T is for Threats to the System

Recently, I was forced by circumstances to seek employment in another field.

The world has changed, and I have not been able to find employ in my prior field for some time. There were jobs in the new field, and few takers. All I had to do was take some training, and jump some educational and testing hurdles.

Being paranoid, I searched the internet for any evidence that my status as a ‘deadbeat dad’ would be held against me. Nothing. All systems go. So, I set to it. I would be able to earn real money again, make a difference in my children’s lives and my life in a financial way, rather than being a load on the system.

This was great.

I won scholarships and grants to help with my retooling, and just as I was about to start the educational part of my program, a letter from the state licensing board arrived – it was a long bureaucratic checklist letter, and way at the bottom was written in an additional item, which had a check next to it: words to the effect that ‘men with arrears are not eligible for licensing in this field’.

So I called and wrote and spoke to these folks. Sure, the law gives them the right to withhold my license, I said; but I am trying to work – this will enable me to pay! Unless someone is complaining, why would they withhold this license?

True, they said, they need a complainant. But how that works (they candidly told me) was if they found that someone was in arrears, they would send a letter to the local employer, and ask that they initiate a complaint.

Got that? They would solicit, would GENERATE the complaint. Think any employer is going to ignore a request like that from the state licensing board that holds all their licenses in their hands?

You would think it sounds insane, but you would be forgetting two things – one, that there are a lot of folks who earn money pursuing deadbeat dads – seizing their accounts, garnishing their wages, serving as their ‘collections/probation officer’, suing them, serving as judges in the slave courts, - and there is a lot of incentive in terms of grants and matching funds from the federal government for doing all this. It’s a whole industry.

And the men involved, well, they are the disposable pawns, the workers, the slaves in the system that make all of this possible.

If one were to find a way out, others would follow.

To quote words that E.W. Jackson Sr. wrote in a recent and unrelated article: “When a slave escaped from the plantation, it wasn't merely a case of one slave being a problem. That slave became a threat to the institution of slavery and to the master's way of life.”

It is necessary to keep us in, to keep the empire running. Not one slave must be allowed to escape.

Let this be a warning to men everywhere. The entrée to this empire of slavery is marriage. The exit is death.

This is why almost 15,000 men kill themselves each year to escape it.

This is why if a man commits suicide, the odds are he is a divorced man. Because for the oppressed slaves in a slave state, the only escape allowed is death.

My Best To You In Your Struggles

-M

R is for Return

...or maybe 'republish'.

I'm going to restore my posts, which were moved back into 'draft' status because I was worried that they would show up in court. I won't do them all at once (there's a bunch), but I have done a bunch today, and will do more on subsequent days.

What's going on with me? Probably I shouldn't say, because folks are already guessing who the author of this website is. Suffice it to say things are worse than they ever were.

I am a non-citizen, really.

Property rights? What's that?

The biggest riot is that back when I was earning, my ex complained that sometimes she 'had' to shop at a department store she felt was below her (and we aren't talking Value Village here), and that got her an increase which I had to pay, along with the legal fees.

Today, I can't afford hot-dogs, let alone health insurance, housing, hair-gel, and other things that start with 'H'.

But adjustments aren't for me, no, no, no.

See, there's something different about me.

I'm not the woman.

My Best To You In Your Struggles

-M

F is for Finger

Another video to amuse.

E is for The Economic Lull

I can't imagine why divorce would drop off in bad times.

I mean, if the problem is the evil, cheating man, then the solution is divorce, no? Bearing in mind that the majority (about 70%) of divorces are filed by women, then certainly, if the problems are violence, masculine stubbornness, male ignorance, and the like, and given a divorce system that makes men pay their partner's legal fees, divorce rates should stay the same.

Unless, of course, it isn't about anything but the freaking money.

I've said it before - it's a storm of the spirit - a moral storm, and unfortunately it appears that the majority of women lack a moral compass, and so therefore their partners, the men, are at great risk.




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.

B is for Back in the Slammer

"She called me, and we're going back to court" related the lawyer.

