Monday, December 22, 2008

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.


Thursday, October 23, 2008

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.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

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

Thursday, September 11, 2008

A is for Alienation

By now most people have heard about the Parental Alienation saga between Alec Baldwin and his Ex-Wife, Kim Basinger.

The New Yorker recently did a profile piece on Alec Baldwin that included a few paragraphs regarding his views on He and Basinger's divorce and her campaign to alienate their daughter from him. Baldwin offers some particularly good insight on the topic:

In 2002, after a period of improvised custody-sharing, Basinger and Baldwin entered litigation—Basinger now equipped with a lawyer whose name evokes, in Baldwin, a desire to find an insult that outperforms all earlier insults he has thrown at the man. In various venues and, eventually, in open court, the parties argued about Baldwin’s access to his daughter. Baldwin has many complaints about the family-law system, and some record of this is in “A Promise to Ourselves,” his forthcoming book, but his primary focus is what he regards as a simple injustice: he hoped to have a reasonable share of his daughter’s time, and his ex-wife and her representatives were able to thwart him, in various ways, for years, in part by reference to behavior traits—or failings—that had not disbarred him from fatherhood when he was married. (So, for example, in 2002 Baldwin agreed to attend a course of twelve anger-management sessions. At the time, he was shooting “Second Nature,” in London. He remembers standing on the street after the last session “and just sobbing that they had put this enormous obstacle in my way and I had succeeded.”) When I asked Baldwin if he could have made the process smoother or quicker, he bristled: “That’s where the thing gets twisted around to where the persistence of the father to want to have enforcement of his parental rights is viewed as abusive and aggressive—pathological behavior. ‘All of our problems would go away if you would just back off. Why can’t you just back off? You’ll see the kid when I tell you that you can see the kid.’ ”

Some mental-health professionals employ the term Parental Alienation Syndrome to describe a condition in children damaged by one parent’s propaganda about the other. (It’s not formally recognized as a psychiatric disorder.) But “parental alienation” is also used in a looser, less clinical way—as Baldwin uses it—to refer to the mere daily flow of parental undermining. “Parental alienation is about people who narcissistically project their whole reality onto a child: ‘I don’t need you, so the child doesn’t need you,’ ” he said. “And what you ultimately realize is the clock that they’ve been running out is childhood itself. The kid goes from five to six to eight. Kids have school, they have friends; the next thing—my daughter is twelve. They have no use for either of their parents when they’re twelve. And you’ve missed everything. You’ve gotten only these little time-lapse things. The goal of the alienating parent is to kill contiguous time. People need reliability. They need regularity. And I’ve been a victim of a campaign to kill all that. You wind up being more an uncle than a father.” Sometimes, in order to have lunch with Ireland, Baldwin flew to California in the morning and flew back overnight, to be at a rehearsal the next day.

Baldwin did keep working after the breakup...

...But he says that he was distracted, in his professional life, by the struggle over his daughter. “Think I’m walking stiffly?” Baldwin asked me not long ago. “Yeah, there’s a hundred-and-twenty-pound actress on my back.”

“I used to be so upset,” he said. “I used to be consumed. It ate me alive.”

The high profile nature of this case offers us excellent insight into the family court system.

In short, the very nature of a man and a father, wanting desperately to spend time with his own children, is used against him as "proof" that he is "controlling" and "abusive."

I've never been a Baldwin fan, and his highly partisan, Pro-Democrat slant and outspoken take on political issues prior to his divorce saga have not endeared him to many folks. But I am curious to see if he somehow manages to make the connection between the severe injustice he's suffered at the hands of the very divorce laws that are part and parcel to the Democrat agenda.

Wonder if he ever connects Joe Biden and his anti-male/anti-father/anti-family legislation with the type of injustice he himself has been subjected to by an unscrupulous woman using all of the resources created by such legislation in the first place?

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

M is for Men, and Millionaires

Saw a news item from The Star Ledger at NJ.Com, and just immediately, immediately felt the hot breath of institutionalized misandry... ... Let's start with the title:

Judge dismisses millionaire's suit against his former wife

Now, in the case in question, we have a severely alienating former wife (how severe? try claiming to your kids that your ex has hired a hit-man to kill you), who has traveled across state and country lines to hide herself and his children in a friendly venue.

