Category Archives: Retreat Strategy

Radfem/DV/parentectomy

Ivor Catt, 1 June 2011

Radfem empowerment
Radical Feminism is not about equality. It is about Power. Just look at their language; Empowerment, Patriarchy, Assertiveness Training. A child should be the chattel of its mother. In the same way as Marx wrongly thought that the central driving force in society is class, so radical feminists believe the central driving force in the family is power, rather than cooperation. There is a link, because generally Marxist Radical Feminists identify two new classes, men and women. The definition of Domestic Violence now includes normal parenting, particularly by a father.

Ivor Catt, 1 June 2011
Ivor Catt BarAustralian Federal MP George Christensen (Liberals) slams ideologically driven Family Violence Legislation passed the lower house by just one vote:

“I suspect that there is a strong feminist ideology driving these amendments. It is feminist ideology that has created this malicious code to rob men of their rights to be fathers. It is feminist ideology that has dressed up this malicious code to rob children of their right to have a father in their lives. It is feminist ideology that has dressed up this malicious code to create the illusion of acting to stop family violence.”

I suggest that he speaks for mainstream Australia.

Extended Federal Australian Parliament Hansard quote from the parliamentary debate on the Australian Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011:

Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (12:18): In addressing the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011, I have come to understand how the citizens of Troy must have felt when they were greeted with the gift of a giant wooden horse, because this bill is not what it appears. It is a Trojan horse. Just like the giant wooden horse, full of Greek warriors, in Greek legend and like an insidious computer virus, full of malicious code, this Trojan bill is loaded with consequences that will undermine some of the most basic human rights for both parents and children, and particularly fathers.

Family law is a very difficult area to legislate. There is no escaping the fact that every family is different. To create legislation that caters to all circumstances is an unlikely quest. In most circumstances, there are no winners in family law. Family breakdowns are messy. They are hurtful. They are spiteful. They are emotional, irrational and painful. The holy grail of relationship breakdowns, the amicable divorce, is rarer than a kept Labor promise.

It is in this emotionally charged atmosphere that mothers and fathers interact and children are bystanders, often witnessing behaviour by their parents at their very worst. Make no mistake: I do not object to the face-value intentions of some of the amendments in this bill. We cannot question the need to hold a child’s safety in the highest regard when it comes to custody arrangements. But we can question why these amendments are being made.

The current act, introduced by the Howard government in 2006, created the ‘twin pillars’ of parenting provisions. These measures recognised two primary considerations for determining the best interests of the child. The twin pillars were: (a) the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of his or her parents and (b) the need to protect the child from harm or from being exposed to abuse, neglect and/or violence—I repeat: the need to protect the child from harm. Safety concerns for the child are already in the existing legislation. It is one of two primary considerations—considerations that, yes, are given equal weight. But, in addition, the current act specifically states in section 60CG that a court must ensure that a parenting order:
(a) Is consistent with any family violence order; and
(b) Does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence.

Protection is already provided for in the act.

What this amendment proposes to do is to take a George Orwell approach to ranking considerations. When Orwell’s animals in his classic novel Animal Farm draft their legislation on the barn wall, they affirm that ‘All animals are equal’. The pigs then make an amendment: ‘But some animals are more equal than others’. The pigs, of course, had an ulterior motive and I fear that there is one at play here as well. What these amendments are saying is, ‘Yes, the two considerations are primary, but one is more primary than the other.’ What the bill does in reality is to retain child safety as a primary concern while relegating the child’s parental relationships to a minor concern. It sounds innocent enough, I suppose, but the Trojan horse here is a facade of enhancing child safety. The bill is dressed up as an attempt to protect children, which is a pointless exercise, because child safety is fully ensured in the current act.

What is inside this Trojan horse, the malicious code that will infect society, is an attempt to undermine equal access for both parents. This change would invite the court to ignore the requirement to consider the second pillar—the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents.

The Family Law Practitioners Association of Queensland is concerned about giving greater weight to the second of the primary considerations. In their submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, they said: ‘Such a provision removes the court’s licence to assess in each individual case the degree of risk, its probability or, in the case of family violence, its context in terms of frequency, intensity and recency in the determination of the weight to be given to such risk or harm.’ This bill would mean that any inference of violence, proven or unproven, would have to be taken into consideration, however vexatious the claims may be. The potential danger of this change is apparent when viewed in conjunction with other changes proposed in this bill.

