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

H is for How-to Update

from smh.com.au 'sam and the city' on 'why men won't commit'

I was afraid to get married in Australia. It took me long enough to get what little assets I had - I can't afford to lose them. (Literally - at age 42, with ever diminishing chances of employment, I would probably never amass as much again.)
But in China I felt free to marry. Over here, the rules are different. If a girl marries a man, and they part - she isnt' entitled to any assets he had before the marriage. Not the car, not the house, anything. Right away this eliminates a lot of gold diggers (Of course not all girls are gold diggers. But women are not some mythical morally superior race to men. They also have their share of mercenary , merciless monsters.) So I felt safe to get married and I did. If Australian divorce laws were fairer maybe more men would commit. Vitriolic tales of what SHE did or what HE did don't help much; there will always be bad eggs. But I suspect the reason most men don't want to get married in Australia any more is that it just doesn't make financial sense.

--------------
Those of you with an asset base that you seek to protect from the screw-thy-neighbour derth of opportunistic people in this world these days, its not that hard to do.
1. shut up already... DONT discuss personal finances. This used to be normal, now people tell you how much they earn and how much their house is worth 5mins after meeting. Nitwits.
2. Use legal protection structures, like a trust. Go see a lawyer and accountant. Best money you will ever spend. Take their advice and FOLLOW it. BTW, a trust or company is the simple ,ost effective way to effectively self determine support obligations. Contracting/consulting/temping is rife these days. Look for a way to make that happen.
3. Accumulate a private nest egg. Call it a fighting fund, a get out of jail free card, a way to survive a rainy day. Whatever. Just do it. Use cash, precious metals/gemstones, collectibles, and keep them stashed away from your place of abode.
4.Hold assets in the name of an impecably trusted 3rd party, like your parents, siblings, close friends of 10-20yrs+.
5. Travel before you settle down. See whatthe world has to offer, in financial terms. There are plenty of ways to sure up your balance sheet thru foreign fiscal centres. If you qualify for dual nationality, then definately get that second passport and of course, shut up about it.
6.there is a whole bunch of other stuff you can do. All of which becomes obvious over time as you look thru open eyes.
Such a strategy is all very unfortunate, l agree. Yet the world is what it is. We all gotta survive it. Folks are lurking about just looking for an excuse to sue and fleece a deep pocket. USA is already a hopelessly predatory and latigious society and its spreading to the land of OZ.
Watch your back and cover your ass(ets). That FREES you up to LOVE someone, for however long it lasts. Nothing is forever, not even life itself. Let go of that delusion, you will be mucj happier for it.
Peace.

-----------------------------
Here's a snapshot of four Sydney men, all my friends:
J. Engaged at 28 to an aussie girl. She gets pregnant to his brother. He swears off girls forever but finally gets married at 42 to an asian girl. Married eight months, very happy.
D. Married to an aussie girl at 21. Discovers a week later that her "pregnancy" was fake to trick him into marriage. Devastated because he thought he was going to be a father. Divorced six months later when he discovers she is cheating on him. Finally remarries at 41 to a Chinese girl. Married now for 2 years, sadly looks like they will break up too.
G. An engineer. Owns his own home, earns 90K a year. Didn't have a girlfriend for more than a decade. (He's a little fat and not handsome.) Finally at 31 met a Phillipines girl over the internet who also turned out to be a engineer! Now married for 9 months, very happy, first child due soon.
M. An electrical engineer. Owns his own house. Two years ago went to China to teach english. Now happily married to a chinese girl.
Whatever side of the debate you may be on, men seem to be voting with their feet.
-----------------------------

CM is for Cuban Men

If you know a Male Suicide victim, it is very likely (about a 66% chance) that this person who killed themselves was also a victim of divorce. This is not a reflection on the 'instability' of men, but rather a reflection of how "The courts in the United States are in a position now whereby money is given to the woman, [and] the man is forced to pay alimony, child support. The man is also asked, in some cases, to vacate the house. [...] If a man loses custody of the children and the woman keeps those children, there are situations whereby she may not allow the man to see the children, and that causes some depression," (Augustine Kposowa speaking to CBS News, 2000)

Well today, we have word via Babalu Blog that men wear divorce even more painfully in Cuba. Babalu Blog refers us to Wall Street Cafe which tells us that 2.6 men kill themselves for every woman. The message of Wall Street Cafe and Babalu is political - they blame communism for the plight of Cuban men - and I am sure that they are at least partly right. - Men, who are supposed to support the family, are put in a difficult to impossible situation in a country where captialism, the ability to work harder to achieve greater income, is illegal.

According to the Basic Health Indicators of a 2005 report by the OPS, Cuba had an18,1 rate of suicides in each 100.000 inhabitants during the 2000-2005 period, far from the second place occupied by Uruguay with 15,9 and very far from countries like Peru with 2,3 and Guatemala with 1.9.

Cubans suicides index for 2005 in 26.4 for the men and 9.8 for the women. In absolute numbers, the greatest amount of suicides which take place in Cuba affects the 25 – 34 age group, followed by the 35-44 group.

“By the hopelessness, the social atmosphere without horizons, a sort of collective depression that impels to escape via the suicide route”, assured to the New Herald a sociologist Cuban investigator who works for the ministry of Public Health.

Is there a divorce factor too? What is divorce like in Cuba?

Well, first of all, Cuba has a high divorce rate, 3.54 divorces per 1,000 inhabitants - (the US has 4.1 divorces per 1,000). Although the rate per individual sounds lower than the US, the rate per marriage is higher - About 70% of marriages end in divorce.

But divorce itself should not lead to increased suicide, if men are treated fairly and allowed access to their children. The word on the street though, is that Cuban men are not - they lose their houses, their assets are split 50/50 with their ex, and their incomes are nipped down about 10% per child. Add to that that divorces can be had for as little as 5 pesos by a notary public, with no hassle, and you have a situation where women can put already hard-pressed men into a hopeless situation.

This may have led to an interesting twist - Cuban women are complaining that their men are only interested with women with good jobs - i.e. women who would bring something to a marriage, and who might have something to lose in a divorce (hat tip La Neuva Cuba):

Still single, she[Maricel Acebo] does have complaints about men. Too many care only about money, she said. "The men say, 'What do you do?' And if you say you're a housewife, they shrink back and won't talk to you. But if you say you work for a good company, then it's, 'Yeah, that's the woman I want,' " said Ms. Acebo, a night security guard who earns $7.69 per month in a country where the average monthly salary is $12.

Somehow, men waking up to the fact that their wife MUST work so that they don't get destroyed financially in a divorce and focusing on that financial aspect seems darkly amusing. Turnabout IS fair play, no?

My best to you in your struggles

M

Drilling a bit deeper: from Dominican Today: Anguish Drives Cubans to suicide

Related posts:

On Suicide:
S is for Suicide - Revisited
S is for Slavery
B is for Bravery
R is for Relentless Persuit
D is for Dynamite
O is for Over the Edge

On The Evil that is done to Men in Divorce:
Why Alimony is Wrong
Other Ways Alimony is Like Slavery
Further Bankruptcy Rights Revoked for Men - Making Divorce Even More Like Debt Servitude
P is for Paternity - or how to catch yourself a slave
D is for Divorce - 'the financial haircut club for men'
D is for Dance of Death - a bit on Perry Manley and others

Technorati Tags: , Men's Rights Gender Bias Gynocracy Divorce Suicide

P is for Pendulum

I keep hearing from well-meaning people that the law's current outrageous treatment of men is 'like a pendulum'. Their comment usually goes like this:

"The law used to treat women really badly, but now the pendulum has swung and has granted more rights to women, and perhaps it has swung too far, and eventually it will swing back."

Well, I have heard it too often as of this point, and am starting to wonder how much truth is in this truism.

Oh, Sure, women didn't have the vote, and couldn't inhereit property, IN THE 1800s, and couldn't own property separately from their husband, BEFORE 1850.

