Thanks for bringing attention to this book. Baskerville writes some really interesting things about how the left functions to bring down society. Google tells me that he is a professor in Warsaw. I suspect that was cancelled in the USA
I greatly admire Baskerville's candid work. Even in the more tolerant (at least as I remember it) pre-COVID era, I think his criticism must have been unwelcome. Thanks for your comment.
Thanks for your comment. Baskerville is making himself heard. I know some other scholars who were forced out by feminists and by others who often seem to be afraid to debate or even to discuss their sacred truths. Sacred easily turns into scared. I think many feminists are, like many bullies, cowards at heart.
I was in the thick of the 1980s and 1990s radical feminization (female nazification) of the system, specifically with the family courts, which was the playground for the left to use to experiment on how to weaponize the entire system. I was the lead in the fathers' and divorce reform movement in the New Jersey and New York region. Our groups, "Fathers United for Equal Rights" and "New Jersey Council for Children's Rights" (divorce reform group) were at the forefront of the movement. I ran both organizations for over 10 years, until the "deep state" in NJ infiltrated the groups, stole the money and stole the databases of members. I testified against Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ) and Congresswoman Marge Roukema (R-NJ), who led the charge of no retroactive child support modifications. Bradley was a Democrat. Roukema, a Republican. Both political parties were in on destruction of the family and weaponizing the courts against the family.
There was no due process or equal protection under the law (14th Amendment) in the family courts. The radfems had control of it through their screeching about the need for child support enforcement, imposing draconian domestic violence laws & child abuse laws, and in general, putting the radical feminist jackboot on the throats of fathers by use of judges and lawyers, at the point of a gun, to get what they wanted. They went so far as to remove an amendment to NJ legislation that we had put in, by convening a late night session in the NJ Assembly that nobody was notified of. It would have protected innocent fathers from false allegations of domestic violence by requiring perjury laws to be imposed, a $7500 fine for the false accuser, 3-5 years in jail, and loss of child custody.
The radical feminazis have continually made child support laws and domestic violence laws more draconian because they coupled these laws with the amount of federal funding they get for their programs. Fathers have no say. Fathers cannot even get funding for parenting time/visitation enforcement, even though parental rights is a LIBERTY INTEREST protected by the 1st Amendment Right to Associate with one's children, and 14th Amendment Right to Due Process and Equal Protection Under the Laws.
I have left New Jersey after 35 years of battling the powers that be. We were to the point that the judiciary feared the fathers' rights groups because we were filing Petitions for Impeachment in the legislature every time a family court judge violated a father's rights like imprisoning him for a child support/alimony/attorney fees debt, which is unconstitutional in New Jersey under Article I, Section 13 of the NJ Constitution (prohibition against Imprisonment for Debt); and because there is NO 4th Amendment Probable Cause to arrest someone in a civil debt matter; probable cause can only exist in a criminal matter--and child support is a civil matter.
However, too many fathers bailed out on the organizations because they couldn't get their cases resolved immediately. We told them it would take time and effort, and we needed bodies to have demonstrations in front of courthouses (we used to do 3-4 demonstrations once per month in front of various courthouses on motion days on Fridays in NJ). Fathers who didn't want to participate undermined the movement after some time. They were either too distraught, too broke financially, or too selfish. Men need to get a set of balls and get out in the streets and start demonstrating again. Just look at all the people demonstrating for the Palestinians, abortion rights, women's rights, etc., etc., etc. Do you see anybody out there demonstrating on behalf of fathers' rights or divorce reform??????? Hell NO!!!! They're too busy whining about their ex-wives, the judges, and the lawyers. And, They're too busy telling their tales of woe in the local bars. Men in America don't have balls or guts to get out in the streets fully armed and challenging the government to a showdown. We did in 1775. We need to do it again!!!!!!!!!
Thank you for this comment and its discouraging account of your work. You have made valiant and exceptionally dedicated efforts to obtain justice for men. I think you are right that the prejudices men fight are baked into our justice system in its many corrupt forms. You also confirm Baskerville's point that men get walked on because we rarely speak up for ourselves or look for constructive ways to improve the kind of justice we get. I'll bet the people on the other side were surprised at your tenacity. I like the motto of the Mankind Project: Changing the world one man at a time. But it is hard to find enough men who believe this is possible. Feminists who hate and denounce men far outnumber men who support other men or believe that men have rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. My thanks again for your comment, and your effort.
