P is for Peonage

I regularly check http://mensrightsblogs.com/feeds/ to see what's going on in the MRA/MGTOW blogosphere...and today I found a VERY interesting post from the anti-misandry forum by one member who goes by the moniker, Luke Skywalker:

I've found a website that might be the answer to a lot of our troubles. I wish I had found it sooner, because it is so, so true what it says on this website. www.antipeonage.0catch.com
It turns out that in the USA there is an old 1867 law from the post-Civil-War era which outlaws peonage {see for yourself: § 1581. Peonage; obstructing enforcement - HL} (and therefore outlaws child support!) This law is still on the books, and a man named Robert Knight has been attempting to use this law to fight having to pay child support for a number of years now. It is called the 1867 Antipeonage Act, and it declares all conditions of peonage, whether done by the government or anyone else, to be null and void, and holding another in a state of peonage to be a crime.

Peonage is where a debtor is bound to servitude until the debt is paid off. Which is exactly what child support is. It is where the debtor (non-custodial parent) has to work to make a certain amount of money and give it custodial parent, and if he doesn't do that, he will be thrown in jail and held there indefinately. That is the textbook definition of peonage.

We often refer to unfair child support laws as the malicious reduction of the role of Fatherhood to nothing more than becoming a wage slave. This is peonage, plain and simple... and surprise, surprise, it is ALREADY illegal!

Looking further into Robert Knight's website, he states that when he has raised the issue of Peonage with the Child Support agency he is waging his battle on,this is their justification:

They tell you that they are operating under a "federal mandate". That would be Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 651-669b. It is not and Constitutionally cannot be a mandate. What it is, is a program where Congress purchases sovereignty over issues of family law and public assistance policy from the States for a bag of federal money. Now where does the federal government gets its money? From the same place the States get their tax money, YOU!!!!

But the Supreme Court found, in Blessing v. Freestone, (1997) 520 U.S. 329, 343-344, 137 L. Ed. 2d. 569, 117 S. Ct. 1353, that the States merely contract with the federal government to impose and enforce child support laws in a certain way to qualify for federal funds. Any State may choose not to participate, and not accept the federal funds, it's NOT a mandate! That is found in Printz v. United States, (1997) 521 U.S. 898, 138 L. Ed. 2d. 914, 117 S. Ct. 2365.

It is like when you are offered a job. If you turn it down, you won't get paid. But you have the Constitutional right, 13th Amendment, to turn it down. Which is precisely what I'm fighting for.

Because the States all sell their sovereignty for the federal funds, even SOUTHERN States, former Confederate States, they practice the institution that the Confederacy fought to preserve, slavery. The duty to support the children is the excuse, but slavery it is.

Luke Skywalker offers the following tactical advice to spread the word about this...

Every single dad who has to pay child support in the US should do what this guy says to do and not pay it, and then when they take you to jail, then sue them under 42 U.S.C. §1994, which is the law which says that peonage is abolished.

If every dad in the USA who is paying child support sues under the antipeonage law, 42 U.S.C. §1994, which they have every right to do, this madness will stop. Because sooner or later there's going to be a judge and a jury out there that will listen, and when they do, it's going to make headlines.

While such a tactic may possibly work if a majority of non-custodial Fathers were to do so, I think the result would compel the feminist lobbyists simply appeal to their stooges int he government to repeal the anti-peonage law under the guise of "it's for the children."

Nevertheless, it would be quite interesting to see this issue attain mainstream awareness. My pessimism is merely the cynicism I've developed after observing the injustices of the United States of Matriarchal America.

P is for Proportion

Heretical Sex (hereinafter HS) draws our attention to a judge who "says mothers should have children taken away if they don't let fathers see them". Ok, this is a Daily Mail article from the UK, but still, the joyful bit of the article is that the justice in question 'Mr Justice Coleridge' advocates something like a '3 violations of visitation and then jail' policy.

Now that's all very nice, and better than the toothlessness that the current law seems to operate on with respect to how they treat women, but come on! Men can get tossed in the slammer after a couple months of not paying their peonage, and women? You've got to take them to court 3 times, and they've got to violate 3 orders. That's probably $100,000 in legal fees and two to three years just to get to see your children that the state kidnapped by gifting them (and your income) to your ex, and making you an unwelcome and infrequent visitor in their lives.

Is this common sense? Or is this taking one cup of milk, and passing it in through the bars of the concentration camp to where we keep our men?

The justice in question is clearly terrified of this being a hard and fast rule, terrified of the backlash against him in case the law might ever apply to women. He's afraid he's gone too far already, you can see, but it isn't enough.

