Amendment 8: The state should be involved in encouraging families to have a natural father & mother, and therefore we should be thinking in the future of ways that this idea can be brought to bare in the most effective manner.
Amendment 9: All issues of medical health should be evenly divided in the end so that an equal amount of money is spent on both sexes, therefore all financing should not go to female diseases in the distorted proportions they are at present. In the meantime moves must be made to favour males, so as to counter the large funds spent for women in R&D expenditures, otherwise even after properly spending funds in equal proportion we would still have unequal levels of future deaths of men in unnatural numbers.
Amendment 10: All prison time, fines, capital punishment sentencing should be enforced at the same level for both sexes. Judges consistently giving less time for one sex shouldn’t be considered for higher court appointments. False accusations should receive the same jail time that a defendant would have received if convicted. This may deter real prosecutions of crimes, but it will also deter false ones. Parties should remain anonymous until the conclusions of the trial when the loser can or should be named & shamed.
Amendment 11: Tax returns should be applied evenly regardless of sex, as should the benefits from the government.
Old ideas of chivalry must be abandoned and the child should not be used to give mothers all the benefits of the old ways through the backdoor support of the child and its special status ever.
In fact children at present are almost automatically given to the mothers for old fashion ideas that can no longer remain in a true equal world, or due to the illogical & dishonorable ideas of "possession is 9/10s of the law."
A set of criteria should be developed, which takes into account the fact that one spouse may have played the role of breadwinner, and thus spent less time bringing up the Kid(s). And with this better balanced criteria stop fathers from suffering for the role they took in the best interest of the family. Both skills in earning money and in bringing up a child should be included in any criteria so as to develop the primary residence that best matches the total interests of the child. Even a impartial test should be given to show who has the better skills in bring up a better citizen when there is a separtion only.
Benefits should be spilt equally (50-50) on separtion regardless of contact unless the parties agree otherwise.
Amendment 12: A judge should be able to change the primary residence of a child to the other parent if access isn’t given by one spouse. Child support and access, which the state now conveniently never ties together, should be retied. If access is a problem the local police stations can become the meeting points of last resort, where the exchange of the kids can occur, with the officer at the front desk recording late arrivals, and or no shows, for future ramification decisions by a judge. Fleeing to another country with the child, on the part of one spouse, should lose them primary residency at minimum upon repatriation. Loss of a weekend should be returned with 2 extra weekends for the aggrieved spouse and so on. All improper actions should be met with counter actions on the part of the court on all occasions to deter the further immature & finacial moves of one party. If things come to a head, and thus need to come before the court, a jugde should tally all the improper moves and deal with them according to deter further obstacles to access by either parent.
Amendment 13: One spouse wishing to move out of the area, where the other parent resides, should go a long way to changing the primary residence of the child too, while the farther away one parent wishes to move the more the primary residence should be given to the parent remaining close to the original home and the close friendships of the children, as in relation to the other neighbors, friends and kin found in the area. Such important relationships outside of the former core nuclear family shouldn’t be dismissed in the interest of mothers trying to remove a father’s access by playing musical chairs with her employment and place of residence (or vise-versa).
Amendment 14: The fact that mothers are receiving benefits from the state shouldn’t be ignored, or looked on as better for the child, in custody hearings. Mothers who quickly get jobs and keep them, after any separation, should be given a better hearing in courts, while fathers having jobs should get a better hearing for they will have more resources to deliver to any child, as well as be less of a drain on other families, through taxation for support of single mother benefits.
Other families shouldn't be burdened to having to pay(through taxation) for the mere wish of some mother to be stay-at-home-mom on the husband's tab (after the state's cut). This is again old fashion and dysfuncational to support a mother, when there is a father with a job and a better daycare space available not on the government & tax payers tab.
