Direct Link to Latest News


American Gulag -- Feminist Laws Persecute Men

February 5, 2010

familylaw.jpg"We shall regulate mechanically all the actions of the political life of our subjects by new laws."  Protocols of Zion- 5

by Stephen Baskerville Ph.D.

(Abridged by Henry Makow)

Men accused of rape today
enjoy few safeguards. "People can be charged with virtually no evidence," says Boston former sex-crimes prosecutor Rikki Klieman. "If a female comes in and says she was sexually assaulted, then on her word alone, with nothing else -- and I mean nothing else, no investigation -- the police will go out and arrest someone."

Almost daily we see men released after decades in prison because DNA testing proves they were wrongly convicted. Yet the rape industry is so powerful that proof of innocence is no protection.

"A defendant who can absolutely prove his innocence ... can nonetheless still be convicted, based solely on the word of the accuser," write Stuart Taylor and K.C. Johnson in Until Proven Innocent. In North Carolina, simply "naming the person accused" along with the time and place "will support a verdict of guilty." Crime laboratories are notorious for falsifying results to obtain convictions.


The feminist dogma that "women never lie" goes largely unchallenged. "Any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes," says Craig Silverman, a former Colorado prosecutor known for zealous prosecutions. Purdue University sociologist Eugene Kanin found that "41% of the total disposed rape cases were officially declared false" during a nine-year period, "that is, by the complainant's admission that no rape had occurred."

In the infamous Duke University lacrosse case, prosecutor Michael Nifong suppressed exculpating evidence and prosecuted men he knew to be innocent, according to Taylor and Johnson. Nifong himself was eventually disbarred, but he had willing accomplices among assistant prosecutors, police, crime lab technicians, judges, the bar, and the media.

"Innocent men are arrested and even imprisoned as a result of bogus claims," writes Linda Fairstein, former head of the sex-crimes unit for the Manhattan District Attorney, who estimates that half of all reports are unfounded.

Innocence projects are almost wholly occupied with rape cases (though they try to disguise this fact). Yet no systematic investigation has been undertaken by the media or civil libertarians into why so many innocent citizens are so easily incarcerated on fabricated allegations. The exoneration of the Duke students on obviously trumped-up charges triggered few investigations -- and no official ones -- to determine how widespread such rigged justice is against those unable to garner media attention.


The world of rape accusations displays features similar to other feminist gender crimes: media invective against the accused, government-paid "victim advocates" to secure convictions, intimidation of anyone who defends the accused. "Nobody dependent on the mainstream media for information about rape would have any idea how frequent false claims are," write Taylor and Johnson.

"Most journalists simply ignore evidence contradicting the feminist line." What they observe of rape characterizes feminist justice generally: "calling a rape complainant 'the victim' -- with no 'alleged'." "Unnamed complainants are labeled 'victims' even before legal proceedings determine that a crime has been committed," according to CMR.

Rape hysteria, false accusations, and distorted scholarship are rampant on university campuses, which ostensibly exist to pursue truth. "If a woman did falsely accuse a man of rape," opines one "women's studies" graduate, "she may have had reasons to. Maybe she wasn't raped, but he clearly violated her in some way."

This mentality pervades feminist jurisprudence, precluding innocence by obliterating the distinction between crime and hurt feelings. A Vassar College assistant dean believes false accusations foster men's education: "I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration.... 'If I didn't violate her, could I have?'"

Conservative critics of the Duke fiasco avoided feminism's role but instead emphasized race -- a minor feature of the case but a safer one to criticize. Little evidence indicates that white people are being systematically incarcerated on fabricated accusations of non-existent crimes against blacks. This is precisely what is happening to men, both white and black, accused of rape and other "gender" crimes that feminists have turned into a political agenda.


Like rape, domestic "violence" is defined so loosely that it need not be violent. The U.S. Justice Department definition includes "extreme jealousy and possessiveness" and "name calling and constant criticizing."

For such "crimes" men are jailed with no trial. In fact, the very category of "domestic" violence was developed largely to circumvent due process requirements of conventional assault statutes. A study published in Criminology and Public Policy found that no one accused of domestic violence could be found innocent, since every arrestee received punishment.

