in the lounge: "I'm sorry, but I'm not going." Then it started. The Care worker spoke passionately to the girl about why they had to go. She even said she would arrange a special meeting so she could arrange to come home. Maybe even tomorrow. At that cue the father joined in and said: "Look there are many complicated things to consider. It's best you go now and we'll get it sorted tomorrow" He quickly glanced at the Care worker to make sure she wasn't looking, then winked at his daughter. She was onto the game. "Sorry, " she said, "I'm not moving." At that the Department Care woker telephoned her superiors and explained the situation. She even handed the phone to the daughter who spoke and again repeated that she didn't want to go anywhere, that it didn't matter what the other person was saying, she didn't care, and wasn't going to budge. She handed the phone back to the Care worker who spoke some more then declared: "Look if you don't come then I'll have to call the Police," At that the father looked over to his wife and winked. On cue she approached her daughter and tried to grab her daughter's arm, which she quickly pulled away: "You have to go. Do you want to get your father into more trouble" The father noticed the Department worker was looking away from him, so he winked at his daughter again. At that he made another round of tea while everyone waited for the Police to arrive.
When the Police arrived two cars pulled up at the front. Four Police officers. Two Policewomen and two male Police officers, all in uniform and all armed. One of the Policewomen spoke at length with the Department worker on the porch while the other 3 milled on the lawn. After hearing of the situation the Policewoman went inside nodded to the father and his wife and approached the daughter sitting in the chair: "Look," the Policewoman said "It's not helping what you're doing. You have to go because there's a Court order, and you're only making things a lot, lot, worse.." At that the Policewoman glanced over at the father. "That's right" , he said. "Now will you come with me. The Policewoman stood up. The daughter looked up: "Sorry. I want to stay home. This is my home." At that the Policewoman went outside and spoke to the other Police officers, then she returned again. "Look," she said. "I don't want you to be scared about anything because I'm not going to touch you." Those were the words the father wanted to hear...."I'm not going to touch you".....but I just want to talk to you, just for a second, on the porch". At that the daughter quickly glanced at her father. He quickly shook his head to indicate: No. The daughter looked back at the Policewoman and shook her head: No. At that the exasperated Policewoman stood up and motioned to the Department worker to come outside. The father could see the two in animated conversation. He could also see the Department worker on the phone again. After about 10 minutes they re-entered the lounge. The Department worker then said: "A decision's been made that the girl can stay here tonight until we have the meeting tomorrow"....then she glanced at the father....."but one of the conditions of this special privilege is that you will not be able to remain in the house, just for tonight, " she said looking at the father. "No problems," the father said. "If it will smooth everything out." At that the policewoman explained that the Department woman would write out a small note to that effect, which he would sign, and then he would have to leave his own house, for one night only. At that the police officers left, while the woman was busily writing out the page, like a small ad-hoc contract, which the father signed. At that the Department worker walked to her car, the father escorted her out. As the female was about to get into her car she looked at the father. "Next time we'll be able to force her out, " she hissed. "We'll get a different Court order" The father didn't say anything. He just nodded and waved her off politely.
The next day he returned home in the morning. They were expecting a phone call about the meeting they were supposed to be having. Instead a car pulled up, about lunchtime, and a different woman came to the door. She said that she was from the Department and that there would be no meeting. Instead there would be another Court hearing in 2 weeks time and that the daughter could stay home until then.
About a week later they received another letter in the mail. The letter announced in a brief sentence that the "Department will not be pursing the Application". It was all over.
