While perusing the Men's Rights Blog Feed, I discovered another blog I highly recommend to anyone interested in the issues of divorce and the Injustice System known as "Family" Court.
The Angry Dad was a blog began in 2004 by the author whose wife left him and started the wheels of Injustice rolling by going through the whole nine yards of all the brutal divorce tactics employed by the feminist divorce system. False domestic violence accusations, lying, deception, parental alienation...just another nightmare, written the past four years, in painful, explicit detail.
And the Angry Dad's journey through the system is still not over.
Just as Misandrope has painfully detailed his own divorce proceedings in vivid detail on this blog, so too does Angry Dad regale us with his tale of fighting tooth and nail to remain an involved and loving father in the lives of his children.
Good luck George, I wish you the best in your ongoing struggles to remain a Dad!
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
M is for 'Marriage Strike'
Met a nice, attractive middle-aged man the other day, and noticed he was single, and started chatting with him about his life.
I was foolishly thinking that he might be a good match for one of my single female friends, but here is what I discovered as I spoke to him:
He woke up one day and discovered his wife missing along with his son.
Later he discovered she had pulled up stakes and zapped off to a very distant southern state to marry someone she had met via email and had been corresponding with.
He wanted his son back, and consulted several lawyers, who told him he didn't have a chance of recovering his son.
Eventually, a divorce was finalized with him paying child support, and seeing his son each summer for a short while. Of course, his ex got half of his asset base. (No-Fault Divorce, remember?)
This was a good number of years ago. The man was so self-effacing, he wouldn't even say anything against his ex to this day. But what he did say spoke volumes.
He said he wanted his son back.
And he said he could not imagine ever marrying another woman.
He hadn't heard of the marriage strike. Wasn't a Men's Rights Activist.
He was a 'nice guy', who is no longer in the market for a wife, because of what the system did to him, and allowed to be done to him. No doubt his son will think three times before marrying too, as will his best friend who was with him, and anyone who talks to him and hears his story. And this is another way that the marriage strike expands. - Not through websites like mine spreading the bad news, but through the actual bad news happening to people, and that news percolating through society. And another man, and his son, and his friends drop out of the marriage market, just like that. Without a big fuss, or a lot of noise - they are just gone - no longer part of the marital economy of men-as-slaves.
But don't worry, girls. You probably can still get married, it will probably just have to be someone who earns significanty less than you, and has no assets to risk. That should be a 'love'ly solution to your problems, unless it wasn't really LOVE that you were looking for in the first place.
Oh, and how about we start treating women who disappear with men's children like the kidnappers that they are?
My Best To You In Your Struggles:
-M
I was foolishly thinking that he might be a good match for one of my single female friends, but here is what I discovered as I spoke to him:
He woke up one day and discovered his wife missing along with his son.
Later he discovered she had pulled up stakes and zapped off to a very distant southern state to marry someone she had met via email and had been corresponding with.
He wanted his son back, and consulted several lawyers, who told him he didn't have a chance of recovering his son.
Eventually, a divorce was finalized with him paying child support, and seeing his son each summer for a short while. Of course, his ex got half of his asset base. (No-Fault Divorce, remember?)
This was a good number of years ago. The man was so self-effacing, he wouldn't even say anything against his ex to this day. But what he did say spoke volumes.
He said he wanted his son back.
And he said he could not imagine ever marrying another woman.
He hadn't heard of the marriage strike. Wasn't a Men's Rights Activist.
He was a 'nice guy', who is no longer in the market for a wife, because of what the system did to him, and allowed to be done to him. No doubt his son will think three times before marrying too, as will his best friend who was with him, and anyone who talks to him and hears his story. And this is another way that the marriage strike expands. - Not through websites like mine spreading the bad news, but through the actual bad news happening to people, and that news percolating through society. And another man, and his son, and his friends drop out of the marriage market, just like that. Without a big fuss, or a lot of noise - they are just gone - no longer part of the marital economy of men-as-slaves.
But don't worry, girls. You probably can still get married, it will probably just have to be someone who earns significanty less than you, and has no assets to risk. That should be a 'love'ly solution to your problems, unless it wasn't really LOVE that you were looking for in the first place.
Oh, and how about we start treating women who disappear with men's children like the kidnappers that they are?
My Best To You In Your Struggles:
-M
Thursday, February 21, 2008
D is for Disconnect
More specifically, the disconnect between what is an obvious and well documented history of kids gone wild who are brought up in the Single Mother household. Take this latest example (it's also interesting to note...this is a picture of a woman who is THIRTY THREE YEARS OLD! She looks like she's FIFTY THREE...doesn't single motherhood look like a healthy lifestyle CHOICE!?!?!)
On Strike' Mom Accused Of Neglect - Woman Says She Can't Control 4 Teen Boys
OCALA, Fla. -- A Central Florida mother of four boys was arrested on Tuesday after telling authorities that she went "on strike" more than a month ago, leaving the teens home alone for hours every day because they would constantly fight.
Melissa G. Dean, 33, was charged with child neglect after telling Ocala police and the Department of Children and Families that she leaves her children, ages 17, 16, 14 and 13, home alone.
According to a charging affidavit, Dean said the children needed to start cleaning up and stop fighting and that she had no control over them. Dean also said she was fed up with being run over in her own home and having no privacy, according to the affidavit.
Dean told a DCF official that she decided to "go on strike" because no one would help with her children, saying the police and courts would do nothing to help her.
Dean, a Walgreens manager, said she spends nights at a friend's house and would only spend one night per week at her home, the affidavit stated.
The affidavit said that Dean would cook meals and take them to her children and would sometimes check on them. Dean said she called her children often, the charging affidavit said.
Police said they were called to the home on Monday because two of the children were fighting over a computer cord. One of the boys ran to a neighbor's home and police were called. Dean was not home at the time of the incident, police said.
Police have responded to the home several times in the past.
No mention of a Father (or Fathers) in the story.
No Father...no discipline...no control. Yet this connection is almost never made in such stories. The proliferation of divorce and single motherhood has been great for society, hasn't it?
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
W is for WRITE!
Please write a letter to the Michigan Parole Board
Michigan Parole Board
C/O Executive Secretary
PO Box 30003
Lansing, MI 48909
Copy to:
William J. Hetherington #186155
Boyer Road Carson City Correctional Facilities
PO Box 5000
Carson City, MI 48811-5000.
Why?
Lots of reasons here at TMOTS but for my money these:
William was convicted of raping his wife, who brought these accusations simultaneously with seeking custody of their children (nothing fishy there) and sentenced to 15-30 years, when Michigan state law specifies 1-10 years. He is seeking parole, but the parole board refuses on the grounds that he will not confess that he actually committed the rape. Key points from TMOTS's post:
Michigan Parole Board
C/O Executive Secretary
PO Box 30003
Lansing, MI 48909
Copy to:
William J. Hetherington #186155
Boyer Road Carson City Correctional Facilities
PO Box 5000
Carson City, MI 48811-5000.
Why?
Lots of reasons here at TMOTS but for my money these:
William was convicted of raping his wife, who brought these accusations simultaneously with seeking custody of their children (nothing fishy there) and sentenced to 15-30 years, when Michigan state law specifies 1-10 years. He is seeking parole, but the parole board refuses on the grounds that he will not confess that he actually committed the rape. Key points from TMOTS's post:
- Linda Hetherington is not and has never been a battered wife. She herself, under oath, testified that he had never beaten her in their 16 years of marriage.
