G is for 'Girl' ?

Apparently when it comes down to balls, Caster Semenya has them.



If you haven't heard this story, in a nutshell, here we have a world-class 'female' athlete, who was challenged because 'she' for all practical purposes, appeared to be a man.



But that wasn't as far as it went. No, in fact, when push came to shove, here we have a 'gal' who packs two testicles tucked away inside her body, and has essentially no practical girl-parts at all.



Now, I'm all for male-ness, and I think it is great that Caster is a guy. But in fact, she chose to identify as a woman. And mostly I'm also fine with that, too - you want to call yourself 'Wendy' or 'Sheila' or whatever and wear dresses and makeup sometimes, go for it.



But when you aren't honest about your true nature in places where it makes a difference - potential intimate partners or sports, for example, well, that's another matter.



I mean, who wants to discover at the point of groping, or getting down, or shagging, or whatever, that the person you are with is of a totally different gender than you thought, and has a completely different reproductive package going on than what you had hoped for. I mean that's just not fair.



And one would think that by the time one got to the world-class level in sports, one might have noticed, between all the physicals and such, that one wasn't really a girl.


Not that the 'shemale sports' angle is new. Back in the day Russia was famous for marketing things as 'women' in the Olympics whose bodies had seen more testosterone than most men could ever dream of their wee lumpkins producing.



But when you think about it, in this unisex world we live in, where silly politicians insist that genders be funded equally and have equal opportunity - unless it hurts the man - here is a prime example of a gender difference.



Why do we segregate the sexes in running, in swimming, in the various physical competitions?



It's because women, quite simply don't measure up. Our species is sexually dimorphic. Or in English - boys are different than girls. And not just in what we carry about in our pants. We are taller, stronger, faster, and for whatever reason, a bit sharper about practical things like geometry and math, when not held back by feminized schools.



And if women want to have any fun - if they want to win in competitive sports, men and things that are genetically male must be kept out.



Oh there is the occasional woman who can compete with the boys, and being all Aristotelean and stuff, these extrordinary women are often allowed to compete as an exception - at least at the high-school level.



But men aren't allowed to compete in women's events. That just wouldn't be fair to the poor ladies.



Because we're different. Because we're better.



And that's good to remember, while the state, the workplace and society tilt the tables again, and again, and again in favor of the woman - it's good to remember that there's a reason. It's because they can't compete in a fair fight.



Not that it isn't unfair to put us in the position that men find themselves in today.
It is unfair. Very unfair.



But it's good to be different. It's good to be male.





Now - back to finding a way out of the gynocentric rat-trap.





Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.



My Best To You In Your Struggles



-M

G is for Game

Heard of 'Game'? Know what a PUA is? Know who Roissy is?

See, I'm a bit older than some, and was happy to catch my second wind (i.e. become separated from my ex) when I was flush with income and working in a big city, in circles with a lot of lovely women, -oh, and mostly I love to just chat with folks. So I didn't need 'Game', I had natural (or un-natural) 'Game'. (If you have money, and a gift for a bit of gab, what else do you need?)

But for those of you who just tuned in, and to whom these words are odd, let me bring you as up to speed as I can.

Apparently, in 2005, a book called 'The Game' by Neil Strauss was published that told a purportedly non-fictional/autobiographical tale of a man's indoctrination and ascent in a society of 'Pick Up Artists' (PUAs) - becoming an expert - who was eventually christened 'Style' (His mentor had the moniker 'Mystery'). Here's the wiki writeup, go read it, I'll wait.

Funny thing is, the whole thing reeks to me of the '70s and leisure suits, but it probably seems that way to me because I actually remember the '70s and leisure suits - and is a sign that this kind of thing has been going on for a long time now, and this is just the latest incarnation - perhaps a slightly more technical one, which relates to our increasingly complex way of living.

So basically, what Game tries to be, if I haven't missed the key points, is to treat relationships between men and women like a game, and to adjust one's actions and inputs so as to achieve certain goals - in this case, getting the woman in question into your bed - but perhaps also to engineer your relationship in such a way as to achieve maximum ongoing satisfaction.

Anyway, I am noticing more and more about 'Game' in the MRA (Men's Rights Activism) world, (like here at Oz Conservative, and here at In Mala Fide) and I think it is an expression of some people who are following to a degree the MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) paradigm. PUAs/Gamers are looking to achieve sexual satisfaction, without having to live into the standard roles that society sets for men: Alpha Male, or Wage Slave.

For a summary of Game, perhaps here is a good place to look.

Oh and Roissy? I read him as a gamer, but kind of famous, and with a game plan that can extend to longer term relationships, although his view of women is, naturally, not the most positive in the universe. (Yeah, I know; 'pot, meet kettle' - but can you blame us?) Look here for a proposed Roissy Manifesto.