"We'll make a motion, and the judge will go for it and he'll be tossed back in the slammer."

"And he's not a bad guy, he isn't mean or abusive, or intentionally delinquent, he's just out of work. He's a business suit kind of guy. A manager, and he can't get anything."

"I try and tell her that you can't get blood out of a stone, and that she's wasting her money on me doing these motions, but she doesn't care. Every few months we do it again, like clockwork.

He gets out, more arrears build up, and she gets me to toss him back in."

"You'd think the judges might 'get it' but they don't. It's the system. I figure eventually she will see the argument of diminishing returns, and then it will stop."

There you have it. More or less exact words from a lawyer, about to throw an honestly unemployed man back into jail, for not forking money he doesn't have over to a well-heeled woman who can afford to torment him and keep him in jail.

Yet another case of legal gynocracy. Peonage. Debt servitude. Debtor's prison. Slavery. You name it.

And in today's economy, doubly depressing. More and more men are in this position today. Probably more than ever before. But the law says that the man is guilty. Guilty under all circumstances. Guilty until proven innocent.

Fall late on your payments, and you are guilty of violating the plaintiff's RIGHTS. She has a RIGHT to your money, even when you have none. And not paying is a jailable offense.

Remember that this is what marriage can be, and for many, many men, what it is.

Back in the slammer with you now...

Welcome to the Gynocracy.

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.

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.

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!

U is for Unbelief

Not so long ago I was talking to a lawyer, because one of my friends, once again, couldn't believe that things are the way they are in family court.

What is funny is that another friend over the last half-month spent their own time and money researching the same thing on my behalf for the same reason - they couldn't believe me, and my lovely partner. Couldn't believe that I was effectively a slave and there was nothing to do. They got the same answer, an answer that said that there was no hope, and whereas bankruptcy might keep me off the street, nothing would keep me from being a slave.

What is less funny is that I just reported on the results of my efforts to the first unbeliever. And that friend still doesn't believe. "There is something wrong there." Sure there is.

We don't want to imagine our country, our legal system has gotten this out of control, become this evil. But it has. Need evidence besides my word, and all the same tired statistics? Here's one: imagine being put in jail, actual debtor's prison, for 14 years because your ex claims you stashed away some money that she wants, without ever having a hope of a trial, or even a charge against you. It happens, and in this case (H. Beatty Chadwick) it has happened.

Hide your heads in the sand, unbelievers. It won't save you or your brothers, or husbands.

And you can continue to wonder why marriage rates dwindle and the country becomes weaker and weaker.

My best to you in your struggles!

-M

M is for 'Marriage Strike'

Met a nice, attractive middle-aged man the other day, and noticed he was single, and started chatting with him about his life.

I was foolishly thinking that he might be a good match for one of my single female friends, but here is what I discovered as I spoke to him:

He woke up one day and discovered his wife missing along with his son.

Later he discovered she had pulled up stakes and zapped off to a very distant southern state to marry someone she had met via email and had been corresponding with.

He wanted his son back, and consulted several lawyers, who told him he didn't have a chance of recovering his son.

Eventually, a divorce was finalized with him paying child support, and seeing his son each summer for a short while. Of course, his ex got half of his asset base. (No-Fault Divorce, remember?)

This was a good number of years ago. The man was so self-effacing, he wouldn't even say anything against his ex to this day. But what he did say spoke volumes.

He said he wanted his son back.

And he said he could not imagine ever marrying another woman.

He hadn't heard of the marriage strike. Wasn't a Men's Rights Activist.

He was a 'nice guy', who is no longer in the market for a wife, because of what the system did to him, and allowed to be done to him. No doubt his son will think three times before marrying too, as will his best friend who was with him, and anyone who talks to him and hears his story. And this is another way that the marriage strike expands. - Not through websites like mine spreading the bad news, but through the actual bad news happening to people, and that news percolating through society. And another man, and his son, and his friends drop out of the marriage market, just like that. Without a big fuss, or a lot of noise - they are just gone - no longer part of the marital economy of men-as-slaves.