- Hetherington has always maintained his innocence. As previously stated, this case was a he-said-she-said case during a custody battle; he claims that they had consensual sex, she claims it was rape. The presiding judge used Michigan's new Rape Shield Law to prohibit cross-examination of Linda.
- For which if cross examination had been allowed, the fact that Linda had on two other separate occasions, made claims of rape against William only to rescind these claims later. Under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, “a person has a right to face their accuser”. If one cannot question the validity and/or the possibility of serial false accusations, how is one to get a just and fair trial?
- No physical evidence of rape was produced at the trial. A pelvic examination of Linda at the hospital three hours after the alleged offense showed no evidence of injury or forced penetration. Only her words were enough for this man to be found guilty of the heinous crime of rape.
- The court-designated psychologist who examined Hetherington, Dr. Harold S. Sommerschield, Ph.D., concluded: "This is not a man who would force himself sexually or hostilely on another individual, as this would be foreign to his personality dynamics. ... His histrionic personality ... would substantiate his explanation of what has occurred in regards to the relationship with his ex-wife."
- Evidential photographs of the alleged victim were never disclosed to the defense and were incorrectly handled. Specifically, ten years after conviction, Jeff Feldman, under the Freedom of Information Act, obtained copies of the five photographs taken of Linda by police at the alleged crime scene immediately after the alleged offense. The photographs were in a locker in a police garage.
- The rape case was coincidentally prosecuted simultaneously with the custody case. This action alone put William in the middle of a ‘rock and a hard place’. Since the divorce court had frozen all his (their) assets, he had no money to hire a lawyer or to even make bond. Yet, because of his listed assets, the criminal court ruled that he was not indigent (or poor enough) and refused to provide him with a court appointed lawyer.
- A four page report submitted with a sworn statement dated January 8, 1998 by an acclaimed forensics photographer. John Valor, utilizing new and modern techniques, stated that the pictures of Linda showed no scratches, tape marks or abnormalities of any kind, absolute. Furthermore, he states that marks would have been identifiable and clearly visible if there had been any at all.
- This brings to the forefront an additional discrepancy that, under the law, if a witness (in this case a government witness) gives false testimony, a convicted prisoner should be entitled to a new trial, but William Hetherington has yet to receive one. In the least, the witness should be charged with perjury.
- The State of Michigan’s sentencing guideline for this new offense at the time was 1 to 10 years yet, without cause, the judge sentenced him to 15 to 30 years.
William has been in jail for 20 years now, for what looks like a case of spousal revenge and moneygrubbing. Having served the majority of his sentance, he is now being held in jail for the mindcrime of not confessing to what he didn't do. Write that letter.
Friday, February 15, 2008
E is for Easier
Today I paid a medical bill for one of my kids.
Now, in actuality, there is a complex, lawyer-invented formula that dictates how my ex-wife and I split up medical bills. She isn't supposed to get off without paying anything. She is supposed to pay (subject to the vagarities of the formula) perhaps about 42% of their medical expenses after their insurance costs. ("HEY!" some of you are likely saying; "weren't you unemployed for a while? Didn't she have to pay the insurance and bills then?" Yes, she did, and once I was employed again, I had to repay her for those payments. See, even if the woman is taking home more than 100k/year, which she was, the woman can never be inconvenienced by having to pay one more penny than is in the divorce agreement. As for the man, well, you know that story.)
...So anyway, today I paid a bill in full that was over 42% hers. And why? Because it just isn't worth it to fight over it. I've tried before-paying my part of the bill, asking them to bill her for the rest, getting dunned by her creditors when she refuses to pay, having the whole thing end up being raised in court when she inevitably sues me for whatever reason, and having the judge tell me "You're right, but I am ruling against you anyway. -Don't raise this issue again."
So, I pay the bill. It's easier.
Probably I should find ways to fight, and keep the struggle alive, chanting "It's the principle of the thing!"
But some things just aren't worth it.
Among them, annoying a misandrist judge who is going to rule against me anyway over what, by the end of the year may amount to a few hundred dollars that I can afford.
But maybe, if you are drafting a divorce agreement, you could have all medical bills go to the person who earned more that month, and only mention it if you actually become poor.
Of course when you try to enforce your agreement the judge may still just say: "You're right, but I am ruling against you anyway. -Don't raise this issue again."
-but it would reduce the amount of unenforceable junk in your divorce agreement, and....
...For as long as you made more than her...
...It would make your life easier.
My Best To You In Your Struggles:
M
Now, in actuality, there is a complex, lawyer-invented formula that dictates how my ex-wife and I split up medical bills. She isn't supposed to get off without paying anything. She is supposed to pay (subject to the vagarities of the formula) perhaps about 42% of their medical expenses after their insurance costs. ("HEY!" some of you are likely saying; "weren't you unemployed for a while? Didn't she have to pay the insurance and bills then?" Yes, she did, and once I was employed again, I had to repay her for those payments. See, even if the woman is taking home more than 100k/year, which she was, the woman can never be inconvenienced by having to pay one more penny than is in the divorce agreement. As for the man, well, you know that story.)
...So anyway, today I paid a bill in full that was over 42% hers. And why? Because it just isn't worth it to fight over it. I've tried before-paying my part of the bill, asking them to bill her for the rest, getting dunned by her creditors when she refuses to pay, having the whole thing end up being raised in court when she inevitably sues me for whatever reason, and having the judge tell me "You're right, but I am ruling against you anyway. -Don't raise this issue again."
So, I pay the bill. It's easier.
Probably I should find ways to fight, and keep the struggle alive, chanting "It's the principle of the thing!"
But some things just aren't worth it.
Among them, annoying a misandrist judge who is going to rule against me anyway over what, by the end of the year may amount to a few hundred dollars that I can afford.
But maybe, if you are drafting a divorce agreement, you could have all medical bills go to the person who earned more that month, and only mention it if you actually become poor.
Of course when you try to enforce your agreement the judge may still just say: "You're right, but I am ruling against you anyway. -Don't raise this issue again."
-but it would reduce the amount of unenforceable junk in your divorce agreement, and....
...For as long as you made more than her...
...It would make your life easier.
My Best To You In Your Struggles:
M
Monday, February 11, 2008
I is for Index as of Feb, 2008
In Alphabetical Order:
A Call To Arms
A is for Abuse
A is for Abusers (Women)
A is for Activism
A is for Activism...
A is for Alimony
A is for Alimony Part II - or - Why Alimony is Wro...
A is for Alpha-Bet - or - What's on the Reading Li...
A is for Authors...
A is for it's Always Some Man's Fault
B is for Bachelor
B is for Bachelor
B is for Bathrooms
B is for Biology
B is for Blackmail
B is for Breasts
B is for sdrawkcaB aka 'The Garden'
C is for Change
C is for Check the Statistics
C is for Child Support/Custody
c is for Class
C is for Cohabitation
C is for COLA
C is for Contemplative
C is for Contribution
C is for Contribution
C is for Crow
C is for Crushing Injustice
CM is for Cuban Men
D is also for Deadbeat
D is for Deadline
D is for Debt Servitude
D is for Decompression
D is for Diverse
D is for Divorce
D is for Doesn't Count
D is for Downward Mobility
D is for Dynamite
D is for the Dance of Death
E is for Effect, as in ‘Cause And’
E is for Elipses...
E is for Everything
F is for Faith, Hope and Love
F is for Fatherhood
F is for Fathers
F is for Fees
F is for Friday, and Fatherhood.
F is for Frivolous
G is for Gender-Feminism...
G is for Good
H is for Dr Helen
H is for Happy
H is for Help?
