An essay I wrote on the proper role of women was used against me by the state
05-22-2016, 10:34 AM
About a year ago, Child Protective Services took my daughter (whom I had never met) away from my ex-wife, who was living about 1,600 miles away from me. My ex-wife killed herself a few days later, and I spent the past year fighting to get custody of my kid. It's a very complicated case, and I won't address here every one of the numerous accusations and arguments made by the state for why I'm an unfit parent.
But there's one particular aspect I thought would be worth noting. Last week, at the final hearing of the case, the caseworker quoted from an anti-feminist essay I had posted to my blog. My Filipina wife, shortly before her arrival in the U.S., had sent me a love note describing all the housewifely stuff she was going to do for me when she got here (such as packing my lunch, preparing my morning coffee and work clothes, having morning sex with me, etc.) I used that as the inspiration of a paragraph in the essay on the kind of woman men should look for when choosing a wife. I closed the essay with an exhortation to men to reject women with short hair and other tell-tale signs of feminist influence.
The caseworker, in her testimony, read those portions of my essay into the record. Then the judge gave a long speech on why she was giving permanent custody of my kid to my ex-wife's parents. After giving a bunch of other reasons, eventually she mentioned my essay, and said that my opposition to feminism and to women's being strong and independent raised concerns about my fitness to parent a daughter.
I asked the judge what freedom of speech we have in this country if the essays we post, expressing dissident opinions, can result in our kids being taken away from us. She told me she wasn't there to engage in a debate, and if I wanted to raise First Amendment issues, I could do so on appeal. I replied that this option is only available to those who have the necessary resources. (Unfortunately, I'm neither indigent enough to qualify for court-appointed counsel, nor rich enough to pay five- or six-figure legal fees.)
When the state is my adversary, I generally don't engage in prolonged litigation unless I either have a free court-appointed attorney or a community of supporters behind me. (This is especially true if I face the additional disadvantage of being an out-of-state litigant.) Since in this case, I had neither, I ended up relinquishing my parental rights, which means that I irrevocably waived all my rights to appeal the case.
This case taught me some important lessons about free speech, though. Firstly, these days, there aren't a lot of people willing to defend the right to express politically incorrect speech. From what I hear, the ACLU, for instance, has been taken over by feminists, which is why most of the cases we hear about the ACLU fighting these days involve LGBT rights and other leftist issues. There aren't a lot of people fighting for their political opponents' freedom of expression under the principle of, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Secondly, there are circumstances that can arise that will make your dissident and supposedly First Amendment-protected opinions fair game for courts to use against you. You generally won't be dragged off to jail, and your kids won't be taken away from you, solely because you openly criticize feminism. However, if the state finds some other excuse to charge you with a crime or to take away your kids, then they can use your publicly-posted comments against you.
For example, under federal law, at sentencing in criminal cases, the court is required to consider "the history and characteristics of the defendant" which can include your public postings. If you're convicted of, say, drug dealing, then the prosecution is free to argue to the judge that your anti-feminist public posts suggest that you're at elevated risk of re-offending in some other way (e.g. by committing rape or domestic violence), and that therefore a lengthier prison sentence is needed "to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant".
Likewise, I've never heard of the state snatching away anyone's kids solely because they posted anti-feminist commentary to the Internet. But my case is proof that, once a CPS case is initiated for other reasons, they don't mind using that commentary as further proof of the defendant's unfitness to parent his child.
The obvious countermeasure against this is to hide behind a pseudonym. If we're all feeling compelled to remain anonymous, though, our opponents surely have an advantage in being able to organize more effectively in the political sphere. For example, neomasculinists have had to cancel in-person meetings when there was a danger of anonymity being compromised. Certain forms of speech, such as YouTube videos, also tend to give clues as to the speaker's identity, so feminists are freer than we are to use those venues to express their views.
It was bad enough when the danger arising from speaking our minds was only that we would get fired from jobs if we got outed. As Roosh pointed out, decreasing one's dependence on any one employer can be a way of mitigating that financial risk. We can still be punished in the civil and criminal courts for expressing our opinions, though. (Even if they say it's not a "punishment," but rather a necessary measure for protecting the public, it still serves to deter the posting of dissident views.)
One of core principles of a constitutional democratic republic is that the majority rules, but the minority still has rights, including the freedom to express dissident opinions in hopes of someday winning the majority over to its point of view. Many manosphere writers have suggested that we would be better off under the rule of a benevolent king. In reality, it's already questionable whether what we have now is a true democratic republic, or an oligarchy ruled over by feminists and other groups that have silenced some of their most vocal critics. So the debate becomes moot, as there may not be any democratic republic for us to abolish.
A third lesson I learned about free speech is that it's usually not easily noticeable when freedom of speech has been abridged. Often, when people are censored, they don't want to speak openly about the censorship, for fear of risking further persecution. (For example, my wife requested that I take down my blog, so that we could cut our losses and move on rather than encountering more trouble in the future because of my writings.) Censorship usually manifests invisibly in the form of essays NOT written or published. As Cato's Letter No. 15 notes:
But there's one particular aspect I thought would be worth noting. Last week, at the final hearing of the case, the caseworker quoted from an anti-feminist essay I had posted to my blog. My Filipina wife, shortly before her arrival in the U.S., had sent me a love note describing all the housewifely stuff she was going to do for me when she got here (such as packing my lunch, preparing my morning coffee and work clothes, having morning sex with me, etc.) I used that as the inspiration of a paragraph in the essay on the kind of woman men should look for when choosing a wife. I closed the essay with an exhortation to men to reject women with short hair and other tell-tale signs of feminist influence.