With the daughter home the father could now focus on the criminal charges still facing himself and his wife. Both parents had entered pleas of Not Guilty and were on bail awaiting the next step which was a pre-trial hearing known as a Committal. The Committal's were like a dry run before a trial where a Magistrate was supposed to test whether the Prosecution had enough evidence for a potential conviction. That's the theory, but in reality the Magistrates sit through everything and no matter how flimsy the case they simply pass-the-buck and let it proceed to a full blown trial. The only benefit to a Committal was that the defence was allowed to see beforehand what the Prosecution had in the way of evidence, and the lawyers can double dip by getting paid again by repeating what they've already done. What the Prosecution had in the way of evidence was known as the Police Brief. And this is what the husband's lawyer eventually was given. However when the Police Brief arrived it contained everything, all the witness statements, and a transcript of everything his daughter had told the Policewoman on the night at the Hospital. The brief contained everything except one important item. It was missing the Medical Report from the Hospital. For the next three months, in 3 separate bail renewal hearings the husband's lawyer told the Magistrate they would need another adjournment because they were waiting for the Police to send the Medical Report about the alleged "injuries" of the child. Each time the Court's Police Prosecutor would look at the papers in front of him and say the report would be sent. In the meantime the Father instructed his lawyer to ask the Police if they would accept a lower level plea for "Common Assault". If the Police were prepared to downgrade the assault charges to ones of Common Assault, then both parents would plead guilty. Common Assaults were usually just warnings delivered by the Courts with "no convictions recorded" as an important technicality. Their lawyer said getting the Police to reduce assault charges to the lowly Common Assault was like "going for gold" but he would try. Two weeks later the Police contacted the lawyer and refused. They indicated that the charges were of "too serious nature" to be reduced. At the next bail hearing the Police still hadn't produced the Medical Report. At that point, the father who had done some legal research of his own, asked whether it was possible to use the Court to subpoena the Police. The lawyer said it was. This exasperated the father who was wondering why he had bring it up instead of being advised by his lawyer. It was as if he had to become a lawyer himself to double check everything. Anyway he'd already sacked the first lawyer, and the case was close to conclusion, so he just humored his lawyer who indicated that it was really the Police's fault. When the report finally arrived it changed everything. In it the examining doctor said although the daughter was emotionally distressed there were no physical injuries of any description, or sign of physical trauma. At that the father asked the lawyer to contact the Police prosecutions office to try again using the medical report as a leverage.
Two weeks later the lawyer telephoned to say the Police agreed.
In Court two weeks later the husband and wife both fronted the Magistrate and pleaded guilty to Common Assault. Their lawyer explained to the Magistrate that it involved a domestic dispute, that the daughter was happily living at home, and that the Parents had no prior criminal convictions. He asked that the Magistrate place them on a Good Behavior Bond and in this instance "that no conviction be recorded." The Magistrate agreed. With no conviction recorded the father was able to get his Drivers' Authority returned and life 6 months later returned to normal.
Writer's note: In this story the family male learnt just how irrelevant
and potentially dangerous his role was in imposing domestic discipline
in his own house. He learnt that in the Child Safety system, the
children call the shots. In the example above he learned that in the
Courtroom the Magistrate was not even interested in either bringing
the daughter into Court, or hearing any explanations from the
Parents. The Magistrate did however receive a copy of a report full of
allegations against the Parents from the Department. In the report
the Department communicated the selfish will of the Child and the
Magistrate acted in accordance with that will. The Parents learned to
be suspicious of their own lawyer who was calmly going along with
adjournment followed by adjournment. The family learned that they
couldn't trust the Police. When the daughter was told to "tell the truth"
it would help everyone, it only helped Police to get the evidence they
needed to convict the Parents using their own immature under-age
daughter. In the end the horror ended for the family when they
recognised that the true power source was the Child. They then
cleverly turned that power back onto the Department, which quickly
gave up control and stepped away, despite so called impregnable
Court orders.
Following on from this and what I alluded into the Intro, the above
story should show why its critical that Parents/Guardians be given
a form of legal immunity for low-medium level transgressions within
the Family unit to stop any cannibalising by the State. Its good enough
for Politicians to have their immunities in Parliament. It should be just
as important for Parents to have immunities in their Families.
STORY 2.
In this story my male 'hero' hasn't got any precocious children ready to be ensnared by the Police and Child "Abuse Industries".... Instead he is an older happy male with a strong healthy family, loving and loyal wife, sensible (adult) children. Not only that he is a successful businessman, who employs about 50 people in a small light engineering business. All is going perfectly well for this gentlemanly humble "silver-fox" grandfather until......the Power of the Pussy gets him at work.
In this example we have a 60-year-old male who has successfully continued a light engineering business that began with his grand father in the 1920s, originally manufacturing the old push-blade lawn mowers and tin-blade water pumping windmills, seen on many Australian farms from the 1930s to 1960s. The old lawn mowers were used on those beautifully manicured suburban lawns of the 1950s. These days the business manufactures camper trailers, trailers and trailer equipment.
Modern day businesses need Internet web exposure these and a whole new arsenal of marketing strategies. In the world of trailers, businesses market to the travel industry, recreational fishing and home handyman. Sometimes businesses employ an "advetorial journalist", or a PR (Public Relations) assistant, to work alongside the advertising and sales team. This particular business used a lot of radio promotions and advertising voice over work. The "signature" voice of the business was a "bubbly" sounding female staff member, something that the grey nomads, particularly family conscious grandmothers, might like to hear on those regional radio channels as they slowly wound their way around the country.