The broadened definition of ‘family violence’ would mean that a wide range of everyday activities could potentially be construed as violence. The broader definition includes as violence such things as repeated derogatory taunts. Under the proposed definition, much of what happens right here in the parliament would be construed as violence. Also included as violence is this little nugget: ‘preventing the family member from making or keeping connections with his or her family, friends, or culture.’ Under this broad definition, a parent could not prevent a young teenager from spending 20 hours a day talking to friends on Facebook, for fear of being accused of family violence. What happens when a parent acts in a way that a reasonable person would describe as good parenting? What happens when a father says to his 13-year-old daughter, ‘No, you can’t go to Julia’s party because there will be alcohol and no adult supervision’? I will tell you what happens. An upset teenage daughter talks to a vindictive mother, who then claims the daughter is a victim of family violence—and it is their right under this definition. Another child loses the right to have a meaningful relationship with her parent. Under this definition, a parent would be too scared to ground a child as punishment for bad behaviour, for fear of ‘depriving a family member of his or her liberty.’

The sheer magnitude of this definition presents two problems. The most immediate problem is that living an ordinary life can too easily be construed as family violence. Adding fuel to the fire will be the actions of hurt, emotional, and spiteful former partners in stretching the truth. Tripping over the family dog will suddenly become ‘intentionally injuring an animal’. Using a few poorly-chosen words a few times in an argument—which most families have experienced—will constitute family violence as ‘repeated derogatory taunts’. This definition would allow everyday actions to be seized, twisted, exaggerated and used as family violence weapons in the court. What this change does is broaden the definition of family violence so much that the word ‘violence’ loses all real meaning. That would be a tragedy, because it would also water down the perception of family violence.

I believe that violence is violence. Violence is cruel and harmful. It is a serious problem in some families and a serious problem in the wider society. But violence is not ‘grounding’ a child.. It is not protecting your child. Being a good parent is not being a violent parent. There is a simple solution to stop such things being interpreted as family violence. That is the ‘reasonable person’ test. Such a test demands that for an action to be deemed as violence it must be an action that requires a person ‘reasonably to fear’ for their personal safety and wellbeing. This is precisely the meaning and interpretation that this legislation strips out of the act.

Is this bill more than it appears at face value? Is it another Trojan horse? I say it is most certainly a Trojan horse.

On face value, the broadened definition of ‘family violence’ creates the illusion of providing greater protection against family violence. Yes, that is a lovely wooden horse but let’s take a look inside. Maybe not, because inside this Trojan is malicious code that gives one parent an arsenal of weapons to be misused in court to deprive the other parent of their right to be a parent.

Earlier in this debate we heard the Minister for the Status of Women tell this parliament that no-one uses claims of family violence in such a way. I have some very bad news for the minister: it actually does happen. It happens every day; and if she is not aware of it happening then she is gravely out of touch with reality. If the minister does not have any contact with her own constituents, perhaps she could spend a few minutes at her laptop doing some research. Here is the sort of thing that you can find in two minutes: the newspaper headline ‘Ugly feud fought on Facebook’. The article tells about a Family Court hearing late last year. At the end it says:

She had already strung the case out by falsely claiming her ex-husband had been sexually assaulting their children after one judgment went against her. Then she falsely claimed the father’s new wife had been assaulting them. ‘The mother has over the years attempted to manipulate the court system,’ Justice Barry said.

That is just one case that can be found with two minutes of Google research, and yet the minister came into this House and said that making false allegations of family violence and using family violence as a weapon in the courts is a myth. Do some homework, Minister.

The fact that this minister has told a lie to this parliament—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke): The member will withdraw.

Mr CHRISTENSEN: I will withdraw, but I will say that the minister has told an untruth to this parliament. It is clearly not true to say that it is a myth. It is clearly not true to say—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will return to the bill before him.

