Another video to amuse.
Showing posts with label Bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bias. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
T is for This requires comment...
One thing that is true about humans is that they do something, and then make up the reasons for it later.
In this case we have what I am sure is a lovely woman (Hannah Seligson), explaining why she isn't getting married.
Apparently there are 'un-travelled continents and four more career paths to explore'.
And there are. Career paths and continents, which can't be explored if:
1) no one has a very high-paying career to pay for them, and
2) no one has been roped into a divorce settlement to pay for them.
Now I do think Hannah is probably a decent partner, as she tracks her purchases with an eye to dividing it up based on who paid for what, and tries to avoid the messy divorces of the previous generation, but I wonder...
I wonder if she really would, after a 12-year non-married relationship, walk away with just the things she personally bought - or if she would walk across the street to the lawyers office, and discover that palimony is just as good as marriage, and take her ex 'partner' for everything she could get. I can hear her muttering about how 'that bastard took the best years of my life', and feeling all justified as she turns him into a slave for the rest of his.
Unfair? Unrealistic? Not if you look at the statistics. No, unfortunately, financially enslaving your ex is big business, and if Hannah resists the temptation, she is the exception, not the rule.
The delay in marriage might have something to do with unexplored contients and careers, but it is, in my opinion, mostly about men avoiding slavery.
Why did this particular essay tweak me enough to post? Because it reeked so strongly of sour grapes. Rare is the man who doesn't want to find a good woman, and raise children with her. Even more rare is the PERSON (no sexism in this post) who can resist enslaving their ex and ensuring their future casual explorations of careers an continents when the state hands it to them on a silver platter, courtesy of the partner whom they now dislike.
-And the tightness of the marriage market is all about this. With a judiciary/legal system that thinks that men were built to support women, no matter WHAT they do (no fault, remember?) marriage is going to become more and more rare.
It's not about 'adulthood', or the length of 'careers' - marriages and kids were more common when we were mostly working on farms and in sweatshops, and when 'success' was something that never happened. And it isn't about exploration, although the exploration is in there, but mostly by the women, and at the man's expense.
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
In this case we have what I am sure is a lovely woman (Hannah Seligson), explaining why she isn't getting married.
Apparently there are 'un-travelled continents and four more career paths to explore'.
And there are. Career paths and continents, which can't be explored if:
1) no one has a very high-paying career to pay for them, and
2) no one has been roped into a divorce settlement to pay for them.
Now I do think Hannah is probably a decent partner, as she tracks her purchases with an eye to dividing it up based on who paid for what, and tries to avoid the messy divorces of the previous generation, but I wonder...
I wonder if she really would, after a 12-year non-married relationship, walk away with just the things she personally bought - or if she would walk across the street to the lawyers office, and discover that palimony is just as good as marriage, and take her ex 'partner' for everything she could get. I can hear her muttering about how 'that bastard took the best years of my life', and feeling all justified as she turns him into a slave for the rest of his.
Unfair? Unrealistic? Not if you look at the statistics. No, unfortunately, financially enslaving your ex is big business, and if Hannah resists the temptation, she is the exception, not the rule.
The delay in marriage might have something to do with unexplored contients and careers, but it is, in my opinion, mostly about men avoiding slavery.
Why did this particular essay tweak me enough to post? Because it reeked so strongly of sour grapes. Rare is the man who doesn't want to find a good woman, and raise children with her. Even more rare is the PERSON (no sexism in this post) who can resist enslaving their ex and ensuring their future casual explorations of careers an continents when the state hands it to them on a silver platter, courtesy of the partner whom they now dislike.
-And the tightness of the marriage market is all about this. With a judiciary/legal system that thinks that men were built to support women, no matter WHAT they do (no fault, remember?) marriage is going to become more and more rare.
It's not about 'adulthood', or the length of 'careers' - marriages and kids were more common when we were mostly working on farms and in sweatshops, and when 'success' was something that never happened. And it isn't about exploration, although the exploration is in there, but mostly by the women, and at the man's expense.
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
Monday, October 12, 2009
F is for Fair Warning
Well, the court system seems to be calling me, and I suspect strongly, with some evidence that my very evil ex has figured out that this blog exists.
And so therefore, I am going to go into hiding, until such time as the court has done abusing me. Perhaps I will throw out links to other sites, but the posts on this site needs must disappear for a while.
I won't delete them, I will just hide them. If it happens that you need me to dig a link, or some data from a post up, please email me at b3u8ebs02 at sneakemail.com.
I apologize for being a wimp, but my private emails have been introduced to the court before, and have previously helped the court to decide that I was being 'truculent' about my enslavement. I suspect that my blogging here would be even more evidence of my lack of good faith. (insert eye roll here)
So, I must go into hiding. I pray for the day that what I must conceal can be said in the open, but obviously, it is also our right to free speech that is under attack by the Gynocracy.
This is a 'fair warning' post, and it itself will shortly dissappear, to be replaced by some generic message.
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
And so therefore, I am going to go into hiding, until such time as the court has done abusing me. Perhaps I will throw out links to other sites, but the posts on this site needs must disappear for a while.
I won't delete them, I will just hide them. If it happens that you need me to dig a link, or some data from a post up, please email me at b3u8ebs02 at sneakemail.com.
I apologize for being a wimp, but my private emails have been introduced to the court before, and have previously helped the court to decide that I was being 'truculent' about my enslavement. I suspect that my blogging here would be even more evidence of my lack of good faith. (insert eye roll here)
So, I must go into hiding. I pray for the day that what I must conceal can be said in the open, but obviously, it is also our right to free speech that is under attack by the Gynocracy.
This is a 'fair warning' post, and it itself will shortly dissappear, to be replaced by some generic message.
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
Friday, October 02, 2009
M is for Moms - Reprise with some links...
A reprise of a poem from Jan 2008 with some, but not all, by far, links added.
They can cook kids in ovens
They can drown them in lakes
They can chop off their limbs
They can burn them at stakes
They can smother them
Bleed them
Dismember them all
They stash their sad bodies
In closets, behind walls...
...In suitcases grim, beneath flower beds;
They begged for their lives;
And now they are dead
Their killers? -Their mothers;
Who beat, drown, and hack;
When it comes to child-murder;
The mom is no slack.
But when it comes to the court
And the newsreel we find
That men are the villains;
They think all moms are kind
They little consider
The statistics which tell
That families-sans-fathers
Are our children's worst hell
So pray for our children
And pray for the State
Which finds women all saintly
And men, reprobate.
Perhaps some day soon
We'll treat women like men
And not coddle those
Who kill most
Who cause Woe to Men.
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
They can cook kids in ovens
They can drown them in lakes
They can chop off their limbs
They can burn them at stakes
They can smother them
Bleed them
Dismember them all
They stash their sad bodies
In closets, behind walls...
...In suitcases grim, beneath flower beds;
They begged for their lives;
And now they are dead
Their killers? -Their mothers;
Who beat, drown, and hack;
When it comes to child-murder;
The mom is no slack.
But when it comes to the court
And the newsreel we find
That men are the villains;
They think all moms are kind
They little consider
The statistics which tell
That families-sans-fathers
Are our children's worst hell
So pray for our children
And pray for the State
Which finds women all saintly
And men, reprobate.
Perhaps some day soon
We'll treat women like men
And not coddle those
Who kill most
Who cause Woe to Men.
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
M is for Men Are Good
This shouldn't be a shocking message.
This shouldn't be a new message.
This shouldn't be a radical message that must be suppressed.
But it is the name of a website that I just discovered, via 'Angry Harry', that details that exactly this message is being actively supressed.
Go, start Here and read, and remember, Men ARE Good.
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
This shouldn't be a new message.
This shouldn't be a radical message that must be suppressed.
But it is the name of a website that I just discovered, via 'Angry Harry', that details that exactly this message is being actively supressed.
Go, start Here and read, and remember, Men ARE Good.
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
Friday, September 25, 2009
R is for Reading List
As new voices emerge, it is good to remember where we started from.
Below find Youtube links for an interview based upon Warren Farrell's 'The Myth of Male Power'. Warren comes from a different generation than I, a generation that lived with more of the positive aspects of women's liberation.
I live in a world where those aspects have been digested, legalized and are assumed. If a woman wants a job, wants to join the team, wants equal pay for equal work - she gets it, and has a legal basis for it, and legal recourse if she doesn't get it. But negative aspects of feminism have balooned, and at the expense of men, and few of the old inequities have been redressed.
So it is very worthwhile listening to Warren - and remembering that since this interview, things have gotten much, much worse for men. Warren saw a brave new recasting of the gender roles that liberated both sexes emerging. Instead we have a brave new world of male servitude, second-class citizenry, and slavery, with women having all the options and men having all the state-enforced obligations.
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 1/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 2/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 3/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 4/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 5/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 6/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 7/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 8/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 9/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 10/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 11/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 12/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 13/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 14/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 15/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 16/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 17/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 18/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 19/19
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
Below find Youtube links for an interview based upon Warren Farrell's 'The Myth of Male Power'. Warren comes from a different generation than I, a generation that lived with more of the positive aspects of women's liberation.