But by 1895, the Gynocracy was apparently in full swing:

Up till quite recently [...] advanced persons, were supposed, as a matter of course, to swallow that conventional lie of modern civilisation – the theory of “woman the victim of man’s oppression.” This dogma, which, like the doctrine of Manchester school, that the ideal of human liberty is attained under the capitalistic regime of free industrial and commercial competition, has dominated the thought of the Anglo-Saxon race for two generations and has been the chief instrument in effecting a revolution which has placed the whole judicial and administrative machinery of the country at the disposal of one sex oppress the other (in all causes, i.e. into which the sex question prominently enters.) Let us look at the present condition of this so-called “victim.”

While under our present marriage laws the wife is under no obligation to maintain the husband, not even though she have money and he be destitute (saving the ratepayer’s right to be recouped for his maintenance in the workhouse) the husband is bound at criminal law to maintain his wife in comfort under all circumstances. Hitherto exception has been made in the case of adultery on the part of wife. Now, in a Bill before Parliament this last reservation is proposed to be virtually abrogated by a “caoutchouc” paragraph which enforces “alimony” where the husband can be shown by his defect or “misconduct to have contributed to the adultery. “

Thus, if a man has ever had a dispute with his wife or even come home late, as in a recent case, he will presumably have, “by defect or misconduct, contributed to the adultery;” just as now if a man ever had words with his wife and raised his voice above its normal pitch or come home late he may deemed to have committed technical cruelty entitling the said wife to separation or divorce with “alimony.”

2. A wife is perfectly free to leave her husband at will, and he has no remedy (Jackson case). If a husband leaves his wife she can compel him to surrender to her a third of his income or earnings, and for desertion, i.e., for leaving her without money, he can be punished with hard labour.

3. A husband is further liable for her debts and her civil delinquencies (torts).

4. A husband cannot obtain relief against a wife for any act, negligence, or language of hers, while for any one of these considerations she can get judicial separation, exclusive rights over the children, if any, and a third of his income or earrings for herself, with so much per head in addition for each child. Thus if a man gives his wife an unfriendly pat on the cheek with his open hand she can get established comfortably for life on the fruits of his labour; if, on the contrary, she smashes his head in with a poker she may be fined five shillings which the injured husband has to pay; and should he succeed in obtaining a separation it is only on, condition of his keeping the virago in comfortable idleness.

A little illustration will bring home to the reader this complete serfdom of the husband to the wife under our marriage laws. A man, not long ago, obtain the offer of employment in America. His wife did wish him to go. Not having any money or work home he insisted. The wife who had money of own, and to whom he moreover gave £25 with promise of more on his arrival at his destination, went straight to the Guardians, had him arrested on board ship at Southampton, dragged before the magistrate, and sentenced to three months hard labour. The sentence was subseqently quashed after the man had been in gaol and was ruined. Most feudal barons would surely have been satisfied with such powers as this over their “villeins.”

At criminal law it is a well-known fact which anyone may verify by the records of the courts that women enjoy an almost complete immunity for all offences committed against men, as such. For assault, perjury, and blackmailing practised on men, women are virtually never even prosecuted, let alone convicted. On the other hard, savage and vindictive laws, savagely and vindictively enforced by judges are dealt out to men for the most trifling assaults or other offences committed against women. In fact it seems that the express aim of the modern political woman and her “Women’s” Associations is to deprive men of the last shred of protection against criminal women with a view of giving the latter every facility for exercising their calling.
[...]
Such is the present position of advantage enjoyed by women by virtue of their sex. Such are the facts as opposed to the popular “legend” on the subject. Space forbids my further analysing the present subjection at law of men to women in this article, which is the more unnecessary as I have elaborated the subject in further detail elsewhere.

-E. Belfort Bax The Woman Question, Justice, 27th July, 1895, p.6.

Given the above, which pretty explicitly sounds a little less bad than our situation today, I wonder:

What, exactly, is the period of this purported pendulum?

-I would have to assume that it has been continuing upwards since 1895, meaning that it will take 111 more years for us to get back to the situation that we had in 1895.

-And perhaps 200 years before we get to a point resembling equal rights for men?

I am sorry, I just don't have that kind of time. What is more the pendulum analogy sounds very patronizing:

-Urging us to 'be patient' with a system that has been out of control for over One Hundred and Eleven years. Justice delayed is justice denied. We need justice in OUR lifetimes.

-Or perhaps encouraging us to see our suffering as some sort of 'payback' for inequities that occurred almost 200 years ago. Perhaps this explains why a female murderer is sentenced on average to ONE SIXTH of the time a male murderer is? NOT.

I am sorry that bad things happened in the past. We are supposed to have left punishing the children for the sins of the father, or in this case, the great-great-grandfather, in the Old Testament.

In the 20th and 21rst Centuries we are supposed to all be treated equally under law. Unfortunately, it just isn't true, and hasn't been for a long time.

My best to you in your struggles.

-M

Technorati Tags: Men's Rights Gender Bias Gynocracy Divorce Male Privlege Male Power Patriarchy

O is for Over the Edge

Broken Bread directs us to yet another man (Herbert Chalmers) driven mad by the hopelessly abusive family-destroying court system.

We must all say we don't condone his behavior (he murdered 4 and raped a woman in his rampage), but we cannot forget that he was without hope in a system that gives no quarter. A 'clerical error' caused 50% of his paycheck to be withheld since his monthly support number was increased by 540% in what is being called a 'clerical error' .

This article indicates that the amount of arrears that Chalmers had in 1977 was entered as his monthly support number in 1998. He normally had to pay $133, and this was increased to $724.92 . Apparently that error went uncorrected from 1998 on.

Hm. More of mine is withheld than that... Guess his state is not as cruel as NJ. Happily, I don't feel any urge to freak out, but then, I haven't been abused by the state since 1998, like Chalmers was.

Broken Bread comments: "[...] try living on 50% of your after-tax salary sometime. I had to do it for three months, eating rice and beans and charging groceries on my credit card while I watched my daughter go with her mother to Paris for two weeks. To live like that is to live in a constant state of rage. Chalmers obviously couldn't make ends meet, had no way of reaching child support enforcement officials, and couldn't see any way out. "

This is the thing that drives so many men to suicide, murder and worse. You are put in an untenable situation, and the state keeps taking more, and more. You automatically become a felon if you flee to another state, and of course you lose your kids. Your passport is likely revoked, so leaving the country is hard too, assuming you have any assets to do that with. It is almost exactly like being a black slave in the Antibellum US South.

Some knuckle down under the pressure, and scrape along, and somehow, some way, make it work.

Some fail at that and spend months in jail as a deadbeat dad, until some family member or friend pays the state-sponsored blackmail to get them out.

Others spin out of control or eventually snap, and it is no suprise that the behaviors, violence and criminal acts that follow are not rational.

How do you expect anything to behave when you back it into a corner and give it no way out. You may start with a rational, moral, normal person, but you can end up with a desparate animal.

Was what Herbert did ok? No.

Was it the right thing to do? No.

Do we understand how he got there? Yes. It is very, sadly, very clear how he got there.

Some will claim that this man was just a criminal and nothing more. Probably people saying this have never been enslaved. Not everyone can take it.

No matter how you view this case, one must admit that without state-enforced slavery to ex-spouses, Herbert Chalmers would likely still be alive, along with the four people he murdered,
-and one woman would not be suffering from the trauma of rape.

-M

Update 26-Apr-06: MensActivism.Org points us to This Article - which tells us that Chalmer's kids WERE ALL GROWN AND EMANCIPATED. Which just goes to show what I have been told so many times - there is no escape, ever. Here his kids were all grown, and he is still a slave, with his payments increasing yearly, living on $200 every two weeks.