Mr CHRISTENSEN: I am, because the minister has told this House that it is a myth that family violence is misused by people in the Family Court. The fact is that it is not a myth and you can see that from a bit of research. Abuse of the system is why we have organisations like Lone Fathers, Dads on the Air, Fathers Online, Fathers 4 Equality, Men’s Rights and so on. If we look closely at these groups, there is a common theme. It is a theme that helps explain why this malicious code is being pushed into the act. These are groups set up by fathers.. We can talk all we want about custodial parents and non-custodial parents, but the truth is that most custodial parents are mothers and most non-custodial parents are fathers.

There are no winners in family law. All parents in family law become losers one way or the other, but some who are bigger losers than others. The current act helped to bring some equality to family law. It created the two pillars, one of which recognised the benefits to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents. These amendments are a backward step. They will strip fathers of their right to be fathers. These amendments will allow abuse of the system that will create another generation of stolen children.

I do not know where the government obtains feedback on the practicalities of family law and family law disputes, but I get my feedback from constituents. I talk to real people who are affected by real situations. I have conversations with fathers who are getting the roughest end of the pineapple. They are grieving fathers who have lost children through the courts. They are devastated and frustrated. They are good men who love their children and want to maintain a relationship with their own flesh and blood—something that should be a basic right.

Some of these men are on the edge. They are driven insane by the lack of justice in the system. They are left in the wilderness, robbed of basic rights and family and, with no support from our legal system, these fathers are driven to despair, driven to the brink of insanity. And if the minister wants to continue her research, she might discover what happens when fathers are placed in a hopeless situation where justice is lost through abuse of the system—which she claims is a myth. When fathers are driven to insanity, they do insane things. I can, in no way, condone the actions of men who, in the face of losing everything, choose to take everything. They do take their own lives and, very sadly, sometimes in the insanity that they are engulfed in, they take the lives of their children. I note that this is not purely a male response, given that there are numerous examples, including some recent cases, of non-custodial mothers doing the same thing.

Family violence is a terrible thing, but so are the actions of fathers driven to the brink. These amendments will do nothing to stop family violence—we already have good measures in place—but they will drive more fathers to the brink. If these amendments drive fathers to the brink, we should be asking who is at the wheel. Is the Minister for the Status of Women at the wheel? Is the Labor-Greens government at the wheel?

I suspect that there is a strong feminist ideology driving these amendments. It is feminist ideology that has created this malicious code to rob men of their rights to be fathers. It is feminist ideology that has dressed up this malicious code to rob children of their right to have a father in their lives. It is feminist ideology that has dressed up this malicious code to create the illusion of acting to stop family violence.

I note that included with these changes is one that repeals the ‘friendly parent’ provisions from the additional considerations for determining a parenting order. The friendly parent provision encourages amicable behaviour among parents. It fosters friendly relationships with all parties. Most importantly, the friendly parent provision assists a court to meet the first pillar of parenting provisions—the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of its parents. This provision has helped more fathers maintain meaningful relationships with their children and, at the same time, it has discouraged parents from abusing the system.

But justice and maintenance of rights for fathers is an affront to this feminist ideology from this government. What a clever way to rob men and rob fathers of their rights! Surely no-one would vote against amendments aimed at protecting children and preventing family violence. But that is not what these amendments are really about. There is already protection in the current at. The fact is that these amendments actually trivialise what is a very serious matter—that being family violence. The broadened definition of ‘family violence’ waters down the meaning of violence and will, in effect, make family violence more acceptable—precisely the opposite of the purported aim of these amendments. These amendments should be seen for what they are. They are a Trojan horse, full of malicious code designed to deprive fathers of their rights. The best thing we can do to protect the safety of children and to prevent family violence is to leave this act as it is. (Time expired)

Ivor Catt BarIvor Catt, 2 June 2011.

There are a number of little known problems confronting attempts to reform the situation.

Two problems stand out. They relate to the incompetence of excluded fathers when they try to encourage reform.

More than a decade ago I pointed out that nowhere in UK law, European Law or United Nations law or declaration is a child’s right of access to its parent enshrined. Canadian Senator Anne C Cools pointed out that the same situation prevailed in Canada. Thus, excluded father try to press judges to enforced a law which does not exist. Excluded fathers remain totally indifferent when this is pointed out to them, and are not interested in contributing to effort establish such a right for children in law or in the UN Declaration. Under the United Nations Charter, Saudi Arabia is perfectly entitled to confiscate a child from its mother.