But don't worry, girls. You probably can still get married, it will probably just have to be someone who earns significanty less than you, and has no assets to risk. That should be a 'love'ly solution to your problems, unless it wasn't really LOVE that you were looking for in the first place.

Oh, and how about we start treating women who disappear with men's children like the kidnappers that they are?


My Best To You In Your Struggles:

-M

H is for Dr Helen

Wow, I posted a comment on Dr Helen's Pajamas Media post titled Single Men in Never-Neverland and suddenly a small torrent of visitors are giving the hamsters in Blogger's serverland a workout.

But this is exactly what I had hoped for, I hoped that people would come, and read, and learn what can and does happen to men in this country, and learn how our rights have been eroded - almost to nothing.

Welcome, Welcome to Dr Helen visitors.

Please read, check my sources, and think about what you find. It is my prayer that if enough people become informed about the situation that men face in this country today, we may start seeing some real equality between the sexes, and might just reduce the incidence of male suicide, of which 14,850 deaths per year in the US are attributable to the loss of children, financial stability, civil rights and freedoms that come with divorce - for men. With total male suicides running about 22,500/year, the odds are that if you know a man who committed suicide, they are a divorcee. Putting it simply two-thirds of male suicides are divorcees.

...Think of all those children without fathers - oh, but they probably didn't get visitation anyway...

Quoting from my prior post on this subject:

One can only wonder what value the approximately 148,000 men killed by divorce over the last decade would have added to our country if they had not been driven to suicide by our country's misandry.

Imagine the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of children growing up over the last decade without fathers; [and the] brothers, sisters and parents bereft of their [brother, or son].

- Men who died for the crime of getting married to the wrong person.

The total loss is mind-numbing.

With that said, the text of my comment on Dr Helen's post follows:

M :
It isn't news to most men that Marriage isn't a cost-effective proposition. But what probably is news, even to men, is how likely it is to end up stripping them of anything resembling rights and disenfranchising them. The financial ruin that follows divorce is credited for the huge rate of male suicide compared to women.
But this is just one element of our society's war on men - even more horrific is how men are punished in an entirely different way by the courts than women are. As a culture we seem to be saying that we don't want men anymore. Don't be suprised if they respond by finding some way to go elsewhere.
-M

MBTYIYS:
-M

S is for "Should Men Get Married?"

Dr Helen opined some time ago on 'should men get married?', and the outlook isn't cheerful, as I have noted in this blog before (see here and here.

I think some of the commenters on Dr Helen's blog have it right. On the odds, marriage in general is not a winning proposition.

But looking at this again, I wanted to review it in terms of real money, and see how it stacked up.

In general people get married for the following real benefits;

Love
Sex
Children
Cheaper to live together

I think that covers it. So let's put a value on these things. Yeah, I know, you can't. But we are talking about stuff that is getting settled in a court of law, so let's think of it like a lawyer would:

Love: hardest to quantify, but let's value it like having a personal executive assistant who is paid enough to actually care about your stuff. Say $80,000/year.

Sex: note we aren't talking porn-star stuff here, we're talking real world, in a busy life. A decent prostitute would cost you $200/night, but I'll knock that to $100/night because you have her on retainer, and it happens to be the same person as your executive assistant.
So that's maybe $10,000 per year, if you are lucky.

Children: they say you can't put a value on a human life, but the courts do it all the time. They seem to think that a life is worth something like $100,000 per year. Sometimes they treat kids like more, sometimes much less. Let's go with $100,000 per year, for however many you have.

Cheaper to live together; well, this just isn't true. You might get a cheaper year at first, but year 2 you'll find yourself redecorating so that everything matches, and once you have kids you need a new house, clothes for kids, your wife not respecting budgets, finance charges... Come to think of it, it has to cost you at least $50,000/ year.

Ok, so if your average marriage lasts 7 years, let's assume that the first 4 are pretty good, and the last 3 living hell. So we'll go with 4 years of the personal assistant and sex for $90,000/year.
Total value for the average marriage: $370,000

But the kids and living expenses are yours until the marriage ends, and so we can net the two ($50,000) and multiply by seven: $350,000.