H is for Hero
H is for Hero
H is for Hero, Pt II
H is for Home for Christmas
H is for How-To
I is also for Incentive?
I is for (dis)Incentive Part V
I is for (dis)Incentive pt IV
I is for Imagine...
I is for Incentive Part II
I is for Incentive, Part III
I is for Indecent Justice
I is for Indecent Justice pt II
I is for Insidious
I is for Intrusive
I is for Invisible Elephant
Initial Post
J is for Just Not Right
J is for Just Wrong
K is 'For the Kids'
L is for Lawfirm Disclaimer
L is for Lawyers
L is for Legal System
L is for Leprosy
L is for Links
L is for the Love Whose Name is Imprisoned
M is for Malevolent - Pt I
M is for Malevolent Pt II
M is for MBTYIYS
M is for Merry
M is for Moms
M is for Monday
M is for 'More Equal'
M is for Murder
M is for Myths
Male is for Magnificent
More About This Blog
N is for Network
N is for Never Forget
N is for Never Wrong
N is for New Rules
N is for Nineteen-Sixty-Two
N is for No Accident
N is for No Good Deed
N is for NO IDEA
N is for Not-So-Happy New Year
N is for Nude Jersey
N is for Nurturer
N is for Nurturer Pt II
O is for Oh, Canada!
O is for Only Applies to Men
O is for Opportunity
O is for Over the Edge
Overheard in Family Court...
P is for Paternity
P is for Patriarchy
P is for Payor
P is for Pendulum
P is for Perjury
P is for Personality Disorder
P is for Picketing
P is for Postcards
P is for Postcards
P is for Pro-Se
P is for Pure BS
PBS is for Pure....
R is for Fathers Rights Judge?
R is for Radar
R is for Rapist
R is for Reality, Just Outside
R is for Recognition (is it brief?)
R is for Relentless Persuit
R is For Reporting, and Revenue, and Roadkill
R is for Roe v Wade for Men
S is also for Suicide
S is for "Should Men Get Married?"
S is for Scary
S is for Schizophrenia
S is for Separation
S is for Silly
S is for Slavery
S is for Sorry Fellas
S is for Spanking
S is for Spanking, Part Deux
S is for Storm Warning
S is for Success...
S is for Suicide - Revisited
S is for Superior Firepower
S is for Support
S is for Suspicion
SMH is for Single Mother Households
T is for "Thirteen Will Get You..."
T is for Thanks
T is for Theology
T is for Things to Look At
T is for To Look At
T is for Today
T is for Tomorrow
T is for Tragedy
T is for Travel
T is for Two-Hundred-Twenty-Six-Thousand Children
Today I am not the Moon...
U is also for Upside-Down
U is for Unequal
U is for Unicef
U is for Update
V is for Victim
V is for Victim
V is for Victim
V is for Victory... For Nifong, That Is
V is for Viewpoint
V is for Voluntary Execution -aka- Wax Fruit:
V is for Vomit
V is for Vomit Part II
V is for Vortex of VAWA
W is for Wave Goodbye to the $
W is for What Kind of Ex?
W is for What Men's Rights?
W is for What to Do?
W is for Where are the Men?
W is for Whooops again!
W is for Whoops!
W is for Wide Open Eyes
W is for Women who Lie or Viewpoint II
W is for Women-Specific Charity
W is for Work
Z is for Zed
(Missing Letters: Q, X, Y)
My Best To You In Your Struggles:
M
A Call To Arms
A is for Abuse
A is for Abusers (Women)
A is for Activism
A is for Activism...
A is for Alimony
A is for Alimony Part II - or - Why Alimony is Wro...
A is for Alpha-Bet - or - What's on the Reading Li...
A is for Authors...
A is for it's Always Some Man's Fault
B is for Bachelor
B is for Bachelor
B is for Bathrooms
B is for Biology
B is for Blackmail
B is for Breasts
B is for sdrawkcaB aka 'The Garden'
C is for Change
C is for Check the Statistics
C is for Child Support/Custody
c is for Class
C is for Cohabitation
C is for COLA
C is for Contemplative
C is for Contribution
C is for Contribution
C is for Crow
C is for Crushing Injustice
CM is for Cuban Men
D is also for Deadbeat
D is for Deadline
D is for Debt Servitude
D is for Decompression
D is for Diverse
D is for Divorce
D is for Doesn't Count
D is for Downward Mobility
D is for Dynamite
D is for the Dance of Death
E is for Effect, as in ‘Cause And’
E is for Elipses...
E is for Everything
F is for Faith, Hope and Love
F is for Fatherhood
F is for Fathers
F is for Fees
F is for Friday, and Fatherhood.
F is for Frivolous
G is for Gender-Feminism...
G is for Good
H is for Dr Helen
H is for Happy
H is for Help?
H is for Hero
H is for Hero
H is for Hero, Pt II
H is for Home for Christmas
H is for How-To
I is also for Incentive?
I is for (dis)Incentive Part V
I is for (dis)Incentive pt IV
I is for Imagine...
I is for Incentive Part II
I is for Incentive, Part III
I is for Indecent Justice
I is for Indecent Justice pt II
I is for Insidious
I is for Intrusive
I is for Invisible Elephant
Initial Post
J is for Just Not Right
J is for Just Wrong
K is 'For the Kids'
L is for Lawfirm Disclaimer
L is for Lawyers
L is for Legal System
L is for Leprosy
L is for Links
L is for the Love Whose Name is Imprisoned
M is for Malevolent - Pt I
M is for Malevolent Pt II
M is for MBTYIYS
M is for Merry
M is for Moms
M is for Monday
M is for 'More Equal'
M is for Murder
M is for Myths
Male is for Magnificent
More About This Blog
N is for Network
N is for Never Forget
N is for Never Wrong
N is for New Rules
N is for Nineteen-Sixty-Two
N is for No Accident
N is for No Good Deed
N is for NO IDEA
N is for Not-So-Happy New Year
N is for Nude Jersey
N is for Nurturer
N is for Nurturer Pt II
O is for Oh, Canada!
O is for Only Applies to Men
O is for Opportunity
O is for Over the Edge
Overheard in Family Court...
P is for Paternity
P is for Patriarchy
P is for Payor
P is for Pendulum
P is for Perjury
P is for Personality Disorder
P is for Picketing
P is for Postcards
P is for Postcards
P is for Pro-Se
P is for Pure BS
PBS is for Pure....
R is for Fathers Rights Judge?
R is for Radar
R is for Rapist
R is for Reality, Just Outside
R is for Recognition (is it brief?)
R is for Relentless Persuit
R is For Reporting, and Revenue, and Roadkill
R is for Roe v Wade for Men
S is also for Suicide
S is for "Should Men Get Married?"
S is for Scary
S is for Schizophrenia
S is for Separation
S is for Silly
S is for Slavery
S is for Sorry Fellas
S is for Spanking
S is for Spanking, Part Deux
S is for Storm Warning
S is for Success...
S is for Suicide - Revisited
S is for Superior Firepower
S is for Support
S is for Suspicion
SMH is for Single Mother Households
T is for "Thirteen Will Get You..."
T is for Thanks
T is for Theology
T is for Things to Look At
T is for To Look At
T is for Today
T is for Tomorrow
T is for Tragedy
T is for Travel
T is for Two-Hundred-Twenty-Six-Thousand Children
Today I am not the Moon...