Similarly, there is no right for a parent to access its child. Again, indifference from excluded fathers.

“ …. …. it became established that children have the right to both of their parents and that the King will be the protector of that right. She then recounted a trail of decisions during which that premise became modified repeatedly until it came to mean today that children are the property of, and an adjunct to, their mothers, …. …. “

No excluded father is interested in this matter.

Fathers refuse to consider “The Retreat Strategy”. The extreme case was Matt O’Connor, founder of F4J, who said he had benefited from the strategy but never told any of his members about it.

All the four fathers who used it won their cases. All other fathers refuse to discuss it or use it.

Advertisements

(2) Further thoughts :: The Retreat Strategy

By Ivor Catt

It is difficult to think through the new reality in marriage. Radical feminists and the legal system combined to rule out justice, the rule of law, the interests of the child, etc. They have established that for the next two decades, the ruling criterion will be that of power. This led to the Retreat strategy. The essence of Retreat is that the current standard practice, that of cutting the father off from his children, expropriating him, including all his future assets and earnings, must be made economically unviable. (It already is, but the cost is concealed from view by secrecy etc.) For this to be true, the father threatened with the destruction of his family has to undertake never to earn money on the white economy again. He needs to undertake never to have any contact whatsoever with his children until further legislation enables a wife to petition the family courts to permanently disqualify itself from her family.

The idea that a father who cares for his children must not build up assets is contained within the Retreat strategy. (He may enhance his earning power, but he has to get rid of assets as they accumulate.) What is missing is the further idea that any assets he does build up should be invisible. It appears that we have to set up trusts abroad beyond the reach of the English legal system. This should be relatively easy. Thus, any father who cares for his children, if he is so foolhardy as to buy instead of rent his home, should place it in the possession of the Retreat foundation, registered in a suitable foreign country. We have to investigate how long the arm of our present judges is, in order to ensure that the family’s assets are safe. What we are defending the family against is, for instance, the situation when the mother suffering from Post Natal Depression, or from the menopause, or Munchhausen’s Syndrome, or wants to trade in for a toyboy, buys in sympathy from social workers, lawyers, police etc. This is the point at which the whole family is particularly vulnerable.

Another idea broached by W is that the responsible father must maximise the debts (like hire purchase, mortgage etc.) that his wife is burdened with. The important principle here is that a wife will not sue for divorce if her debts would immediately bankrupt her. That is, it would be useful to organise the wife’s debts such that she has to ensure a steady flow of money from her husband, or she is bankrupted and made homeless. This needs to be further investigated. In principle, it is unnecessary to stick at the limits of the present Retreat strategy, where the wife’s personal assets stand positive or at nil. A father who cares for his children, and so prudently tries to ensure that they will not lose their father, should drive his wife into debt, not guaranteed by him.

There are similarities between the situation in the U.S.A. when hire and fire got out of hand, described in my first book The Catt Concept, see summary in http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/littleton/index.htm, and the present situation. The Catt Concept discusses the appropriate behaviour for an employee under irresponsible management in my industries – computers and microelectronics in the 60’s. The Retreat strategy develops the appropriate response to totally irresponsible lawyers and law-breaking, procedure-breaching judges (who are usually failing barristers dressed up for the day as part time judges) in secret, procedure-breaching courts, supported by irresponsible “Court Welfare Officers” (which CWOs are actually probation officers untrained for the job), gullible police and a media controlled by sexually dysfunctional, power crazy, anti-family radical feminists (who control the training of said CWOs), who together target a wife (and through her her family) at her most vulnerable time.

Further resources on the Retreat Strategy:

Connected readings:

Ivor Catt
121 Westfields
St. Albans AL3 4JR
England

E-mail: ivorcatt @ electromagnetism . demon . co . uk

Ivor Catt 13oct98

Ivor Catt Bar

From Law, to Mercy, to Power – an unseen fall from grace

By Ivor Catt

Introduction

In his indomitable and utterly distinctive manner Ivor Catt here reveals some hard truths and itemises a sequence of events none of us have noticed. If anything, he shows us why we are the victims of our own generosity and liberalism and why we never stop to ponder why it is considered generous and the ultimate price we must pay for law adopting a human face and the power that it then gives others.