Separation from a traditional husband should mean a loss of such a lifestyle, unless another man wishes to play this role. Which should then have an effect on support. The new man should not pay for the new wife’s children, and she should be responsible regardless of what role she chooses. If she marries a millionaire she should still need to work to pay for her own kids, unless the ex-spouse can come to an agreement (that both former spouses see as just). The new husband doesn't remove the mother's responsibilty to provide for her natural children under any circumstances! This will encourage both parties to live close to one another, near the original area, for then no or less support will be transfered from either party for they may spend their own money as they see fit. There is no evidence to suggest that either parent is automatically better just by virtue of their gender.
Amendment 15: If one parent chooses to live away from the child on their own accord and fails to provide support and doesn't use the easy access provided to them, then a percentage of such a spouse's salary can be taken (which must always go higher or lower depending on the employment situation). Savings of either parent should be a no go area for support claims of a child.
This wage support from one spouse should be targeted at clear expenses, like housing, and only cover part of the expenses, thus forcing the other spouse to pay their fair share- this of course only comes into play if the children are involved and the parents both move away from the original area of residence.
If one spouse saves better, especially after the marriage break up, then this spouse should be admired and not taxed heavier in any way over the less frugally challenged spouse. If both parents choose to live in the same area and are rightly granted equal access then no funds need to be given from one parent to the other at all. In this ideal situation the responibilty to give funds for the child's well being with be left to each parent during their acceess periods to decide, and it is the responsibility of the state to not get involved in any way in milking dry fathers to fund the feminist friendly mother's and state's agenda. Divorce means less of a say of how either spouse chooses to spend funds, not more of a say on the part of mothers (with state backing).
Amendment 16: All hidden forms of extra taxation on men should be removed. For example if women only provide 20% of over all revenue then they shouldn’t get 50% or more of heath coverage etc. In a married man funds his wife equal treatment in healthcare, or if a women has her own job, she may receive equal or superior treatment that her wealth allows, but men should not be taxed for say 80% of revenues and receive only 30% of any benefits, just because the state feels it should play the role of old fashion hero in this new equal world. Having it both ways must end unconditionally at the state level, while at the individual level it is left to the parties concerned.
Amendment 17: Laws should be minimized so as to avoid men being left in legal limbo, uncharged and left in prison for long periods of time. If the state learned to stay out of micromanaging families and peoples lives it would not have backlogs of men left in prisons with no charges laid.
A method should be created to allow men on men, women on women and even possibly for men on women physical conflicts to be settled (when of course both plantiffs are willing) to alleviate the endless litigation problems that exist in the West.
Normal precautions must be taken, as in say any boxing match, to see that neither party is seriously hurt. This could avoid criminal records and jail time for men wishing to settle things more directly in our society. Thus avoiding some dishonorable characters who start a physical fight, then lose the fight and sue for damages. This is a constant claim of many men, but is met by the state with the idea that a man should let himself be beaten up (both the old ways & new ways dysfunctional combined).
This would stop many men being wrongly pushed down the criminal route simply because effeminates don’t like directness in settling issues outside the judical capabilities.
The expenses, alone, to a society in turning men to crime for simple male actions or dishonest actions on the part of dishonest people is insane. Giving a criminal record for behaviour that is common amoung males is dysfunctinal. For the society continues to create laws that allow female deplorable actions, like enfant crib death, yet hammers male traits, that are sometimes a normal aspect of their sex, is effeminate in the extreme- and shows how far we have gone down the effeminate road.
Still further the state should allow such agreed to forms of physically violence in the best interests of all concerned, yet instead seems to frowns upon it when both individuals wish to exercise it in a non-lethal way on their own. Allowing the rich to win with better lawyers may be in the states political interest, but it mustn't confuse its self-interest with what is better for the society, as a whole, in not turning males down the criminal path for effeminate agendas of control at any cost.
Amendment 18: Any future cooperation between organizations must be founded in attempting to bridge the following gaps between men.
These include:
A) Men whose wives have left them should be bridged with men who have dumped their wives.
B) Non-totalitarian politically leftwardly leaning men should be bridged with non-totalitarian politically rightwardly leaning men, and both sides of this political divide should be pressed to see that men’s rights should come before any party affiliation.