What does gaming look like? Well here is a brief vid of Love Systems on Tyra Banks providing a few pointers to an awkward young fellow. Not real gaming, but you start to get an idea.

Now, there are those who criticize 'Gaming' the system from a couple points of view:

1) Isn't it unethical to pretend to be someone you are not/act in unusual ways to get somewhere with a woman - isn't it misleading?
2) Isn't this bad for the men involved, and our culture?

Now I can hear both of these criticisms, and I relate. On #1, it seems to me, a real man would be himself, no? On the other hand, when faced with a blatantly unfair 'game' where the other participants are not being anywhere near themselves (lipstick? blush? perfume? hair removal?) and are liable/likely to revert to a much scarier form once they 'have' you, perhaps 'Game' is very defensible. Especially when the culture/system we are playing into punishes long term relationships by USUALLY taking half of your assets, and potentially half of your income, and your progeny.

Wait, I saw a good comment on this lately... ...here it is, on View from the Right:

While I don't subscribe to Roissyism, I understand the viewpoint.
The only thing the modern American (Western) girl has to offer me is sex. Which I'm not willing to pay more for than a tequila shot and a lie to the face. After the fact, what does she have to offer?

Is she going to be my life partner? No. Is she going to be my helpmate? No. Is she going to be the mother to my children? No.

Then she isn't worth 50 percent. She certainly isn't deserving of presumptive paternity (20 percent for 18 years for some bastard that isn't even mine).

We live in a culture that encourages divorce, out of some misguided need to liberate women from the "oppression" of marriage. And we have a legal system that rewards women for divorce.

Why do you think the divorce rate is so high? Why do you think that over 70 percent of divorces are filed by women, after only a few years? Why do you think it is that 1/3 of the paternity tests performed prove that the husband is not the father of the child? It couldn't possibly be that the culture and legal system make it profitable for women to divorce their husbands and commit infidelity, could it?

She gets a title, a house, a bank account, income, insurance, and guaranteed child support (regardless of who the biological father is). He gets a roommate and obligatory sex, on occasion.

Is there any other legal contract whereby one party can arbitrarily change her mind, for no reason and without penalty, and walk away with half of everything? No.

Is there any other legal contract whereby one party is required to pay child support for a third person who is not party to the contract, because the second party ran around behind his back? No.

Change the culture and change the law, if you want marriage to mean anything.

Change the culture so that women are held responsible for the consequences of their decisions and actions. Change the law so that the biological father is responsible for child support.

Unless you do that, marriage is a loser's contract for a man. Until such time, the best strategy is simply to buy her a tequila shot, lie to her face, have sex with her once, then dump her in the morning before she wakes up. Replace her with another bar slut the next night.

Which brings me to point #2 - what is the net effect of 'Game' on society? Isn't it bad? I suspect it is probably bad, but I think it is unavoidable. To the degree that long term relationships with women are dangerous, men are going to persue short-term relationships instead.

This isn't even a necessary part of 'Game', just how it can be, and often is used.

And this goal, the 'short term relationship' as the commenter above posited, is driven by the strong natural drive for sex, the danger of relationships, and also by the (sometimes accurate, sometimes not) perception of the women we meet as shallow, grasping and not worth our time - not worth the time of a long-term relationship - especially in view of the cost.

But even placing the blame for the effects of 'Gaming' for short term relationships where it belongs, what are the likely effects?

• Men become outwardly more adapted to charming and bedding women quickly.
• Probably more women will have children without any apparent father.
• Men will probably more often live lives that are freer of encumbrances, at least until they actually fall in love.
• Marriages will become more rare.
• Men will wait for someone who is worth committing to, rather than seeing ''sex" as being the same as "marriage".
• Perhaps, just perhaps, women will find ways to sweeten the pot - making marriage worthwhile to suitors. Dowries are seen as a primitive concept, but in a world where women can steal 'legitimately' half of a man's posessions, and enslave him for life, if a woman came to the marriage with a significant pool of assets herself that was turned over to the man, then marriage might be more attractive.

Hmmmm - seems like some of these things are happening already.

I think some form of 'Game' is natural in the relationship space, and has gone on forever. The real change is in men's realization of how deadly serious the 'Game' has become - it has changed our goals, and it is changing our culture.