It was with all this in mind that the Sales/Marketing manager had decided to employ a so-called "journalism graduate" specialising in Public Relations which was a palatable way of saying "propaganda," A very attractive, bright and bubbly 22-year-old female that everyone liked who became the "signature voice." As well she was able to dash off good advertorial copy on the keyboard. She sounded great on the radio and sales had been going up marginally since she came on board. It made the old man feel proud that business was going well and that he was able to provide a platform for young people, like this girl, to earn a good honest income, to have a "future".
One day as he pulled into the car park about lunchtime he noticed the girl on the lawn, wearing a tracksuit, doing a series of strange looking exercises which he later found out was called Tai Chi. She told him it had to be performed outside to draw in the energy from nature and that he should join in one day. He laughed. He told her he's not even game to pick things up off the ground in case he falls over.
On another occasion he went past her office and she was involved with old Mary, his dependable receptionist and a grandparent herself. The young PR girl was massaging Mary's neck. He Mary was sitting up straight backed with her eyes closed. The girl explained that she was undertaking hobby training as a masseuse and that they were learning about the neck's pressure points. At that old Mary said: "It definitely does something. Then somehow they both coerced the old man into sitting in the chair, just for a sec, to try for himself...and it felt great. Like a rusty old muscle that was finally given a fresh infusion of blood, which at the outset hurt a little then had a positive ache. The next time he got one of those "stroke headaches" as he liked to call them, he would try this out.
Well a couple of days later he got one of those headaches, and with old Mary watching he called in the young girl and explained his torment and asked if he could experiment to see if the pressure point massage helped.
Turned out the massage helped considerably with the headache. From that time on the girl would sometimes bounce into his office, and say "time out"..."my job is to make everybody happy." Then she would jump behind his chair, still standing, and give him a quick 5-minute neck massage. In fact you couldn't call it pleasure because sometimes it would hurt a little, especially on those pressure points. Still the old man didn't see anything wrong. After all he wasn't touching her and everybody was fully dressed and he'd seen those people at the weekend markets getting massages of all types, in view of everyone, by the Chinese.
He noticed that the girl was very playful during those neck massages. She told him that her girlfriends asked her what her boss was like: "I tell them you're my sugar daddy," she laughed. "At least until I can find a husband. Do you know anybody who wants to get married?" He replied: "I do....but are you interested in a same sex marriage with a 50-year-old?" They both laughed.
He decided to play along with the '"sugar daddy" tag. In fact he used to joke about it with his younger brother the trendy middle-aged squash playing physiotherapist and serial husband, now coping with his 3rd wife. He knew that his younger brother would regard him as the complete anti-Sugar Daddy, which gave him a certain satisfaction to bring it up. In fact as a "joke" he sent her off a text one day..."Keep up the good work....Sugar Daddy!" Back came the reply... "Ha Ha". And from that day the girl would sometimes text him as "Sugar Daddy". He didn't mind.
The young female had been with the company for about 8 months, then one day didn't appear at work. The Sales/Marketing manager rang her home and she told him that she was quitting immediately and didn't intend serving a notice period because she hadn't been with the company long enough. Then she hung up. When the Sales/Marketing manager tried to call back the phone was on a busy tone. The next day he received a text message from her asking him to forward outstanding wages into a bank account number. When he tried to call back, again no answer.
Everything then when quiet for a couple of weeks. Everyone, including the old man himself, were slightly shocked about the girl's departure. The old man had even written a kindly letter indicating that there was always a job for her at the company, and if she was in any trouble, that he may be able to help.
It was about 2 months later that the 'bomb' arrived in the mail. It was a letter from an employment and industrial relations law firm. On reading the letter's contents the owners eyes widened and his pulse quickened. The law firm said it was acting for the girl in an intended action against the company. The letter mentioned the Sex Discrimination Act, 1984; the Anti-Discrimination Act, 1991; the Australian Human Rights Commission Act, 1996 and the Fair Work Act, 2009. The letter said that applications of "sexual harassment" had been lodged with the relevant authorities and within those allegations were claims of "sexual harassment" by the company's 60-year-old owner, and the 38-year-old Sales/Marketing Manager against the girl on a persistent basis during her short 8-month tenure. The letter claimed persistent text message "harassment and innuendo" by the 60-year-old owner. That the owner had demanded demeaning physical sexual type services from the girl (i.e the neck massages) and that during these private sessions in his office the owner had intimidated the girl by asking explicit questions about her sex life. These questions included whether she had a boyfriend, and whether they had sex, whether she thought it was right to wait until they got married before having sex. The owner had also asked whether she had anal sex with her boyfriend, and that the owner said he'd like to try it but not with his wife, but a prostitute. The owner had also allegedly asked the girl to bring some of her spare "sexy" clothes to work so he could lock the office door, after work and they "could play dress-ups."