Update 26-Apr-06: I see the following from the St Louis Post-Dispatch that strikes me as interesting to men:

Citing confidentiality concerns, the Department of Social Services has blocked reporters’ requests for information about Chalmers’ case, though a St. Louis judge opened a narrow window Thursday by agreeing to unseal part of the court record.
[...]
State records obtained by the Post-Dispatch indicate that a payment of $600 in back child support was received on his account with the state on March 30, with a $75 payment on March 7 and a $10 payment on Jan. 10.

Haynes was due to receive all of that money. A $600 check was cut or sent March 31, and a $10 check was dated Jan. 11. State records showed one more check, for $75, dated April 24, 2006 — six days after Haynes’ death.

So the portion of the record released shows a very good correspondence between what Chambers paid, and what Haynes recieved. So for the brief period that the court has let us see, there is no fraud in the payment system. Men have often complained that payments made to child support services do not reach their ex-wives.

Another thought has occurred to me though - here we have a man who has claimed that some of the children that he was being charged support for, and had been charged support for for many years, were not his. And here we have payments inappropriately being taken from him, and made to the mother of these children, long after the children have reached majority.

Sooo, what does the ethical person do when they recieve payments that they do not deserve, especially payments that they know come from someone who can ill afford it? Yes, I am blaming one of the victims: Chamber's ex-partner who was content to accept the enslavement of her ex-partner well beyond even what our misandrous courts had ruled. Did she deserve to die? I cannot bring myself to say that, but I do expect that she is in hell now, and well deserving of it.

Technorati Tags:
Chalmers
Slavery
Child Support
Suicide
Men's Rights

T is for Two-Hundred-Twenty-Six-Thousand Children

An estimated 1,000,000 children's parents divorce every year.

In 1/3 of those cases, allegations of violence have been made in the case.

An estimated 80% of those alegations are false - meaning that out of 1,000,000 children of
divorce each year, over 260,000 of them have a parent who makes a false accusation of divorce.

In 85% of cases, custody is awarded to the mother.

So at a minimim, the custody of 226,666 children per year is awarded to women who brought false charges of violence against the father of the children.

Note that it is far more likely that the 1/3 of cases where a restraining order or other allegation of violence has been made lead to a custody award to the mother. So in fact, the 226,666 number is low.

Either way, over Two-Hundred-Twenty-Six-Thousand children have their custody awarded to a parent who lies about domestic violence every year.

That's over six hundred every day.

That's about twenty-six every hour - near one every two minutes. (Well, probably one EVERY minute during the day, as family-destruction courts don't run in the wee hours of the night.)

But you may say 'well, some of those restraining orders may be issued against women at the request of men' - true enough, but it is a vanishingly small number: Consider the following from Media Radar's: Without Restraint: The Use and Abuse of Domestic Restraining Orders - few men are foolish enough, in this day and age, to call police, or expect any support from the judiciary in a domestic violence matter [emphasis mine]:

Gender Bias in the Issuance of Restraining Orders

If a man has been assaulted by his intimate partner, he should be able to obtain an order of protection. But a double standard may thwart this request.

This is borne out by research. In Massachusetts, one analysis examined all domestic ex-parte hearings held in the Gardner District Court in 1997. The analysis found that 34% of requests from men were deferred or turned down, compared to only 10% of requests from women.

According to Oregon attorney Ron Johnston, “I believe many general practice attorneys who don’t specialize in domestic relations would hesitate before trying to get a restraining order for a man, whereas there would be no hesitation at all for a woman under the same set of circumstances.”

Mr. Johnston’s statement is based on the fact that in Portland, the protective orders once featured the following gender-biased language: The respondent in this order is the natural/legal father of the below named minor children” [emphasis added].

A father suffered repeated assaults by his wife, on one occasion requiring medical treatment for his injuries at the local emergency room. Afraid for his children and for himself, he sought a restraining order. At the time of court hearing, he brought photographs of his injuries, medical documentation of his emergency room visit, and a copy of the police report. The judge’s explanation for denying the man’s request was: “Well, you have to expect one knock-down drag-out fight per divorce.”

When Abuse Victims Themselves Are Accused of Being Perpetrators

Legal bias is not the only reason that male victims are often reluctant to seek restraining orders. There have been reports of abused men who, upon requesting help from law enforcement officials, found themselves accused of being the perpetrator.

In one case, a woman severely bit her husband on the shoulder and chest. After showing the judge pictures of his injuries, the man was granted a restraining order. The next day the woman went before the same judge and, even though she had suffered no injuries, she claimed to be in “fear” for her life, saying that the man was the real abuser. On the basis of that unsubstantiated allegation, the judge reversed the original order against the wife and issued an order against the husband.

As family violence expert Murray Straus put it, “There are a growing number of complaints that attempts by men to obtain police protection may result in the man being arrested.”

A Washington State attorney gives this disturbing advice with regard to domestic violence: “Don’t call 911 unless you are bleeding and she still has a weapon in her hand. Too many men who have called 911 for help have ended up being arrested for DV.”

When government programs ignore the actions of perpetrators and encourage the arrest of victims, that’s a sure sign of a justice system turned upside down.

None of this is news to us, but is an appropriate lead-in to ask you all to respond to RADAR's call for action to defang the venomous snake that is the restraining order, removing at least this one weapon from the anti-family and anti-male forces that seem to control the judiciary to the great suffering of our children and our brothers.

Print out their resolution, and write a brief note on the top and fax it to your representatives in congress. Get the world out that this is hurting real people, real children, real men, NOW.

Hat tip to the ever-vigilant Men's Activism.Org

-M

Technorati Tags: Men's Rights Restraining Order Divorce RADAR VAWA Custody False Accusations

D is for Decompression

Dis of the DivorcedMen blog posted this past Easter Sunday about 'The Wonder'.

You should take a moment to read it, it is a strange place to be in, and only one who has left a horrible marriage can relate to.

People write about all the terrible things about divorce, how it harms children, and the like - all true. But they forget how very hate-full people become, and how great a positive force the ability to leave a hate-full spouse can be.

I remember suddenly, being able to keep my coats and boots and other personal posessions somewhere besides the small converted bedroom that I lived in for years.

I remember suddenly not having to remove garbage from my space that my hate-filled ex dumped in it every day.

I remember suddenly starting to think about how to decorate my space, what kind of art I wanted, if I wanted some kind of pet for my children to enjoy when they were with me.

I remember suddenly not having stress when I came home, but instead thinking 'what new thing will I cook myself tonight?' or 'maybe I will go out and try that new place'.

I remember suddenly having my children with me peacefully coloring, drawing, painting, playing, without an undertone of hatred constantly directed at me by my ex.

I remember my children consulting with me on setting up my new place.

I remember blooming again, living again.

I know what gets written in this blog is often dark, and unhappy as I protest the bias against men that is so prevalent in our culture and courts. It is good to remember that I complain about the bias in an existence where I have my kids, where I have a beloved new spouse, and in spite of being enslaved, very poor, and frequently sued, I am also much, much happier and more fulfilled.

My best to you in your struggles.

Technorati Tags: Divorce Freedom Wonder

P is for Picketing

Saw this the other day on the web: Men’s groups picketing ‘family’ lawyers’ homes in Auckland, NZ.

According to Simon Maude, the Law Society's family law section chairman, the protests ‘intimidated the lawyers, their families and neighbors’.

Jim Bailey, of the Hands On Equal Parent Trust said: “I think it's good -- that's the whole idea. They've destroyed so many families, and intimidated us."

From the article:

Mr Maude said although the protest might appear to be "harmless fun", the reality for the lawyers on the receiving end was different. "They've been subjected to insulting and abusive attacks, much of which has been amplified through a loudspeaker system," Mr Maude said. The protests had shaken the lawyers involved, he told NZPA, and had been intimidating for their families and neighbours. "Their children have, in some cases, been frightened and quite disturbed by the experience."
[…]
He said the protesters seemed to have misunderstood the role of lawyers in the Family Court, particularly the role of lawyers appointed to represent children. "They may have assumed that lawyers for the children have much greater power and influence than is in fact the case. "Children's lawyers don't make the decisions about the children, the court does."

