A video at mountsiyeh.substack.com entitled “TV Commercials and Gender” referred to your article “Anti-Male Media Bias.” As a result, I checked out your article and your website. Both your article and the video are great, and both together are fantastic. Check out the video and see how it complements and reinforces your article. They both make strong statements about how men are abused and ignored. Keep up the good work.

Does not look current and or updated. This looks like more of a testimonial blog site. I’m sure there are plenty of people here that have serious issues as I do but after almost 3 years and plenty of abuse in many ways not only on to myself as a single father but my kiddo too. I have seen how the system works and unfortunately can’t rely on it. Try real problems. Loss of family, periods of loss of time with my child, upwards of 40,000 in financial loss, severe emotional distress, a period of actual homelessness. That mainly focuses on me, when the unfortunate ultimate victim is my poor sweet little boy. I beg for any response here. I’m at the point now that on windy days, I literally toss brief notes of my distress and call for help into the wind. Like a message in a bottle, In ways it may have been easier in some prison.

Divorce Kidnapping & Larceny:

Brinkmanship & Sexual Warfare

By: Gene Ponder

In 2023, men remain socially and legally expected to become providers, protectors, and partners in marriage. However, the American legal system dispossesses all these expectations from men when a woman files for divorce. Men are systematically robbed of their dignity, children, and finances by a neutral partisan who possess no direct knowledge nor responsibility for their larcenous legal decisions. For men, American divorce procedures have evolved into nothing more than a form of legalized subjugation; so, why should men continue to engage into marriage only to be bilked by a corrupt and gender biased legal system of one-sided justice? Statistically, women file for divorce 69% of the time expecting the judicial system to play robber-baron on their behalf. Divorce has become nothing more than a corrupt chauvinistic business deal for lawyers, mediators, and estranged women.

As a married man of thirty years, my wife unexpectedly filed for divorce claiming that I was physically, emotionally, and psychologically abusive; she further claimed we suddenly had incompatible political and religious beliefs. Straight out of any lawyer’s playbook was her complaint and rationale to kidnap my twelve-year old son, deny visitation rights, threaten to confiscate half of my retirement, incarcerate me, and then punish me with child support payments. I was shocked, angered, and emphatically unwilling to lose her game of divorce brinkmanship. My ex-wife, with the irrational advice of her lawyer, expected the status quo of accepted subjugation to take place on my behalf. I refused to be defamed, misrepresented, threatened, robbed, and punished into a life of financial subjugation and part-time parenting. Furthermore, I would not allow myself to become another male victim of false allegations, deceit, lies, greed, and personal vendettas. Although I did not desire to play her game of divorce brinkmanship, I immediately decided I had no other choice regardless of the short- and long-term consequences of my reactions. I was prepared to lose everything than to become indentured by a corrupt legal system of anti-male prejudice.

Far too often throughout America’s courtrooms, mediators and judges continue rendering unjust divorce, custody, and asset decisions based upon antiquated and chauvinistic doctrines that women remain the weaker sex. Furthermore, women are assumed to be the best parent for the child while men are suddenly reduced to the status of unfit and feckless parents. No father desires to become a part-time parent while being held financially responsible to care for their child. No husband desires to share the fruits of his labor with a partner that violated the covenant vow of “until death do us part.” The iconic judicial concept that “justice is blind” becomes lessened to nothing more than bovine scatology in a divorce/custody case. Divorce is ugly, but divorce, with legal and irrational gender biases towards one sex or the other, becomes an unfortunate act of brinkmanship for all parties involved including our adolescent children.

As it stands today, women remain the majority gender group in America. Since the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, women have and continue to obtain de jure privileges under various acts of legislation and bureaucratic directives designed to create an unequal playing filed for men in the marketplaces of education, employment, and matrimony. The American jurisprudent concept of equality under the law has become nothing more than a lawless oligarchy of privilege providers justified by an archaic system of overt gender bias. Today’s proponents of marriage claim that divorce rates in America are down by 12%, however, they fail to quote that marriage rates are also down by a whopping 60% margin. The modern American male seems to have awakened from his slumber acknowledging the lifelong financial implications and parenting pitfalls of divorce, whereas now, he is choosing to renounce the most gender biased institution remining within the American legal system, marriage. The best and most simplistic way to avoid being robbed in a divorce settlement is to avoid marriage altogether. Statistics speak for themselves; women are effectively utilizing a biased and corrupt legal system to punish and indenture their ex-husbands while they continue enjoying the fruits of someone else’s labor, ingenuity, and financial investments.

Should the act of adultery or alcoholism be grounds for divorce? Should abandonment of the household finances and child-rearing responsibilities be grounds for divorce? Is it justified to divorce when a partner consistently withholds intimate relationships from their spouse or decides that sex is no longer an important part of the relationship? Could hidden financial debts and misappropriations of money garner a rational reason to divorce ones’ spouse? Should decades of secrets regarding lesbianism and imprudent lovers be grounds for divorce? For thirty-years of my marriage, I accepted the fact that my wife had convoluted ethical issues that were worth accepting if we remained together as husband and wife. I would be a liar if I stated that I did not think about nor threaten divorce from time to time, but I never executed the act of divorce for all her personal shortcomings and improprieties. I accepted my wife for whom she was praying that she would one day overcome her limitations. I too am flawed; my wife and I had contrasting views on the disciplining of our children, political issues, religious beliefs, and the frequency of sexual intimacy. However, the love I had for my wife and family far outweighed any justification for the termination of my marriage. Marriage was the most difficult undertaking I had ever encountered, but her filing for divorce multiplied that difficulty tenfold. The loss of my child multiplied the difficulty of divorce another thousandfold. A man can only take so much injustice before he either runs, surrenders, or fights. Given the unfortunate set of circumstances at play with her vindicative lawyer and a judicially gender biased court, I decided to fight. Afterall, losing my wife, family, child, home, savings, investments, and future income left me with no other rational choice but to win or lose my entire identity in the process. As I pondered my wife’s moral standards prior to our marriage, I should have paid closer attention to the red flags waiving; the decision to selfishly dispose of her first-born child for lack of correctly identifying the innumerable potential fathers should have been warning enough to prevent my lust from becoming enduring love and pious devotion.