Here, too, false accusations are rewarded. "Women lie every day," attests Ottawa Judge Dianne Nicholas. "Every day women in court say, 'I made it up. I'm lying. It didn't happen' -- and they're not charged."

Amazingly, bar associations sponsor seminars instructing women how to fabricate accusations. Thomas Kiernan, writing in the New Jersey Law Journal, expressed his astonishment at "the number of women attending the seminars who smugly -- indeed boastfully -- announced that they had already sworn out false or grossly exaggerated domestic violence complaints against their hapless husbands, and that the device worked!" He added, "The lawyer-lecturers invariably congratulated the self-confessed miscreants."

Domestic violence has become "a backwater of tautological pseudo-theory," write Donald Dutton and Kenneth Corvo in Aggression and Violent Behavior. "No other area of established social welfare, criminal justice, public health, or behavioral intervention has such weak evidence in support of mandated practice."


Scholars and practitioners have repeatedly documented how "allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage" in custody cases and "become part of the gamesmanship of divorce." Domestic abuse has become "an area of law mired in intellectual dishonesty and injustice," according to the Rutgers Law Review.

Restraining orders removing men from their homes and children are summarily issued without any evidence. Due process protections are so routinely ignored that, the New Jersey Law Journal reports, one judge told his colleagues, "Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you're violating."

 Attorney David Heleniak calls New Jersey's statute "a due process fiasco" in the Rutgers Law Review. New Jersey court literature openly acknowledges that due process is ignored because it "perpetuates the cycle of power and control whereby the [alleged?] perpetrator remains the one with the power and the [alleged?] victim remains powerless." Omitting "alleged" is standard even in statutes, where, the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reports, "the mere allegation of domestic abuse ... may shift the burden of proof to the defendant."

Special "integrated domestic violence courts" presume guilt and then, says New York's openly feminist chief judge, "make batterers and abusers take responsibility for their actions." They can seize property, including homes, without the accused being convicted or even formally charged or present to defend himself.

Lawyer Walter Fox describes these courts as "pre-fascist": "Domestic violence courts ... are designed to get around the protections of the criminal code. The burden of proof is reduced or removed, and there's no presumption of innocence."

Forced confessions are widespread. Pennsylvania men are incarcerated unless they sign forms stating, "I have physically and emotionally battered my partner." The man must then describe the violence, even if he insists he committed none. "I am responsible for the violence I used," the forms declare. "My behavior was not provoked."


Equally feminist is the child-support machinery, whereby millions have their family finances plundered and their lives placed under penal supervision without having committed any legal infraction. Once they have nothing left to loot, they too are incarcerated without trial.

Contrary to government propaganda (and Common Law tradition), child support today has little to do with fathers abandoning their children, deserting their marriages, or even agreeing to a divorce. It is automatically assessed on all non-custodial parents, even those involuntarily divorced without grounds ("no-fault"). It is an entitlement for all divorcing mothers, regardless of their actions, and coerced from fathers, regardless of their fidelity.

The "deadbeat dad" is far less likely to be a man who abandoned the offspring he callously sired than to be a loving father who has been, as attorney Jed Abraham writes in From Courtship to Courtroom, "forced to finance the filching of his own children."

Federalized enforcement was rationalized to reimburse taxpayers for welfare. Under feminist pressure, taxpayers instead subsidize middle-class divorce, through federal payments to states based on the amount of child support they collect. By profiting off child support at federal taxpayer expense, state governments have a financial incentive to encourage as many single-mother homes as possible. They, in turn, encourage divorce with a guaranteed, tax-free windfall to any divorcing mother.

While child support (like divorce itself) is awarded ostensibly without reference to "fault," nonpayment brings swift and severe punishments. "The advocates of ever-more-aggressive measures for collecting child support," writes Bryce Christensen of Southern Utah University, "have moved us a dangerous step closer to a police state."


... Assembly-line hearings can last 30 seconds to two minutes, during which parents are sentenced to months or years in prison. Many receive no hearing but are accused in an "expedited judicial process" before a black-robed lawyer known as a "judge surrogate."