And what do I think of the 'Game' providers/consultants who charge thousands to help men buff their 'game'? Sounds like a lot of money, but is it really any different that an 'image consultant' or a 'career coach'? If you have the bucks, and you think it will help, give it a shot. I'd start by reading the source materials, and saving my money. :)

Your comments and thoughts are welcome - please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

My Best To You In Your Struggles

-M

Update: Good grief: THL (a contributor to this blog) has already been big in the Roissy world, and I didn't know it. I have to set up a blog reader or something. OY! I noticed that he had gone Galt (a little background, also here), but he has also gone Truther! It's a messed up world! I don't share his trutherism views, but I want to know how to go Galt in my own life. Really. It's kind of like an economic MGTOW.

M is for Missed Anniversary

So here we are in the fall of 2009.

I don’t think that when I started this blog, on August 10th of 2005, that I contemplated that I would be worse off in 2009. I figured that my income would increase, and the court might moderate the level of abuse I was suffering - showing some minor amount of fairness and/or justice. These things didn't happen.

This blog is 4 years old, and although I have spent most of that time unemployed or underemployed according to the courts, the courts have increased my payments and lengthened the term of them – with the most recent order increasing things coming while I was unemployed.

See, once upon a time I made big bucks, and per the court it must be that I still can. This is called 'imputing income'.

Or perhaps called closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears, and shouting 'THE POOR SUFFERING WOMAN! THE POOR SUFFERING WOMAN! THE POOR SUFFERING WOMAN! THE POOR SUFFERING WOMAN! THE POOR SUFFERING WOMAN!' over and over and over.

So 65% of my unemployment goes to the ex, and arrears pile up, because reality cannot impinge upon the family court. I feed and clothe my kids on about $400 every month, with help from the occasional bit of part-time work, and from the part-time work my ‘new’ wife does. We are months behind on our mortgage, and will soon have to figure out what ‘Short Sale’ means.

I missed the anniversary of this blog.

Sorry blog.

Happy Belated Anniversary.

But if it WAS a happy anniversary, there might be less reason for the blog.

Please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

My Best To You In Your Struggles

-M

P is for Purple Heart

I can't help but admire this video and feel for our servicemen who come back to find out exactly what this country turns married/divorced men into.

The statistics they cite are shocking - 70% of servicemen return to divorce - 90% will be divorced within 5 years - 1.5% will get treated fairly by the courts.

And they shouldn't be treated to this sort of abuse - but fairness shouldn't just be for heroes either. I worry that what goes unsaid here is that all men live in this world, and that fair treatment should be for all men, not just heroes. Doesn't every man deserve a fair shake in a divorce, an opportunity to succeed, and not just be a wage-slave to a wife who now has a no-work sinecure?

With that said, do please view the video. It is eye-opening.



Your comments and thoughts are welcome, and please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

My Best To You In Your Struggles

-M

Note - I have some first-hand experience with some of this in my own circle of friends and co-workers: See O is for Opportunity for the story.

H is for Hmmmm

The story of Jaycee Lee Dugard has drawn a lot of interest lately, but for me, it draws interest for slightly different reasons. There are questions that I'd like to know the answers to, questions that probably won't be answered.

I mean, we all read the Big Media Story, like the MSN one linked above, right? 11-year-old girl is abducted, kept as sex slave by sex offender Phillip Garrido, who had two daughters by her. But other parts of the story just didn't seem to be being brought out. One minor thing - I'd like to learn more about Nancy Garrido, Phillip's wife, who assisted in the kidnapping and then the 18 years of imprisonment. Was Phillip more evil that Nancy? Probably. Probably a lot. But I'd hate for the woman who helped every step of the way to get off scot-free because she cuts a deal.

But even more than Nancy, I wondered about Jaycee's fathers. Her step-father, who tried to run down Phillip and Nancy (the abductors) on a bicycle as they zoomed away with Jaycee in her car, and I also wonder about her biological father. Very few words wasted at MSN on the man who was raising Jaycee, or the man who fathered Jaycee.

The Sacramento Bee provides a bit more robust information, letting us know that the step-father Carl Probyn is 'separated' from Jaycee's mom. Elsewhere we read that they have been separated for 10 years. However MSN indicates that they are divorced:

"Probyn has been in constant contact with Dugard's mother, his ex-wife Terry Probyn, since she found out her daughter was alive on Wednesday. "

The money quote comes from AP, found here in the LI press:

“It broke my marriage up. I’ve gone through hell, I mean I’m a suspect up until yesterday,” he told The Associated Press at his home in Orange, Calif. “I’m the last person to see her.”

"I'm a suspect up to yesterday." Add it to how the cops and probation stumbled over every opportunity to catch the real abductor, and I think we can wonder if it isn't true that the cops had their suspect - the step-father, and looked no further, torturing this man and his wife until their relationship was destroyed.

And what about the biological father? Help Find The Missing tells us "Dugard's biological father was quickly ruled out as a suspect; at the time of her abduction, he did not even know where she was living."