-We're dying in here.

My Best To You In Your Struggles

-M

p.s. - All the old posts should be restored. Sorry if it came in a rush.

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

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

G is for Getting Married?

Getting Married?

Thinking about it?

If so, you should take a moment to read this post.

Did you know that better than 60% of marriages end in divorce?

Did you know that women file the vast majority of those divorces?

Did you know that in the vast majority of divorces, women get your children, and you get to visit them on occasion if you are lucky - and women get better than half the assets, and women usually get the house to live in until things get divided, and women generally get support of some sort?

Ok, with that in mind.... ...look at the picture below.

This is an UNEMPLOYMENT PAYMENT CONFIRMATION. This one is for a top earner, who is getting the maximum unemployment possible. He's been out of work for almost 2 years. Take a moment to review it. I'll wait....

Ok, notice anything funny about it?

-Like how the gross is over %1,000 for two weeks, but the actual amount of the check is $280?

Where the heck did all that money go?

Well, see - right there - most of it went to 'Garnishment'. This man, who has his kids, who is out of work for years, loses 65% of his unemployment to his ex-wife.

Want to know what her gross income is?

Would it suprise you to know that she brings home over $100,000?

You may say: Oh, he just needs to go back to court to get that thing adjusted.

Yeah.

Would it suprise you to learn that he had been back to court?

That in fact, his ex-wife SUED him for a 'violation' of her rights - because he wasn't paying the full amount of her 'support'?

Would it suprise you that not only did the court not reduce his payments, but that it increased them?

Well, if any of this suprises you, you just plain don't know how the game is played here in good sweet ol' New Jersey.

So, I ask again...

Are You SURE You're Getting Married?


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.

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.

B is for Blogging

I've gone to a nifty blog-listing tool on the left that gives you the blogs I link to in order of their last update, and their most recent post's title. Very Exciting.

Also scary again to me how bloggers in the MRA world turn over, fade out, et-cetera. Saddening to look at a good blog that has been un-updated for half a year... Did they go ghost? Are they just up to their necks? (Usually the case with me). Did they give up ranting about the system - or just give up? Did they kill themselves? One wonders.

-M

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

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.

M is for Meaning

Ok, below we have a sexy video of a Ukranian lovely. A beautiful, busty Ukranian girl, singing about something, but what is it? The imagery of the bride over the murdered groom, and holding the knife over his back, the imagery of the woman performing for military men, being interrogated, and in mourning garb?

Anyway, if you ask the Carrot-man, everyone looks a little orange, but this video made me think of the relationship between women and their men, who are very disposable.

(Scroll Down for Lyrics)

The Lyrics Are:

АЛЛО! АЛЛО!	Hello! Hello!
КТО ТРУБОЧКУ ВЗЯЛ?	Who answered the phone?
От ты даешь....	Wow...
Милый, смешной, игривый	Sweety, funny, playful
Закроешь глазки и полетим	Close your eyes and we will fly away
Милый, смешной, игривый	Sweety, funny, playful
Мое сердечко не разбивай	Do not break my little heart
Припев	(Chorus):
Да да да	Yes yes yes
Люблю тебя	I love you
Да да да	Yes yes yes
Люблю тебя	I love you
Да да да	Yes yes yes
Люблю тебя	I love you
Да да даYes	yes yes
Люблю тебя	I love you
Солнце, послушай солнце	Sunny, listen sunny
Твоя улыбка милее всех эх	Your smile is the loveliest of all, hey
Солнце, я не ревную	Sunny, I am not jealous
Я знаю сложно любить такую	I know such love is difficult
Припев	(Chorus)
Пупсик, мой сладки пупсик	Baby, my sweet baby
Давай за ручку гулять с тобой	Come on lets walk hand by hand
ОЙ!	Oy!
Пупсик, мой сладкий пупсик	Baby, my sweet baby
Я на край света, уйду с тобой	With you I will go to the edge of the world
Припев	(Chorus)
ПОВЕРЬ! НУ ПОВЕРЬ МНЕ! ЭЙ! ЛЮБЛЮ ТЕБЯ! ДА!	Believe! Believe me! Hey! I love you! Yes!

MBTYIYS

p.s. Welcome In Mala Fide to the linklist! A very smart male positive blogger who is way more hip than I am. :)

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

W is for What’s in a Name?

When we are born, we are given a last name – a name that belonged, in most cases, to your father and mother.

A name that, again in most cases, your father had from his parents.

A name that your father, and his father, and your great grandfather and your mother worried about, and worked hard to make ‘a good name’.