Mr Maude is both right, and wrong. Almost any man who has been through a divorce can testify as to the destructive nature of the legal community, and it’s unfortunate influence on the nature of divorce and child custody. For a lawyer to claim that he is not responsible for his actions in the court, is kind of like a killer-bee claiming that he is not himself to blame, but instead the Queen of the hive (the judges) is at fault. And the judges blame the legislators, and so on, and so on.

I am an advocate of putting blame where it belongs, and not shifting it about. Certainly greedy spouses, mostly (by a vast majority) women, are the first party to blame in the fiasco of child-theft and slavery that is the family court. It is their choice to kidnap the children and enslave the man. -But picketing a woman who is divorcing her husband is targeting an individual and taking a position in a particular case, the facts of which are probably not public. Picketing the lawyers who perpetrate this evil, and who live off of it seems entirely legitimate to me. I am sorry that the lawyers’ children and family are disturbed.

Imagine how much more disturbing it is to have your father ripped away from you, and have him rendered penniless and homeless –turned into a slave by a gender-biased court.

The lawyers’ children are lucky to merely have the discomfort of picketers, rather than live the hell that their parents create for other children.

Is this an idea for the USA? For New Jersey? Worth considering, I think.

My best to you in your struggles.

M

Technorati Tags: Mens Rights Family Court Family Law New Zeland Custody Picketing Lawyers Equal Parenting

H is for How-To

Welcome to vistors from Dr Helen (whose blog I admit reading). Please note that the reason for the below advice lies in other posts, which you should cast an eye upon, namely here, and here, and how about here, and while you are reading, try here, and here. This is about protecting some small smidgen of a man's livelihood and future from a legal system that thinks that all men should be reduced to slavery. Which is entirely different than managing your husband or wife.

Another common search bringing people to my site is 'How to get out of paying alimony', or 'Escaping Alimony' or 'How to Escape Alimony' or the like. How would someone do something like that? The following are my thoughts, and probably not the very best advice, but the best I have. (If you wonder why anyone would want to do such a thing, or how it could possibly be moral, I would suggest reviewing the posts on the NJ Divorce Process Post and Why Alimony Is Wrong)

The first step is to not jump into a divorce. Once the gears of the divorce machine are moving, it is really too late.

First, (assuming you have been married for a few years) you must rig your marriage to last for a couple more years. Tokens of love, romantic vacations, gifts.

You have to understand that everything that you have, your money, your investments, your home, is really going to be divided and destroyed by the divorce. Your lawyers, her lawyers, and your ex are going to get much of what you have. And anything you have left may be attached to to provide the alimony and child support you will be paying. So spend it now.

Set up trusts or accounts for your kids' educations, but set them up so neither you nor your current wife can withdraw them - only the kids should be able to get at them. 529 plans are one way.

Perhaps take your investments, split them exactly down the middle, and buy two annuities, one for her, and one for you - likely she doesn't have to know about this until the divorce phase starts. You retain ownership of both, she is the beneficiary of hers, you of yours. In the divorce, you just sign over the one with her as beneficiary to her.

Do not let anyone talk you into filing for divorce yet.

Get a Post Office Box. Keep it secret. Use it if you need to communicate with lawyers, or divorce resources.

Be good. No affairs, if you can at all help it, until the divorce is complete. Sorry, it's inhumane, but so is Divorce.

Now, lose your job. Find something that pays less than your wife is making. And keep that job. Make it work. Something close to home. You should be at that job for 3 years before seeking a divorce.

Consider moving to a 'man friendly' state, or better, a 'man friendly' country. Your need for a new job might be a good motivation for this. You need to live there long enough to be sure that your old state/country cannot claim jurisdiction. If you move, don't buy, rent. Sell and divide the return from the house.

In the last year, consider giving gifts of $150 per month to friends, asking them to hold it and give it back when you are in need. It isn't much, and you might just lose it if your friends fail you, but you are probably going to lose it anyway. Remember, these are gifts, so if your friends blow it, you aren't out anything. Forgive them. You will need their support in this process, even if it is only emotional support.

Line up child care and other personal support systems for your upcoming divorce. Make sure you have lots of people to help, places to escape to to blow of steam or relax.

Then, finally, you file for divorce, and custody. File Pro-se (representing yourself). This makes it difficult for your ex to pile her legal fees on you.

Do not move out of your residence. Ask her to move (but not the kids, they stay). Be very nice to her.

Shut her out of the bedroom - put a new lock on the bedroom door and put her stuff outside the room - or move it into another room. Do not get into arguments with her, or raise your voice. Do not raise your hand to her, no matter what she does. Retreat to your lockable room with the kids if she gets crazy.

Be generous dividing things. Give her what she wants if you can, but track costs. Make sure that she is demonstrably somewhat ahead of you in the division. Don't try to hide assets or money.

After the divorce, continue to stick with your easier, lower-paying job for the next 3 years or so. You want her to have moved on with her life before you start to accumulate any assets or start earning any more money.

Keep your earnings and assets a secret and live modestly. Women have taken men back to court many years after their divorce, and won new alimony and support arrangements that have kept men on the hook past retirement. You don't want this to be you.

You may still lose your house, and may even lose custody and pay some child support. But you will have given yourself as much freedom as possible. Alimony is unlikely, with your ex making more than you, and having pre-divided your assets, the legal fees should be reasonable.

Is it worth it? If you look at the time, money, and effort that goes into a 'by the books' divorce, and weigh your potential for being enslaved for the rest of your life, it seems very worth it. Your by-the-books divorce will likely drag out more than a year, and eat up a very significant chunk of your assets. Following the above plan, you will have little or no undivided assets, and little or no debt servitude to your ex.

By-the-books divorce features:

• Over a year of divorce struggles
• Years and years of ongoing legal wranglings (as her lawyers get to charge you their fees, there is no motivation for them to be reasonable, and every motivation for them to sue you frequently)
• Frozen assets
• Loss of house
• Loss of kids
• Loss of >50% of assets
• Paying alimony for the rest of your life?
• Child support for much of your remaining life?
• College costs? (Commonly tacked into divorce settlements by activist lawyers/judges)

Doing it this alternate way:

• Moving to a foreign country if you can
• Sale of house
• 3 years or so of prep work at a simple job close to your new home
• 3 years or so of post-divorce wind-down in new job
• Assets liqudated, gifted and divided
• Divorce is quicker, as little to fight over
• No motivation for your ex to sue you as you don't have much, and she will be paying her own legal fees
• Chance of keeping kids
• You pay for your kids college and support as you are able to and want to.

My best to you in your struggles

Technorati Tags: MensRights Divorce Alimony

L is for Landscape Again

The world of Men's Rights Online has changed a little since I started this blog, and I thought it might be good at this time to run a summary of the sources of news and information that I find particularly helpful:

http://divorceandcustody.blogspot.com/
http://divorcedmen.blogspot.com/
http://www.mensactivism.org/
http://planet.mensactivism.org/
http://www.standyourground.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=3
http://hatemalepost.blogspot.com/
http://www.safe4all.org/blog/
http://www.glennsacks.com/glenns_columns.htm
http://www.nas.com/c4m/
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/
http://desertlightjournal.blog-city.com/
http://archive.silentmajority.info/
http://nevadansforequalparenting.blogspot.com/
http://disenfranchisedfather.blogspot.com/
http://www.livejournal.com/community/frtc/

L is for the Love Whose Name is Imprisoned

Some have criticised me for keeping my identity secret. Certainly if I was fully 'out', I would be more visible, a greater force for men's rights. But then there are my children to think of, ("your daddy's a deadbeat", "Your daddy was in the paper", "Your daddy hates women" and the like) and my future. What employer wants to take on a major men's rights firebrand? Certainly my personal struggle for some semblance of freedom takes up time and mental energy, and with my men's-rights antennae fully erect, I might be considered a litigation risk. Also, someday, I hope to change careers again, to a human-centric career. Prospective employers in that area are often strongly feminist, and I would find myself fighting an uphill battle. Finally, things I have written in my personal life, intimating that the situation of men was akin to slavery, have shown up in court already, and I have been advised that these types of things further predjudice the court against me. (hm, is that possible?)