The letter then went on to catalogue the allegations against the Sales/Manager. In these it was alleged she was forced to consent to sex to keep her job. Not only that the Sales/Manager would ask the girl into his office, close the door, and ask her to fondle his penis. Even after-hours he would be allegedly bombarding her with "I Love You" text messages.
That evening the company owner and the Sales Manager sat down together at the local pub, over a counter meal. The two of them. The owner showed the Sales Manager the letter. "I think we're in the shit." he said.
The Sales/Marketing manager read the letter then looked very sheepish. He'd been with the company for 12 years, with a solid sales and work ethic. He'd arrived at the company not long after his divorce and was considered a loner after hours, a motorcycle enthusiast and cricket tragic. He still supported two children from his first marriage.
"I thought she loved me." he said. Not quite what the old owner was expecting to hear. The Sales/Marketing manager then relayed the whole story. Apparently it started with "the girl" (i.e woman) turning up at his door one night in the early days, to check over her advertorial draft. A secret relationship had then started.
The old man looked at the letter again. "This bit about the office fondling?" The Sales/Manager looked into the distance and nodded. The old man sat back and sighed. He knew about these things. After all it was his first secretary that used come into his office, and lock the door behind her. She had been his wife now for the past 35 years.
The next day the old man got into contact with another law firm, on the other side of town. Some firm that he hadn't worked with before. Within 2 weeks a mediation meeting between the two parties was arranged, according to the step-by step procedures outlined in the Act.
At that mediation meeting the girl was wearing dark sunglasses and the old man couldn't make eye contact with her. He didn't know whether she was looking at him or not which was disconcerting. Her lawyer did all the talking. She just nodded or said yes at the required times.
At the meeting her lawyer said that they were pursuing their avenues through the Court system and were considering engaging a public relations firm to inform the media about the process, The lawyer cited quotations from relevant sex-discrimination and human rights commissioners about the plague of sexual harassment in Australian workplaces; that 1 in 4 women will be sexually harassed but only 16pc go forward with a formal complaint. Making a complaint like this one was "a big step forward for women", he said. And by alerting the media it might give others to strength to come forward like the girl had done. She was one of the brave ones and soon as it was all over the "healing" could begin.
There was also another matter of $10million that they would be seeking in compensation from the company through the Courts. Ten Million! Obviously that was part of the "healing", the old man thought. At that the meeting ended. So much for the mediation.
The next day in his lawyers office the old man laughed it off. Ten million! She's dreaming. Besides she couldn't prove a thing. The old man wasn't going to put up with this. He'd fight it out for years in the Courts if he had to--or at least string it out for a couple. Might offer her twenty grand.
The lawyer then asked if the neck massages in his office were true. They were. He then asked if he'd ever sent a text with "Sugar Daddy" in it. He did. The lawyer then asked the Sales/Marketing manager whether he'd sent a text with "I Love You" to the girl. He had. Had he pulled his penis out in the office? No comment.
The lawyer then explained a similar high profile case involving a young female working for the boss of a major Australian retailer. In her claim she asked for $38million, but had come to an out of court arrangement for $850,000. In another case there was a payout of nearly $1million from a computer conglomerate. The lawyer said he could point the men to files where matters had already been settled out of Court in Australia involving "millions of dollars." Women in such cases, were entitled to claim for punitive damages as well as compensation.
The old man then reiterated that the girl couldn't prove anything. The lawyer then said that she didn't have to. In fact the accused had to prove that they were in fact not guilty. These were the new game rules introduced in 2009 with the Fair Work Act. The Act reversed the "onus of proof". "Prior to the Fair Work Act, accusers would have to prove their allegations to an organisation such as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Now legally, and I quote....'it is presumed in proceedings....that the action was being taken.' The lawyer also pointed out that the company was liable for the actions of the Sales/Marketing manager "whether or not you were aware of those actions."
There was some stony silence then the lawyer added: "Employers have to pay go-away money because the cases are almost impossible to win, "
And as far as dragging it out for years be their guest. Her lawyers will be funded by the Government and they'll quite happily keep it rolling along. Meanwhile you pay out of your own pocket. And if you lose at the end of it all you pay the Government's legal costs as well.
The old man could see $10 million disappearing quickly. "What about the $10million," he asked.
"That's just a ruse to make the sure the story makes the newspapers. You put a big figure like 10, 20, or 30 million in and the readers gravitate to it thinking....geez how do you get $10million. She's using the media to blackmail you. She wants a few hundred grand to settle. I'll find out how much and we can work from there.
The next day the lawyer phoned. "As I thought. They want $250,000, " the lawyer said.