I live in a world where those aspects have been digested, legalized and are assumed. If a woman wants a job, wants to join the team, wants equal pay for equal work - she gets it, and has a legal basis for it, and legal recourse if she doesn't get it. But negative aspects of feminism have balooned, and at the expense of men, and few of the old inequities have been redressed.
So it is very worthwhile listening to Warren - and remembering that since this interview, things have gotten much, much worse for men. Warren saw a brave new recasting of the gender roles that liberated both sexes emerging. Instead we have a brave new world of male servitude, second-class citizenry, and slavery, with women having all the options and men having all the state-enforced obligations.
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 1/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 2/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 3/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 4/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 5/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 6/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 7/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 8/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 9/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 10/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 11/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 12/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 13/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 14/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 15/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 16/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 17/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 18/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 19/19
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Y is for Yawning
Don't say I'm cheap. Even if I am. :)
If you don't read anything else today, go read Yawning at Hofstra at A Voice for Men.
Brilliant Excerpt:
If you don't read anything else today, go read Yawning at Hofstra at A Voice for Men.
Brilliant Excerpt:
Even with their neck planted squarely on the guillotine, if a woman’s hand is on the lever, the last words of men will likely as not be, “I’m sorry if I get your blade bloody.”
Men are, it seems, the greatest masochists of all time. Whatever you do, don’t get between a man and an opportunity to excuse a woman for whatever harm she causes to others.
You’ll be road kill in a nanosecond.
And that is precisely what men are becoming. They are like dumb animals that wander onto the super highway of gender politics, unable to grasp the concept of speed and Mac Trucks. After getting hit, the ones who don’t get squashed flat simply limp off to the shoulder, covering their pain with a smile and saying, “Please, ma’am, may I have another?"
Hey, look Hot Air is onto the Hofstra misandry too, with a must read article entitled: Making Children Of Women
Excerpt:
We’ve come to this weird place in our history where women become babies instead of have them. It’s all about choices - but not about consequences. Rights, but not responsibilities. When a woman becomes pregnant, she can choose to kill the baby (or if you’re squeamish, terminate the pregnancy.) Repeatedly, in one case. Or she can choose to claim a goodly percentage of the man’s income for the next 18 years. Women have reproductive choices, men have obligations.
Related: Falsely accused Hofstra Senior: “Thank God I Filmed It.” Oh yeah, because clearly the testimony of one skank is worth much more than that of five men. Oh, Lookie! we have a name for the young (struggling for a new, appropriate adjective here) woman: Danmell Ndonye.
Excerpt from The Gothamist:
The aunt of falsely accused Kevin Taveras told the Post that when Ndonye was split up from her boyfriend at an on-campus party, she and [Kevin] "started making out, and she said to him, 'Do you want to come back to my dorm?' He said, 'I have friends here with me,' and she said, 'Bring 'em along. It'll be hot.' It started from there. The point is she knew what she was doing... Stalin said to her, 'Are you sure about this?' She said, 'Yeah, sure, I want to.'" (Link)
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
W is for Why D'Ja Spoze...
There have been a number of articles on the much heavier impact of the current economic disaster on men than women. The Rights of Man directs us to a UK report that shows the impact on married/cohabiting men is twice that of women.
And why d'ja spoze that is? Why do you suppose that men are more than twice as likely to find themselves unemployed than women?
Is there any chance that it is because many of the jobs women fill are entitlement jobs, government jobs, you-can't-be-fired-from-this-one jobs, and she-has-something-on-the-boss jobs? Make-work jobs and no-show jobs? Service jobs that require just a bit less, but must be done come heck-or-high-water?
D'Ja Spoze?
But as we contemplate the reality of numbers like those in the graph here, there are others who say things like:
"In the early '70s, breaking out of the domestic cocoon, leaving their mothers' circumscribed lives behind, young women felt exhilarated and bold. But the more women have achieved, the more they seem aggrieved." Maureen Dowd in the New York Times, Sept. 19, 2009.*
and
"Many women are being charged more in health care coverage, but as we all know, women are earning less. We all know that women earn 78 cents on the dollar to every men -- to a man [sic]." Michelle Obama, First Lady (Hat tip for graph and quotes - American Thinker)
If it is so terrible to be a woman, than why d'ja spose the real numbers all seem to indicate something else? Why is it that 2/3rds of all male suicides are divorced or separated, and why is it that that number is almost exactly equal to the difference between the male and female suicide rate?
Why D'Ja Spoze?
The First Lady should know better, but perhaps in the echo chamber she lives in, she can't hear anything but the vaporings of NOW.
On the other hand Dowd is truly tone-deaf. She works in the news industry and should know that men are dying in the streets - but here she is wringing her hands about her ennui. Disgusting.
Update: Novaseeker dissects Dowd and her ennui gap here.
Brilliant line from Novaseeker: There are more widows, Maureen, in large part because men die younger than women do, and die much more often at work than women do. It's hardly a romantic advantage later in life if you are dead.
From my comment on Novaseeker's post:
Dowd is blindingly awful. How disgusting that she blathers on about her lack of happiness, her ennui, when 3x the number of men are dying of suicide as women, when men are dying earlier and in larger numbers from poor health care, when men's deaths make up 90+ percent of hazardous job deaths.
[...]
When we see black people dying in this way we attribute it to racism. I say that when men die earlier and in greater numbers, it is a result of genderism that fails to care for their needs, that drives them into dangerous jobs, and kills them off early. All while women like Dowd whine about their ennui. (spit)
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
* I won't link the NYT or Dowd because they live in such a world of propaganda, and I don't want to send traffic their way. Probably I shouldn't link Whitehouse.Gov for the same reasons. But you can find the Dowd link at American Thinker here if you want to go wallow in it. I think you have to register to read her swill. But Novaseeker has a lot of it.
p.s. Welcome Novaseeker to the blogroll.
And why d'ja spoze that is? Why do you suppose that men are more than twice as likely to find themselves unemployed than women?
Is there any chance that it is because many of the jobs women fill are entitlement jobs, government jobs, you-can't-be-fired-from-this-one jobs, and she-has-something-on-the-boss jobs? Make-work jobs and no-show jobs? Service jobs that require just a bit less, but must be done come heck-or-high-water?
D'Ja Spoze?
But as we contemplate the reality of numbers like those in the graph here, there are others who say things like:
"In the early '70s, breaking out of the domestic cocoon, leaving their mothers' circumscribed lives behind, young women felt exhilarated and bold. But the more women have achieved, the more they seem aggrieved." Maureen Dowd in the New York Times, Sept. 19, 2009.*
and
"Many women are being charged more in health care coverage, but as we all know, women are earning less. We all know that women earn 78 cents on the dollar to every men -- to a man [sic]." Michelle Obama, First Lady (Hat tip for graph and quotes - American Thinker)
If it is so terrible to be a woman, than why d'ja spose the real numbers all seem to indicate something else? Why is it that 2/3rds of all male suicides are divorced or separated, and why is it that that number is almost exactly equal to the difference between the male and female suicide rate?
Why D'Ja Spoze?
The First Lady should know better, but perhaps in the echo chamber she lives in, she can't hear anything but the vaporings of NOW.
On the other hand Dowd is truly tone-deaf. She works in the news industry and should know that men are dying in the streets - but here she is wringing her hands about her ennui. Disgusting.
Update: Novaseeker dissects Dowd and her ennui gap here.
Brilliant line from Novaseeker: There are more widows, Maureen, in large part because men die younger than women do, and die much more often at work than women do. It's hardly a romantic advantage later in life if you are dead.
From my comment on Novaseeker's post:
Dowd is blindingly awful. How disgusting that she blathers on about her lack of happiness, her ennui, when 3x the number of men are dying of suicide as women, when men are dying earlier and in larger numbers from poor health care, when men's deaths make up 90+ percent of hazardous job deaths.
[...]
When we see black people dying in this way we attribute it to racism. I say that when men die earlier and in greater numbers, it is a result of genderism that fails to care for their needs, that drives them into dangerous jobs, and kills them off early. All while women like Dowd whine about their ennui. (spit)
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
* I won't link the NYT or Dowd because they live in such a world of propaganda, and I don't want to send traffic their way. Probably I shouldn't link Whitehouse.Gov for the same reasons. But you can find the Dowd link at American Thinker here if you want to go wallow in it. I think you have to register to read her swill. But Novaseeker has a lot of it.
p.s. Welcome Novaseeker to the blogroll.
Monday, September 21, 2009
H is for Help - as in SHE Needs Help +Update!
If you haven't seen this article by Glenn Sacks and Ned Holstein, it's time to take your eyes for a walk over to MSN Lifestyle, where they relate the story of David Woods:
Bleeding from the neck from a knife wound delivered by his violent wife, David, a partially disabled ex-Marine is cuffed, and treated like a violent offender.