U is also for Upside-Down
U is for Unequal
U is for Unicef
U is for Update
V is for Victim
V is for Victim
V is for Victim
V is for Victory... For Nifong, That Is
V is for Viewpoint
V is for Voluntary Execution -aka- Wax Fruit:
V is for Vomit
V is for Vomit Part II
V is for Vortex of VAWA
W is for Wave Goodbye to the $
W is for What Kind of Ex?
W is for What Men's Rights?
W is for What to Do?
W is for Where are the Men?
W is for Whooops again!
W is for Whoops!
W is for Wide Open Eyes
W is for Women who Lie or Viewpoint II
W is for Women-Specific Charity
W is for Work
Z is for Zed
(Missing Letters: Q, X, Y)
My Best To You In Your Struggles:
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.
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.
Friday, February 08, 2008
F is for Friday, and Fatherhood.
Some time ago (Aug, 05) I came across the following animated video, and posted it.
I think it is time for a re-run.
Take a look, and then take (or at least plan) a moment with your kids, ...if you can.
-M
p.s. Yesterday, about 500 visitors. Pretty amazing. Guess Dr H pulls more weight than I do.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
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:
With that said, the text of my comment on Dr Helen's post follows:
MBTYIYS:
-M
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
Friday, February 01, 2008
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
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
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
K is 'For the Kids'
Hey Fred, whassup? Buy you a drink?
Sure, get me a Sam Adams.
So Fred, how's the new job treating you?
Not so bad, except we're at a standstill. All work is halted while we wait for the layoffs.
Ow, that's not so good.
Yeah, but that's not what I'm worried about. See, I've lived through lean times before. But the judge just increased my alimony.
No! How'd that happen?
She went to court and claimed that she wasn't able to live the way she had during the marriage.
Didn't she bankrupt you with her spending when you were married?
Almost. You remember - It took me a decade, and all my assets to clean up the bad credit, and the credit bills she stuck me with.
Couldn't you raise that as an issue?
Sure, but remember, we live in a no fault state. It's not her fault she lived beyond her means, just my responsibility to keep her there. Heh-Heh.
Nice. Does she work?
Yeah, which I hoped would make a difference. Her earnings almost doubled since the divorce.
I guess your earnings went up more?
No, I'm taking home about the same, a tiny bit less, in fact. But the judge said that in the divorce she had 'contemplated' being able to maintain the same lifestyle that she had during the marriage, and said I had the ability to pay to support that. I got her legal fees too.
I guess she made a big presentation with her monthly expenses and what she pays and all.
Not reallly. She just claimed in court that she had to shop at Wal-Mart all the time.
Wal-mart?
Yeah. It's like a joke, except not funny. She buys everything from LL Bean. (Laughs)
Nice work if you can get it. What happens if you lose your job? Will your ex understand?
You've got to be kidding. She'll sue my pants off first thing.
What for? You got a secret bank account somewhere?
No, but she thinks that my family will bail me out, and the legal fees will all be mine anyway, so she might as well.
While you are out of work?
Sure - the court will say my being out of work is temporary, and 'impute' my old income to me.
Ow, well, I suppose there's unemployment.
Not really, see if I'm out of work for more than a month, my arrears will get high, and they'll start taking 65% of my unemployment.
Remind me again why we stay in the country?
It's the kids, dude, it's all about the kids.
Let's drink to the kids.
Yeah.
MBTYIYS:
M
Sure, get me a Sam Adams.
So Fred, how's the new job treating you?
Not so bad, except we're at a standstill. All work is halted while we wait for the layoffs.
Ow, that's not so good.
Yeah, but that's not what I'm worried about. See, I've lived through lean times before. But the judge just increased my alimony.
No! How'd that happen?
She went to court and claimed that she wasn't able to live the way she had during the marriage.
Didn't she bankrupt you with her spending when you were married?
Almost. You remember - It took me a decade, and all my assets to clean up the bad credit, and the credit bills she stuck me with.
Couldn't you raise that as an issue?
Sure, but remember, we live in a no fault state. It's not her fault she lived beyond her means, just my responsibility to keep her there. Heh-Heh.
Nice. Does she work?
Yeah, which I hoped would make a difference. Her earnings almost doubled since the divorce.
I guess your earnings went up more?
No, I'm taking home about the same, a tiny bit less, in fact. But the judge said that in the divorce she had 'contemplated' being able to maintain the same lifestyle that she had during the marriage, and said I had the ability to pay to support that. I got her legal fees too.
I guess she made a big presentation with her monthly expenses and what she pays and all.
Not reallly. She just claimed in court that she had to shop at Wal-Mart all the time.
Wal-mart?
Yeah. It's like a joke, except not funny. She buys everything from LL Bean. (Laughs)
Nice work if you can get it. What happens if you lose your job? Will your ex understand?
You've got to be kidding. She'll sue my pants off first thing.
What for? You got a secret bank account somewhere?
No, but she thinks that my family will bail me out, and the legal fees will all be mine anyway, so she might as well.
While you are out of work?
Sure - the court will say my being out of work is temporary, and 'impute' my old income to me.
Ow, well, I suppose there's unemployment.
Not really, see if I'm out of work for more than a month, my arrears will get high, and they'll start taking 65% of my unemployment.
Remind me again why we stay in the country?
It's the kids, dude, it's all about the kids.
Let's drink to the kids.
Yeah.
MBTYIYS:
M
Monday, January 21, 2008
L is for Lawyers
L is for Lawyers
Whom women adore
If they can't win men's cases;
What good are they for?
If perjury and graft
By girls is just fine,
Then why would a man
Give a lawyer a dime?
When no matter the facts
The girl always wins
Then shouldn't men's lawyers
Fill old garbage bins?
Not to mention the fees
Which the men always pay
Why pay both your lawyer,
And her goon, I say?
And with burden of proof
Firmly laid on your side
Do you need a lawyer
To help tan your hide?
And presumption of guilt!
And impution, and jail!
And suspension of licenses,
Garnishment, Bail!
No the kangaroo courts
That our men have to face
Make men's lawyers redundant
An endangered race
It should be a sign that
There are so few of these
A sign that our courts
Have forced men to their knees
I don't have an answer
And it's really not fair
So please write your legislator
About this... ...if you dare.
MBTYIYS:
M
Whom women adore
If they can't win men's cases;
What good are they for?
If perjury and graft
By girls is just fine,
Then why would a man
Give a lawyer a dime?
When no matter the facts
The girl always wins
Then shouldn't men's lawyers
Fill old garbage bins?
Not to mention the fees
Which the men always pay
Why pay both your lawyer,
And her goon, I say?
And with burden of proof
Firmly laid on your side
Do you need a lawyer
To help tan your hide?
And presumption of guilt!
And impution, and jail!
And suspension of licenses,
Garnishment, Bail!
No the kangaroo courts
That our men have to face
Make men's lawyers redundant
An endangered race
It should be a sign that
There are so few of these
A sign that our courts
Have forced men to their knees
I don't have an answer
And it's really not fair
So please write your legislator
About this... ...if you dare.
MBTYIYS:
M
Friday, January 18, 2008
L is for Links
Yesterday, I took a moment and adjusted links, something I do far too infrequently.
Some interesting MRA blogs have fallen silent, others have announced their departure, I am taking more note of some that I had paid less attention to in the past, and new ones have arisen. I have tried to add the ones I have noticed that grabbed me, and still have a couple to add. I appreciate everyone who links here, and am very appreciative of the time and energy that my fellow bloggers expend in blogging.