There were opportunities that could have turned into quick bucks, or been fun for a moment, or have been quick and easy solutions that these people, your ancestors avoided, in order to preserve their good name and, at least in part, to hand it down to you.

Cheating, stealing, doing shoddy work, lying, taking unfair advantage, kicking someone when they are down, plagiarizing, tattling – these things all damage someone’s good name, the one fully untaxable asset we can pass on to our children.

But when your ex throws you over, and turns you into a wage slave, when she lies and cheats and steals, and still gets to walk into court with her head held high because divorce in the USA is ‘no-fault’, she gets to keep your most precious asset – your name.

The divorcing woman has a RIGHT to your name, and you can’t do anything about it. She gets to keep your name, as a convenience to her, so she doesn’t have to change all her accounts, and all the places she is registered.

And it is a convenience – how convenient for the person who loves to commit credit fraud against you to be able to keep your last name – so that she can show up anywhere and claim to be your wife – having a copy of a marriage certificate on hand to prove it – and able then to subvert and abuse your credit, and blacken your good name for the rest of your life. Divorcees make up a very large, perhaps one of the largest populations of credit fraudsters out there, and the pandering of the courts to their behavior contributes in no small way to their fraudulent behavior.

After all, what man is going to work hard to throw his ex-wife in jail, and make it harder for her to be employed? Indubitably she will then have even more incentive to go after him in court, with him footing the bill, and even less opportunities in the working world… …Imagine your ex-wife, unable to get a job because of her convictions, and then imagine her showing up in court and claiming rightly that she is unable to live up to ‘the standard of living which she became accustomed to during the marriage.’

Oh, and believe me, the court is going to back her 200% on that one.

By giving away the last name of the man, the courts remove the last vestige of patriarchal identity that men had – even our names don’t belong to us anymore, they belong to women.

Welcome to the Gynocracy

-M

W is for Work

In my larger circle, there are three single women who have related interesting things to me about their employment history. Two of them have been out of work for most of the last eight years, while somehow maintaining NYC apartments and lives. How is this possible? Unemployment, in one case, using an inheritance to actually buy their appartment, largesse of friends, early drawing of retirement funds and savings have helped. The third was sharing how she, at her last job change, chose to take a secretarial position, because it was more stable than the high-paying position she was filling previously.

Now, in an economy with about 4% unemplouyment, it boggles the mind how one can spend years unemployed, and it double boggles the mind, that someone CAN choose to earn less.

Because support-paying men can't. They must find jobs, and remain well employed, or be called 'undereployed' and have their old salaries imputed to them.

Neither do these men have the option of choosing to re-tool or educate themselves, or change careers.


These educational/financial/career-change/lifestyle benefits, so touted as so critical to the lives of women, that they must have the right to abort the children in their wombs, are not available to men.

Living on savings/retirement funds? Impossible once they are minced and divided by the divorce process, not to mention how rapidly the irreducable support/alimony number would liquidate them.

Saving by owning your own home? The marital home likely went to the wife in the first place, and if some (very unlikely) post-divorce fat years somehow allowed a man to buy a home and own it clear of mortgage, the legal system would be quick to place leins against it and liquidate it to satisfy the 'need' of the ex wife to continue 'to enjoy the lifestyle she has become accustomed to'.

Living on the largesse of others? The state has an answer to that too, imprisoning 'deadbeats' to shake funds lose from those who care for them.

Honestly, I think that most who can work, should.

But while living in a world where the man must always remain very well employed, it is eye-opening to be reminded that there are those who can spend years 'finding themselves', 'looking for stability', or 're-tooling', 'being housewives'* or even just 'being unemployed'.

Our culture provides that option.

-Just mostly not for men.

My Best To You In Your Struggles:
M


* It is shocking to many even to imagine a man wanting to just stay home and care for his kids.

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

M is for Murder

Recently a poor woman was murdered, beaten to death in the Hopatcong area.

The news helpfully tells us she is divorced for some time, with teenaged sons, and was in just a couple days about to use the courts to seek full custody - to cut the boys off from their father, while seeking more support.

We read between the lines that of course the ex-husband is a primary suspect.

Which makes perfect sense.

When you take away all rights from a man, turn him into a slave, and make him pay for all your legal assaults on him, while laying the burden of proof on him, and try to take away his children, rage and violence are actually reasonable.

And this is what is troubling me again today.

At what point is it appropriate for the slave to revolt? Does his life have to be at risk? Or is a life (or twenty years) of unrelenting subjugation worth killing to escape? How about ten years?