Only when his children come crying to his defense, and - out of his presence - are able to convince a female sheriff's deputy what really happened, is he uncuffed, and the police begin to treat him like someone other than the offender.
So what happens next? Does his wife go to jail? Certainly assault with a deadly weapon is a felony?
No, instead the officers say that, "She needs help", and direct David to call the emergency mental health line for her health insurance policy.
Those Police, Always So Helpful!
Bye Guys! It's Been Nice! Stop By Anytime!
David notes: "Now, isn't that strange? When she had a fat lip, it was a felony and I was going to jail. But when they finally realized that she tried to stab me in the neck, it stopped being a crime, and instead it was a mental health issue."
-And they think SHE Needs Help.
No, I think SHE is getting all the help she needs.
Enabling, Misandrist Help.
Howabout giving David and his children a hand, and locking this woman up?
It is interesting that the wife here actually makes a habit of accusing David of criminal and violent behavior against her. Accusing him of what she is actually guilty of. Something I think a few of us are familiar with...
And in case someone wanders by, and claims that men ARE usually the perpetrator, hey, it's time for a trip to the CDC, which just released a study indicating when violence is one-sided, women are the perpetrator 70-freaking-percent of the time, and when violence was reciprocal, women were most likely to have struck first.
Do go read the rest of the article.
Update:
And don't we hear an echo of this in the Hofstra False Rape case? The men's reputations and families were dragged through the mud... but the young woman? "Authorities have not released the accuser's name, saying they are concerned over her safety." -And; "Her actions and her demeanor depict a very troubled young woman in need of much help."
Want to get really enraged? Listen to the harpie feminist DA who claims 'no crime occurred', and seems to think the important thing is that they 'got her to admit the truth', and she somehow thinks that this 'put an end to this injustice'. How about THIS injustice? It is true that her community 'has real victims of sexual assault'. FALSELY ACCUSED MEN. How about some charges for the criminal in this case? (Hat tip Misandry Review.)
More Misandrist, Enabling Help for the Offending Women. More Abuse for the Men.
Update Update: Yet another example? Merced cops toss an unarmed, legless man out of his wheelchair, removing his pants in the process, snatch his 2-year-old daughter, and drag him off to jail, all on the claim of his wife that he punched her in the stomach 3 times. But lookie lookie, as you read through, you find the wife not quite so innocent: "Police took Phifer, Williams' wife, into custody during the incident on an outstanding $10,000 misdemeanor warrant for domestic violence." (on page 3) Hmmm, any bets as to who was the real violent offender? No word on how many times they tazed Phifer. "Recounting the experience, Williams broke into tears. "How much resisting am I going to do with no legs? No feet?" he wept. "It's ridiculous what they did to me. How far am I gonna run? Where am I gonna go?""
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
Bleeding from the neck from a knife wound delivered by his violent wife, David, a partially disabled ex-Marine is cuffed, and treated like a violent offender.
Only when his children come crying to his defense, and - out of his presence - are able to convince a female sheriff's deputy what really happened, is he uncuffed, and the police begin to treat him like someone other than the offender.
So what happens next? Does his wife go to jail? Certainly assault with a deadly weapon is a felony?
No, instead the officers say that, "She needs help", and direct David to call the emergency mental health line for her health insurance policy.
Those Police, Always So Helpful!
Bye Guys! It's Been Nice! Stop By Anytime!
David notes: "Now, isn't that strange? When she had a fat lip, it was a felony and I was going to jail. But when they finally realized that she tried to stab me in the neck, it stopped being a crime, and instead it was a mental health issue."
-And they think SHE Needs Help.
No, I think SHE is getting all the help she needs.
Enabling, Misandrist Help.
Howabout giving David and his children a hand, and locking this woman up?
It is interesting that the wife here actually makes a habit of accusing David of criminal and violent behavior against her. Accusing him of what she is actually guilty of. Something I think a few of us are familiar with...
And in case someone wanders by, and claims that men ARE usually the perpetrator, hey, it's time for a trip to the CDC, which just released a study indicating when violence is one-sided, women are the perpetrator 70-freaking-percent of the time, and when violence was reciprocal, women were most likely to have struck first.
Do go read the rest of the article.
Update:
And don't we hear an echo of this in the Hofstra False Rape case? The men's reputations and families were dragged through the mud... but the young woman? "Authorities have not released the accuser's name, saying they are concerned over her safety." -And; "Her actions and her demeanor depict a very troubled young woman in need of much help."
Want to get really enraged? Listen to the harpie feminist DA who claims 'no crime occurred', and seems to think the important thing is that they 'got her to admit the truth', and she somehow thinks that this 'put an end to this injustice'. How about THIS injustice? It is true that her community 'has real victims of sexual assault'. FALSELY ACCUSED MEN. How about some charges for the criminal in this case? (Hat tip Misandry Review.)
More Misandrist, Enabling Help for the Offending Women. More Abuse for the Men.
Update Update: Yet another example? Merced cops toss an unarmed, legless man out of his wheelchair, removing his pants in the process, snatch his 2-year-old daughter, and drag him off to jail, all on the claim of his wife that he punched her in the stomach 3 times. But lookie lookie, as you read through, you find the wife not quite so innocent: "Police took Phifer, Williams' wife, into custody during the incident on an outstanding $10,000 misdemeanor warrant for domestic violence." (on page 3) Hmmm, any bets as to who was the real violent offender? No word on how many times they tazed Phifer. "Recounting the experience, Williams broke into tears. "How much resisting am I going to do with no legs? No feet?" he wept. "It's ridiculous what they did to me. How far am I gonna run? Where am I gonna go?""
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
S is for Statistics
Back in 2006, I posted a review of sentencing of men vs women by our courts entitled H is for Happy (it was the New Year). I like sentencing stats - they reflect the actual functioning of the courts, and hint to us at the injustices that might be happening in other parts of the process.
My intent was to discover if the evidence of our eyes was true, and if women in general were getting a whole different kind of justice when they went to court.
The numbers were shocking - across the board, women were recieving much shorter sentences - about 40% shorter than what was doled out to men. And it of course leads you to wonder what kind of biases are occuring in the arrest, trial and probation phases.
Well, I thought it was time to re-visit this question, and I found a nifty and huge government database to work against:
United States Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Federal Justice Statistics Program: Defendants Sentenced Under the Sentencing Reform Act, 2007 [United States] [Computer file]. ICPSR24232-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2009-02-23. doi:10.3886/ICPSR24232
Apparently they turn one of these out every year or did up to '07. You can download your copy here, (registration required) but the dataset is kind of large, and unless you have a recent copy of excel and/or are pretty good with databases, this isn't fun. Happily, I love this kind of thing and so:
I took the data, which is at an individual level, and first determined the average sentence length by gender: The average woman was sentenced to a 59% shorter sentence than the average man, with the average sentence (across all offenses) for a man being 57 months, and the average sentence for a woman being 23 months.
If men and women are really committing the same crimes, this already givs us significant evidence of bias, but let's compare apples with apples. The database gives us the primary offense, and we can break the data down by that:
The following list outlines, per the data that you can download and work with yourself, the percentages less (or more) that women are sentenced for the exact same crime as men:
51% 1 Murder
43% 2 Manslaughter
37% 3 Kidnapping/Hostage
68% 4 Sexual Abuse
34% 5 Assault
57% 6 Bank Robbery
24% 9 Arson
47% 10 Drugs: Trafficking
50% 11 Drugs: Communicatn facilities
81% 12 Drugs: Simple possession
54% 13 Firearms: Use & possess
(21%) 15 Burg/Breaking & Entering
14% 16 Auto Theft
57% 17 Larceny
45% 18 Fraud
46% 19 Embezzlement
49% 20 Forgery/Counterfeiting
40% 21 Bribery
14% 22 Tax offenses
40% 23 Money laundering
62% 24 Racktring (includes extortion)
100% 25 Gambling/Lottery
41% 26 Civil rights offenses
51% 27 Immigration
43% 28 Pornography/Prostitution
32% 29 Offenses in prisons
60% 30 Administration of justice
117% 31 Environmental offenses
34% 32 National defense offenses
100% 33 Antitrust violations
(253%) 34 Food and drug offenses
63% 35 Traffic violations
And now it is possible to calculate how much less, on average, by crime, a woman is sentenced to than a man: 40%. Note that there are only two (2) areas in which women's sentences exceed men's.
Now perhaps the sentences being meted out to women are appropriate, and those given to men are out of line. With this nifty database to hand, I can calculate how many excess years are being doled out to men per primary offense, and the number is.... for 2007...
(drum roll please)
142,036.17 years.
Think of that, 142,036.17 years of productive male effort flushed away in the US court system just in 2007, - because men are not viewed as being as worthy of mercy as women.
Think what you could achieve with an army of 142,036 men working for you for a year! Even if these are difficult, or slothful men, a lot could be done! But it is necessary to lock them away, because, as you know,
...they just aren't women....
Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
p.s.
While I was in the neighborhood, and with the HBD/VDare/BNP/Bio-Cons and the like in the back of my mind, I wondered what the stats would say about Blacks as opposed to Whites in the courts.
And those who are Black do suffer from bias in some big-ticket items - murder (your average White gets a 7.3 year sentence according to the data, but your average Black gets 23 years), Manslaugter (Whites get a 23% discount), Arson (51% discount), and Drug Posession (75%!).
But the balance tips the other way for white-collar crimes, and the sentencing balances out around 4% in favor of the Black Man if you average across offenses. Whites are beaten up for Embezzelment -75%, Gambling -296%, Civil Rights Offenses -181%, and the like.
I guess that judges and prosecutors get 'fed up' with certain crimes in certain communities and races and sentence those extra hard, thinking that that will make a difference. Or perhaps certain crimes occurr more predominately in different communities, and repeat offenders get whacked. The data is there to parse that out if anyone is interested.
It's also fair to note that the things that blacks are being sentenced with carry much longer terms than what whites get sentenced with, but, you know, I am running a Men's Rights blog here, not a generic Civil Rights blog. If some Civil Rights guy wants to dig down on this data, and isn't technical enough to mince the data properly, I'd be glad to help.
Heck, maybe a grant could be written. :)
There might be grant money for studying how the court system screws BLACK men.
(Bitter? Me? Nooooooooooooooooo)
pps - had a brain spasm and typed 'years' instead of 'months' as the units for the average sentences in the 7th paragraph above. This has been fixed. In years (for those who can't divide by 12) it is 4.8 years for average male sentence, and 1.97 for average female sentence. The ratio remains the same, of course, with women getting a 59% discount on average. The other numbers (like the excess years men serve) did not suffer this problem.
My intent was to discover if the evidence of our eyes was true, and if women in general were getting a whole different kind of justice when they went to court.
The numbers were shocking - across the board, women were recieving much shorter sentences - about 40% shorter than what was doled out to men. And it of course leads you to wonder what kind of biases are occuring in the arrest, trial and probation phases.
Well, I thought it was time to re-visit this question, and I found a nifty and huge government database to work against:
United States Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Federal Justice Statistics Program: Defendants Sentenced Under the Sentencing Reform Act, 2007 [United States] [Computer file]. ICPSR24232-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2009-02-23. doi:10.3886/ICPSR24232
Apparently they turn one of these out every year or did up to '07. You can download your copy here, (registration required) but the dataset is kind of large, and unless you have a recent copy of excel and/or are pretty good with databases, this isn't fun. Happily, I love this kind of thing and so:
I took the data, which is at an individual level, and first determined the average sentence length by gender: The average woman was sentenced to a 59% shorter sentence than the average man, with the average sentence (across all offenses) for a man being 57 months, and the average sentence for a woman being 23 months.
If men and women are really committing the same crimes, this already givs us significant evidence of bias, but let's compare apples with apples. The database gives us the primary offense, and we can break the data down by that:
The following list outlines, per the data that you can download and work with yourself, the percentages less (or more) that women are sentenced for the exact same crime as men:
51% 1 Murder
43% 2 Manslaughter
37% 3 Kidnapping/Hostage
68% 4 Sexual Abuse
34% 5 Assault
57% 6 Bank Robbery
24% 9 Arson
47% 10 Drugs: Trafficking
50% 11 Drugs: Communicatn facilities
81% 12 Drugs: Simple possession
54% 13 Firearms: Use & possess
(21%) 15 Burg/Breaking & Entering
14% 16 Auto Theft
57% 17 Larceny
45% 18 Fraud
46% 19 Embezzlement
49% 20 Forgery/Counterfeiting
40% 21 Bribery
14% 22 Tax offenses
40% 23 Money laundering
62% 24 Racktring (includes extortion)
100% 25 Gambling/Lottery
41% 26 Civil rights offenses
51% 27 Immigration
43% 28 Pornography/Prostitution
32% 29 Offenses in prisons
60% 30 Administration of justice
117% 31 Environmental offenses
34% 32 National defense offenses
100% 33 Antitrust violations
(253%) 34 Food and drug offenses
63% 35 Traffic violations
And now it is possible to calculate how much less, on average, by crime, a woman is sentenced to than a man: 40%. Note that there are only two (2) areas in which women's sentences exceed men's.
Now perhaps the sentences being meted out to women are appropriate, and those given to men are out of line. With this nifty database to hand, I can calculate how many excess years are being doled out to men per primary offense, and the number is.... for 2007...
(drum roll please)
142,036.17 years.
Think of that, 142,036.17 years of productive male effort flushed away in the US court system just in 2007, - because men are not viewed as being as worthy of mercy as women.
Think what you could achieve with an army of 142,036 men working for you for a year! Even if these are difficult, or slothful men, a lot could be done! But it is necessary to lock them away, because, as you know,
...they just aren't women....
Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
p.s.
While I was in the neighborhood, and with the HBD/VDare/BNP/Bio-Cons and the like in the back of my mind, I wondered what the stats would say about Blacks as opposed to Whites in the courts.
And those who are Black do suffer from bias in some big-ticket items - murder (your average White gets a 7.3 year sentence according to the data, but your average Black gets 23 years), Manslaugter (Whites get a 23% discount), Arson (51% discount), and Drug Posession (75%!).
But the balance tips the other way for white-collar crimes, and the sentencing balances out around 4% in favor of the Black Man if you average across offenses. Whites are beaten up for Embezzelment -75%, Gambling -296%, Civil Rights Offenses -181%, and the like.
I guess that judges and prosecutors get 'fed up' with certain crimes in certain communities and races and sentence those extra hard, thinking that that will make a difference. Or perhaps certain crimes occurr more predominately in different communities, and repeat offenders get whacked. The data is there to parse that out if anyone is interested.
It's also fair to note that the things that blacks are being sentenced with carry much longer terms than what whites get sentenced with, but, you know, I am running a Men's Rights blog here, not a generic Civil Rights blog. If some Civil Rights guy wants to dig down on this data, and isn't technical enough to mince the data properly, I'd be glad to help.
Heck, maybe a grant could be written. :)
There might be grant money for studying how the court system screws BLACK men.
(Bitter? Me? Nooooooooooooooooo)
pps - had a brain spasm and typed 'years' instead of 'months' as the units for the average sentences in the 7th paragraph above. This has been fixed. In years (for those who can't divide by 12) it is 4.8 years for average male sentence, and 1.97 for average female sentence. The ratio remains the same, of course, with women getting a 59% discount on average. The other numbers (like the excess years men serve) did not suffer this problem.
Monday, September 14, 2009
W is for Worried
Another couple interesting elements in the emergent Men's Interests world are the Bio-Cons and HBD aka 'Human BioDiversity'.
If I understand the Men's Interests argument of the former (the Bio-Cons), it is that there was something biological or 'natural' about the old social constructs - they gave 'beta males' - that is, the average dudes out there (and that means all of us at one point or other, in my opinion) - a way to succeed. One woman was bound to one man, and needed that man to make her routine work.
Overturning the basic social framework with easy divorce, sex-without-responsibilities, abortion on demand, government supports for single motherhood, and governmental divorce structures that leave men destroyed and women empowered disrupts our society. Suddenly the nuclear family is less common, and men are avoiding marriage as women are running for their marriage exit and alimony/support check.
OK, all of that is from my/a Men's Rights worldview, but try this definition on for size: (Source)
Bioconservatism (a portmanteau word combining "biology" and "conservatism"), is a stance of hesitancy about biotechnological development especially if it is perceived to threaten a social order.
Strong bioconservative positions include opposition to the genetic, prosthetic and cognitive modification of human beings in particular. Whether arising from a conventionally right-leaning politics of religious and cultural conservatism or from a conventionally left-leaning politics of environmentalism, bioconservative positions oppose medical and other technological interventions into what are broadly perceived as current human and cultural limits in the name of a defense of "the natural" deployed as a moral category.
Bioconservative skepticism toward biomedical and other particular technological developments often is, but need not always be, part of a more general technophobic perspective or critique of technological society. Bioluddism represents a more radical and sweeping anti-biotechnological perspective.
So whichever of those you go with, or some cross-pollination of the two, fine. And see here and here for more on Bio-Conservatism.
But what worries and scares me is the HBD movement - Human BioDiversity - which is linked with Bio-Conservatism and which claims that the major differences between folks are not so much individual differences, but racial or genetic differences between major groups and genders.
And even if that was true, the formation of a movement around this idea worries me.
Because I think that HBD may often be a cover-word for racism - in fact, when you drill down on the bloggers involved, like Steve Sailer and Chris Brand you start seeing that they are participants in VDare, and the BNP and the like. (For more reading see here, and this post, (hm, <- this blogger also reads Roissy - and studies game))
Now I love my race like I love my gender, but even if we have good evidence that different races and genders are practically different, I don't want them treated differently by our country, and I worry that this is where focusing on this will get us.