I also know how easy it is to be silenced:
+ Like a body fighting an incurable infection like leprosy, sometimes it is easier to just give up to the gynocracy. This can take the form of the blogger becoming too emotionally drained, or just not having the time, as he drags off to two or three jobs to support the ability of his ex to enjoy the lifestyle to which HE would like to become accustomed.
+ Sometimes blogs are discovered by the evil ex, and they 'can and will' be used against one in court, as they demonstrate the sin of not wanting to be a slave to our female masters.
+ And sometimes, perhaps often, a blogger simply loses access to the technology, the networks and computers that make blogging possible. A significant majority (as much as 80%) of the homeless are male, and the pervasive slavery and financial ruin that impinges upon men following divorce contributes significantly to the homelessness of men. Where do you go to blog when you are living in a cardboard box? Perhaps the library, if you don't get shooed away.
So I appreciate my fellow MRA bloggers a lot, and with all that said, welcome:
Hawaiian Libertarian
Mens News Daily
Davout
Toy Soldier
Eternal Batchelor
Don't Marry
Carnival of Reaction
The Man On the Street
Male Matters
...and... (added later)...
No Feminazis
Dr Helen
Thanks to all of you, and 'keep on blogging!'
MBTYIYS:
M
Some interesting MRA blogs have fallen silent, others have announced their departure, I am taking more note of some that I had paid less attention to in the past, and new ones have arisen. I have tried to add the ones I have noticed that grabbed me, and still have a couple to add. I appreciate everyone who links here, and am very appreciative of the time and energy that my fellow bloggers expend in blogging.
I also know how easy it is to be silenced:
+ Like a body fighting an incurable infection like leprosy, sometimes it is easier to just give up to the gynocracy. This can take the form of the blogger becoming too emotionally drained, or just not having the time, as he drags off to two or three jobs to support the ability of his ex to enjoy the lifestyle to which HE would like to become accustomed.
+ Sometimes blogs are discovered by the evil ex, and they 'can and will' be used against one in court, as they demonstrate the sin of not wanting to be a slave to our female masters.
+ And sometimes, perhaps often, a blogger simply loses access to the technology, the networks and computers that make blogging possible. A significant majority (as much as 80%) of the homeless are male, and the pervasive slavery and financial ruin that impinges upon men following divorce contributes significantly to the homelessness of men. Where do you go to blog when you are living in a cardboard box? Perhaps the library, if you don't get shooed away.
So I appreciate my fellow MRA bloggers a lot, and with all that said, welcome:
Hawaiian Libertarian
Mens News Daily
Davout
Toy Soldier
Eternal Batchelor
Don't Marry
Carnival of Reaction
The Man On the Street
Male Matters
...and... (added later)...
No Feminazis
Dr Helen
Thanks to all of you, and 'keep on blogging!'
MBTYIYS:
M
Thursday, January 17, 2008
M is for MBTYIYS
I write 'my best to you in your struggles,'
Because we must struggle.
We are forced into an adversarial legal system,
Where we are the adversary,
Where we pay for both our lawyer
And our attacker's lawyer,
And both of them, and the judge
Are fully invested, trained, and full participants in a system that treats men as subhumans which are presumed guilty, and never proven innocent. Many of us give up: whatever their ex wants, she gets, and she stops taking them to court, and the man limps on, his savings ransacked, his earning potential reduced to bare subsistance or below, in search of shelter, missing his kids. Others cannot give up, either because their rage at injustice burns brighter, or because their ex keeps suing them, and getting him to pay her legal fees. There is no justice for men, but if there ever is to be, we must struggle. Letters must be written. Marches must be organized. Speeches must be made, and all on top of the crushing, dehumanizing, unavoidable and slavery-like burdens the court places upon us. We must all work, and do something regularly to restore men's rights. Can you help? Do struggle, even just a little.
My Best to you in your struggles!
-M
Because we must struggle.
We are forced into an adversarial legal system,
Where we are the adversary,
Where we pay for both our lawyer
And our attacker's lawyer,
And both of them, and the judge
Are fully invested, trained, and full participants in a system that treats men as subhumans which are presumed guilty, and never proven innocent. Many of us give up: whatever their ex wants, she gets, and she stops taking them to court, and the man limps on, his savings ransacked, his earning potential reduced to bare subsistance or below, in search of shelter, missing his kids. Others cannot give up, either because their rage at injustice burns brighter, or because their ex keeps suing them, and getting him to pay her legal fees. There is no justice for men, but if there ever is to be, we must struggle. Letters must be written. Marches must be organized. Speeches must be made, and all on top of the crushing, dehumanizing, unavoidable and slavery-like burdens the court places upon us. We must all work, and do something regularly to restore men's rights. Can you help? Do struggle, even just a little.
My Best to you in your struggles!
-M
Friday, December 14, 2007
SMH is for Single Mother Households
I've discovered a website while googling about for blog-fodder for my latest posting, Another Casualty of the Divorce Revolution, at my own blog. It's from a section of "The Christian Party." website, and it's entitled:
Children of SMHs
Remember these stats the next time you read or hear another feminist or mangina repeat the mantra that "Fathers are not necessary to raise healthy, well adjusted children."
Remember this too, the next time you hear some partisan-hack, socialist-feminist sympathizing politician (most likely a Democrat...but there are plenty of Republicans who support the same platform) talk about their endless schemes to raise taxes to "help the poor."
Children of SMHs
Children from single-mother households (SMHs), compared to children of two-parent families where the father is present, are more likely to go to prison by twenty times, to commit suicide by five times, to commit murder by eight times, to have behavioral problems by twenty times, to become rapists by fourteen times, to run away by thirty-two times, to abuse chemical substances by ten times, to drop out of high school by nine times, to be seriously abused by thirty-three times, to be fatally abused by seventy-three times, to be one tenth as likely to get A's in school, and to have a seventy-two percent lower standard of living.
Remember these stats the next time you read or hear another feminist or mangina repeat the mantra that "Fathers are not necessary to raise healthy, well adjusted children."
Not even transfers of wealth from men who earn it to women who don't, through massive social spending programs like welfare, AFDC, HUD, food stamps, WIC, CAPTA, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Department of Education,"child support", family law courts, the ten fold increase in prison spending, and $1.5 trillion in federal taxation, was able to reduce the social pathology surrounding SMHs by even a tenth of a percent. In fact, as welfare spending skyrocketed under The Great Society, poverty increased from eleven to fifteen percent, a failure of colossal proportions but one which is indicative of all the other federal failures. None of this was necessary before SMHs increased in number so greatly, and none of it will be necessary after they are outlawed.
Feminists lie about the cause of this social pathology then blame it on poverty.
Remember this too, the next time you hear some partisan-hack, socialist-feminist sympathizing politician (most likely a Democrat...but there are plenty of Republicans who support the same platform) talk about their endless schemes to raise taxes to "help the poor."
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
M is for Myths
From "The American Myth of Divorce"
"Don't stay together just for the sake of the children." "If divorce is better for you, it will be better for your kids."
This has been one of the myths of divorce that has now become the conventional wisdom of an American society that is no longer marriage and family friendly.
But after 30+ years of American's disastrous experiment with no-fault divorce, the research on the effects of divorce on children of the broken homes is conclusive.
When the feminists such as Betty Freidan et al pushed for no fault divorce laws and started the divorce "revolution," they pushed their ideas under the idea of freeing women and children from the "oppression" of Patriarchy.
This cancerous ideology of selfishness has now metastasized and corrupted the nuclear family to the brink of societal crisis...and it's the children of these "no-fault" broken homes who have suffered the most.
The results are in, and the feminists that have engineered the current state of affairs, the breakdown of marriage and it's long term effects on a generation of children born of broken homes is undeniable.