So I am distinctly grateful to those men who take the time, and make the sacrifice to 'out' themselves.

One such is brought to our attention by Wendy McElroy in this article for Fox.

Here a man was willing to write a book about the hatred the system has for men, and name names, including the name of the judge. Of course the judge 'impounded' it. Of course the court did it for the 'good of the children', just as he took them away from their father for their 'good'.

But the man continues to press his case, and assert his rights. "Exposing the Corruption in the Massachusetts Family Courts" is still being advertised online.

The father, author and victim in the case, Kevin Thompson, states:

"This book was written to gain justice in the court of public opinion because justice certainly does not occur behind closed doors in these 'winner takes all' courtrooms where absolute power has corrupted absolutely. The sanctimonious claim that the secrecy of family court cases protects the privacy of the litigants is a lie.
"The only interests that are protected are the interests of the racketeers and hypocrites who invade 'family privacy' by removing loving fathers from the lives of their children against their will and without just cause to fill their pockets."

Thompson also notes here that: “I’m not a woman-hater, but all constitutional rights are thrown out the window for fathers."

Wendy goes on to note that the judgements in family courts commonly include a permanent injuction on discussing specific aspects of the proceeding.

In my opinion, secrecy is paramount, because injustice is rampant.

Read the book posting, and especially the comments, and heck, buy one before the company offering it on the web gets cold feet and pulls it.

Some of the comments are brilliant:
-------------------
After reading this book how can anyone working in any area of “family law” believe that it is in the best interest of anyone but themselves to remove a loving parent from a child’s life? Simple, some people can justify doing anything for a buck especial under the guise of the “best interest of children”. They could not possibly be doing something so inherently evil just to line their pockets with the assets of the children they are suppose to be looking out for, could they? Well, yes they are.
-------------------
This is a MUST read for any father in divorce to prepare himself for the shocking truth before it is too late. Most men only realize the corruption and fixed system at their trial when even their own lawyer railroads them into whatever sexually biased decision the out-of-touch judge wants. The family court system is so corrupt that the judges basically break the law every 5-10 minutes to press their personal agenda. Mine has broken the law 23 times so far. This is an important work and model for revolution against the unconstitutional courts.
-----------------
Until the laws and courts are reformed this should become required reading for the American man before he may get married.
-----------------
What clearly has happened to Kevin Thompson's family is Legal Abuse Syndrome, whereby the state 'actors' of judges and attorneys, under the color of law, dictate the facts of the case, scorn fundamental liberties, and destroy a father-child relationship. Kevin, facing a 'ban' of this book, is right to 'never shut up'. Since there is no jury to check the judicial license, Kevin has experienced in effect an infamous English 'Star Chamber'. Any citizen with or without children should fear and protest what has occurred to Kevin Thompson [...]
----------------
This is exactly how things do go down, its like a guidebook of navigating the system as a father in Essex court. All the way down to how to refer to the child and not use the word "my" , been there ;)We probably have passed each other in the court in Salem ! The system is broken and the children are loosing out on having a much needed relationship with thier fathers. This is a wake up call to fathers to not tolerate anything less then what is best for your children. The bar can only be raised if we dont settle. I think we all would rather spend the money of their college then have to spend at least that much in court fighting just to share in thier life.
----------------
[...] as an attorney, I found the author's personal story the most fascinating section of the book because it gave substance to the "all-too-real" claims expressed in the early chapters. A piece of free legal advice, Mr. Thompson. If you haven't already done so, DO NOT pay the mother's attorney fees. I examined your briefs carefully and it is crystal clear that the appeals court committed fraud when they called your appeal "frivolous with no basis in law or fact." Since this shocking response is an egregious betrayal of public trust and the laws of the land that these justices have sworn to uphold, it is also an act of treason against the country. File for injunctive relief in federal court and good luck to you!
----------------
I am floored by the amount of work Kevin put into this endeavor. I had similar experiences with the family court and it was extremely therapeutic to read this book. I am going to use this book as a starting point to rally some support for changing the courts. Kevin Thompson has done what all Father’s wish they could do, articulate and SUBSTANTIATE the criminal behavior of the Family Court.
---------------
I had the "fortune" well prior to getting this book, of having experienced much of what he has had to go through and let me tell you. This stuff is all too real! It's unfathomable for those who have not had direct or indirect involvement that such injustices as described in this book are routinely delivered. Sadly it's more the norm than not in MA as well as in many other states throughout this country. Had I not experienced this first hand I would have scoffed at the author's claims but now I know, all too well, how bad it really is and I hope this book helps expose it all! Fatherlessness is a desease than can and should be reversed, our childrens future is hanging in the balance.
---------------

It is shocking and remarkable that the court routinely takes children from their fathers - granting them 'visitation', and revoking their parental rights. Their attempts to sweep their behavior under the rug are merely a symptom. Truly, fatherhood is today a prisoner.

My best to you in your struggles.

M

Technorati Links: Fatherhood Anonymity Men's Rights Family Court

T is for Tragedy

Just Another Disenfranchised Father has been brilliant lately, and if you aren't visiting his blog, you are missing a lot of important stuff.

Today he tells us about a toddler who wandered away from her playgroup and drowned in a pond. A bricklayer saw the girl, off on her own, but did not dare to try to interfere with her and get her to a responsible person, for fear of being suspected of being an abductor/abuser.

What a wonderful world the gender-feminists, the VAWA-promoters, and divorce lawyers have created! Some would probably condemn the man for his inaction, and I myself feel that he should have gotten involved, but I also understand exactly where he was coming from.

I worked many years in the city, and many times came across a child, seemingly alone in the subway crowds. What to do? For me the solution was to stay near the child, and ask him or her to find their mom or dad. Usually someone would appear out of the crowd in a minute or two, often somewhat annoyed with their wee one for escaping. But even the small amount of interference I ran put me in the position of potentially being seen as a child-stealer.

The impact the misandrist view of men on our culture is wide-spread, and still spreading - examples:

I was recently discussing the lack of male role-model-teachers in the local elementary school with a female collegue - and she said: "A man would never take that job, with all the child-molestation scares around? He would never be able to be alone in a room with a student!"

Or how about this blast from the past - A man tries to assist a young woman who is stumbling drunk and wandering about on the street, and ends up being dragged through the courts on a false rape charge, that eventually get thrown out as the woman can't pick him out of a lineup (after nine months of prosecution). How did the police get him in the first place? They asked for people to come forward who might have seen the woman that evening to provide information.

From my post on this:

Doesn't this case have a chilling effect upon men who might ever consider assisting a [...]woman? Heaven forbid, women of the world, that you ever be in need and alone on the streets. No thinking man having heard of this case is going to come anywhere near you. They are going to go the other way. It will be the WRONG thing for them to do, but who can afford to spend 9 months of their life fighting a false rape charge, and be labeled 'rapist' for the rest of their life. Oh, but some of you may say 'but it turned out right in the end.' Riiight. He was Accused of Rape, Arrested, and suffered through 9 Months of Prosecution. I don't think that anyone has these on their 'to do' list, or even on their 'ok if it happens' list.
[...]
Think about that as you sip your coffee today. Would you EVER pick up a female looking lost and alone in your car[...]? Even pause to check to see if a passed-out woman is 'ok'. 'Don't do it' the law says. 'Call a cop, or an ambulance. They'll come -eventually.'

But these are situations where there is no ill-will. Statistics tell us that in far more cases accusations against men of molestation/abuse/rape are made by intimate parters - partners who have something to gain from portraying their soon-to-be ex as a beast. Something like - custody, a great income stream, the house, and half the assets. I don't think that these witnesses, with so much to gain, have much trouble identifying their victim in a line-up

My best to you in your struggles.