Oh, the feminists in NJ and NY hated my guts. I would go on TV or radio against them, and they couldn't respond to my points. They would try to talk over me, but I would end up talking over them and ultimately shutting them up. I played their game of intimidation and used it against them. They were really taken aback. The NJ Director for NOW-NJ told me on a radio show that I was rude and obnoxious. I told her I was using their tactics against them, and they shut up. She said "Well, I never." Using an old Marx Brothers line from one of their movies, I responded: "Then you need to get out more often".
That's great. Your response to her made my day. Wonderful that she called you rude and obnoxious: a perfect self-description NJ director for NOW, I would guess. When I have a conversation, however brief, with one of the liberals I know, I almost always find that the person has no data at his or her command, just powerful feelings about the righteousness of the liberal cause. When I make specific points about tariffs or imports or exports, it is way too often the case that the person I am talking to has no idea what I what I am talking about. These people always assume that I am on their side. Why should I be? Don't complex issues have at least 2 sides? Anyway, if the liberals don't get out more often, they could a least read something other than posts by people who think the same way they do. Do you know the sentimental artwork of Thoma Kincaid? A critic once said, looking at his paintings of quaint cottages, etc., that it was the work of a man who had not been outside in a long time.
Thanks for this summary, Allen. I find politicized thinking to be detrimental to psychological well-being. I agree that it boils down to self-development. Anything coming from either side of the political divide that emphasizes inner work, I'm happy to endorse. Finger-pointing doesn't seem to help anyone. Focus on external characteristics as identity is the most destructive thing that happened to our society. It seems our culture needs an emphatic return to the value of "Pick at the plank in your own eye." There's a self-righteousness afoot that corrupts all discourse.
Yes, I agree completely. My take on self-development, I admit, is pretty much physical, but that's because I was always intimidated as a kid. I was short and had no interest in or love for sports. Music, yes. Gardening, yes. Even cooking. But once I retired and started boxing, I realized that I had found a way to build myself as what I think of as a whole man. I found that I could find much happiness in the boxing ring with men very different from me. I don't know any political boxers, but I am sure there are some. Those I know do not make an issue of politics but focus on health, fitness, competition, and fellowship--they are a constructive group, and I am happy seeing myself, however old, as one of them. Any boxer who takes a punch cannot be self-righteous. He got hit because he let down his guard.
Fantastic article. Stephen Baskerville has done an enormous amount of work in this area over decades, and his insights come from both theoretical knowledge and field experience. Just one point as an amateur psychologist ("trained" and a bit experienced) - Hillary's village views are compensating for her lesser involvement in parenting. Although her marketing people wanted her to be a woman, a mother, who you could trust to wake up in the middle of the night to answer the phone (instead of to change a diaper or feed or comfort), the village is symbolic of nannies and other household servants who are capable of raising children. It's internally, for her, attempting to portray her lack of involvement as superior.
Roger: Hillary Clinton's version of the "village" comes from the Nazis. They would take the children, in case of the Nazis, the Aryans with blue eyes and blonde hair known as the "Lebensborn", from their families and put them in group homes run by the SS or Gestapo, and turn the children into "kindersoldaten" to turn into the "kinderarmee". They wanted to create the perfect state soldier or state employee. Hence, the reason our public school (or public fool"e") system is turning out "human resources" for the State instead of independent thinking graduates in a merit system, who want to improve their lives, their families and their country. Hillary Clinton's idea is that of the old tyranny of the Soviet Union. The Soviet government made sure that every child would grow up as a devoted and committed supporter of the new Communist society, so that they could be useful to their country in a "common cause". Common cause sounds like the Common Core teaching method of dumbing down education in the U.S.
Everything Baskerville writes or says is worth noting. He is without doubt the world's pre-eminent academic. His 2007 book, Taken Into Custody: the war against men, marriage and the family, is truly gobsmacking.
Thanks for bringing attention to this book. Baskerville writes some really interesting things about how the left functions to bring down society. Google tells me that he is a professor in Warsaw. I suspect that was cancelled in the USA
I greatly admire Baskerville's candid work. Even in the more tolerant (at least as I remember it) pre-COVID era, I think his criticism must have been unwelcome. Thanks for your comment.