A house with parents in extremely abusive relationships was NEVER the majority of households in America...yet the feminists set the precedent and lobbied for "reform" under the banner of protecting mothers and children from abusive fathers. But most divorces since "no-fault" became the paradigm are really not a result of a victimized mother escaping an abusive man.
This is how marriage USED to be generally viewed by society as a whole. But thanks to the MYTHS of divorce promoted by the feminists and divorce industry profiteers, we no longer live in a society that recognizes this basic truth - most marriages that are struggling need to be worked on by BOTH parties. Instead, we now live under a system that PROMOTES and offers INCENTIVES for one or the other to simply walk away from their problems...and the highest price to be paid for this selfish act is paid for by the children!
Isn't it time we recognized that the "divorce revolution" has been a disaster, and it is time to recognize the oft repeated myths such as "it's better for the children" to be the evil, family-destroying lies that they really are?
"Don't stay together just for the sake of the children." "If divorce is better for you, it will be better for your kids."
This has been one of the myths of divorce that has now become the conventional wisdom of an American society that is no longer marriage and family friendly.
But after 30+ years of American's disastrous experiment with no-fault divorce, the research on the effects of divorce on children of the broken homes is conclusive.
For the past 30 years, Americans have used these ideas to justify their increasing recourse to divorce. Recently, however, mounting empirical evidence indicates that these justifications are illusions. The widespread practice of divorce in this culture has been based on the wishful thinking of adults while its tragic cost has been borne by children.
When the feminists such as Betty Freidan et al pushed for no fault divorce laws and started the divorce "revolution," they pushed their ideas under the idea of freeing women and children from the "oppression" of Patriarchy.
This cancerous ideology of selfishness has now metastasized and corrupted the nuclear family to the brink of societal crisis...and it's the children of these "no-fault" broken homes who have suffered the most.
Even though 80 percent of men and 50 percent of women felt their lives were better after divorce, the effects on children were disastrous. By almost every measure, children in divorced families fared worse: emotional problems, early sexual experimenting, dropping out of school, delinquency, teen pregnancy, and drug use.
Remarriage was no solution; children in stepfamilies were two to three times more likely than their counterparts to suffer emotional and behavioral problems and twice as likely to have learning problems.
Long-term studies by Judith Wallerstein and others argue that the impact of divorce on children is cumulative. Even 15 years after their parents' divorce, many children are emotionally troubled, occupationally aimless, and unable to sustain a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. Their parents' inability to sustain the relationship that counted most to them and the subsequent loss of connection to their fathers seem to have eroded these young peoples' sense of identity and ability to trust others and commit themselves.
The results are in, and the feminists that have engineered the current state of affairs, the breakdown of marriage and it's long term effects on a generation of children born of broken homes is undeniable.
A house with parents in extremely abusive relationships was NEVER the majority of households in America...yet the feminists set the precedent and lobbied for "reform" under the banner of protecting mothers and children from abusive fathers. But most divorces since "no-fault" became the paradigm are really not a result of a victimized mother escaping an abusive man.
So, should we stay together for the sake of the children? Dafoe argues that in most cases the answer is yes. Divorce makes sense in the 10 percent to 15 percent of troubled marriages that involve high-level and persistent conflict with severe abuse and physical violence.
But the case is not so clear in marriages marked by marital dissatisfaction, emotional estrangement, boredom, or another romantic interest. In these instances, adults, who are more resilient than children, can be expected to sacrifice some of their own interests in order to preserve the stable and caring home necessary for their offspring to flourish. Traditionally, spouses were obligated not merely to stay in a troubled marriage for the sake of the children but to improve it.
This is how marriage USED to be generally viewed by society as a whole. But thanks to the MYTHS of divorce promoted by the feminists and divorce industry profiteers, we no longer live in a society that recognizes this basic truth - most marriages that are struggling need to be worked on by BOTH parties. Instead, we now live under a system that PROMOTES and offers INCENTIVES for one or the other to simply walk away from their problems...and the highest price to be paid for this selfish act is paid for by the children!
Isn't it time we recognized that the "divorce revolution" has been a disaster, and it is time to recognize the oft repeated myths such as "it's better for the children" to be the evil, family-destroying lies that they really are?
Friday, December 07, 2007
S is for "Should Men Get Married?"
Dr Helen opined some time ago on 'should men get married?', and the outlook isn't cheerful, as I have noted in this blog before (see here and here.
I think some of the commenters on Dr Helen's blog have it right. On the odds, marriage in general is not a winning proposition.
But looking at this again, I wanted to review it in terms of real money, and see how it stacked up.
In general people get married for the following real benefits;
Love
Sex
Children
Cheaper to live together
I think that covers it. So let's put a value on these things. Yeah, I know, you can't. But we are talking about stuff that is getting settled in a court of law, so let's think of it like a lawyer would:
Love: hardest to quantify, but let's value it like having a personal executive assistant who is paid enough to actually care about your stuff. Say $80,000/year.
Sex: note we aren't talking porn-star stuff here, we're talking real world, in a busy life. A decent prostitute would cost you $200/night, but I'll knock that to $100/night because you have her on retainer, and it happens to be the same person as your executive assistant.
So that's maybe $10,000 per year, if you are lucky.
Children: they say you can't put a value on a human life, but the courts do it all the time. They seem to think that a life is worth something like $100,000 per year. Sometimes they treat kids like more, sometimes much less. Let's go with $100,000 per year, for however many you have.
Cheaper to live together; well, this just isn't true. You might get a cheaper year at first, but year 2 you'll find yourself redecorating so that everything matches, and once you have kids you need a new house, clothes for kids, your wife not respecting budgets, finance charges... Come to think of it, it has to cost you at least $50,000/ year.
Ok, so if your average marriage lasts 7 years, let's assume that the first 4 are pretty good, and the last 3 living hell. So we'll go with 4 years of the personal assistant and sex for $90,000/year.
Total value for the average marriage: $370,000
But the kids and living expenses are yours until the marriage ends, and so we can net the two ($50,000) and multiply by seven: $350,000.
So the total value received from the average marriage is about $720,000.
Not so bad, right?
But the problem is that the average marriage DOES end in divorce. And men lose their kids, and pay alimony and support.
So if having your kids is worth $100,000/year, having that kid stolen away and kept from you with only brief weekly or monthly furloughs is losing that benefit. Think of it as them being unjustly imprisoned, which they will be until they are 18. So assume 10 years of unjust imprisonment fot your kids: $1,000,000.
Next let's look at support/alimony.
Your average wage-earner makes somewhere in the $40-50,000 range,
But I suspect this is NOT what your 7-year marriage, 2.5 kids father makes. I think this father earns more likle $80,000, on average.
And, alimony and child support are going to, on average, eat around 2/3 of that - costing you a real $53,000 per year, for the next 10 years or so: $530,000
Now let's talk about what you lose in the divorce. Most people have net debt, which is divided, but your average 2.5-kids-7-year-marriage-father doesn't. You can't live in debt with kids and a family to worry about. You have to make things work every day, and have a plan for when it doesn't. You have to have half a year in assets to float you when your company goes under, or you get fired. So you have 50,000 in liquid assets plus retirement, and a house that is probably worth, on average, $175,000. Half of these go to your wife in divorce. This is a real expense to you, because, on average, the man earned the money that paid for them. I am sure people will argue about this, but we are in the small numbers here compared to the above: of $225,000 you lose $112,000 to your ex.