Our founding fathers here in the states insisted that every citizen be treated equally, and that is because that is the only practical way to govern a democracy, and the only way to recognize and honor the spirit placed in us by our creator. It is also a capitalistic and legal principle that allows the truly talented to actually benefit from the work of their hands.
I want to fight for elimination of bias of all sorts - favoritism by gender, race, faith - our government should have no part of bias, and a revolution that enshrines our differences and tips the tables in favor of those who are seen as 'better' would create a new slavery, a new oppressed class, and set the stage for yet more revolution, chaos and bloodshed.
Anyway, I'm worried. I'm worried because our country, and our world is in a period of stress, and some of these new social movements that are popping up and being linked to the Men's movement on the web concern me.
I think men need to stay focused on fighting for their personal and group rights - if that means going ghost, fine - if that means going Galt, great (interesting how alike they can be) - if that means working together to break the logjam of of abusive anti-male government legislation - wonderful.
But let's not get distracted by the evil-ly tempting specter of racism and bias, and those who would look to slide them into our movement.
Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
If I understand the Men's Interests argument of the former (the Bio-Cons), it is that there was something biological or 'natural' about the old social constructs - they gave 'beta males' - that is, the average dudes out there (and that means all of us at one point or other, in my opinion) - a way to succeed. One woman was bound to one man, and needed that man to make her routine work.
Overturning the basic social framework with easy divorce, sex-without-responsibilities, abortion on demand, government supports for single motherhood, and governmental divorce structures that leave men destroyed and women empowered disrupts our society. Suddenly the nuclear family is less common, and men are avoiding marriage as women are running for their marriage exit and alimony/support check.
OK, all of that is from my/a Men's Rights worldview, but try this definition on for size: (Source)
Bioconservatism (a portmanteau word combining "biology" and "conservatism"), is a stance of hesitancy about biotechnological development especially if it is perceived to threaten a social order.
Strong bioconservative positions include opposition to the genetic, prosthetic and cognitive modification of human beings in particular. Whether arising from a conventionally right-leaning politics of religious and cultural conservatism or from a conventionally left-leaning politics of environmentalism, bioconservative positions oppose medical and other technological interventions into what are broadly perceived as current human and cultural limits in the name of a defense of "the natural" deployed as a moral category.
Bioconservative skepticism toward biomedical and other particular technological developments often is, but need not always be, part of a more general technophobic perspective or critique of technological society. Bioluddism represents a more radical and sweeping anti-biotechnological perspective.
So whichever of those you go with, or some cross-pollination of the two, fine. And see here and here for more on Bio-Conservatism.
But what worries and scares me is the HBD movement - Human BioDiversity - which is linked with Bio-Conservatism and which claims that the major differences between folks are not so much individual differences, but racial or genetic differences between major groups and genders.
And even if that was true, the formation of a movement around this idea worries me.
Because I think that HBD may often be a cover-word for racism - in fact, when you drill down on the bloggers involved, like Steve Sailer and Chris Brand you start seeing that they are participants in VDare, and the BNP and the like. (For more reading see here, and this post, (hm, <- this blogger also reads Roissy - and studies game))
Now I love my race like I love my gender, but even if we have good evidence that different races and genders are practically different, I don't want them treated differently by our country, and I worry that this is where focusing on this will get us.
Our founding fathers here in the states insisted that every citizen be treated equally, and that is because that is the only practical way to govern a democracy, and the only way to recognize and honor the spirit placed in us by our creator. It is also a capitalistic and legal principle that allows the truly talented to actually benefit from the work of their hands.
I want to fight for elimination of bias of all sorts - favoritism by gender, race, faith - our government should have no part of bias, and a revolution that enshrines our differences and tips the tables in favor of those who are seen as 'better' would create a new slavery, a new oppressed class, and set the stage for yet more revolution, chaos and bloodshed.
Anyway, I'm worried. I'm worried because our country, and our world is in a period of stress, and some of these new social movements that are popping up and being linked to the Men's movement on the web concern me.
I think men need to stay focused on fighting for their personal and group rights - if that means going ghost, fine - if that means going Galt, great (interesting how alike they can be) - if that means working together to break the logjam of of abusive anti-male government legislation - wonderful.
But let's not get distracted by the evil-ly tempting specter of racism and bias, and those who would look to slide them into our movement.
Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
Sunday, September 13, 2009
G is for 'Girl' ?
Apparently when it comes down to balls, Caster Semenya has them.
If you haven't heard this story, in a nutshell, here we have a world-class 'female' athlete, who was challenged because 'she' for all practical purposes, appeared to be a man.
But that wasn't as far as it went. No, in fact, when push came to shove, here we have a 'gal' who packs two testicles tucked away inside her body, and has essentially no practical girl-parts at all.
Now, I'm all for male-ness, and I think it is great that Caster is a guy. But in fact, she chose to identify as a woman. And mostly I'm also fine with that, too - you want to call yourself 'Wendy' or 'Sheila' or whatever and wear dresses and makeup sometimes, go for it.
But when you aren't honest about your true nature in places where it makes a difference - potential intimate partners or sports, for example, well, that's another matter.
I mean, who wants to discover at the point of groping, or getting down, or shagging, or whatever, that the person you are with is of a totally different gender than you thought, and has a completely different reproductive package going on than what you had hoped for. I mean that's just not fair.
And one would think that by the time one got to the world-class level in sports, one might have noticed, between all the physicals and such, that one wasn't really a girl.
Not that the 'shemale sports' angle is new. Back in the day Russia was famous for marketing things as 'women' in the Olympics whose bodies had seen more testosterone than most men could ever dream of their wee lumpkins producing.
But when you think about it, in this unisex world we live in, where silly politicians insist that genders be funded equally and have equal opportunity - unless it hurts the man - here is a prime example of a gender difference.
Why do we segregate the sexes in running, in swimming, in the various physical competitions?
It's because women, quite simply don't measure up. Our species is sexually dimorphic. Or in English - boys are different than girls. And not just in what we carry about in our pants. We are taller, stronger, faster, and for whatever reason, a bit sharper about practical things like geometry and math, when not held back by feminized schools.
And if women want to have any fun - if they want to win in competitive sports, men and things that are genetically male must be kept out.
Oh there is the occasional woman who can compete with the boys, and being all Aristotelean and stuff, these extrordinary women are often allowed to compete as an exception - at least at the high-school level.
But men aren't allowed to compete in women's events. That just wouldn't be fair to the poor ladies.
Because we're different. Because we're better.
And that's good to remember, while the state, the workplace and society tilt the tables again, and again, and again in favor of the woman - it's good to remember that there's a reason. It's because they can't compete in a fair fight.
Not that it isn't unfair to put us in the position that men find themselves in today.
It is unfair. Very unfair.
But it's good to be different. It's good to be male.
Now - back to finding a way out of the gynocentric rat-trap.
Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
If you haven't heard this story, in a nutshell, here we have a world-class 'female' athlete, who was challenged because 'she' for all practical purposes, appeared to be a man.
But that wasn't as far as it went. No, in fact, when push came to shove, here we have a 'gal' who packs two testicles tucked away inside her body, and has essentially no practical girl-parts at all.
Now, I'm all for male-ness, and I think it is great that Caster is a guy. But in fact, she chose to identify as a woman. And mostly I'm also fine with that, too - you want to call yourself 'Wendy' or 'Sheila' or whatever and wear dresses and makeup sometimes, go for it.
But when you aren't honest about your true nature in places where it makes a difference - potential intimate partners or sports, for example, well, that's another matter.
I mean, who wants to discover at the point of groping, or getting down, or shagging, or whatever, that the person you are with is of a totally different gender than you thought, and has a completely different reproductive package going on than what you had hoped for. I mean that's just not fair.
And one would think that by the time one got to the world-class level in sports, one might have noticed, between all the physicals and such, that one wasn't really a girl.
Not that the 'shemale sports' angle is new. Back in the day Russia was famous for marketing things as 'women' in the Olympics whose bodies had seen more testosterone than most men could ever dream of their wee lumpkins producing.
But when you think about it, in this unisex world we live in, where silly politicians insist that genders be funded equally and have equal opportunity - unless it hurts the man - here is a prime example of a gender difference.
Why do we segregate the sexes in running, in swimming, in the various physical competitions?
It's because women, quite simply don't measure up. Our species is sexually dimorphic. Or in English - boys are different than girls. And not just in what we carry about in our pants. We are taller, stronger, faster, and for whatever reason, a bit sharper about practical things like geometry and math, when not held back by feminized schools.
And if women want to have any fun - if they want to win in competitive sports, men and things that are genetically male must be kept out.
Oh there is the occasional woman who can compete with the boys, and being all Aristotelean and stuff, these extrordinary women are often allowed to compete as an exception - at least at the high-school level.
But men aren't allowed to compete in women's events. That just wouldn't be fair to the poor ladies.
Because we're different. Because we're better.