D is for Dynamite

The following is based on this post at Richard's Midlife Crisis.

Imagine eight young people graduate, four girls and four boys.

G B
G B
G B
G B

Reasonably, their skill levels are different. Statistics on the variability of people's intelligence are available on the web, and most people understand that there is a 'bell curve' of abilities. Let's assume that our population of Boys and Girls is like this.

Lets also assume that the girls are just as effective in the workforce as boys.

Then let's say that our top performers are the kind who will test in about the 85th percentile (15% below perfect) and our bottom peformers will are 15% above the bottom - the 15th percentile. The middle two tiers we will make 65% and 35% - Just 15% on either side of the 50% average.

G(85%) B(85%)
G(65%) B(65%)
G(35%) B(35%)
G(15%) B(15%)

Now, we all know that there are only a few 'top jobs'. Affirmative Action for Women would mean that half of those jobs go to women. Let's say that half of our graduates can nail these jobs.

G(85%) B(85%)
G(65%) B(65%) Working at Top Job
-----------------------
G(35%) B(35%) Didn't get a Top Job
G(15%) B(15%)

Note that the full top job workforce contributes 300 percentile points to their employers.

Now, imagine that our top performers age - everyone does - and most women at some point decide to have children. What does this do to the equation? Well, obviously these women leave the workforce for some period of time. In the interim, their male ex-co-workers have to take up some of the slack. Additionally, the top jobs must be filled with other women to maintain the 50% quota:

G(35%) B(85%)
G(15%) B(65%) Working at Top Job
-----------------------
B(35%) Didn't get a Top Job
B(15%)
-----------------------
G(85%) Home with kids
G(65%)
Note that the full top job workforce now contributes 200 percentile points to their employers.

So, our average Girl-employee has a skill level in the 25th percentile,
-they contribute a total of 50 skill points.
Our average Boy-employee has a skill level in the 75th percentile, .
-they contribute a total of 150 skill points.

So with enforced full equality, effectively a man has to be three times (300%) as skillful, work three times as hard as a woman to compete for the same job.

If the corporate that has the top jobs actually requires those 300 percentile-based skill points to get the work done, then the men in the top jobs have to come up with, in addition to their current 150 points, an additional 100 points to make the corporate whole. That would bring the men's average output to 125%.

So to keep the corporates going, the men on the job have to put out an average performance that is five times (125%/25%) that of the women on the job. One might try and distribute some of this to the new women on the job, but remember, they are trainees, and have less skill to start with. Demanding an extra 25% from a worker who is starting at an average 25th percentile, and who is new on the job is just not going to make up the shortfall.

But perhaps you say 'well, eventually the women who left the workforce return.' Most of them don't, not until their kids are a few years into school, and when they do they generally do not choose jobs that are at the 'top firms', instead choosing jobs that are closer to home, require less hours, and the like.

The real losers are the men, who want to work, but can't compete for jobs that are slated for women. Every bit as skillful, or more skillful than the women who pick up those jobs, no, ENTITLEMENTS, these men sit on the sidelines, perhaps work retail, and learn how to ask if their clients would 'like fries with that'.

Also losers are those men who have the jobs, who have to work 500% as hard as their female counterparts. They never see their families, - if they can afford the time to build families.

As all of this sounds frighteningly familiar to me, let me add the next piece. Imagine one of the men has a family. Well, his wife gets tired of his not being around at all, and he finds himself divorced. Windfall for the wife, for she now gets half of his output from his job where he is putting in that 500% effort to make up the slack.

Of course he can't quit, he is now locked into the rat race, with the full weight of the US Government forcing him to continue slaving at his 500% effort job until he dies.
(A voluntary reduction in income is no grounds to reduce alimony or child support.)

- And his passing falls suprisingly at an age that for no apparent reason, is much younger on average than women die.

Gee, wonder why.

(All of this is assuming he doesn't just commit suicide.)

How very, very fair.

-M

C is for Cohabitation

There has been some good news in the world of New Jersey men's rights of late:

Cohabitation is no longer being ignored. Perhaps this is because some anti-male judges have been rotated out of service, or perhaps the voices of men are being heard, but at any rate, this past fall/winter, several decisions showed up where suddenly it mattered that the ex-wife was living with and enjoying the support of new men. The NJ Association of Public Mediators reports on several cases where cohabitation was taken more seriously in their Fall newsletter. Of course I would argue (and have argued) that the whole idea of alimony is wrong, and that cohabitation would be immaterial in a non-slave state, but let us call an improvement an improvement. :)

In particular, I am thinking of Lande vs Lande where the appeals court terminated alimony in a case where the ex-wife was living with her lover "as man and wife with all but the marriage certificate." Of course the ex-wife still gets the chance to prove that she is still financially dependent on her ex-husband. Still, I can't help but wonder two things:
1) When the court will finally understand that having sex with some man doesn't entitle you to their income for the rest of your life, or at least until you have sex with some other man... ...and
2) if the ex-husband was still being forced to pay his ex-wife's legal bills.

I am also happy to see that the appelate court upheld a man's right to discovery in support of termination of alimony in a case where his ex is cohabiting with two men, and recieving financial support from both men. (Schwefringhaus v. Schwefringhaus)

But most amazing is the decision (again, on appeal) in Duchemin v. Duchemin where, when it was discovered that the wife was in fact cohabiting at the time of their divorce agreement, she was ordered to REPAY the alimony that her husband had paid her - but as punishment, he gets to keep his tax credits. (Hm, IRS might not agree on that one - can't tax someone for income they didn't recieve, but the court's heart was in the right place.)

- When have we EVER BEFORE seen a wife ordered to repay? I am sure I haven't seen it. Amazing. Did the husband still have to pay the court fees? Inquiring minds want to know. Of course, again, if marriage/sex wasn't seen as an excuse to rob men, this case would never have happened.

Of course all of these cases went to appeal. This likely means that the lower court decided differently, and that therefore justice was actually only to be had by those who are (or were, before lawyers) well-heeled.

And in case you think it's all gravy for men today, consider Seuss, Jr v. Gonzalez, where the husband has been out of work for three years, but the appealate judge in question keeps the man on the hook for child support because his unemployment is 'temporary in nature'. What was the man thinking?!? This is SLAVERY!, they don't mean that stuff about adjusting support due to a change in circumstances.... ....Not if you are a man. The court basically implies that the man is intentionally out of work for 3 years. Um, and, that's a crime? Oh, yeah, if you are enslaved, it is. If you don't enslave the guy in the first case, his employment status is no-one's business but his own, and his stomach's.

But instead our courts insist on enslaving men, and holding them liable for bills for child support that they cannot afford and do not want, irregardless of income or situation.

So, see, I managed to end on a dark note after all!

Best to all,

M

P is for Personality Disorder

At Men's News Daily, William A. Eddy writes about the prevalence of personality disorders in divorce court. I disagree with him as to the cure for this (more shrinks in the process is not the solution, I think) but I sure do recognize some of the disorders and behaviors he cites - take a look at the below excerpt and see if anything rings a bell for you (Bolding is mine):

People with personality disorders also appear more likely to make false statements. Because of the thought process of a personality disorder, the person experiences interpersonal rejection or confrontation much more deeply than most people. Therefore the person has great difficulty healing and may remain stuck in the denial stage, the depression stage, or the anger stage of grief - avoiding acceptance by trying to change or control the other person.
Lying may be justified in their eyes - possibly to bring a reconciliation. (This can be quite convoluted, like the former wife who alleged child sexual abuse so that her ex-husband's new wife would divorce him and he would return to her - or so she seemed to believe.) Or lying may be justified as a punishment in their eyes. Just as we have seen that an angry spouse may kill the other spouse, it is not surprising that many angry spouses lie under oath. There is rarely any consequence for this, as family court judges often believe the truth cannot be known - or that both are lying.