I admire his work and his courage too. He is more ballsy than I could ever dream of. He risks his lively hood to say unpopular things.
He was indeed. Patrick Henry University - supposedly a conservative institution - forced him out for not acquiescing before the feminist zeitgeist.
Thanks for your comment. Baskerville is making himself heard. I know some other scholars who were forced out by feminists and by others who often seem to be afraid to debate or even to discuss their sacred truths. Sacred easily turns into scared. I think many feminists are, like many bullies, cowards at heart.
I was in the thick of the 1980s and 1990s radical feminization (female nazification) of the system, specifically with the family courts, which was the playground for the left to use to experiment on how to weaponize the entire system. I was the lead in the fathers' and divorce reform movement in the New Jersey and New York region. Our groups, "Fathers United for Equal Rights" and "New Jersey Council for Children's Rights" (divorce reform group) were at the forefront of the movement. I ran both organizations for over 10 years, until the "deep state" in NJ infiltrated the groups, stole the money and stole the databases of members. I testified against Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ) and Congresswoman Marge Roukema (R-NJ), who led the charge of no retroactive child support modifications. Bradley was a Democrat. Roukema, a Republican. Both political parties were in on destruction of the family and weaponizing the courts against the family.
There was no due process or equal protection under the law (14th Amendment) in the family courts. The radfems had control of it through their screeching about the need for child support enforcement, imposing draconian domestic violence laws & child abuse laws, and in general, putting the radical feminist jackboot on the throats of fathers by use of judges and lawyers, at the point of a gun, to get what they wanted. They went so far as to remove an amendment to NJ legislation that we had put in, by convening a late night session in the NJ Assembly that nobody was notified of. It would have protected innocent fathers from false allegations of domestic violence by requiring perjury laws to be imposed, a $7500 fine for the false accuser, 3-5 years in jail, and loss of child custody.
The radical feminazis have continually made child support laws and domestic violence laws more draconian because they coupled these laws with the amount of federal funding they get for their programs. Fathers have no say. Fathers cannot even get funding for parenting time/visitation enforcement, even though parental rights is a LIBERTY INTEREST protected by the 1st Amendment Right to Associate with one's children, and 14th Amendment Right to Due Process and Equal Protection Under the Laws.
I have left New Jersey after 35 years of battling the powers that be. We were to the point that the judiciary feared the fathers' rights groups because we were filing Petitions for Impeachment in the legislature every time a family court judge violated a father's rights like imprisoning him for a child support/alimony/attorney fees debt, which is unconstitutional in New Jersey under Article I, Section 13 of the NJ Constitution (prohibition against Imprisonment for Debt); and because there is NO 4th Amendment Probable Cause to arrest someone in a civil debt matter; probable cause can only exist in a criminal matter--and child support is a civil matter.
However, too many fathers bailed out on the organizations because they couldn't get their cases resolved immediately. We told them it would take time and effort, and we needed bodies to have demonstrations in front of courthouses (we used to do 3-4 demonstrations once per month in front of various courthouses on motion days on Fridays in NJ). Fathers who didn't want to participate undermined the movement after some time. They were either too distraught, too broke financially, or too selfish. Men need to get a set of balls and get out in the streets and start demonstrating again. Just look at all the people demonstrating for the Palestinians, abortion rights, women's rights, etc., etc., etc. Do you see anybody out there demonstrating on behalf of fathers' rights or divorce reform??????? Hell NO!!!! They're too busy whining about their ex-wives, the judges, and the lawyers. And, They're too busy telling their tales of woe in the local bars. Men in America don't have balls or guts to get out in the streets fully armed and challenging the government to a showdown. We did in 1775. We need to do it again!!!!!!!!!
Thank you for this comment and its discouraging account of your work. You have made valiant and exceptionally dedicated efforts to obtain justice for men. I think you are right that the prejudices men fight are baked into our justice system in its many corrupt forms. You also confirm Baskerville's point that men get walked on because we rarely speak up for ourselves or look for constructive ways to improve the kind of justice we get. I'll bet the people on the other side were surprised at your tenacity. I like the motto of the Mankind Project: Changing the world one man at a time. But it is hard to find enough men who believe this is possible. Feminists who hate and denounce men far outnumber men who support other men or believe that men have rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. My thanks again for your comment, and your effort.