One wonders how it is possible that a father doesn't know where his 11-year-old daughter is living. Mostly, one would. And I'm starting to think uncharitable thoughts about Terry Probyn. Living in the real world, I see too many men cut out of their children's lives, and wonder if in fact Jaycee wasn't abducted twice. Once from her biological father, and once from her biological mother and step-father.

I wonder what Jaycee's biological dad's name is? Was he paying child support? What about Carl? Alimony? Support? This is, after all, California.

The real story - the big story - is the rescue of Jaycee and her daughters, and the stupidity of the police - and that stupidity does seem to have part of its origins in misandry - the misandrous focus on the step-father to the exclusion of others, and the failure to do the right kind of investigations and do the right kind of monitoring with respect to Phillip and Nancy Garrido - Phillip, who as I read it, should never have been let out of prison.

But one wonders about Terry, and Jaycee's biological dad, and why it was and is so easy to ignore him, perhaps cut him off from contact with his daughter, and why it was also so easy, and perhaps financially attractive, to toss Carl aside too. Inquiring minds want to know.

My Best To You In Your Struggles.

-M

Another look at this story - Stockholm Syndrome/PAS

UPDATES:

One poster asked why we care -thought that this was all sick - and I think that deserved an answer, and one that should appear in the post:

I care because my default opinion that men are good, and that Jaycee's biological father was a decent man who was cut out of his child's life. I don't assume he was bad, or that he abandoned her, and I think perhaps his story needs to be told - but it isn't.

I alsso care because I see that the stepfather clearly spent years and years as a suspect, and whose marriage was destroyed as a result.

It is too easy to suspect fathers, and too easy to discard fathers.

That's why I care.

Update on Jaycee's biological dad from the comments:

The Daily Mail says: "Jaycee's natural father, Kenneth Slayton, split up with her mother before she was born and has never seen his daughter. He is said to live in the Los Angeles area but was not available for comment last night."

Again, we have a third name. Seems that Jaycee's mom likely named someone named Dugard as the dad.

Your comments and thoughts are welcome, and please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

My Best To You In Your Struggles

-M

M is for Meaning

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

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

(Scroll Down for Lyrics)

The Lyrics Are:

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

MBTYIYS

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

A is for Activism

Have I done this one before? No matter.... I'd like to ask you to get active.

Our Congress is wrapping up its dog-and-pony show examination/'Confirmation' hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

Here is a woman who has stated over and over and over that she thinks a wise Latina woman (isn't that redundant?) would make better decisions than a white man. She also belonged to 'La Raza' (in english 'The Race') for six years, and, of course, thinks race, and by extention, gender outweighs merit. (The Supreme Court did not concur.)

We have enough Gender Feminists and their allies in government. It is the work of a few moments to seek out your representatives feedback pages and ask them to vote against Sotomayor. Current public opinion is already overwhelmingly negative. (43% against confirmation, 37% for confirmation.)

It is possible that your electronic letter might make a difference.

Click Here for a website that allows you to pull up contact information for your senators and representatives. Put a message in their feedback page, or send them an email.

Let them know that we don't need MORE gender bias in the courts - 'wise latina' or not.

-M

O is for the Onion

V is for Vampires

Just a quick post to point you to Christina Hoff Sommers' article: Persistent Myths in Feminist Scholarship, in which she compares the undead, unkillable, untrue feminist statistics that keep coming back to vampires - as in being 'harder to kill than'.

She writes Berkeley law professor Nancy K.D. Lemon about the acclaimed 'Domestic Violence Law' book she edited, pointing out outright falsehoods that appeared in her book as fact, including the following (excerpted from her article):

"The history of women's abuse began over 2,700 years ago in the year 753 BC. It was during the reign of Romulus of Rome that wife abuse was accepted and condoned under the Laws of Chastisement. ... The laws permitted a man to beat his wife with a rod or switch so long as its circumference was no greater than the girth of the base of the man's right thumb. The law became commonly know as 'The Rule of Thumb.' These laws established a tradition which was perpetuated in English Common Law in most of Europe."

Where to begin? How about with the fact that Romulus of Rome never existed. He is a figure in Roman mythology — the son of Mars, nursed by a wolf. Problem 2: The phrase "rule of thumb" did not originate with any law about wife beating, nor has anyone ever been able to locate any such law. It is now widely regarded as a myth, even among feminist professors.

Other falsehoods Sommers challenged with significant evidence:

• "women battered during pregnancy have more than twice the rate of miscarriages and give birth to more babies with more defects than women who may suffer from any immunizable illness or disease"
• "between 20 and 35 percent of women seeking medical care in emergency rooms in America are there because of domestic violence."