So the total value received from the average marriage is about $720,000.

Not so bad, right?

But the problem is that the average marriage DOES end in divorce. And men lose their kids, and pay alimony and support.

So if having your kids is worth $100,000/year, having that kid stolen away and kept from you with only brief weekly or monthly furloughs is losing that benefit. Think of it as them being unjustly imprisoned, which they will be until they are 18. So assume 10 years of unjust imprisonment fot your kids: $1,000,000.

Next let's look at support/alimony.
Your average wage-earner makes somewhere in the $40-50,000 range,
But I suspect this is NOT what your 7-year marriage, 2.5 kids father makes. I think this father earns more likle $80,000, on average.
And, alimony and child support are going to, on average, eat around 2/3 of that - costing you a real $53,000 per year, for the next 10 years or so: $530,000

Now let's talk about what you lose in the divorce. Most people have net debt, which is divided, but your average 2.5-kids-7-year-marriage-father doesn't. You can't live in debt with kids and a family to worry about. You have to make things work every day, and have a plan for when it doesn't. You have to have half a year in assets to float you when your company goes under, or you get fired. So you have 50,000 in liquid assets plus retirement, and a house that is probably worth, on average, $175,000. Half of these go to your wife in divorce. This is a real expense to you, because, on average, the man earned the money that paid for them. I am sure people will argue about this, but we are in the small numbers here compared to the above: of $225,000 you lose $112,000 to your ex.

Now let's talk legal expenses. Let's just say that you aren't very acrimonious, and you only have a few legal problems after the divorce and put your total legal costs at $60,000 including what you have to file to really end support at the end of the whole period. I think that the average is higher, but let's use this.

Now let's talk about your personal situation. You may think that the above covers everything, but you have lost one other thing that is not accounted for in the above, which is your freedom. You are REQUIRED by law to not only keep earning what you were earning at the time of the marriage, but to get reasonable raises. You are an indentured servant for ten years. What is reasonable compensation for being required to consistently earn a particular number for the next ten years without fail? Nowadays people change jobs every 2-3 years, and are often out of work for months (see the half a year in assets above). So a very real cost of having to be a wage slave for ten years is the coverage of the job transitions. Let's say there are three job transitions during the 10 years, and they last 4 months. four twelfths of $80,000 , multiplied by three job losses is $80,0000 you will need just to cover the financial implications of the job transitions.

But again, what about what the real value of you committing to being a wage slave for 10 years, minus the financial implications, just the 'I have to slog off to work for people who I don't see and who mostly hate me' factor. How much would you demand in additional compensation for working for a firm that hates you, while withholding 2/3rds of your income, and committing to this situationfor 10 years? Well, it would have to pay me back the 2/3rds, or I wouldn't do it, but I am already counting that as a negative above, so I won't double count it, so it becomes how much to work for people who hate me for 10 years, plus the stress of jumping through hoops to get the next job and the next job where they also hate me. I think, that I would need to see double my salary before I committed to this kind of situation. So for your average working divorced father, we are talking about a real value of $80,000 per year (he already earns the 80k, this is the doubling part). Over 10 years that is $800,000

So total cost of the divorce, including your suffering: $2,694,500
Compared to your anticipated benefits (including your joys in children, sex, help) of: $720,000.

The net benefit (cost) of the average marriage is way negative: ($1,974,500).

If someone proposed to you a venture that would on average eat up the next twenty years of your life, which represents a total cost of about two million dollars including pain and suffering, and which leaves the average person very unhappy, would you do it?

Or more simply: On Average, Should Men Marry?


The simple answer, based on the numbers, is:


No,
Nixt,
No Way,
Not,
Not in Twenty Years,
Not in Two Million Dollars,
Not on Your Life.


But I want to end on a positive note, and that is the following, which many of you may not find positive:

The analysis above is correct for the average person,

- but the average person should not marry,

- and the person that they should marry should not be average.

For marriage to work, it must be entered into by loving, giving, dedicated people who will both try hard to put their partner's interests first, day in and day out, on the easy days and the hard days, in the good years and in the bad years, and enter into this venture knowing that many of the years may be very tough years.