Oh, the feminists in NJ and NY hated my guts. I would go on TV or radio against them, and they couldn't respond to my points. They would try to talk over me, but I would end up talking over them and ultimately shutting them up. I played their game of intimidation and used it against them. They were really taken aback. The NJ Director for NOW-NJ told me on a radio show that I was rude and obnoxious. I told her I was using their tactics against them, and they shut up. She said "Well, I never." Using an old Marx Brothers line from one of their movies, I responded: "Then you need to get out more often".
That's great. Your response to her made my day. Wonderful that she called you rude and obnoxious: a perfect self-description NJ director for NOW, I would guess. When I have a conversation, however brief, with one of the liberals I know, I almost always find that the person has no data at his or her command, just powerful feelings about the righteousness of the liberal cause. When I make specific points about tariffs or imports or exports, it is way too often the case that the person I am talking to has no idea what I what I am talking about. These people always assume that I am on their side. Why should I be? Don't complex issues have at least 2 sides? Anyway, if the liberals don't get out more often, they could a least read something other than posts by people who think the same way they do. Do you know the sentimental artwork of Thoma Kincaid? A critic once said, looking at his paintings of quaint cottages, etc., that it was the work of a man who had not been outside in a long time.
I have a Kincaid painting. Had it for 15 years. Never hung it on a wall yet.
Thanks for this summary, Allen. I find politicized thinking to be detrimental to psychological well-being. I agree that it boils down to self-development. Anything coming from either side of the political divide that emphasizes inner work, I'm happy to endorse. Finger-pointing doesn't seem to help anyone. Focus on external characteristics as identity is the most destructive thing that happened to our society. It seems our culture needs an emphatic return to the value of "Pick at the plank in your own eye." There's a self-righteousness afoot that corrupts all discourse.
Yes, I agree completely. My take on self-development, I admit, is pretty much physical, but that's because I was always intimidated as a kid. I was short and had no interest in or love for sports. Music, yes. Gardening, yes. Even cooking. But once I retired and started boxing, I realized that I had found a way to build myself as what I think of as a whole man. I found that I could find much happiness in the boxing ring with men very different from me. I don't know any political boxers, but I am sure there are some. Those I know do not make an issue of politics but focus on health, fitness, competition, and fellowship--they are a constructive group, and I am happy seeing myself, however old, as one of them. Any boxer who takes a punch cannot be self-righteous. He got hit because he let down his guard.
Fantastic article. Stephen Baskerville has done an enormous amount of work in this area over decades, and his insights come from both theoretical knowledge and field experience. Just one point as an amateur psychologist ("trained" and a bit experienced) - Hillary's village views are compensating for her lesser involvement in parenting. Although her marketing people wanted her to be a woman, a mother, who you could trust to wake up in the middle of the night to answer the phone (instead of to change a diaper or feed or comfort), the village is symbolic of nannies and other household servants who are capable of raising children. It's internally, for her, attempting to portray her lack of involvement as superior.
Roger: Hillary Clinton's version of the "village" comes from the Nazis. They would take the children, in case of the Nazis, the Aryans with blue eyes and blonde hair known as the "Lebensborn", from their families and put them in group homes run by the SS or Gestapo, and turn the children into "kindersoldaten" to turn into the "kinderarmee". They wanted to create the perfect state soldier or state employee. Hence, the reason our public school (or public fool"e") system is turning out "human resources" for the State instead of independent thinking graduates in a merit system, who want to improve their lives, their families and their country. Hillary Clinton's idea is that of the old tyranny of the Soviet Union. The Soviet government made sure that every child would grow up as a devoted and committed supporter of the new Communist society, so that they could be useful to their country in a "common cause". Common cause sounds like the Common Core teaching method of dumbing down education in the U.S.
Commie-Nazis are just irritating. In today's world, we worry about the D-Party - the fake democrats that pursue power just to run scams.
Unfortunately, the truth is the truth. Now, it must be told. No one seems to want to do that.
We can try. Go for it!
Everything Baskerville writes or says is worth noting. He is without doubt the world's pre-eminent academic. His 2007 book, Taken Into Custody: the war against men, marriage and the family, is truly gobsmacking.
Thank you Allen for an excellent review. Enjoyed hearing your take on this. Such an important topic.