What do you think? Did Lemon immediately acknowledge the correction and issue an 'errata' like most any scholar would?

Not.

Read the article.

-M

E is for Eyecandy

Chosen by "The Other McCain" as "Most Likely to Offend Feminists," this video submitted by No Sheeples Here might be just the thing to put a small smile on your face, no matter how tough things are.

Russian Girls from AmxPictures on Vimeo.

Ahhh. Well, with that done, Gee, I wonder what the outrage would be like if a bunch of gyrating half nude soapy men were to beat and knock about a bound woman, and she were to appear to enjoy the treatment. Hmmm

W is for “Who is Afraid of Victoria Floethe”

Ok, it is old news, but news that has been bothering me. Here we have lovely 28-year-old Victoria Floethe (Pic here) flirting and quite openly sleeping her way up the social/work ladder, most remarkably with Michael Wolff (55 years old).

The loss and destruction Victoria has left in her wake is impressive, but all she did was have affairs with married men rather openly. Imagine if she had been intent on using her wiles to obtain a permanent position as the ‘un-fireable’ female employee, or in becoming the recipient of the payout in a significant sexual harassment lawsuit? Millions of dollars in marital assets are already being sliced and diced as a result of this young sexual butterfly, but think of what she could have cost the firms that they worked for and their investors. And the thing is, this has been and continues to be a route to promotion for young women, not so much available to their male counterparts.

Many men admit to being sexually harassed in the workplace. I have encountered a good number of agressive women in the workplace, some of whom went so far as to expose their more attractive private bits to me (and, I later found out, also to my co-workers). Imagine if I were to do such a thing to a woman. I would, regardless of my age or intent, be creating an uncomfortable sexual atmosphere, and most likely, if the feelings were not mutual, would find myself charged as a sex offender, and certainly would lose my job.

For men, the office is a very dangerous place to find liaisons. For women, not so much. They are free to be as sexual as they want, and leverage it to whatever degree they can, with the assistance of lawyers if the benefits of the liason do not turn out to be lucrative enough. Meanwhile, most men are very shy about ever being alone with a woman at work, and are even careful to avoid women at work for fear of the many penalties they may pay.

I will not judge Victoria, although I do not think that her behavior was the best. What I do judge is the culture that makes male sexuality something to be supressed at all costs – making the office another place where men must live in fear at all times, while women reign supreme.

-M

Oh, never answered my own question. Who is Afraid of Victoria Floethe? We all are, all MEN that is.

E is for Exposure, and Explicit

It seems like every day, cases come up in the news that highlight the insanity of our legal system when it comes to the sexes. Today we hear about a teen who posted explicit pictures of herself on MySpace, charged with ‘possession and distribution of child pornography.’ She could face 17 years in jail, and have to register as a sex offender for the rest of her life, but we are assured that these stiff sentences are unlikely.

So insane: Let’s count the ways:

1. So, posting photos is a crime that can get you put away for almost two decades? And you have to be marked as some kind of sex predator for life? Isn’t this a bit extreme?
2. What she did is a crime, but they will be lenient because she is a woman/girl. A man/boy would probably be also charged with indecent exposure, or the equivalent, no? Sexual Bias, right there.
3. These are pictures of herself – one might assume that one could do almost whatever one wanted with pictures of themselves, no?
4. If a girl is mature enough to want to post her nude body on the web for her boyfriend and other friends to see, isn’t she a bit beyond ‘child’? Teenage women can be extremely precocious, and the law needs to lighten up. These girls will engage in various kinds of sexual behavior, and making them and their partners into felons is both ridiculous and criminal.
5. If you were to look at her MySpace page, those pictures would likely end up in your temporary files area. By looking at them, and by storing them, you are guilty of child pornography. Enjoy your sex-offender status!

How nice it is for the government to jump in and put this girl and her family through a huge sex-offender lawsuit, for a stupid teenage stunt that harmed no one but herself. On the other hand, we should be grateful to the Trenton prosecutor who went ahead with this case, because it shows how scary-crazy these people are and how nuts the law is.


I think most prosecutors would have let this go,


- unless, of course, the perpetrator was male.


My best to you in your struggles…

M

E is for Early Learning

It is good to learn, and probably best to learn early… but whose heart can’t help to go out to a very young man, who finds himself learning life’s harsh lessons about the nature of the relationship between men and women at the vunerable age of 13?

If you haven’t heard, this is the story of Alfie Patten of England. Seduced by 15 year old Chantelle Steadman, Alfie was identified by her as the father of her child, and he stuck by her, even as teen after teen came forward, and admitted also sleeping with his beau in the appropriate timeframe. (Chantelle apparently is just a bit sexually active.) Chantelle, on the other hand, insisted that she was in love with Alfie and that he had taken her virginity.