For marriage to work well, it must contain two souls who are ethical, moral, upstanding, honest, and brave.

If you can be the kind of person described above -if you can always put your lover first -even when you are fighting, and if you can find someone who is always putting you first, and loves doing that, and whom you can trust with your life and the things you care most about, even when you are fighting...

- then marry that person. It will be the best thing that you ever did.

My best to you in your struggles!

-M

V is for Victim

The other day I was at a seminar where we were being educated about the ills of sexism and racism, and which was supposed to educate us so as to behave properly in the workplace and treat everyone fairly and equally. An admirable persuit.

But one of the exercises was supposed to show us how the burdens of society and society's contempt fall unfairly on certain sectors based on sex, race, age and the like. They had a diverse group stand at one side of the floor, and every time they had suffered, or felt like they suffered a particular kind of abuse, they were to take one step across the floor. At the end, the 'winners' were the most abused, and had progressed the furthest across the floor. Funny thing was, it was middle-aged to young white guys. Job holders, who were the farthest across.

Then to add abuse to injury, the 'facilitator' went on to define sexism and racisim in terms of 'who had the social power', so that the white, male jobholders, being part of the patriarchy, could not claim to be 'victims'.

Oh but they were, they were. There they were well placed across the floor - the 'winners' in the victim race - one of them speaking about how he was marginalized by his divorce, ostracized from his social group, and faith, another about how he could barely make ends meet, and was viewed as damaged goods by women when he tried to date.

And this facilitator victimized them yet again, by denying them even the ability to be considered as victims. They weren't the right sex, or race.

Men, the invisible slaves; "It's what's for dinner!"

My best to you in your struggles.

-M

O is for Opportunity

This guy sat next to me at work, maybe a year ago, and one day he heard my story, and shared his with me. It is not an uncommon one... Starts with a dedicated family man (FM), brother of my co-worker (CW), and FM's opportunistic wife (OW). FM has kids with OW, and OW sees her road to eternal gravy opened up and takes him to the local 'Pump-and-Dump', aka the NJ Divorce Court. You would think that FM would just live in poverty and slavery for the rest of his life, but divorce creates so very many ways for women to steal money from men without any realistic chance of punishment that it boggles the mind.

See, FM gets called up to go to Iraq, and OW starts complaining she isn't getting her blood-money. CW, not wanting to see his brother get in trouble, or his niece/nephew suffer, starts paying her support directly. Some time goes by, and CW is able to contact FM (who was out of touch due to the nature of his work in the military) and FM swears he *is* paying. OW claims otherwise, and so CW, out of consideration again for his niece/nephew and to keep his brother (FM) from being immediately arrested upon his return, keeps paying OW. Finally FM returns from Iraq, and shows CW his check stubs. OW claims that she never received any money during the period. They look at going to court, but none of the payments were being made through probation, and there was no written agreement between OW and CW, so OW can and will claim that the payments to her were a gift. Also, if the thing goes to court, FM will pay both his and her court fees, which will easily come to $9,000, rendering the whole court proposition uneconomical.

So there is no punishment for, or repaying by OW. She has 'worked the system' and collected twice for what she probably shouldn't have received in the first place.

Ain't NJ Grand? Talk about your 'land of opportunity.'.

Oh, and let me say a little something about slavery. First step in slavery is to reduce someone's legal standing. Making them pay their abuser's legal fees, making their abusers immune to perjury charges, placing the burden of proof on them... And forcing them to turn over the fruit of their labor without any real ability to challenge need or justice, and all under threat of seizure, prison and punishment. Support is slavery, pure and simple.

T is for To Look At

We live in an interesting world.

I apologize for not commenting on it more, but I am busy being a slave to my ex.

Just yesterday, I got yet another missive from the local probation department informing me that they were trying to take more money from me. Never mind that they already were taking the maximum allowable under law, 50-60%, far more than the maximum 10% a convicted criminal would be subject to. If I wasn't living already below the poverty level, it would be laughable. Actually it still is laughable, because there is nothing else to do about it.