Ma Jersey herself gives us a hint: if you murder someone in a crime of passion, and are truly regretful, and well behaved in jail, you can be back out on the streets in as little as five years.

So Ma Jersey is telling us that we should kill our wives when they win unreasonably onerous judgements against us that will lock us into slavery for significantly more than five years.

But beating her to death? Surely that is over the top? Again, Ma Jersey steps in to help us out with the question. If you bought a gun, and ammo, and loaded the gun, and brought it to where your ex wife was, and pulled the gun, and shot her... ...that would show a lot of premeditation. If you instead showed up at the home you bought with the money that you earned and that she owns now, and bludgeoned her to death with one of her mahogany chairs, or one of her equestrian trophies, or one of her designer golf clubs, or crushed her under her antique china cabinet, that's a crime of passion. Premeditated murder can get you life as a man. (As a woman, premeditated murder of your ex can get you free therapy.) Crimes of passion are more forgivable, per Ma Jersey.

Sigh.

I FEEL like ending this post here, saying that I won't address the MORAL aspects of the situation until Ma Jersey addresses the moral aspects of reducing divorced men to slaves... ...but that itself would be immoral.

Folks, even though Ma Jersey seems to find some balance between a ten year alimony/support sentance and a crime-of-passion murder, it isn't O.K. to kill your ex-wife. Morally, the slave should not kill the master unless his mortal life is at risk. Instead, your duty, if you cannot or will not bear the slavery, is to run away. Escape it somehow.

Yes, you may be relegated to a much more limited life, in a foreign or remote region, but that is the trade-off. You are a legal slave in the US. The state will be 100% against you, and 100% for her. If you stay here, she can take the majority of your earnings and all your assets. So you can earn nothing and own nothing, live at risk of having everything taken, live as a slave, or leave the country. Morally, murdering her for just stealing from you and enslaving you is wrong.

You f*ked up, and let yourself become a breadwinner for a parasite.

A parasite with legal rights, and a soul, whose life you are morally and legally forbidden to end.

It needs to be said again and again;
Don't live with women
Don't earn more than your woman
Don't marry women

Because sooner or later, they will become bored with you, tired of you, annoyed with you, and realize that they can have all the financial benefits of being married to you, and most of your assets, without having to put up with you, yourself. -by casting you into legal slavery.

And that's a tempatation that most women cannot resist, *and the most likely outcome of marriage* - an outcome men don't have the legal right to resist.

Don't live with women
Don't earn more than your woman
Don't marry women

Unless, of course, being a slave is something you have always aspired to.

MBTYIYS:
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.

M is for Monday

It's Monday and I'm off again,
On my long daily commute for my job.
The job I must have so as to pay alimony and child support to my wealthy ex-wife.
The commute means that when I do have my children, I see little of them. Arriving in time to tuck them in - if I am lucky.

I could get a job close to home, but I would earn a lot less, and my ex isn't interested in compromise. Alimony and Child Support are impossible to reduce, regardless of circumstance.

I must travel when I don't want to, and work at what I would not choose, so that my ex can live richly.

If I lose my job, I will still have to pay the same amount. If I fall behind on my payments while unemployed, I can still be arrested, and thrown in jail without trial.

In any hearing the burden of proof rests upon me: I am presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Because I am male, I get to pay my ex's legal fees too, irregardless of my or her employment status.

When the court bankrupts me, no civil or pro-bono defender is appointed, no one will touch my case.

I belong to a sex which exists to work, and provide for women. Even questioning this destiny is looked upon with derison - I will be labeled 'deadbeat', 'useless', 'lazy'.

If I have money, and date a woman for even a couple months, she may take me to court, claiming I made promises to her about caring for her forever, and not only will she win compensation and alimony, I will be forced to pay her legal bills.

If my girlfriend gets pregnant, she can kill the fetus, give it up for adoption, drop it off at any hospital without responsibility, or keep it without any input from me. I may never see the child, and may or may not have agreed to have a child. But if my girlfriend chooses, lies about sterility or birth control, or engineers an 'accident', I will find myself paying her child support, and probably alimony for 18 years, and possibly college expenses, healthcare, and a chunk of my retirement savings, and part of my assets.

Men work longer hours, at harder, more hazardous jobs, and die early, with a massive suicide rate, all to support the master race: women.

So next time you see a cute young thang showing everything she can, and wonder why, remember - she's advertising - she's hoping to flag down the ride of her life. Just try to make sure it isn't you.

And so I am off again to the salt mines. It's Monday, and I must work for my master, or be thrown in debtor's prison as a deadbeat. Look upon me and learn from my mistakes - and always remember who the masters are.

-M