Robert Whiston, FRSA

The quality of mercy is not strain’d;
It droppeth as the gentle rain of heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
‘Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway,
It is enthroned in the heart of kings,
It is an attribute of God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this –
That in the course of justice none of us
Should see salvation; we do pray for mercy,
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy.
(Source: Portia, Merchant of Venice)

Portia’s Speech is an ideal metaphor for the gathering crisis in English law. Denning’s revolution was to introduce the precepts enshrined in Portia’s speech. Denning was ideologically opposed to the rule of law, and replaced it by a moral code which he assumed to exist and to be comprehensive. His own moral code was low church Anglican. In practice, it had to be invented and extended on the hoof by judges and enforced by judges. Our legal system was the amalgamation of the King’s Courts, the Court of Chancery, and the Ecclesiastical Courts. Denning shifted the courts back to their other two, submerged traditions, Chancery and, even more so, the Ecclesiastical Courts. These had never been shut down, merely ‘merged ‘ into, and supposedly pre-empted by, the King’s Courts. This was the weakness in our system that Denning, although not expert in, or interested in, jurisprudence, unwittingly exploited via their surviving rump, Equity.

Since the judges’ Masonic moral code was not comprehensive, the judges looked to Public Opinion for guidance. This shift was marked by Lord Chief Justice Taylor saying:

“The Law responds to Public Opinion.”

The public was enthusiastic, but the older Professors of Jurisprudence had been horrified, and had said so. Dr. John Morris of Magdalen College, Oxford, wrote an article entitled ‘Palm Tree Justice in the Court of Appeal’ published in the Law Quarterly Review. He wrote:

By departing from the established rules of law the Court of Appeal seems to have usurped the functions of the legislature. …. it will not be sufficient just to re-write the chapter on gifts to children in the text-books on wills. The text-books themselves will have to be scrapped and construction reduced to the level of guesswork. It is submitted that the rules of law binding on the court cannot be evaded merely by calling them technical.

The reality was that Public Opinion had replaced the law.

Thatcher would probably assert that Public Opinion does not exist. Anyway, to fill the void, judges were forced to mistake pressure groups for Public Opinion. This is the reason for the massive propaganda in our media for novel moral codes, which were vying, through the media, for control of our courts.

The realisation that in future, decisions in legal actions would be decided in the media, and merely ratified by our courts, came only gradually. ‘The media’ meant, of course, those pressure groups which controlled the media; its owners, and much more importantly, the most vocal pressure groups. This is why the ideological need to massage facts and statistics, and even more, to ignore and even suppress facts, is so much more prevalent in our media than it used to be. It is not only government statistics that have been manipulated in order to create a more pliable ‘Public Opinion’ to be obeyed by the judges.

However, the loss of a legal basis for court decisions and their replacement by media decisions was unstable. Another motivation for decisions was inexorably drawn into the situation; decision making based on naked power. The ‘Court of Morals’ which, thanks to Denning, had replaced our Courts of Law, now had no defence against the exercise of naked Power, which it proceeded to ratify.

Examples are;

“A judge was entitled to dismiss a father’s contact application …. following threats by the child’s stepfather that if proceedings continued he would reject the child and the mother.” –
Kate O’Hanlon, Barrister, Law Report, The Independent, 25 June 1997, p17.

“…. contact orders …. are in practice unenforceable, and where such an order is flouted for no good reason the parent seeking contact has no remedy. …. The father seeking contact is powerless if the mother refuses to release the child in compliance with an order. …. Parents seeking legitimate contact enforcement, and the courts they resort to, are engaged in a charade.” – Jasmine Salisbury, a magistrate serving on the family panel, The Independent, 12 Jan 1994.

Thus, we have reverted to that period in our history before legal controls were instituted. Historically, Denning’s usurpation of law by morals was only interim. The underlying factor was the destruction of the law, leading inevitably to an era of lawlessness, or rule by power, which we are now in. In this new era, the court’s only function is to validate, or encode, the facts of power.