And that's good to remember, while the state, the workplace and society tilt the tables again, and again, and again in favor of the woman - it's good to remember that there's a reason. It's because they can't compete in a fair fight.
Not that it isn't unfair to put us in the position that men find themselves in today.
It is unfair. Very unfair.
But it's good to be different. It's good to be male.
Now - back to finding a way out of the gynocentric rat-trap.
Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
Monday, August 31, 2009
M is for Missed Anniversary
So here we are in the fall of 2009.
I don’t think that when I started this blog, on August 10th of 2005, that I contemplated that I would be worse off in 2009. I figured that my income would increase, and the court might moderate the level of abuse I was suffering - showing some minor amount of fairness and/or justice. These things didn't happen.
This blog is 4 years old, and although I have spent most of that time unemployed or underemployed according to the courts, the courts have increased my payments and lengthened the term of them – with the most recent order increasing things coming while I was unemployed.
See, once upon a time I made big bucks, and per the court it must be that I still can. This is called 'imputing income'.
Or perhaps called closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears, and shouting 'THE POOR SUFFERING WOMAN! THE POOR SUFFERING WOMAN! THE POOR SUFFERING WOMAN! THE POOR SUFFERING WOMAN! THE POOR SUFFERING WOMAN!' over and over and over.
So 65% of my unemployment goes to the ex, and arrears pile up, because reality cannot impinge upon the family court. I feed and clothe my kids on about $400 every month, with help from the occasional bit of part-time work, and from the part-time work my ‘new’ wife does. We are months behind on our mortgage, and will soon have to figure out what ‘Short Sale’ means.
I missed the anniversary of this blog.
Sorry blog.
Happy Belated Anniversary.
But if it WAS a happy anniversary, there might be less reason for the blog.
Please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
I don’t think that when I started this blog, on August 10th of 2005, that I contemplated that I would be worse off in 2009. I figured that my income would increase, and the court might moderate the level of abuse I was suffering - showing some minor amount of fairness and/or justice. These things didn't happen.
This blog is 4 years old, and although I have spent most of that time unemployed or underemployed according to the courts, the courts have increased my payments and lengthened the term of them – with the most recent order increasing things coming while I was unemployed.
See, once upon a time I made big bucks, and per the court it must be that I still can. This is called 'imputing income'.
Or perhaps called closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears, and shouting 'THE POOR SUFFERING WOMAN! THE POOR SUFFERING WOMAN! THE POOR SUFFERING WOMAN! THE POOR SUFFERING WOMAN! THE POOR SUFFERING WOMAN!' over and over and over.
So 65% of my unemployment goes to the ex, and arrears pile up, because reality cannot impinge upon the family court. I feed and clothe my kids on about $400 every month, with help from the occasional bit of part-time work, and from the part-time work my ‘new’ wife does. We are months behind on our mortgage, and will soon have to figure out what ‘Short Sale’ means.
I missed the anniversary of this blog.
Sorry blog.
Happy Belated Anniversary.
But if it WAS a happy anniversary, there might be less reason for the blog.
Please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
Sunday, August 30, 2009
P is for Purple Heart
I can't help but admire this video and feel for our servicemen who come back to find out exactly what this country turns married/divorced men into.
The statistics they cite are shocking - 70% of servicemen return to divorce - 90% will be divorced within 5 years - 1.5% will get treated fairly by the courts.
And they shouldn't be treated to this sort of abuse - but fairness shouldn't just be for heroes either. I worry that what goes unsaid here is that all men live in this world, and that fair treatment should be for all men, not just heroes. Doesn't every man deserve a fair shake in a divorce, an opportunity to succeed, and not just be a wage-slave to a wife who now has a no-work sinecure?
With that said, do please view the video. It is eye-opening.
Your comments and thoughts are welcome, and please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
Note - I have some first-hand experience with some of this in my own circle of friends and co-workers: See O is for Opportunity for the story.
The statistics they cite are shocking - 70% of servicemen return to divorce - 90% will be divorced within 5 years - 1.5% will get treated fairly by the courts.
And they shouldn't be treated to this sort of abuse - but fairness shouldn't just be for heroes either. I worry that what goes unsaid here is that all men live in this world, and that fair treatment should be for all men, not just heroes. Doesn't every man deserve a fair shake in a divorce, an opportunity to succeed, and not just be a wage-slave to a wife who now has a no-work sinecure?
With that said, do please view the video. It is eye-opening.
Your comments and thoughts are welcome, and please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
Note - I have some first-hand experience with some of this in my own circle of friends and co-workers: See O is for Opportunity for the story.
Monday, July 20, 2009
A is for Activism
Have I done this one before? No matter.... I'd like to ask you to get active.
Our Congress is wrapping up its dog-and-pony show examination/'Confirmation' hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
Here is a woman who has stated over and over and over that she thinks a wise Latina woman (isn't that redundant?) would make better decisions than a white man. She also belonged to 'La Raza' (in english 'The Race') for six years, and, of course, thinks race, and by extention, gender outweighs merit. (The Supreme Court did not concur.)
We have enough Gender Feminists and their allies in government. It is the work of a few moments to seek out your representatives feedback pages and ask them to vote against Sotomayor. Current public opinion is already overwhelmingly negative. (43% against confirmation, 37% for confirmation.)
It is possible that your electronic letter might make a difference.
Click Here for a website that allows you to pull up contact information for your senators and representatives. Put a message in their feedback page, or send them an email.
Let them know that we don't need MORE gender bias in the courts - 'wise latina' or not.
-M
Our Congress is wrapping up its dog-and-pony show examination/'Confirmation' hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
Here is a woman who has stated over and over and over that she thinks a wise Latina woman (isn't that redundant?) would make better decisions than a white man. She also belonged to 'La Raza' (in english 'The Race') for six years, and, of course, thinks race, and by extention, gender outweighs merit. (The Supreme Court did not concur.)
We have enough Gender Feminists and their allies in government. It is the work of a few moments to seek out your representatives feedback pages and ask them to vote against Sotomayor. Current public opinion is already overwhelmingly negative. (43% against confirmation, 37% for confirmation.)
It is possible that your electronic letter might make a difference.
Click Here for a website that allows you to pull up contact information for your senators and representatives. Put a message in their feedback page, or send them an email.
Let them know that we don't need MORE gender bias in the courts - 'wise latina' or not.
-M
Thursday, May 14, 2009
E is for Eyecandy
Chosen by "The Other McCain" as "Most Likely to Offend Feminists," this video submitted by No Sheeples Here might be just the thing to put a small smile on your face, no matter how tough things are.
Ahhh. Well, with that done, Gee, I wonder what the outrage would be like if a bunch of gyrating half nude soapy men were to beat and knock about a bound woman, and she were to appear to enjoy the treatment. Hmmm
Russian Girls from AmxPictures on Vimeo.
Ahhh. Well, with that done, Gee, I wonder what the outrage would be like if a bunch of gyrating half nude soapy men were to beat and knock about a bound woman, and she were to appear to enjoy the treatment. Hmmm
Friday, March 27, 2009
E is for Exposure, and Explicit
It seems like every day, cases come up in the news that highlight the insanity of our legal system when it comes to the sexes. Today we hear about a teen who posted explicit pictures of herself on MySpace, charged with ‘possession and distribution of child pornography.’ She could face 17 years in jail, and have to register as a sex offender for the rest of her life, but we are assured that these stiff sentences are unlikely.
So insane: Let’s count the ways:
1. So, posting photos is a crime that can get you put away for almost two decades? And you have to be marked as some kind of sex predator for life? Isn’t this a bit extreme?
2. What she did is a crime, but they will be lenient because she is a woman/girl. A man/boy would probably be also charged with indecent exposure, or the equivalent, no? Sexual Bias, right there.
3. These are pictures of herself – one might assume that one could do almost whatever one wanted with pictures of themselves, no?
4. If a girl is mature enough to want to post her nude body on the web for her boyfriend and other friends to see, isn’t she a bit beyond ‘child’? Teenage women can be extremely precocious, and the law needs to lighten up. These girls will engage in various kinds of sexual behavior, and making them and their partners into felons is both ridiculous and criminal.
5. If you were to look at her MySpace page, those pictures would likely end up in your temporary files area. By looking at them, and by storing them, you are guilty of child pornography. Enjoy your sex-offender status!
How nice it is for the government to jump in and put this girl and her family through a huge sex-offender lawsuit, for a stupid teenage stunt that harmed no one but herself. On the other hand, we should be grateful to the Trenton prosecutor who went ahead with this case, because it shows how scary-crazy these people are and how nuts the law is.
I think most prosecutors would have let this go,
- unless, of course, the perpetrator was male.
My best to you in your struggles…
M
So insane: Let’s count the ways:
1. So, posting photos is a crime that can get you put away for almost two decades? And you have to be marked as some kind of sex predator for life? Isn’t this a bit extreme?
2. What she did is a crime, but they will be lenient because she is a woman/girl. A man/boy would probably be also charged with indecent exposure, or the equivalent, no? Sexual Bias, right there.