Now let's talk legal expenses. Let's just say that you aren't very acrimonious, and you only have a few legal problems after the divorce and put your total legal costs at $60,000 including what you have to file to really end support at the end of the whole period. I think that the average is higher, but let's use this.
Now let's talk about your personal situation. You may think that the above covers everything, but you have lost one other thing that is not accounted for in the above, which is your freedom. You are REQUIRED by law to not only keep earning what you were earning at the time of the marriage, but to get reasonable raises. You are an indentured servant for ten years. What is reasonable compensation for being required to consistently earn a particular number for the next ten years without fail? Nowadays people change jobs every 2-3 years, and are often out of work for months (see the half a year in assets above). So a very real cost of having to be a wage slave for ten years is the coverage of the job transitions. Let's say there are three job transitions during the 10 years, and they last 4 months. four twelfths of $80,000 , multiplied by three job losses is $80,0000 you will need just to cover the financial implications of the job transitions.
But again, what about what the real value of you committing to being a wage slave for 10 years, minus the financial implications, just the 'I have to slog off to work for people who I don't see and who mostly hate me' factor. How much would you demand in additional compensation for working for a firm that hates you, while withholding 2/3rds of your income, and committing to this situationfor 10 years? Well, it would have to pay me back the 2/3rds, or I wouldn't do it, but I am already counting that as a negative above, so I won't double count it, so it becomes how much to work for people who hate me for 10 years, plus the stress of jumping through hoops to get the next job and the next job where they also hate me. I think, that I would need to see double my salary before I committed to this kind of situation. So for your average working divorced father, we are talking about a real value of $80,000 per year (he already earns the 80k, this is the doubling part). Over 10 years that is $800,000
So total cost of the divorce, including your suffering: $2,694,500
Compared to your anticipated benefits (including your joys in children, sex, help) of: $720,000.
The net benefit (cost) of the average marriage is way negative: ($1,974,500).
If someone proposed to you a venture that would on average eat up the next twenty years of your life, which represents a total cost of about two million dollars including pain and suffering, and which leaves the average person very unhappy, would you do it?
Or more simply: On Average, Should Men Marry?
The simple answer, based on the numbers, is:
No,
Nixt,
No Way,
Not,
Not in Twenty Years,
Not in Two Million Dollars,
Not on Your Life.
But I want to end on a positive note, and that is the following, which many of you may not find positive:
The analysis above is correct for the average person,
- but the average person should not marry,
- and the person that they should marry should not be average.
For marriage to work, it must be entered into by loving, giving, dedicated people who will both try hard to put their partner's interests first, day in and day out, on the easy days and the hard days, in the good years and in the bad years, and enter into this venture knowing that many of the years may be very tough years.
For marriage to work well, it must contain two souls who are ethical, moral, upstanding, honest, and brave.
If you can be the kind of person described above -if you can always put your lover first -even when you are fighting, and if you can find someone who is always putting you first, and loves doing that, and whom you can trust with your life and the things you care most about, even when you are fighting...
- then marry that person. It will be the best thing that you ever did.
My best to you in your struggles!
-M
I think some of the commenters on Dr Helen's blog have it right. On the odds, marriage in general is not a winning proposition.
But looking at this again, I wanted to review it in terms of real money, and see how it stacked up.
In general people get married for the following real benefits;
Love
Sex
Children
Cheaper to live together
I think that covers it. So let's put a value on these things. Yeah, I know, you can't. But we are talking about stuff that is getting settled in a court of law, so let's think of it like a lawyer would:
Love: hardest to quantify, but let's value it like having a personal executive assistant who is paid enough to actually care about your stuff. Say $80,000/year.
Sex: note we aren't talking porn-star stuff here, we're talking real world, in a busy life. A decent prostitute would cost you $200/night, but I'll knock that to $100/night because you have her on retainer, and it happens to be the same person as your executive assistant.
So that's maybe $10,000 per year, if you are lucky.
Children: they say you can't put a value on a human life, but the courts do it all the time. They seem to think that a life is worth something like $100,000 per year. Sometimes they treat kids like more, sometimes much less. Let's go with $100,000 per year, for however many you have.
Cheaper to live together; well, this just isn't true. You might get a cheaper year at first, but year 2 you'll find yourself redecorating so that everything matches, and once you have kids you need a new house, clothes for kids, your wife not respecting budgets, finance charges... Come to think of it, it has to cost you at least $50,000/ year.
Ok, so if your average marriage lasts 7 years, let's assume that the first 4 are pretty good, and the last 3 living hell. So we'll go with 4 years of the personal assistant and sex for $90,000/year.
Total value for the average marriage: $370,000
But the kids and living expenses are yours until the marriage ends, and so we can net the two ($50,000) and multiply by seven: $350,000.
So the total value received from the average marriage is about $720,000.
Not so bad, right?
But the problem is that the average marriage DOES end in divorce. And men lose their kids, and pay alimony and support.
So if having your kids is worth $100,000/year, having that kid stolen away and kept from you with only brief weekly or monthly furloughs is losing that benefit. Think of it as them being unjustly imprisoned, which they will be until they are 18. So assume 10 years of unjust imprisonment fot your kids: $1,000,000.
Next let's look at support/alimony.
Your average wage-earner makes somewhere in the $40-50,000 range,
But I suspect this is NOT what your 7-year marriage, 2.5 kids father makes. I think this father earns more likle $80,000, on average.
And, alimony and child support are going to, on average, eat around 2/3 of that - costing you a real $53,000 per year, for the next 10 years or so: $530,000
Now let's talk about what you lose in the divorce. Most people have net debt, which is divided, but your average 2.5-kids-7-year-marriage-father doesn't. You can't live in debt with kids and a family to worry about. You have to make things work every day, and have a plan for when it doesn't. You have to have half a year in assets to float you when your company goes under, or you get fired. So you have 50,000 in liquid assets plus retirement, and a house that is probably worth, on average, $175,000. Half of these go to your wife in divorce. This is a real expense to you, because, on average, the man earned the money that paid for them. I am sure people will argue about this, but we are in the small numbers here compared to the above: of $225,000 you lose $112,000 to your ex.
Now let's talk legal expenses. Let's just say that you aren't very acrimonious, and you only have a few legal problems after the divorce and put your total legal costs at $60,000 including what you have to file to really end support at the end of the whole period. I think that the average is higher, but let's use this.
Now let's talk about your personal situation. You may think that the above covers everything, but you have lost one other thing that is not accounted for in the above, which is your freedom. You are REQUIRED by law to not only keep earning what you were earning at the time of the marriage, but to get reasonable raises. You are an indentured servant for ten years. What is reasonable compensation for being required to consistently earn a particular number for the next ten years without fail? Nowadays people change jobs every 2-3 years, and are often out of work for months (see the half a year in assets above). So a very real cost of having to be a wage slave for ten years is the coverage of the job transitions. Let's say there are three job transitions during the 10 years, and they last 4 months. four twelfths of $80,000 , multiplied by three job losses is $80,0000 you will need just to cover the financial implications of the job transitions.
But again, what about what the real value of you committing to being a wage slave for 10 years, minus the financial implications, just the 'I have to slog off to work for people who I don't see and who mostly hate me' factor. How much would you demand in additional compensation for working for a firm that hates you, while withholding 2/3rds of your income, and committing to this situationfor 10 years? Well, it would have to pay me back the 2/3rds, or I wouldn't do it, but I am already counting that as a negative above, so I won't double count it, so it becomes how much to work for people who hate me for 10 years, plus the stress of jumping through hoops to get the next job and the next job where they also hate me. I think, that I would need to see double my salary before I committed to this kind of situation. So for your average working divorced father, we are talking about a real value of $80,000 per year (he already earns the 80k, this is the doubling part). Over 10 years that is $800,000
So total cost of the divorce, including your suffering: $2,694,500
Compared to your anticipated benefits (including your joys in children, sex, help) of: $720,000.