"Offer them $100,000 or I'll fight it out for a year. I'd rather give the lawyers $2.5 million than give her $250,000.
"Okay, get back to you," the lawyer said.
The old man hadn't told his wife but that night in a more relaxed state it started to dawn on him about the media threat. All that stuff would probably come out. Those scum reporters, who don't have the ability to earn any real money for themselves, serve up the blood and revenge for all the other losers reading the daily bullshit. It would all be there. The bit about the anal sex which was a complete evil lie along with the bit about "dress ups". The old man thought of his grand daughters. He cringed. And what about the "dress ups"? He knew his friends and business contacts would understand that he was the victim....yet.....some of those bastards would now see him as a laughing stock. The old man dressing up in fishnets! It would be too much for some at the Lions club, where he was the current past-president. Then that stupid Sales/Marketing manager! Why is he liable for all that? Then the old man realised that the man had been a very loyal and profitable servant. And there were other innocent children to protect from schoolyard teasing apart from his own grand daughters. This man had children too.
The next day the lawyer called. He had bad news. They still wanted the $250,000.
"Okay settle it for the $250,000," the old man said.
Writer's note:
The German playwright, Bertolt Brecht, gave a good example of all of this sort of State fascist power against a victim group. In his 1930 play 'The Exception and the Rule' a rich merchant travelling with his employee, a porter, (a "coolie", as they were called) gets paraniod during a desert crossing and mistakenly shoots and kills the porter. The judge later acquits the merchant and concludes that the merchant had every right to feel a potential threat from the porter and was justified in killing him in self defense whether or not there was an actual threat; feeling threatened was enough.
The play was Brecht's attempt to show class differences, i.e that the working class are considered a second class human and are exploited in favor of the wealthy, or first class humans.
The modern male today has become like Brecht's second class "coolie", exploited and with lower rights in competition with the first class wealthy (i.e. today's modern females). The irrelevant modern male.
The new nugatory male.
Within operating Capitalist systems you get the reptilian behavior that the feminists blame males for. But it's not the males. It's the Rich. The Rich don't share. There's no trickle down and left to run things themselves, the Rich make things so much worse. They just make it legal to extort more out of us. Capitalists systems are basically collections of Private Property ownership, land, capital and intellectual property. These are the systems where non-living inorganic commercial entities (i.e companies) can take the legal responsibility for their owners immoral (I.e human) decisions. Being rich has not been the exclusive domain of the male. Real rich women of inherited wealth have always been around (Ch 6). And these rich females have been just as selfish as the owner males in maintaining their privileged and lavish lifestyles. Rich Governments, with their rich private landowners pulling the strings have been ripping off the people for Centuries. And before the Poor get wise and rise up against them the Rich get wise and start a war. They get the ripped off poor to kill each other. And its easy to whip up violence and action in males suffering from LMS, particularly destructive LMS. (Fig 5)
Fig 5. ALLEGORY OF PEACE AND WAR, Peter Paul Rubens (1629). National Gallery, London.
The armed Roman goddess Minerva protects Peace from Mars by pushing the God
of war away from a peaceful scene of plenty toward the fury Alecto, whose fire
spitting nature symbolizes wars destruction. Naked Peace in the centre feeds Plutus,
God of Wealth.
A satyr offers a cornucopia to two girls, one of whom is being crowned by Hyma, God
of Marriage. The two female figures represent prosperity and the arts. All flourish
under peace.
The Rich owners of the "opposing" countries collude. Look at the First World War. The leaders on the so-called opposing 'teams' were all related to each other. One big happy family. And the people still haven't twigged. No-one can clearly and simply tell you what the First World War was about. A conspiracy to cull the excess Drone males? A neo-Crusade? Some old fashioned Colonialism? Who were the patsies and agents provocateurs? Most importantly who and which organisations made the most money out of it? What was the international money trail?
Let me now recklessly attack the notion of 'equal pay'.
In terms of equal pay for equal work a radical social scientist might argue that it was right for males to receive, for example, "double pay". In fact some might argue that equal pay is in fact unequal for the males because females enjoy a higher Utility value of existence (i.e. Motherhood, sex power etc ) than males. Therefore in terms of an "equitable" Social Exchange (a term sociologists like to use) between sexes, variables that can help equalise the Utility values between the two should be explored. And one of those ways is to pay men more than women. Alternatively if there is equal pay should there be a legal discrimination imposed that individuals with children to support are hired first, and sacked last? All for the Public Interest? (I could rave on for pages about this. However I'll stop. This booklet is about The Power of the Pussy. Equal pay is another essay, a large one. Maybe next year.