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

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.

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;

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 Way,
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!


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 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 why not make MIsForMalevolent the first?

Monday, October 15, 2007

V is for Victim

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

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

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

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

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

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

My best to you in your struggles.


Friday, August 31, 2007

F is for Fees

...And Federline....

Kevin, you see, is making news because he is asking Britt to pick up part of his legal fees. This shouldn't be news. Britt makes about 737,868/month. Kevin claims to have no real income besides spousal support. (Yeah, he should get a job, but never mind that.) And our legal system has a long standing tradition of sticking the man with legal fees, and claiming that it's really just about distributing the fees to the person with the money.

In actuality, this is just another way that our misandrous legal system puts yet another finger on the woman's side of the scales, and applies pressure. With women taking time out for kids and wanting to be housewives, men naturally make more. - And what woman is going to settle a case, if she knows that the judge is going to make the man pay her legal fees? And why not bring action after action once the divorce is finally filed? The man's payin! Pony up to the bar!

Well, now the justice system is in a bind. Sure K-Fed is kind of a tick, et cetera, but we are in a brave new no-fault world here. Doesn't matter. Britt makes the money, and if Justice lives down to its own misguided standards, she should pay. It might even happen, with so many eyes on this one.

But it shouldn't.

My best to you in your struggles,

Monday, August 06, 2007

E is for Effect, as in ‘Cause And’

Traditionally Men work longer hours than women, at hard dangerous jobs, with less leave, in order to:

* win improved lifestyle
* win improved choice in mates
* win ability to have offspring
* win improved outcomes for offspring
* win comfortable retirement
* win ability to leave legacy to offspring

But today’s misandrist legal/social systems take away:

* Lifestyle – if you even date a woman, she can claim you said you would support her, and she gets a significant portion of your income for an indefinite amount of time.
* Mates – lacking assets or disposable income post legal action, men have reduced choice in mates.
* Offspring – legal action awards children to ex-wives/partners leaving men without children, and as children are used as weapons against men, with reduced desire to have more children, not to mention with reduced financial resources to rear children. They simply cannot afford them.
* Offspring Positive Outcomes – It has been very well documented that children from broken families do less well, especially in homes lacking a father. Funds transferred to the woman via the legal system are often spent for her comfort, and not for the care of the children.
* Comfortable Retirement – Retirement assets are subject to marital division, and can also be raided to create the funds demanded for the woman by the legal system. And as the man’s income is likely severely impacted by divorce/palimony, it is much harder post-legal action, for him to save for retirement. He is lucky if he can just get by.
* Legacy – As the man’s assets are pillaged in divorce, along with his retirement savings, and his future income, it is very unlikely that he will be able to leave any sort of legacy to the children who likely have been forcibly separated from him.

So, the benefits of the male work ethic of the 19th and 20th century have been eroded so as to make them almost nonexistent, especially when you tack on a significant tax rate.

I think that the impacts of this are many-sided, and far reaching, including:

Male-Female Relations:

* As the man has become not just disposable, but a cash-cow to women, men will be less interested in relationships, and so women must try harder to lure men with increasingly sexualized behavior, dress and body modifications (such as breast enlargement).
* Some women will use money as an incentive to men to enter into relationships with them – advertising that they don’t need the man’s money and he can feel safe. And how to advertise? Expensive clothing and jewelry.
* Meanwhile as relationships with women are hazardous, men are more likely to engage in anonymous or pseudonymous one-night-stands or brief affairs, where women are brought, not home, but to a hotel.
* Women having become ‘the enemy’, men are much less likely to include women in their social groups or outings, instead seeking company that they can relax, and be safe and stress-free with.

All these reactions to the elevation of women above men in the legal system tend to increase the objectification of women, and increase division between the sexes. A women’s movement that started out claiming it wanted equality and moved to superiority is now driving men and women back into behaviors that they claimed to abhor.


* Men are much, much less likely to seek high-power jobs, or take on ambitious projects, knowing that they can get trapped in a very high-stress job, with all the income going to an ex-spouse or partner.
* Men are more likely to leave for countries that will not enslave them. (And as we know, many do and have.)
* Men are more likely to opt-out of the above-ground economy, working under the table or for cash jobs that are hard to attach to.
* Men may begin hiding their friends, and their friend’s assets from abusive spouses and girlfriends, and from the police that are sent to enforce unfair judgments.
* Young men raised in households without fathers are even less likely to pick up a strong male work-ethic, and instead are likely to live on the margins of society.