 Because these officials require no legislative confirmation, they are not accountable to citizens or their representatives. Unlike true judges, they may lobby to create the same laws they adjudicate, violating the separation of powers. Often they are political activists in robes. One surrogate judge, reports the Telegraph of Hudson, New Hampshire, simultaneously worked "as a radical feminist lobbying on proposed legislation" dealing with child support.

Though governments sensationalize "roundups" of alleged "deadbeat dads," who are jailed for months and even years without trial, no government information whatever is available on incarcerations.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is utterly silent on child-support incarcerations. Rebecca May of the Center for Family Policy and Practice found "ample testimony by low-income non-custodial parents of spending time in jail for the nonpayment of child support." Yet she could find no documentation of their incarceration...

We know the arrests are extensive. To relieve jail overcrowding in Georgia, a sheriff and judge proposed creating detention camps specifically for "deadbeat dads." The Pittsburgh City Planning Commission has considered a proposal "to convert a former chemical processing plant ... into a detention center" for "deadbeat dads."

Rendered permanently in debt by incarceration, fathers are farmed out to trash companies and similar concerns, where they work 14-16 hour days with their earnings confiscated.


Other incarcerations are also attributable to feminism. The vast preponderance of actual violent crime and substance abuse proceeds from single-parent homes and fatherless children more than any other factor, far surpassing race and poverty. The explosion of single parenthood is usually and resignedly blamed on paternal abandonment, with the only remedy being ever-more draconian but ineffective child-support "crackdowns."

Yet no evidence indicates that the proliferation of single-parent homes results from absconding fathers. If instead we accept that single motherhood is precisely what feminists say it is -- the deliberate choice of their sexual revolution -- it is then apparent that sexual liberation lies behind not only these newfangled sexual crimes, but also the larger trend of actual crime and incarceration. Feminism is driving both the criminalization of the innocent and the criminality of the guilty.

We will continue to fight a losing battle against crime, incarceration, and expansive government power until we confront the sexual ideology that is driving not only family breakdown and the ensuing social anomie, but the criminalization of the male population.

Ever-more-repressive penal measures will only further erode freedom. Under a leftist regime, conservatives must rethink their approach to crime and punishment and their unwitting collusion with America's homegrown Stalinists.

Stephen Baskerville is associate professor of government at Patrick Henry College and author of Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family.


Feminist defector Erin Pizzy on Feminism


Part 1:

Part 2:


Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "American Gulag -- Feminist Laws Persecute Men"

Chris said (February 7, 2010):

Your readers might find this interview intersting

Paul said (February 7, 2010):

American Gulag is a great article Henry, because it seems to apply all over the world. We had some big cases here in Australia of Fathers paying over their hard earned for child support only to find through DNA testing that the child they were supporting wasn't theirs. The professional feminists tried to argue that somehow that didn't count because they'd accepted the responsibility anyway. A lot of men here have wisened up to this femiscam.

Eagle said (February 6, 2010):

"Contrary to government propaganda (and Common Law tradition), child support today has little to do with fathers abandoning their children, deserting their marriages, or even agreeing to a divorce. It is automatically assessed on all non-custodial parents, even those involuntarily divorced without grounds ("no-fault"). It is an entitlement for all divorcing mothers, regardless of their actions, and coerced from fathers, regardless of their fidelity. "

And this is overt proof that marriage, as is practiced in modern society, is nothing short of legitimized prostitution. Let's hear it for the success of Feminism where the male is reduced to nothing more than a disposable sperm donor and automatic teller.

TT said (February 6, 2010):

Back in my early navy days (1980's) one of the corpsman I worked with was in a particularly good mood. Said, he met this girl at a dance club, they had a good time. He saw her for a few weeks then she wouldn't go out with him or talk to him.

13 months later he receives a court order for a blood test. After finding out he's a dad, he calls her and asks if she wants to get married. Her answer "No, I only wanted someone to pay for my baby and the bills and I knew you were in the military". Needless to say he has been paying every month and the daughter is a wreck.

At a recent Thanksgiving party, the guys are sitting around talking; I hear the usual "its cheaper to keep her" and then one of them says, women get training in how to rip-off a future x.

He was reading something like "family circle" while on the john, and there was an article telling women they should enroll their kids in piano lessons, ballet, etc a few months before they file, so they can get more for their child support.