Projection

Just as an active alcoholic or addict blames others for their substance abuse, those with personality disorders are often preoccupied with other people's behavior while avoiding any examination of their own behavior. Just as a movie projector throws a large image on a screen from a hidden booth, those with personality disorders project their internal conflicts onto their daily interactions - usually without knowing it. All the world is a stage - including court.

It is not uncommon in family court declarations for one with a personality disorder to claim the other party has characteristics which are really their own ("he's manipulative and falsely charming" or "she's hiding information and delaying the process"), and do not fit the other party. Spousal abusers claim the other is being abusive. Liars claim the other is lying.
[...]

How Family Court Fits Personality Disorders

Family Court is perfectly suited to the fantasies of someone with a personality disorder: There is an all-powerful person (the judge) who will punish or control the other spouse. The focus of the court process is perceived as fixing blame - and many with personality disorders are experts at blame. There is a professional ally who will champion their cause (their attorney - or if no attorney, the judge). A case is properly prepared by gathering statements from allies - family, friends, and professionals. (Seeking to gain the allegiance of the children is automatic - they too are seen as either allies or enemies. A simple admonition will not stop this.) Generally, those with personality disorders are highly skilled at - and invested in - the adversarial process.

Sigh. Too True.

My best to you in your struggles!

-M
Simulposted at Hate Male Post

N is for Not-So-Happy New Year

Apparently, according to the New York Post, January is a peak month for women to dump the husband; "Top divorce lawyers say they're braced for a spike in calls that will start today and last all month from men and women who want to ring in the new year by bringing the curtain down on their marriages." The article quotes several women lawyers. No word from men. And the voices these female lawyers speak with are predictably misandrous:

"In January, people are returning gifts and recycling husbands," said Los Angeles divorce lawyer Gloria Allred.

"[...] the top two New Year's resolutions are lose 20 pounds and . . . lose the jerk." - Sharon Sooho, divorce lawyer and co-founder of Divorcenet.com

And of course...

"New York divorce lawyer Suzanne Bracker says she believes the top cause of divorce is infidelity — and the holiday season may be when people discover their partners' hanky-panky."

You would think that a divorce lawyer would know the basic facts and statistics about divorce - that women seek the majority of divorces, and that 'fault' is only claimed in the minority of cases. Divorce is mostly, and in the majority of cases, about getting rid of an inconvenient man, and gaining a slave. Why have an equal, when you can have a servant, care of the state?

My best to you in your struggles -

-M

Today I am not the Moon...

Today I am not the Moon, I am a finger, pointing at the Moon.

The following (again, hevily excerpted) blog entry entitled 'learning about life' from Britt's Poetry speaks volumes about the status of men in our country, and it's effect upon the family, written from the point of view of a daughter of divorce.

Learning About Life

[...]

After mom and dad got a divorce, we were only allowed to see dad on the weekends. He moved into the new house that we had just bought. It was so cold that winter. Dad, my brother, and I all slept in one bed because dad didn’t have any furniture yet. Dad made us laugh, though, until we went home on Sunday night. He hugged us goodbye at the door and told us to have a good week. He would think about us. Tears trickled down my face. I didn’t try to hold them in anymore. I couldn’t look mom in the eye for a long time.

When I was fourteen years old, I watched my mom drink more than I had ever seen. One night as she started in on the large 32 pack of beer, we got into a fight.
[...]
She grabbed me, pinned me down on the bed, and in that moment I realized how valuable life really is. As soon as she let me up, I hitch-hiked to the next town and stayed the night at my boyfriend’s house. I never wanted to go home.

In my senior year of high school, I had made all the necessary arrangements to go to Eastern Illinois University. Shortly afterwards I was offered a full scholarship to a community college. I wrestled with both ideas, trying to figure out what to do. I asked dad. He said he was so proud of me and he would support me no matter what I decided. I asked mom. She said she just wanted me to know that she wouldn’t be handing me money all the time because I was going to be on my own now. I said thanks, mom.

One weekend of my freshman year of college at Eastern, I went home. I stopped by to see my mom and we talked for awhile. When I started to leave, she looked at me and smiled. “I miss you. You know you can come home anytime,” she said with tears in her eyes. I smiled back at her. I looked at the empty house and then down at the can of beer in her hand, shook my head, and walked away.

Her father is right to be proud. I can't add anything to what she has written.

Read it all.

-M

A Call To Arms

Men's News Daily hosts a great post by an 89-year old veteran; Maurice Conway, which I excerpt heavily below.


In WWII, I fought for democracy. Today, I fight for JUSTICE

I am an 89-year-old veteran of the Second World War who served in the war as a member of the British Royal Marines. In recognition of my service during the bombing of London, I received a citation from the Lord Mayor of London. Ten years after the war, in 1955, I moved from Britain to Canada, where I currently reside.

During the war effort, my comrades and I sacrificed our way of life, as we knew it then, in order to defend Great Britain and its allies (including Canada) from an evil that was sweeping over Europe. We fought to ensure freedom and democracy with the hope and expectation that the generations that followed us would have a better and more prosperous way of life. Many of my comrades gave their lives to this end. I am one of the few of my generation who still remain alive today. Although I may be old in body, I am young in mind and spirit, and I still believe in those same principles that my comrades and I fought for during the war.

Unfortunately, today, another very terrible evil is sweeping over our land. It is an evil that comes not from outside of our country but from within it. It comes not from people of other nations but from our own people right here at home. It is an evil that my comrades, if they were alive today, would fight along side of me just as valiantly as they fought against those who tried to enslave the free nations of the world and to take away our freedom and democracy back in 1939.

The evil of which I speak about now is our family justice system. It seems to have no mercy on children or their parents, especially good loving fathers who seem to be taking the brunt of the abuse by the justice system. Many of the fathers being destroyed today by Canada's Family Justice System are the sons and grandsons of the many brave men who fought and died for Great Britain and its allies during the war. Many of the fathers who died during the war did so, not only for the cause of Democracy and Freedom but also a desire to give their descendants a better and more secure way of life.

[...]

It is time that all, not just a few, stand up and do something to stop this needless destruction of children and families by our justice system. In many ways, what is being done to children and their families by our courts is no less horrific than some of the crimes committed by our enemies during the war. Families today are being led into courts to be financially and emotionally destroyed just as families were being led into the gas chambers during the war.

Read it All, and then ACT. Do not sit quietly by while our rights continue to be eroded. Don't let one more man be flushed down the drain of no-fault divorce into legalized slavery. Do something every week to create motion in our cause. Share your experience, speak to legislators, write to friends, newspapers and representatives. You owe it to yourself, you owe it to your families, and you owe it to the heroes who gave their lives to protect our way of life.

Don't sit and contemplate it - ACT.

Yours
-M

(Simulposted on Hate Male Post)

E is for Elipses...

Well, last week's efforts have been quite successful, and next week has huge deliverables too, so again, I will be quieter than usual. I am eager to return to blogging, there is so much to do, and so much to say. It is difficult though to speak out, work at something resembling a career, learn to be a lawyer so as to be able to proceed pro-se, care for children, and handle all of the other responsibilities. Some Men's Rights Activists complain how quiet and sheep-like most men are and wonder where are their voices. I think it is a unique calling to speak out. Few have it, and few may be gifted for it. Obviously, the circumstances we live under drive us to it - but many men probably are busy bowing under the weight of the plinth that has been installed on their heads... Finding ways to speak out is not on their 'to-do' list. Likely speaking out is difficult too, because Divorce itself is to many, a sin, a crime against nature... ...and men are seen as always at fault in divorce. 'Somehow, Somehow, you didn't love enough, didn't care enough.' Add to that a media that finds little to respect in the plight of men, and what voices are out there get silenced.