3. These are pictures of herself – one might assume that one could do almost whatever one wanted with pictures of themselves, no?
4. If a girl is mature enough to want to post her nude body on the web for her boyfriend and other friends to see, isn’t she a bit beyond ‘child’? Teenage women can be extremely precocious, and the law needs to lighten up. These girls will engage in various kinds of sexual behavior, and making them and their partners into felons is both ridiculous and criminal.
5. If you were to look at her MySpace page, those pictures would likely end up in your temporary files area. By looking at them, and by storing them, you are guilty of child pornography. Enjoy your sex-offender status!
How nice it is for the government to jump in and put this girl and her family through a huge sex-offender lawsuit, for a stupid teenage stunt that harmed no one but herself. On the other hand, we should be grateful to the Trenton prosecutor who went ahead with this case, because it shows how scary-crazy these people are and how nuts the law is.
I think most prosecutors would have let this go,
- unless, of course, the perpetrator was male.
My best to you in your struggles…
M
Friday, March 20, 2009
F is for Food Stamps
So, like perhaps many, I am reduced to below the poverty level by my ex’s expectations of being able to live in the manner to which I would like to become accustomed.
But someone said to me; “Hey! You have your kids a whole lot of the time, and you are below the federal poverty threshold! You should apply for Food Stamps!”
In a different year, a different month, I might not have gone.
But this year, with no interviews, no prospects, no one answering my calls or requests for part-time work, or any kind of work… …with everything up in the air, and out of my hands, - I went.
I mean, I have $2.00 in my bank account, and that doesn’t buy food, and although I have a few extra pounds here and there, the kids need to eat.
So I do some online forms, get an invite to the local SocialServiciesAtorium, (which is almost impossible to find) and arrive in time for my ‘appointment’. Three hours later, they call my name, and I go in.
And what do I find out? I find out that the needs basis for food-stamps is GROSS income. The fact that the courts take all that money away (alimony and support) - 65% of my unemployment income, is immaterial.
Divorced men, it seems, are supposed to shrivel up and die; at which point the insurance that the court requires us to take out against our lives will ensure that even our deaths do not inconvenience our heartless ex-spouses.
The agent who helped me suggested that I go back to court. I told her I had been there, and that they had increased the amount, and the term, and charged me my ex's legal fees, because she was unable to live in the manner which she had expected, or hoped to.
I'd like to expect to eat. She's worried about her ski trips. Inequity? Not in New Jersey, in New Jersey, its...
Just another day in the Gynocracy.
-M
Additional comments:
If you are looking to try and get food stamps anyway, don't bother with the online form, that information is autmatically lost, and will just end up kicking out a 'you must come in for an interview' letter. Call your local contacts for social services, and outline the basic numbers of your case. They can probably tell you if it is worth your time to do anything more.
I also recently passed one year out of work. Unemployment needs to be recertified at that point, and that takes a phone call. No one will tell you this, though. Instead you are told you will recieve a credit for your filing, but that it is not payable. You talk to a human to get the payments flowing again, assuming that you fall within the extended unemployment benefits guidelines.
If you have a LITTLE money, try http://www.angelfoodministries.com/ for assistance with your eating needs. Also call your towns and churches for information about food pantries.
Best of luck!
But someone said to me; “Hey! You have your kids a whole lot of the time, and you are below the federal poverty threshold! You should apply for Food Stamps!”
In a different year, a different month, I might not have gone.
But this year, with no interviews, no prospects, no one answering my calls or requests for part-time work, or any kind of work… …with everything up in the air, and out of my hands, - I went.
I mean, I have $2.00 in my bank account, and that doesn’t buy food, and although I have a few extra pounds here and there, the kids need to eat.
So I do some online forms, get an invite to the local SocialServiciesAtorium, (which is almost impossible to find) and arrive in time for my ‘appointment’. Three hours later, they call my name, and I go in.
And what do I find out? I find out that the needs basis for food-stamps is GROSS income. The fact that the courts take all that money away (alimony and support) - 65% of my unemployment income, is immaterial.
Divorced men, it seems, are supposed to shrivel up and die; at which point the insurance that the court requires us to take out against our lives will ensure that even our deaths do not inconvenience our heartless ex-spouses.
The agent who helped me suggested that I go back to court. I told her I had been there, and that they had increased the amount, and the term, and charged me my ex's legal fees, because she was unable to live in the manner which she had expected, or hoped to.
I'd like to expect to eat. She's worried about her ski trips. Inequity? Not in New Jersey, in New Jersey, its...
Just another day in the Gynocracy.
-M
Additional comments:
If you are looking to try and get food stamps anyway, don't bother with the online form, that information is autmatically lost, and will just end up kicking out a 'you must come in for an interview' letter. Call your local contacts for social services, and outline the basic numbers of your case. They can probably tell you if it is worth your time to do anything more.
I also recently passed one year out of work. Unemployment needs to be recertified at that point, and that takes a phone call. No one will tell you this, though. Instead you are told you will recieve a credit for your filing, but that it is not payable. You talk to a human to get the payments flowing again, assuming that you fall within the extended unemployment benefits guidelines.
If you have a LITTLE money, try http://www.angelfoodministries.com/ for assistance with your eating needs. Also call your towns and churches for information about food pantries.
Best of luck!
Saturday, January 31, 2009
H is for Humanity
We are proud of our culture.
We are proud of our Humanity.
We are proud of the way we care for others,
We are proud of our legal system,
And its protection for all.
But where’s the humanity –
In a culture that awards 'support' to eighty percent of its custodial mothers –
- but only thirty percent of its custodial fathers?
In a culture that denies almost forty percent of its fathers any access to their children?
In a culture where almost eighty percent of non-custodial fathers are denied any visitation?
In a culture where two thirds of dads who don’t pay support are unable to –
- but are labeled deadbeats?
- are denied adjustments?
- have their possessions seized?
- have their licenses and passports taken?
- have their unemployment, if they are lucky enough to get it, garnished to 65%?
- are thrown in jail?
Where’s the humanity in a system that claims that
‘unemployment and underemployment are no grounds for a modification in support’?
While The Poverty Studies Institute at the University of Wisconsin’s 1993 study found 52% of fathers who owe child support earn less than $6,155 per year.
Less than six thousand dollars a year.
While our 'humane government' pursues them.
Blackmails their families, and incarcerates them.
Where’s the humanity?
I’m sorry to say it isn’t in the system.
It isn’t in the government,
And it isn’t with the women.
This isn’t humanity. This is slavery.
And it stinks.
-M
We are proud of our Humanity.
We are proud of the way we care for others,
We are proud of our legal system,
And its protection for all.
But where’s the humanity –
In a culture that awards 'support' to eighty percent of its custodial mothers –
- but only thirty percent of its custodial fathers?
In a culture that denies almost forty percent of its fathers any access to their children?
In a culture where almost eighty percent of non-custodial fathers are denied any visitation?
In a culture where two thirds of dads who don’t pay support are unable to –
- but are labeled deadbeats?
- are denied adjustments?
- have their possessions seized?
- have their licenses and passports taken?
- have their unemployment, if they are lucky enough to get it, garnished to 65%?
- are thrown in jail?
Where’s the humanity in a system that claims that
‘unemployment and underemployment are no grounds for a modification in support’?
While The Poverty Studies Institute at the University of Wisconsin’s 1993 study found 52% of fathers who owe child support earn less than $6,155 per year.
Less than six thousand dollars a year.
While our 'humane government' pursues them.
Blackmails their families, and incarcerates them.
Where’s the humanity?
I’m sorry to say it isn’t in the system.
It isn’t in the government,
And it isn’t with the women.
This isn’t humanity. This is slavery.
And it stinks.
-M
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
M is for Men, and Millionaires
Saw a news item from The Star Ledger at NJ.Com, and just immediately, immediately felt the hot breath of institutionalized misandry... ... Let's start with the title:
Judge dismisses millionaire's suit against his former wife
Now, in the case in question, we have a severely alienating former wife (how severe? try claiming to your kids that your ex has hired a hit-man to kill you), who has traveled across state and country lines to hide herself and his children in a friendly venue.
What venue did she choose? Three guesses, and the first two don't count:
New Jersey.
New Jersey.
and the one that counts:
New Jersey.
But what is the headline? It is about this RETIREE man's 'millions', not about the kidnapper's flight across borders, her lies, or her choice of venue.
Hello! First of all - it is misandrous to look at a case of kidnapping and alienation, and make the title about the supposedly deep pockets of one of the parties. If the woman had millions (and if we look at the settlement, it seems she does) we wouldn't be mentioning those in the title (and we don't).