Today, like so many days, was spent strugging to be able to support my evil ex, who demands more than I can earn, and figuring out how to keep my home for another few months. You who haven't lived as a divorcee have no idea how horrible it is. I can't imagine ever advising anyone to get married at this point in my life.

The scariest part is that my ex, like many others, insists it isn't personal. Just business. Ruining the rest of my life is just business. While she earns big-bucks, she also gets to take me to the cleaners every week, irregardless of my income or situation. And it is just business. Not personal. She doesn't need it, I can't afford it, but it is just business.

Because the state of New Jersey allows it, and because she can.

Just the practical, day-in-and-day-out business of misandry.

But anyway, things to look at:

Our friend John Doe has coined a good, useful and important word Patriphobia. So many of us are hated, ejected from our lives and families, rejected from the world and society. Why are divorced men so evil? Because divorced women need them to be. I think Patriphobia has a use, but perhaps not exactly the one John Doe is thinking of. I think that what John is pointing to is misandry. Patriphobia is what inspires VAWA, and encourages judges to give temporary restraining orders. Hating men is misandry.

In other news...

Imagine stalking your ex, putting on rubber gloves, a camoflage outfit, getting a high-powered rifle, and then shooting your spouse. What would a man get in terms of sentance if he did that? This woman (Claire Margaret MacDonald) got a license to kill.

As her husband lay bleeding to death on the ground, MacDonald stood over him and berated him for five minutes, telling him how she "hated him for making me do this".
MacDonald then tried to cover up her crime by telling police that a rabbit-shooter had threatened her husband the previous day.
Only when police began questioning her children did MacDonald change her story and claim she was a battered wife.
[...]
During the trial in the Victorian Supreme Court, MacDonald's defence counsel, James Montgomery, told the jury how Mr MacDonald had "totally dominated" his family, and in particular his wife, through "physical, verbal, psychological and sexual intimidation". Unfortunately the allegations could not be tested in court as Mr MacDonald was not around to refute or challenge them.

Imagine a rapist claims to work for the local health department to trick an eight-year-old into letting the rapist into the house. Then the rapist rapes the 8-year-old at knifepoint. Does this person get bail? If she is a woman, and the victim is a boy, the bail is $1500. Anyone see this on the news? No? Gee, wonder why? Didn't happen in some dark part of the 3rd world. It happened in Rochester, NY.

We are all concerned that there are not more male role models in schools, and that boys don't succeed in school in part because there are no men there. Women who have spoken to me cannot imagine how a man would ever take a job in a school given the current environement of misandry. Dr Helen points out that many parents reinforce this problem by requesting female teachers, thus making the man in such a role even more rare.

Hey! The Equal Opportunities Commission is sleeping at the switch! Here is a worksite, (hat tip Eternal Bachelor) without a single woman! I am sure the story is the same at worksites across the US. What's up? Shouldn't construction employers be 'encouraged' to hire a certain percentage of women? Huh?

But I'm not done with the Eternal Bachelor website, no far from it, he informs us that the courts have put men on notice that they may be held responsible in the future for the suicides of women - it's being called 'psychological manslaughter'. Can't make this stuff up. The man in this case was actually tried for it. Nice. Welcome to the gynocracy.

Did you all see this? Men travel far more for business than women do. Twice as much, actually. Gee, wonder why? Think it has ANY impact on that 'wage gap' we keep hearing about?

Or how about this from Mensactivism.org. Apparently it's twice as easy to fire a man as a woman. That just might contribute to the wage gap too. If you can't fire them, you'd better pay them less to make up for their unproductive months, years, decades...

Or how about this widely cheered study that women pretty much outlive men everywhere, including a pithy catchquote: "Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition."
If I celebrated 'the fact' that women lived shorter lives than men, wouldn't that be not only sexist, but just plain evil? I thought so.

My best to you in your struggles

M

Technorati Tags: Fathers Rights, Patriphobia, Parental Alienation, Bias, Wage Gap, Women Murderers, Life Expectancy, Misandry, Equal Rights, Men's Rights