The Telegraph tells us that Alfie was ‘distraught’ at claims that the little bastard (sorry, that *is* the technical term) that Chantelle eventually popped out was not his.

But DNA will tell all, and sure enough, Alfie ain’t the dad. He should be glad, but as he is programmed to a life of slavery to the master-sex and their spawn/vagina droppings (ok, that one was harsh), I am afraid he isn’t.

Still, this particular package of life lessons will hopefully not be lost on the precocious boy, or on any male who reads this story. I suggest the following lessons:

1) Women are much freer with sex than they like you to know. (Bonobos, anyone?)
2) Women lie about their sex lives. (OK, implied by #1, but hey needs to be said.)
3) Women lie about paternity. A Lot. (Also probably implied by #1, but also needs to be said.)
4) A major motivating factor behind all this lying is money.
5) Use a condom! (You probably aren't the first, and as far as you can know, your predecessor may have been a bonobo.)

I think we’ve about covered this one.

-M

Oh, and p.s. where's the 'rape' charge against Chantelle? Don't you think there would have been one if a 15-year-old man impregnated a 13-year old girl?

F is for Food Stamps

So, like perhaps many, I am reduced to below the poverty level by my ex’s expectations of being able to live in the manner to which I would like to become accustomed.
But someone said to me; “Hey! You have your kids a whole lot of the time, and you are below the federal poverty threshold! You should apply for Food Stamps!”

In a different year, a different month, I might not have gone.

But this year, with no interviews, no prospects, no one answering my calls or requests for part-time work, or any kind of work… …with everything up in the air, and out of my hands, - I went.

I mean, I have $2.00 in my bank account, and that doesn’t buy food, and although I have a few extra pounds here and there, the kids need to eat.

So I do some online forms, get an invite to the local SocialServiciesAtorium, (which is almost impossible to find) and arrive in time for my ‘appointment’. Three hours later, they call my name, and I go in.

And what do I find out? I find out that the needs basis for food-stamps is GROSS income. The fact that the courts take all that money away (alimony and support) - 65% of my unemployment income, is immaterial.

Divorced men, it seems, are supposed to shrivel up and die; at which point the insurance that the court requires us to take out against our lives will ensure that even our deaths do not inconvenience our heartless ex-spouses.

The agent who helped me suggested that I go back to court. I told her I had been there, and that they had increased the amount, and the term, and charged me my ex's legal fees, because she was unable to live in the manner which she had expected, or hoped to.

I'd like to expect to eat. She's worried about her ski trips. Inequity? Not in New Jersey, in New Jersey, its...

Just another day in the Gynocracy.

-M

Additional comments:

If you are looking to try and get food stamps anyway, don't bother with the online form, that information is autmatically lost, and will just end up kicking out a 'you must come in for an interview' letter. Call your local contacts for social services, and outline the basic numbers of your case. They can probably tell you if it is worth your time to do anything more.

I also recently passed one year out of work. Unemployment needs to be recertified at that point, and that takes a phone call. No one will tell you this, though. Instead you are told you will recieve a credit for your filing, but that it is not payable. You talk to a human to get the payments flowing again, assuming that you fall within the extended unemployment benefits guidelines.

If you have a LITTLE money, try http://www.angelfoodministries.com/ for assistance with your eating needs. Also call your towns and churches for information about food pantries.

Best of luck!

H is for Humanity

We are proud of our culture.
We are proud of our Humanity.
We are proud of the way we care for others,
We are proud of our legal system,
And its protection for all.

But where’s the humanity –
In a culture that awards 'support' to eighty percent of its custodial mothers –
- but only thirty percent of its custodial fathers?
In a culture that denies almost forty percent of its fathers any access to their children?
In a culture where almost eighty percent of non-custodial fathers are denied any visitation?
In a culture where two thirds of dads who don’t pay support are unable to –
- but are labeled deadbeats?
- are denied adjustments?
- have their possessions seized?
- have their licenses and passports taken?
- have their unemployment, if they are lucky enough to get it, garnished to 65%?
- are thrown in jail?

Where’s the humanity in a system that claims that
‘unemployment and underemployment are no grounds for a modification in support’?

While The Poverty Studies Institute at the University of Wisconsin’s 1993 study found 52% of fathers who owe child support earn less than $6,155 per year.

Less than six thousand dollars a year.

While our 'humane government' pursues them.
Blackmails their families, and incarcerates them.

Where’s the humanity?

I’m sorry to say it isn’t in the system.
It isn’t in the government,
And it isn’t with the women.