The caseworker, in her testimony, read those portions of my essay into the record. Then the judge gave a long speech on why she was giving permanent custody of my kid to my ex-wife's parents. After giving a bunch of other reasons, eventually she mentioned my essay, and said that my opposition to feminism and to women's being strong and independent raised concerns about my fitness to parent a daughter.
I asked the judge what freedom of speech we have in this country if the essays we post, expressing dissident opinions, can result in our kids being taken away from us. She told me she wasn't there to engage in a debate, and if I wanted to raise First Amendment issues, I could do so on appeal. I replied that this option is only available to those who have the necessary resources. (Unfortunately, I'm neither indigent enough to qualify for court-appointed counsel, nor rich enough to pay five- or six-figure legal fees.)
When the state is my adversary, I generally don't engage in prolonged litigation unless I either have a free court-appointed attorney or a community of supporters behind me. (This is especially true if I face the additional disadvantage of being an out-of-state litigant.) Since in this case, I had neither, I ended up relinquishing my parental rights, which means that I irrevocably waived all my rights to appeal the case.
This case taught me some important lessons about free speech, though. Firstly, these days, there aren't a lot of people willing to defend the right to express politically incorrect speech. From what I hear, the ACLU, for instance, has been taken over by feminists, which is why most of the cases we hear about the ACLU fighting these days involve LGBT rights and other leftist issues. There aren't a lot of people fighting for their political opponents' freedom of expression under the principle of, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Secondly, there are circumstances that can arise that will make your dissident and supposedly First Amendment-protected opinions fair game for courts to use against you. You generally won't be dragged off to jail, and your kids won't be taken away from you, solely because you openly criticize feminism. However, if the state finds some other excuse to charge you with a crime or to take away your kids, then they can use your publicly-posted comments against you.
For example, under federal law, at sentencing in criminal cases, the court is required to consider "the history and characteristics of the defendant" which can include your public postings. If you're convicted of, say, drug dealing, then the prosecution is free to argue to the judge that your anti-feminist public posts suggest that you're at elevated risk of re-offending in some other way (e.g. by committing rape or domestic violence), and that therefore a lengthier prison sentence is needed "to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant".
Likewise, I've never heard of the state snatching away anyone's kids solely because they posted anti-feminist commentary to the Internet. But my case is proof that, once a CPS case is initiated for other reasons, they don't mind using that commentary as further proof of the defendant's unfitness to parent his child.
The obvious countermeasure against this is to hide behind a pseudonym. If we're all feeling compelled to remain anonymous, though, our opponents surely have an advantage in being able to organize more effectively in the political sphere. For example, neomasculinists have had to cancel in-person meetings when there was a danger of anonymity being compromised. Certain forms of speech, such as YouTube videos, also tend to give clues as to the speaker's identity, so feminists are freer than we are to use those venues to express their views.
It was bad enough when the danger arising from speaking our minds was only that we would get fired from jobs if we got outed. As Roosh pointed out, decreasing one's dependence on any one employer can be a way of mitigating that financial risk. We can still be punished in the civil and criminal courts for expressing our opinions, though. (Even if they say it's not a "punishment," but rather a necessary measure for protecting the public, it still serves to deter the posting of dissident views.)
One of core principles of a constitutional democratic republic is that the majority rules, but the minority still has rights, including the freedom to express dissident opinions in hopes of someday winning the majority over to its point of view. Many manosphere writers have suggested that we would be better off under the rule of a benevolent king. In reality, it's already questionable whether what we have now is a true democratic republic, or an oligarchy ruled over by feminists and other groups that have silenced some of their most vocal critics. So the debate becomes moot, as there may not be any democratic republic for us to abolish.
A third lesson I learned about free speech is that it's usually not easily noticeable when freedom of speech has been abridged. Often, when people are censored, they don't want to speak openly about the censorship, for fear of risking further persecution. (For example, my wife requested that I take down my blog, so that we could cut our losses and move on rather than encountering more trouble in the future because of my writings.) Censorship usually manifests invisibly in the form of essays NOT written or published. As Cato's Letter No. 15 notes:
Quote:Quote:
Freedom of speech is the great bulwark of liberty; they prosper and die together: And it is the terror of traitors and oppressors, and a barrier against them. It produces excellent writers, and encourages men of fine genius. Tacitus tells us, that the Roman commonwealth bred great and numerous authors, who writ with equal boldness and eloquence: But when it was enslaved, those great wits were no more. Postquam bellatum apud Actium; atque omnem potestatem ad unum conferri pacts interfuit, magna illa ingenia cessere. ["After the battle of Actium, when the interests of peace required that all power should be conferred on one man, great geniuses ceased work."] Tyranny had usurped the place of equality, which is the soul of liberty, and destroyed publick courage. The minds of men, terrified by unjust power, degenerated into all the vileness and methods of servitude: Abject sycophancy and blind submission grew the only means of preferment, and indeed of safety; men durst not open their mouths, but to flatter.
Pliny the Younger observes, that this dread of tyranny had such effect, that the Senate, the great Roman Senate, became at last stupid and dumb: Mutam ac sedentariam assentiendi necessitatem. ["Unspoken and fixed necessity to assent."] Hence, says he, our spirit and genius are stupified, broken, and sunk for ever. And in one of his epistles, speaking of the works of his uncle, he makes an apology for eight of them, as not written with the same vigour which was to be found in the rest; for that these eight were written in the reign of Nero, when the spirit of writing was cramped by fear; Dubii sermonis octo scripset sub Nerone — cum omne studiorum genus paulo liberius & erectius periculosum servitus fecisset.[/b] ["Under Nero he wrote eight books concerning linguistic problems — when tyranny made all free and elevated study dangerous."]