The economic reactions to the elevation of women above men in the legal system injure our economy, with workers choosing underemployment, black-market employment, or leaving the country entirely to take their labor elsewhere.

Both of these sets of reactions seem potentially to be things that can feed back upon themselves, with women needing to become more and more ‘sexy’ to get noticed, and men who do work to their full advantage within the legal/economic system being disadvantaged, compared to those working on the black market, or scraping by 'on the dole' rather than having it all taken away anyway.

And is this a picture of our culture today? Increasing sexualization of women, with men becoming more and more shiftless, as the economics of marriage and even mid-term relationships make it impossible to hang onto your freedom, your income, and your assets? With highly motivated men living double lives - one life for the aquisition of money and power, and another life of anonymity, to protect what is gathered? Is this the country we want?

It certainly looks like where we may be going.

Thursday, July 12, 2007

C is for Change

JADF writes a good post about how we blunder through our lives post-divorce, and notes:

These fathers' rights blogs seem to come and go. I myself find that I have periods where I just can't seem to write anything. Nothing has changed, and that's not much of a blog post "nothing has changed". Other parts of life roll along, as they ever do, and mere existence becomes the distraction. This too, is how fathers end up "losing touch". It doesn't matter how hard they fight, or don't fight. Nothing changes, so they sleepwalk into another life and out of their children's.
Sleepwalking, indeed, is the only thing to keep one going, after a while. Being awake, after all, just means knowing what is going on, knowing what has happened and hurting over not being able to do anything. Better to sleep...

And that has been where I have been, and how. Life is busy, and with both my own living to finance, and that of the insatiable bloodsucker that is my ex-wife, the burden requires quite a bit of attention. Regular blogging requires a significant investment of time and energy, and eventually, even witha relatively complex topic like divorce and men's rights, there isn't much new to say. The system grinds on like it does, men continue to get destroyed, and the greater world seems not to notice at best, or deny and lie at worst.

With that said, I think it is, still, a worthy topic, and whereas I may not spend as much time raging against the machine, I hope to continue with this blog, contributing a little bit to awareness of the status of men in our civilzation each month, and perhaps, as I get chances to do so, editing and re-issuing some of my old posts or creating derivative posts.

With that said, I have also noted the passage of time, and several blogs that I once linked to have gone silent.

So I have emplaced a new template, and built a new list of links. I hope you all like the new look.

My best to all of you in your struggles!


Monday, July 02, 2007

O is for Opportunity

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, June 11, 2007

M is for Monday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Tuesday, June 05, 2007

C is for Contemplative

The legal system we enjoy is amazing. Just contemplating a purchase with a girlfriend in NJ can leave you on the hook for 1.1 Million, and it's not just millionaires who can be robbed for the sake of a woman's 'desired lifestyle'.

I was recently in court watching a regular Joe being taken to the cleaners, and one of the apparently legitimate arguments was that, although the ex-wife's income had hugely increased since the divorce, she had 'contemplated' having alimony from the man, and should not be deprived of that simply because her income had increased.

No words were spoken as to the man's contemplations of a life that was not a form of slavery.

Contemplation is apparently more important than actually earning the money in the first place.

Welcome to NJ


Monday, June 04, 2007

B is for Blackmail

I have repeatedly commented how divorce law amounts to blackmail, with a man's wellbeing, assets, freedom, ability to travel, and even children being held up to squeeze out money with the cheerful cooperation of the New Jersey court system.

Well at least the law -or lack of anything resembling real law- applies to all men, regardless of power, as Jon Corzine recently found out, being forced to knuckle under to divorce-court palimony of $ 6 Million to his girlfriend of 18-months;
Carla Katz. Poor Corzine ended up not only forking over for his golddigger, he also ended up paying for a trust to pay for Ms. Katz’s two children (12 and 15 years old) to attend college, and a 2005 Volvo sport utility vehicle that cost about $30,000. Oh, and he also bought Ms. Katz's half of her ex-husband's home for her for $470,000. (Apparently they discussed buying and rennovating the place together.) Oh, and she also gets a lump sum of cash to buy a $1.1 million condominium.

There certainly isn't a moral to this stlory, but if there was, it would be for every well-heeled man to leave New Jersey, and the USA, too.