This isn’t humanity. This is slavery.

And it stinks.

-M

U is for Unbelief

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

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

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

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

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

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

My best to you in your struggles!

-M

B is for Biting My Tongue

Just recently spent some serious time amongst the higher reaches of academia, hanging out with people who spend their time reading, writing and discussing various cerebral topics.

My sample wasn't statistical, but the amount of "Women's Studies" and "Feminist xxx" and "Feminist XXX Research" was very impressive.

I only asked once where the "Masculist Studies" group was. Otherwise I bit my tongue. But you know, there was no "Masculist Studies" group. Of course not.

So I decided to take some time and examine the place where this confabulation was being held. Spent some time walking the streets, and saw much of the city. Saw a small town of homeless men, occupying a desolate and cold square next to a highway. The men were moving about, arranging and 'repairing' the rags and ripped tarps that they were using for shelter on the cold, mostly bare ground that they were occupying.

Also saw a shiny multi-story women's shelter with frosted glass on the windows, with a 'homeless' woman out front, obviously a resident, well fed, dressed, sheltered and groomed who begged me for change.

I'd like to see some change, myself.

Thanks to those who have donated,
Thanks to those who have helped,
My Best to All of You In Your Struggles.

B is for Bad News

I sat with a lawyer the other day.

See, a friend of mine, a female friend, refused to believe that things could be the way I say that they are.

That men just can't win in our court system.

That the things that happened to me could be true.

It would be all different, if I just hooked up with a GOOD lawyer.

She knew a couple. She would get me a name, or two.

And she was true to her word. She did exactly that.

The lawyer was even semi-encouraging on the phone:

He thought I probably would want to do a motion for an adjustment, because I had been out of work. He said the judges were becoming more sympathetic.

So I came in and sat with him.

And we started to go over the things that had happened, would happen in court.

The presumption of guilt, the legal fees, the ignoring of perjury, the requirement that the man somehow pay, even when he has nothing.

I went over everything that goes on in court, everything that does go on.

"Right," he said "So It wouldn't make sense for you to file a motion, given your experience."

The lawyer wasn't going to tell me the bad news. I had to tell him. Had to tell him that going to court wasn't worth it, that there was no winning. He would let me blow as much money as I wanted chasing the elusive dark angel of family court justice.

And other bad news. I wanted to know, when a job transition to a lower pay grade would be considered permanent. "A year? Two?" The answer was - "We'll see when you get your next job."

But what if I don't get a next job anytime soon?
"The court really won't look at it until you get your next job."

So if you are out of work, and can't find any work, the bad news is that you can't get any relief, can't even get considered for relief until you get that next job.


And while we are on the subject of 'Next Jobs' and 'Bad News', please look over on the left.

I have added a 'Donate' button. I have big numbers to do to stay in a house this month. I don't know if anyone can spare a dime, but I would appreciate it.

Please give generously.

-Misandrope

M is for MisAnDrope 2006

Notable Quotables from 2006

Note: some of the titles for the quotes are not from MisAnDrope's original post titles...some I took the liberty of taking the quotes out of context to give 'em a more general relvance to the the basic idea he was expressing.

N is for Not-So-Happy New Year
"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?

M is for Ma Jersey (The New Jersey Nanny State)
Ma Jersey never wanted you to succeed as an absentee parent anyway. She just wants you as a deadbeat dad statistic, helping to show that her politicians are beating the bad guys and protecting the poor defenseless wives.

C is for Choice
When NOW argues for abortion rights, they talk about 'choice' and we hear about single mother's decreased standards of living, and loss of educational and work opportunities. But try and raise those same issues with respect to men, all of a sudden the fetus becomes a CHILD, with RIGHTS that must, apparently be enforced against un-consenting MEN.

I is for Injustice
Another bizarre argument is that NOT forcing MEN to support these children, is that society will bear the burden and it is better for a single man to suffer a lot unjustly than for us all to suffer a little through taxation.

I say injustice is injustice, and the court cannot curtail an individual's rights without a showing of fault or responsibility. In this case, a WOMAN has a choice - to be responsible for her child, or not, or not have the child at all. She can drop the child off at a hospital or police station without responsibility in most states. No one asks if she should be working to offset the debt that society will incur raising her child.

But a MAN has no such choice. A woman is NOT responsible. She can choose whatever outcome she desires. A man IS HELD responsible. He has no choice.

C is for Choice
Men have no choice, or one choice: Whatever the woman chooses.

G is for Gynocracy
Many deny the Gynocracy we live in - but the reality is just outside our doors.

If you are reading this during working hours, finish scanning this entry, and then pack it in for 30 minutes. Pack it in, and go to your nearest park. Fresh air will do you good.