If women weren't so easily manipulated by the media, it might be possible to have a decent relationship.

As quoted on one feminist site "men are atms with legs".

KEVIN said (February 6, 2010):

When I was 22 I went to NYC with my girlfriend of 1 year..

We drank way too much, and she was the jealous type.. She accused me of kissing some girl at a dance club..Ridiculous..

We went to the hotel seperately, and when I arrived she was furious.. Throwing things, yelling, screaming etc.. After a while things calmed down, and we fell asleep.

Shortly after the police knocked on the door. I guess a neighbor called the cops.

They separated us, and asked me what happened.. I said we just had an arguement, it is over etc.. She was staying in the country illegaly and was scared, so apparently the police threatened to take her to jail.. She then said "I tried to rape her".. On the drive to NYC I told her about the Mike tyson trial, so this was on her mind,.. Claiming rape.

Immediately I was taken to jail, and told i was facing 5-15 years.. The prosecutor tried to act like my friend and said "This happens often.. If you just sign this paper admitting guilt the judge will like you and let you go home soon after"

I said all of this is crazy, I did nothing, she was drunk and screaming, and the last thing on my mind was sex with her..

I spent 9 days of hell in jail, until finally she called and admitted she made the entire story up. Then I was released, had to get my car out of impound, missed a semester of school, lost my job, and my belongings were stolen from the hotel room.

It is VERY easy to get railroaded by the system with ZERO evidence. Luckily for myself I was let go.

Michael said (February 6, 2010):

"American Gulag" reminds me of a case here from a local Bible college. A young girl who was the teenage daughter of a couple on campus accused a young man (who may have been on staff) of some sexual misconduct-I forget the specifics.
He was known to be exemplary, but the girl was known to have various stability issues and known to lie. Staff and leadership that knew him, the girl, and the situation testified in his defense and about the girl.

The individual was
offered some plea bargain if he admitted guilt, he flatly held his ground that he was innocent of the girls allegations, and is in prison last I heard. One staff member who I can personally say is above board, knew the girl and the young man expressed her frustration even as a "Bible believing Christian" that he should have lied to save himself the prison term. His attitude remained, "I did nothing, and will go to prison before I falsely claim that I did." This is
an excellent summation of the type of BS that is passed off in the legal system.

Jade said (February 6, 2010):

Re your post, 'American Gulag' - yes, in Canada in the divorce courts, the rules of perjury that apply in other courts, magically do not apply, nor do the rules of evidence. Normally , perjury warrants a seven year sentence, for it undermines the very foundation of our Justice system....yet, only in divorce courts, the rules against perjury simply do not, by magic sleight of hand, apply.

Caught lying? No problem for the judge. Can't prove what you say? No problem for the judge.

The rules of evidence, where a statement in court must be proven in order to be accepted, has no bearing in a divorce court, because, in fact, the outcome has been pre-determined, and the 'court date' is just a theatre enacted to lead to the pre-determined outcome, so similar to the Soviet 'show trials'.

Divorce courts are a star chamber enclave in the legal system by wink wink acquiescence of both defense and proscecution against men, where both sides agree that the male shall be determined guilty and henceforth pay and be reduced below the existential poverty line, because...the government does not want to pick up the tab for the very intra-gender situation they have created.

In Canada we had the Senator Cools Commission into how much utterly needless hurt all this did to grandparents and 50% of parents. Many data were collected; recommendations were given, and utterly ignored by media, governance, and the courts henceforth.

I was told by a lawyer friend that umongst themselves, they figure that in an uncontested divorce, they both expect to end up with 30% of family assets, while in a contested divorce, they expect to take 50% of family assets. Pre-nups were to be the condom used against this theft by the legal caste of family assets just because two people decided to share a life for a while. Yet, then on CBC, two lawyers discussing pre-nups, that can cost from 5 to 8 grand as a product lawyers offer clients, the two, a male and a female lawyer, cackled at the question of pre-nups, and offered, both in agreement, that: "Well, I think we in the Profession all agree now, that the shelf life of a pre-nup is 3 years at best."

The political caste and the courts have murdered Love in Canada and in other similar 'Western' nations. The results are obvious everywhere we look into the decay of 'our' culture.

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at