In the case of the family courts, the rule of power reached its apotheosis in the recent case of “E”. Previous to the court hearing, he bid farewell to his children, telling them that if the court order were not made to his prescription, he would never have any contact with them. Further, he would never earn money on the white economy, and he would never again provide money or other support of any kind for them.

Counsel for the other side, hearing of this, wrongly deduced that they had a trump card, showing the father’s indifference and uncaring nature. They informed the judge. The judge capitulated, and made out the order over residence (=custody of the children) prescribed by the father.

The new regime in the family courts is as follows. Any man who has unwisely built up large assets, loses all his assets and any contact with his children. The mother and children are then maintained over the next ten to fifteen years out of his expropriated assets.

However, that only applies to some ten per cent of divorcing fathers. It has been calculated more than once that the cost of a divorce is £160,000. If the father’s total assets are as much or more, well and good. He can be ejected and robbed. Further extortion via the C.S.A. will be a bonus.

Now consider the other ninety per cent of fathers. Such a father can adopt the strategy of Retreat. The total equity in his home is perhaps £25,000. Provided he announces in advance of the divorce hearing that he retreats, that the cupboard will be bare unless he has his way, the judge is on notice that a court order which expropriates the father (and virtually all court orders do), will cost the state some £130,000 in direct cost. Incidentally, it will also damage the children, although our courts are more or less totally indifferent to the plight of the children of divorce. ‘Court welfare officers’ have minimal training in probation matters, not in family matters, and are subjected to an extremely destructive ideology during this short, irrelevant training.

The mantra; “The interests of the children come first,” is merely intoned to justify secrecy, so that our courts can ignore our children’s interests without the glare of publicity.

Before the first divorce hearing, the divorcing father, plus all of his relatives that he can assemble, will hold a farewell party for his children. (Should the children be unavailable, the party will be held in their absence, and they will be informed by recorded delivery letter.) He will tell them that should the judge make a single residence order in favour of their mother, he will never again earn salary. Further, both he and all his relatives will cease all contact with them, and all financial support. He and the relatives will then give to the children their final, farewell presents. The event, and what happened, will be reported to the judge, and entered into the court file, in the form of signed letters by each relative, and a signed statement by the father. The only situation when their joint decision to retreat will be rescinded, will be if future legislation enables the mother to ask the court to permanently disqualify itself from further involvement in the family.

One great advantage of Retreat is that, since the facts of the case have no bearing on the outcome, there is no need for a court hearing. This immediately represents a great saving for the state’s in court costs and in legal aid. Since, before the judge capitulated in the 1997 landmark case of E, the judge had threatened to fine E’s solicitor, it is important that the father should not have any legal representation. Also, any verbal submissions may confuse the judge, and be falsifiable by an embattled legal ‘system’. By far the safest course is for the father to submit this documentation, and his prescribed Court Order, to the judge, and remain silent; possibly not even attend. (The facts never did have a bearing, but the realisation that the children lost all contact with the father was camouflaged by the issuing of worthless contact orders which would not be enforced. Also, the C.S.A. extortion would arrive much later in time, so that the judge was never confronted with the implications of his behaviour, and would not know that the father would never earn money again on the white economy, as happened in my case, that of R. G., and so many others).

Since the courts have invented the concept of a father kidnapping his children, but deny the concept of a mother kidnapping her children, the court order prescribed by the father using the Retreat strategy requires at least parity of status to the father in the court order. Thus, shared residence, or sole residence with the father, must be prescribed in the court order, to prevent the children from being cut off from their father. The possibility of the intrusion of the concept of kidnap by the father has to be excluded from the start.

Similarly, the financial division will be as prescribed by the father.

The key to this strategy is that the sole source of the necessary wealth to keep the children from being a charge on the state is the future earnings of the father. What fraction of the G.N.P. is lost if all divorced men or half of divorced men quit the labour force? Here we have to do further research.

The best we have at present is Gilder in the U.S.A. in 1986 (Men and marriage);

“Single men currently have median incomes less than 10% higher than those of single women….. Married men, however, earn some 70% more than singles of either sex.”

The key point is to determine to what extent the motivation of the married man to provide makes him the chief engine of wealth creation. However, that is a detail, and will not delay the use of the Retreat strategy by fathers who have the courage to fight for their children.

Ivor Catt 29oct97

Ivor Catt Bar