Now count.

Count the number of working-age men, and the number of working-age women who have the ability to enjoy the park during the day. I usually come up with one man for every 4-5 women. Sometimes less men.

The long and the short of it is that men have to work.
For women, as with so many things (maternity for instance), it's an option.

Welcome to the Gynocracy.

D is for Decompression
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.

A is for Apology
We live in an interesting world.

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

K is for Keywords
Accountability and responsibility are the keywords here. Women need, first of all, to be held responsible for their actions. And this means supporting THEIR OWN children. If they want a man to help, they have to work to keep him around. If the court system is going to make men (and far too often random men) slaves to women who purportedly had children with them, then they AT LEAST should ensure that the women actually spend the money on necessities for the children. Why not have the men pay into the food-stamp program, and give the women food-stamps to help feed the kids? If we are going to enslave men, it sounds like one way to be sure we aren't rewarding criminal women for their crime. Which is what we do now.

L is for Legal System
So yes, our legal system, and the rights afforded us by our system of government are amazing. Perhaps some day, someone will get around to re-applying those rights to divorced men.


M is for Marriage Strike
The younger generation of men has already wised up. Why else are 40% of all children born out of wedlock, and why else are married people now a minority? The activist courts and legislatures have made marriage a non-starter for men. Hopefully someone will explain it to them in really simple words that they can understand, and do it soon, before we become a nation of bastards.

S is for Second Wives
And while I am celebrating good things, I want to celebrate my current wife, and all second wives. They buy into a world where their privacy is routinely violated, they accept pre-broken families, distraught children, evil ex-wives, and men whose financial contribution is little to naught, supporting us until our ex-wives decide to get on with their lives, which is most often never...

...and effectively supporting the excesses of our ex-wives. Knowing what I know now, I am not sure I would ever blame a woman for deciding not to date a divorcee. We are damaged goods, our entire financial future resting on the whim of an ex-wife in whose interest it is to keep us continuously poor and under their thumb. The legal system affords ex-wives a 'legal', free slave, and free enforcement through probation. So simple, so easy, so legal... - few people can withstand that kind of temptation. And second wives buy into that world, truly, marrying for love.

M is for MisAnDrope 2005

It's been awhile since either MisAnDrope or I have posted on this blog...but I thought the following post of notable quotables MisAnDrope's postings over the past three years would be a good review.

When he first put out a request for contributors, it was my extensive time spent reading his archives that inspired me to answer his call and become a contributor here. So now, I present to you, MisAnDrope's Notable Quotables, 2005:

I is for Initial Post
Some time ago, I separated, and got divorced. I hoped, in spite of the many years I had spent working on my marriage, that some day the fact of my divorce would be a footnote to my life. Unfortunately, the state of New Jersey, and my ex-wife had other plans.


M is for Malevolent
The word malevolent derives from Latin roots meaning 'to wish evil'. The Latin root 'male' (pronounced 'malay'), means 'ill' or 'evil', and 'velle' is a Latin root meaning 'to wish'.

I chose this name for this blog, because I felt that our judicial system and culture currently act across the board against men in a way that must be named what it is; evil. [Stripping over 1/4 of the population (divorced men) of their assets, and forcing them into indentured servitude, perhaps for the rest of their lives, and separating them from their children (the usual outcome of a custody suit in the western world) cannot be considered anything else.]

Malevolent also contains the word 'male' but, much as feminists might assume that our Roman elders knew that 'maleness = evil', in fact the word derives from the Old French masle, which in turn came from the from Latin masculus, a root for the word 'masculine'.

So the word 'malevolent' coincidentally contains both topics that I wish to address in this blog - the Malevolence of the system - and the group that our government and culture is targeting that I am concerned with – Males.

B is for Breasts
And what is with the way some women have of giving the evil eye to those of 'the wrong class' who check them out? -If you dress like a billboard, you can't complain when people stop to read the sign.

S is for Slave-Pits
For me, its time to get back to the slave-pits. (Used to be the coal-mines, before alimony and child support, but now I don't get to keep what I earn.)

S is for Storm Warning
Given that the majority of marriages end in divorce, your spouse IS going to be tempted, and sorry to say, no matter how sweet she seems now, when the storm-clouds of divorce gather over your little family ship, your spouse is going to realize that if she acts quickly, she can have the ship, and the majority of the cargo, and additionally, keep you on as a slave. For her, the sailing can suddenly become smooth, and she can reap significant profits, and eliminate any future financial risk. And that is a huge temptation for any person.

S is for Suicide
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.

R is for Rapist
When is a rapist, not a rapist?

When the assailant is a woman.

{reference to the Debra Lafave case).

Next up: 2006