Second of all - it is misandrous to look at a retiree, and call him a millionaire. If I were at retirement age, and had a house to my name and the assets necessary to keep me in some form of comfort for the rest of my life (kind of the definition of 'retirement') I would be... ...A MILLIONAIRE... (oooh-aaaah). Houses here in NJ, and also in many parts of Canada easily go for half a million, and that is just for your generic, middle-of-the-road house. So there is half your mil there. Now just look at what our putative millionaire needs to make it through the rest of his life. Imagine he lives 10 years. 50K x 10 years = another half million. And that isn't a rich lifestyle, or even allowing for inflation. And would they be mentioning these 'millions' if we were talking about a woman? No, we'd be talking about the man who stole his children and fled across state and international borders.
Third of all, it is particularly misandrous to look at a man in court, and particularly pick up on his net worth. Men go to work, they earn money. It's what they do. You might as well make a big deal about a seagull flying, or a mole burrowing. But apparently men with money, men earning money, men working to earn money, and men trying to keep the money they earned are all wrong/evil, and so that becomes the headline, not the Canadian kidnapper with the 11-odd million in Canadian Dollars who fled to the US/New Jersey.
The article gives us some background, so the writer (Margaret McHugh) did her homework, thank you very much, and perhaps we can blame the editor for the misandrous title.
But the article also reminds us of how much we have lost:
"New Jersey law simply does not allow recovery for the causes of action Segal asserts," [judge] Rand wrote, citing the 1935 Heart Balm Act that abolished causes of action for alienation of affection.
Nowadays, a man can be divorced without cause, and without recourse, and becomes subject to the theft of his children, half his assets or more, his future income, plus (of course) child support, and he cannot, under any circumstances, raise the behaviors/actions of his ex-wife in court and hope to win compensation.
The bias fairly drips from Judge Rand's pen:
Even if the Heart Balm Act didn't govern, Rand wrote he would have thrown out Segal's civil case anyhow because Segal failed to show Lynch's actions rose to the level of intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress.
"If Segal has become emotionally estranged from E.S. and W.S., it is, to a large degree, the result of his own actions and not because Lynch 'intentionally and maliciously' poisoned their relationship," Rand wrote in the 29-page decision.
[...]
Rand criticized Segal for continuing "to file highly-publicized, vindictive and baseless lawsuits against the children's mother."
Let's see - claiming to your children that their own father hired a hit man to kill you? Running across state and national boundaries to hide so that a private investigator must be paid to even find you and the children you abducted? Nope, no reason to assume anyone was harmed there. No basis, no basis at all.
And part of the article is about how the husband filed the suit in an unusual court - but no wonder:
Last month, Family Court Judge Thomas Weisenbeck dismissed Segal's attempt to cut her spousal support, saying Segal made the same unsuccessful arguments in Canadian courts, and he ordered him to pay her $7,000 legal tab.
The husband already has seen what FAMILY courts in NJ do at some length. You go to court, and pay the wife's tab AND yours, so you can lose.
Finally, way, way down in the article we see:
In 2005, a Canadian court awarded Lynch $11.1 million (estimated at $10.3 million in U.S. dollars) in spousal and child support. She received two properties that Segal contends grew in value and are worth far more than her award.
Interesting. We call the husband a 'millionaire' in the title of the article, but did we bother to look at the (stolen) net worth of the wife?
Finally, it might be worth noting that Segal never married Lynch.
That's right.
She stole his children, and 11.1 Million Canadian Dollars, plus legal fees, all for being a 'Common Law Wife'. Segal lived with Lynch for five years in Toronto.
That's right: five years of 'unmarried life' = 11.1 Million Canadian Dollars, plus the right to steal your children.
And here is what far too many men try to deny - not marrying your partner does not protect you from anythnig. The state has made any kind of long, middle, and even short term relationship with a woman a very dangerous proposition for men.
No wonder the marriage rate is in the can, and older women might as well try and piss up a rope as try and get hitched. No man with an ounce of fiscal sense is likely to gamble that this wife might not change her mind on a whim, and turn his 'golden years' into years of slavery, while stealing his kids.
And a big shout out of 'Congrats' to New Jersey for being the international venue of choice for alienating moms.
Well Done, Well Done Slytherin, I mean, New Jersey!
My best to you in your struggles.
-M
Judge dismisses millionaire's suit against his former wife
Now, in the case in question, we have a severely alienating former wife (how severe? try claiming to your kids that your ex has hired a hit-man to kill you), who has traveled across state and country lines to hide herself and his children in a friendly venue.
What venue did she choose? Three guesses, and the first two don't count:
New Jersey.
New Jersey.
and the one that counts:
New Jersey.
But what is the headline? It is about this RETIREE man's 'millions', not about the kidnapper's flight across borders, her lies, or her choice of venue.
Hello! First of all - it is misandrous to look at a case of kidnapping and alienation, and make the title about the supposedly deep pockets of one of the parties. If the woman had millions (and if we look at the settlement, it seems she does) we wouldn't be mentioning those in the title (and we don't).
Second of all - it is misandrous to look at a retiree, and call him a millionaire. If I were at retirement age, and had a house to my name and the assets necessary to keep me in some form of comfort for the rest of my life (kind of the definition of 'retirement') I would be... ...A MILLIONAIRE... (oooh-aaaah). Houses here in NJ, and also in many parts of Canada easily go for half a million, and that is just for your generic, middle-of-the-road house. So there is half your mil there. Now just look at what our putative millionaire needs to make it through the rest of his life. Imagine he lives 10 years. 50K x 10 years = another half million. And that isn't a rich lifestyle, or even allowing for inflation. And would they be mentioning these 'millions' if we were talking about a woman? No, we'd be talking about the man who stole his children and fled across state and international borders.
Third of all, it is particularly misandrous to look at a man in court, and particularly pick up on his net worth. Men go to work, they earn money. It's what they do. You might as well make a big deal about a seagull flying, or a mole burrowing. But apparently men with money, men earning money, men working to earn money, and men trying to keep the money they earned are all wrong/evil, and so that becomes the headline, not the Canadian kidnapper with the 11-odd million in Canadian Dollars who fled to the US/New Jersey.
The article gives us some background, so the writer (Margaret McHugh) did her homework, thank you very much, and perhaps we can blame the editor for the misandrous title.
But the article also reminds us of how much we have lost:
"New Jersey law simply does not allow recovery for the causes of action Segal asserts," [judge] Rand wrote, citing the 1935 Heart Balm Act that abolished causes of action for alienation of affection.
Nowadays, a man can be divorced without cause, and without recourse, and becomes subject to the theft of his children, half his assets or more, his future income, plus (of course) child support, and he cannot, under any circumstances, raise the behaviors/actions of his ex-wife in court and hope to win compensation.
The bias fairly drips from Judge Rand's pen:
Even if the Heart Balm Act didn't govern, Rand wrote he would have thrown out Segal's civil case anyhow because Segal failed to show Lynch's actions rose to the level of intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress.
"If Segal has become emotionally estranged from E.S. and W.S., it is, to a large degree, the result of his own actions and not because Lynch 'intentionally and maliciously' poisoned their relationship," Rand wrote in the 29-page decision.
[...]
Rand criticized Segal for continuing "to file highly-publicized, vindictive and baseless lawsuits against the children's mother."
Let's see - claiming to your children that their own father hired a hit man to kill you? Running across state and national boundaries to hide so that a private investigator must be paid to even find you and the children you abducted? Nope, no reason to assume anyone was harmed there. No basis, no basis at all.
And part of the article is about how the husband filed the suit in an unusual court - but no wonder:
Last month, Family Court Judge Thomas Weisenbeck dismissed Segal's attempt to cut her spousal support, saying Segal made the same unsuccessful arguments in Canadian courts, and he ordered him to pay her $7,000 legal tab.
The husband already has seen what FAMILY courts in NJ do at some length. You go to court, and pay the wife's tab AND yours, so you can lose.
Finally, way, way down in the article we see:
In 2005, a Canadian court awarded Lynch $11.1 million (estimated at $10.3 million in U.S. dollars) in spousal and child support. She received two properties that Segal contends grew in value and are worth far more than her award.
Interesting. We call the husband a 'millionaire' in the title of the article, but did we bother to look at the (stolen) net worth of the wife?
Finally, it might be worth noting that Segal never married Lynch.
That's right.
She stole his children, and 11.1 Million Canadian Dollars, plus legal fees, all for being a 'Common Law Wife'. Segal lived with Lynch for five years in Toronto.
That's right: five years of 'unmarried life' = 11.1 Million Canadian Dollars, plus the right to steal your children.
And here is what far too many men try to deny - not marrying your partner does not protect you from anythnig. The state has made any kind of long, middle, and even short term relationship with a woman a very dangerous proposition for men.
No wonder the marriage rate is in the can, and older women might as well try and piss up a rope as try and get hitched. No man with an ounce of fiscal sense is likely to gamble that this wife might not change her mind on a whim, and turn his 'golden years' into years of slavery, while stealing his kids.
And a big shout out of 'Congrats' to New Jersey for being the international venue of choice for alienating moms.
Well Done, Well Done Slytherin, I mean, New Jersey!
My best to you in your struggles.
-M
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)