Still there are bits of hope out there, that our government is realizing that men have a tough go of it in some arenas, and is trying to change things. Consider this story from the Chicago Sun Times via MensActivism.Org:

"President Bush's administration has threatened to sue Southern Illinois University, alleging its fellowship programs [including their Bridge and Proactive programs] for minority and female students violate federal civil rights laws by discriminating against whites, men and others... The University has engaged in a pattern or practice of intentional discrimination against whites, non-preferred minorities and males... The letter demands the university cease the fellowship programs, or the department's civil rights division will sue SIU by Nov. 18...

The Web site describing the Bridge program specifically says it is only open to members of underrepresented minority groups. Several white women who have "overcome hardship" have been awarded the Graduate Dean's Fellowship, even though women outnumber men at the university. White men need not apply, however. "I'll be upfront with you -- no white male will get this award,'' McNeil said.

It's About Time. ...and.... When women are in the majority, how can men be legitimately excluded?

Yours,
-M

S is for Suicide - Revisited

This blog entry is based on one composed for MIsForMalevolent on Thursday, August 18, 2005, but which needed revisiting due to the criticality of the subject matter. I have revised the original post quite a bit to make the points clearer, and added a lot of emphasis and even some math. Don't be scared. Just adding, subtracting, and multiplying. ...Take deep breaths... You'll be fine.

If you are moderately familiar with the topic at hand...

...which is the treatment of men by our society...

- you probably have wondered how men can survive the crushing depression that they must feel while struggling with a strongly biased legal system that is eager to enslave them.

Well, many men don’t survive it.

Suicide rates for men and boys are already much higher than those for women and girls – with 75% of all suicides being committed by men - over 22,000 men per year. (The rate is 80% in Canada, perhaps reflecting their system, which is often even more abusive of men. )

And suicide rates for divorced men are even higher than that - divorced and separated men are TWICE AS LIKELY to commit suicide as other men, per the study "Marital Status and Suicide in the National Longitudinal Mortality Study" by Augustine J. Kposowa, Ph.D., at the University of California at Riverside. CBS News covered the report in some detail here.

The study showed that being single versus being married made no difference in suicide rates.
- Simply 'being married' does not provide singificant mental health benefits relating to suicide.

Even more tellingly, for women marital status, married, single, separated or divorced, made NO STATISTICAL DIFFERENCE in suicide rates.
- So somehow, divorce affects men in a much more significant way than women. One wonders what that way could be...

Previous to this study, increased rates of suicide for men had been explained away by claiming that significant mental and physical health benefits were to be had from married life, and by 'congitive differences' between men and women - women purportedly spending more time 'processing' their problems and thinking more 'inclusively' than men, Well Dr. Kposowa's research has exposed that canard, (wait, let me speak plainly:) that misandrous, shovenist tripe for what it is.

Let's take a moment and really reveiw those numbers, which we will extrapolate using the published rough perecentages in the CBS news article:

Total Suicides: 30,000 per year
Men's Suicides: 22,500 per year
Women's Suicides: 7,500 per year
Divorced/Separated Men's Suicides: 14,850 per year.

Hmm. I wonder how many men committed suicide outside of a divorce/separation.
...Well, I know how to subtract, lets see...

Non Divorced/Separated Men's Suicides: 7,650 per year.
Wait... that's approximately equal to the number of suicides for women.

So it seems reasonable to guess, that if it were not for the way men are treated in divorce, those 14,850 men PER YEAR would still be alive.

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, brothers, sisters and parents bereft of their son or brother. Men who died for the crime of getting married to the wrong person.

The total loss is mind-numbing.

Dr. Kposowa's study; the first study that cared enough about men to look at the details of why men kill themselves; shows us that if you hear about a man committing sucide the odds are better than 2:1 that he is either a divorcee or going through a divorce.

Suicide is a dramatic and extreme way out of a very bad situation. -A way out that few would choose.

The significant increase (2:1) in suicides following a divorce for men is very significant.

These men are the canaries in the coal-mine of our family court system. They are literally dying to tell us something, and apparently that something is about... Divorce.

SO NOW COMES THE BIG QUESTION:

What is so terrible about divorce that men would kill themselves to escape it?

The answer is simple: Slavery. To quote Adrian Banks' article on suicide and divorce:

So what is the main cause of [divorced male] suicide? […] The answer to this question is not that difficult, but before someone can accept the truth of the main causes of suicide, one must first accept the truth that slavery is just as much an institution today as it has been throughout history. The more oppressive and cruel the enslavement, the more suicides there will be among the enslaved classes of society. Why do you think that, in pre civil war times, slaves were kept in the holes of ships and not allowed on the decks? Simple, it kept the slave trader's precious cargo of labor from jumping into the ocean. As Winston Churchill stated during World War II, "it is better to perish that to live as slaves." […] In a divorce situation today, there need not be any legitimate grounds thanks to no fault divorce. A man can be a hard working fellow who supports his family and loves his children, but if his wife decides to divorce him, there is nothing he can do.

Kposowa cites "financial obligations," in explaining the preponderance of divorcees amongst male suicides noting that "The courts in the United States are in a position now whereby money is given to the woman, or the man is forced to pay alimony, child support. The man is also asked, in some [perhaps most] cases, to vacate the house."

Kposowa also notes: "If a man loses custody of the children and the woman keeps those children, there are situations whereby she may not allow the man to see the children, and that causes some depression." -No kidding.

Suicidal divorced men are merely slaves leaping from the decks
– consider the facts:

• Most marriages end in divorce – over 60% by my numbers.
• 66% of these are initiated by the wife and few of them for abuse or any real fault. -No-fault divorces are initiated by women three times as often as by men.
• The courts award physical custody to the man about 3% of the time – the odds are 40 to 1 against the man winning physical custody.
• Truly shared custody is so rare that the courts don’t even know how to calculate support for it – their spreadsheets don’t support it. They have to fill out one for the father as primary, and one for the mother, and then average the two. - I believe that loss of access to one’s children and alienation are key factors in male suicide.
• Women commonly interfere with the visitation rights of the ex husband. 75% of men complain of this behavior, and 40% of women admit it. If one assumes complaints are lower than the actual number of abuses, the numbers must be staggering.
• Add the loss of the vast majority of the marital assets and the house, and everything that the man has worked for, financial contributions being where men are expected to excel, and what they are supposed to judge themselves by, and you have taken away a lot of the reasons that men have to live.
• Add alimony and child support, all while not being allowed to co-parent your own children.
• Add to all this the fact that the state’s machinery grinds very finely – loss of a job, ‘underemployment’, and bankruptcy are good enough reasons to lose almost any debt, but not alimony and child support, no, these continue unabated, plus penalties and legal fees.
• And if our poor man is unlucky enough to lose his job, or become ‘underemployed’, then the legal system in many of our states, including NJ, will take 60-65% of his income, even unemployment, irregardless of what his spouse is earning. Imagine, a spouse with a $150,000 salary, collecting 65% of the income of a man scratching by on $405 per week unemployment, or a $40,000/year job. NJ would do it in a heartbeat. I bet they already have.

So divorced men have good reason to be casting themselves from the decks.

Having lost their wives, their children, their assets, and finally their ability to earn a living, and being relegated to permanent poverty, divorced men are killing themselves in record numbers - over 15,000 men per year, killed by divorce.

Our job is to support them, and encourage our government to notice, and care.

-M

(simulposted on Hate Male Post - oh, and it wasn't really posted at 9am, I just knew I would be OOT today.)

Related posts:
Why Alimony is Wrong
Other Ways Alimony is Like Slavery
Further Bankruptcy Rights Revoked for Men - Making Divorce Even More Like Debt Servitude
P is for Paternity - or how to catch yourself a slave
D is for Divorce - 'the financial haircut club for men'
D is for Dance of Death - a bit on Perry Manley and others

See The State of Fatherhood for more information
If you feel suicidal, the divorce info page on suicide might be a good place to look.
I also recommend looking at Swallowed by a Snake.