Have you ever had someone threaten to “destroy you,” “make you pay,” or “get you?” My ex-wife’s attorney made these statements to herself and my own legal counsel. She parroted these comments to our eldest children claiming her attorney stated that I had “short-man syndrome,” and that he would “make me pay” for what I had done to his son some years earlier. His son, Trevor, was a mediocre third string goalkeeper on my high school varsity soccer team. I saw potential in Trevor until he was arrested in the front lobby of our school accused of selling and transporting illegal drugs on campus. Our school rule was that any athlete would be immediately suspended for one full year for any drug or alcohol violations; Trevor was removed from the soccer team. My estranged wife’s attorney candidly stated he had a “personal axe to grind with me.” I unsuccessfully requested that he be forced by the court to recuse himself from the case based upon his personal prejudices and civil threats towards me and my family. In short, I was not only battling my wife, but I was battling a bitter legal counsel determined to utilize the judicial system against me regardless of whether it financially hurt me, my estranged wife, or our children in the process. For nothing more than personal revenge, her legal counsel purposefully filed ridiculous legal motions to have me arrested while attempting to eliminate all my visitation rights with our twelve-year-old son forcing me into paying exorbitant legal costs to defend myself. Two months later, my wife and her attorney withdrew each of their filed motions just minutes before our trial proving their combined efforts to harm my son and myself were at the very least insufficient and without merit but designed to do nothing more than punish me financially. How is this legal? Why do men continue allowing this type of corruption to take place? This grave injustice will not go unpunished. I would not be financially destroyed by a third-party mediator on account of a lawyer’s lies and an ex-spouse’s greed. The game of divorce brinkmanship being played against my children and myself was not a mere game of winners and losers; justice demanded that everybody involved was required to lose something equal to or of much greater value.

The first prosecutor, Bruce Castor, said there is absolutely no forensic evidence against Cosby. Castor said he wasn’t going to even charge Cosby because there is proof that Andrea Constand went around to Philadelphia lawyers asking how to do extortion questions long before Constand went to the police for the first time. Andrea Constand’s attorney, Dolores Troiani, gave Gloria Allred a sealed document containing Bill Cosby’s coerced statement. Gloria Allred did a cattle call for women who were willing to make accusations against Cosby. Allred works as their publicist, telling them what to say in interviews based on the statement given to her by Constand’s attorney. Most of the women came forward after Allred said Cosby should put together a fund of $100 million dollars for the women accusers. Indeed, many of the women worked with Allred making false accusations in other cases not related to Cosby. For example, Patricia Masden, worked with Gloria Allred in a rape case against Marv Albert ( a wealthy sportscaster). Like the Cosby case, there were many women making accusations, but the accused was Marv Albert. Masden said Marv Albert raped her. Masden is saying that Cosby raped her. Now Masden is under the alias of P J Masten and is saying that Don Cornelius “locked up and sexually assaulted 2 Playboy Bunnies.” The women who have come against Cosby have a trail of conspicuous lies and crimes. Kevin Steele campaigned to be elected prosecutor that he would send Cosby to jail. When Kevin Steele became the 2nd prosecutor, he noticed there was no proof whatsoever against Cosby. The initial vote was 11 to 1 in Cosby’s favor in the first trial. Only a die-hard feminist voted against him in that initial vote. The verdict was a mistrial. Steele knew that if he took the case to court he would not win. Steele decided to do prosecutorial misconduct using Bill Cosby’s statement. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court called Steele’s actions misconduct and threw out the decision against Cosby. The women accusers were left with showing proof for their accusations, which none of them have any. None of the women went to the police, told a friend or family member at the time of their alleged events. Yet, each of them is willing to go to publications, radio, and TV to tell anyone who will listen. Emmett Till was a case where a white woman lied about a 14 year black male child. Ed Bradley of the TV show 60 minutes interviewed witnesses to the murder of Till. It was shocking that not only did white men attack Till, a couple black men helped disfigure and kill Till. These men did it based on a lie of a white woman. W. Kamau Bell is participating in a huge injustice. Bell is like the white male hotel administrator asking the black male turn over his iPhone, because Miya Ponsetto was saying he stole it. The media supports misandry against black men. The media calls hiring only women diversity. When the Pennsylvania Supreme Court threw out the decision against Cosby, the media lied saying he was released on a technicality. The court was simply stating that the coerced Cosby statement couldn’t be used. The court said nothing about other proof. None of the dozens of women had proof. That is not a technicality. Due process involves both sides being critically evaluated. W. Kamau Bell is not being a comedian. He is being a fool, dumbbell.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf5NmkRT78o

Small but significant steps to take

A) Advertise Social Security title four gives states funds by collecting more child support. A financial conflict of interest and show how men only get child custody if they have no high income. Ask the politicians, republicans especially why they want the deadbeat dad issue to campaign on.

B) lobby to make it easier to change child support when a father has proof of being fired or laid off. He should be able to file a county govt form which is automatically processed within two weeks to lower the child support owed.

C) publicize boys jail percentage and dropout rates in single mother homes vs single father homes. Women legally driving fathers away hurts boys for life. Mothers love their sons but cripple their chance in life to get revenge on the father.

D) don’t circumcise your son, he could be sterilized, he will have sexual trauma, he will have PTSD.

Essentially the only progress is to promote how damaging these are to innocent boys.