The net benefit (cost) of the average marriage is way negative: ($1,974,500).
If someone proposed to you a venture that would on average eat up the next twenty years of your life, which represents a total cost of about two million dollars including pain and suffering, and which leaves the average person very unhappy, would you do it?
Or more simply: On Average, Should Men Marry?
The simple answer, based on the numbers, is:
No,
Nixt,
No Way,
Not,
Not in Twenty Years,
Not in Two Million Dollars,
Not on Your Life.
But I want to end on a positive note, and that is the following, which many of you may not find positive:
The analysis above is correct for the average person,
- but the average person should not marry,
- and the person that they should marry should not be average.
For marriage to work, it must be entered into by loving, giving, dedicated people who will both try hard to put their partner's interests first, day in and day out, on the easy days and the hard days, in the good years and in the bad years, and enter into this venture knowing that many of the years may be very tough years.
For marriage to work well, it must contain two souls who are ethical, moral, upstanding, honest, and brave.
If you can be the kind of person described above -if you can always put your lover first -even when you are fighting, and if you can find someone who is always putting you first, and loves doing that, and whom you can trust with your life and the things you care most about, even when you are fighting...
- then marry that person. It will be the best thing that you ever did.
My best to you in your struggles!
-M
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
P is for Postcards
This is a gut wrenching site that shows perfectly the kind of devastation to a little child's life a divorce causes.
Postcards from Splitsville
This should be required viewing for every couple in the process of divorce....especially by women that are contemplating moving far away from the children's father just so she can "start over" and get away from the man she once considered good enough to father children with.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
H is for Hero
I was listening to Tom Leykis yesterday, and he brought this story to my attention...
We men have a new hero to celebrate!
Judge Orders Spears to Pay Federline's Legal Bill
Britney Spears has been ordered to pay $120,000 to cover her ex-husband Kevin Federline's legal bills in the couple's ongoing child custody battle.
Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Scott Gordon considered Federline's original request for $160,000 before ruling the singer must pay $120,000 immediately.
Commissioner Gordon took into consideration the "disparity between the parties' incomes" and that "the vast majority of the litigation deals with (Spears') conduct."
In court documents released last week, it was revealed that Spears earns as much as $720,000 per month.
The former couple's next custody hearing is set for November 26.
Can you believe it?
Federline got sole custody of the kids, alimony, child support and now Britney has to pay his legal fees!
For all the men that have been screwed by the divorce courts, all hail Federline as the new Hero for fighting fire with fire in the gender war the feminists started!
Look at the comment section in the article, and see some of the choice comments made by women who are in disbelief at this ruling...look at the excuses they make for Britney's behavior - it's all Federline's fault that he didn't help her, you see!
Check it out:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!
This is what happens to men in our divorce courts every single day across the country...but even in the face of overwhelming evidence of Britney's ABSOLUTE incompetence and irresponsibility as a parent, we still have stupid women that are outraged by this court ruling!
Oh the irony!
Kevin Federline...YOU GO BOY!
We men have a new hero to celebrate!
Judge Orders Spears to Pay Federline's Legal Bill
Britney Spears has been ordered to pay $120,000 to cover her ex-husband Kevin Federline's legal bills in the couple's ongoing child custody battle.
Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Scott Gordon considered Federline's original request for $160,000 before ruling the singer must pay $120,000 immediately.
Commissioner Gordon took into consideration the "disparity between the parties' incomes" and that "the vast majority of the litigation deals with (Spears') conduct."
In court documents released last week, it was revealed that Spears earns as much as $720,000 per month.
The former couple's next custody hearing is set for November 26.
Can you believe it?
Federline got sole custody of the kids, alimony, child support and now Britney has to pay his legal fees!
For all the men that have been screwed by the divorce courts, all hail Federline as the new Hero for fighting fire with fire in the gender war the feminists started!
Look at the comment section in the article, and see some of the choice comments made by women who are in disbelief at this ruling...look at the excuses they make for Britney's behavior - it's all Federline's fault that he didn't help her, you see!
Check it out:
ITS RIDICULOUS. SO WHAT IF SHE MAKES ALL THE MONEY! KFED IS THE ONE WHO IS FILING AGAINST HER. THIS BITTER CUSTODY BATTLE WOULD OF NOT OCCURRED IF KFED DID NOT START IT. THE JUDGE IS AS F- AS ANYTHING. WHAT KIND OF JUDGE IS THIS? A WOMAN HATER-MAKES HER PAY THE BILL CUZ SHE IS FINANCIALLY SUCCESSFUL. DEFINITELY, THE JUDGE IS IN KFED FAVOR. SHE IS TREATED UNFAIRLY. KFED IS THE ONE THAT STARTED ALL THIS MESS IN COURT. THE JUDGE IS IN KFED FAVOR THATS ALL I CAN SAY. ITS NOT FAIR TO PUNISH BRITNEY LIKE THAT. GOD I PRAY FOR HER TO GET OUT OF THIS MESS SOON.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!
This makes me so mad!I remain convinced that Federline brought Britney to the state she is in. Sure, she was probably on the road to perdition when she hooked up with him, as evidenced by her quickie 48-hour or whatever it was marriage to her high school chum. But Federline is the one who has brought her to her knees.If he had truly cared for her when he married her, seeing the warning signs, he would have tried to help her. He did not. He fed her fears/demons. She was obviously extremely lonely at the time of the Federline mistake, and oh such a big one, which made her more susceptible to being a follower. I am not/never have been a Britney fan. It is just how I see it from following the situation. Federline is a money grub. A dirty, filthy money grub. Britney is in need of serious psychiatric help, but until she faces up to the fact, or is scheduled, will never receive it. It's such a shame to see someone's self-esteem so punctured.
This is what happens to men in our divorce courts every single day across the country...but even in the face of overwhelming evidence of Britney's ABSOLUTE incompetence and irresponsibility as a parent, we still have stupid women that are outraged by this court ruling!
Oh the irony!
Kevin Federline...YOU GO BOY!
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
C is for Contribution
I decided to take up MisAnDrope's call for authors and become a contributor to this here blog, as I like this blog and it's motif and I thought it would be a bit of fun to run with it a bit.
That being said, I just want to say that MIsForMelevolent is an excellent repository for knowledge for men who may find themselves on the brink of; or in the midst of; or are dealing with the aftermath of a nasty divorce. I found the archives to be quite compelling and thought provoking.
As I have my own blog, I will not be contributing long, in-depth pieces...but I will try to contribute some interesting and entertaining entries every now and then. Perhaps other MRA bloggers would like to join in on the fun? I have yet to see a truly substantive MRA Group blog...so why not make MIsForMalevolent the first?
That being said, I just want to say that MIsForMelevolent is an excellent repository for knowledge for men who may find themselves on the brink of; or in the midst of; or are dealing with the aftermath of a nasty divorce. I found the archives to be quite compelling and thought provoking.
As I have my own blog, I will not be contributing long, in-depth pieces...but I will try to contribute some interesting and entertaining entries every now and then. Perhaps other MRA bloggers would like to join in on the fun? I have yet to see a truly substantive MRA Group blog...so why not make MIsForMalevolent the first?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)