What venue did she choose? Three guesses, and the first two don't count:

New Jersey.
New Jersey.

and the one that counts:

New Jersey.

But what is the headline? It is about this RETIREE man's 'millions', not about the kidnapper's flight across borders, her lies, or her choice of venue.

Hello! First of all - it is misandrous to look at a case of kidnapping and alienation, and make the title about the supposedly deep pockets of one of the parties. If the woman had millions (and if we look at the settlement, it seems she does) we wouldn't be mentioning those in the title (and we don't).

Second of all - it is misandrous to look at a retiree, and call him a millionaire. If I were at retirement age, and had a house to my name and the assets necessary to keep me in some form of comfort for the rest of my life (kind of the definition of 'retirement') I would be... ...A MILLIONAIRE... (oooh-aaaah). Houses here in NJ, and also in many parts of Canada easily go for half a million, and that is just for your generic, middle-of-the-road house. So there is half your mil there. Now just look at what our putative millionaire needs to make it through the rest of his life. Imagine he lives 10 years. 50K x 10 years = another half million. And that isn't a rich lifestyle, or even allowing for inflation. And would they be mentioning these 'millions' if we were talking about a woman? No, we'd be talking about the man who stole his children and fled across state and international borders.

Third of all, it is particularly misandrous to look at a man in court, and particularly pick up on his net worth. Men go to work, they earn money. It's what they do. You might as well make a big deal about a seagull flying, or a mole burrowing. But apparently men with money, men earning money, men working to earn money, and men trying to keep the money they earned are all wrong/evil, and so that becomes the headline, not the Canadian kidnapper with the 11-odd million in Canadian Dollars who fled to the US/New Jersey.

The article gives us some background, so the writer (Margaret McHugh) did her homework, thank you very much, and perhaps we can blame the editor for the misandrous title.

But the article also reminds us of how much we have lost:

"New Jersey law simply does not allow recovery for the causes of action Segal asserts," [judge] Rand wrote, citing the 1935 Heart Balm Act that abolished causes of action for alienation of affection.

Nowadays, a man can be divorced without cause, and without recourse, and becomes subject to the theft of his children, half his assets or more, his future income, plus (of course) child support, and he cannot, under any circumstances, raise the behaviors/actions of his ex-wife in court and hope to win compensation.

The bias fairly drips from Judge Rand's pen:

Even if the Heart Balm Act didn't govern, Rand wrote he would have thrown out Segal's civil case anyhow because Segal failed to show Lynch's actions rose to the level of intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress.

"If Segal has become emotionally estranged from E.S. and W.S., it is, to a large degree, the result of his own actions and not because Lynch 'intentionally and maliciously' poisoned their relationship," Rand wrote in the 29-page decision.


Rand criticized Segal for continuing "to file highly-publicized, vindictive and baseless lawsuits against the children's mother."

Let's see - claiming to your children that their own father hired a hit man to kill you? Running across state and national boundaries to hide so that a private investigator must be paid to even find you and the children you abducted? Nope, no reason to assume anyone was harmed there. No basis, no basis at all.

And part of the article is about how the husband filed the suit in an unusual court - but no wonder:

Last month, Family Court Judge Thomas Weisenbeck dismissed Segal's attempt to cut her spousal support, saying Segal made the same unsuccessful arguments in Canadian courts, and he ordered him to pay her $7,000 legal tab.

The husband already has seen what FAMILY courts in NJ do at some length. You go to court, and pay the wife's tab AND yours, so you can lose.

Finally, way, way down in the article we see:

In 2005, a Canadian court awarded Lynch $11.1 million (estimated at $10.3 million in U.S. dollars) in spousal and child support. She received two properties that Segal contends grew in value and are worth far more than her award.

Interesting. We call the husband a 'millionaire' in the title of the article, but did we bother to look at the (stolen) net worth of the wife?

Finally, it might be worth noting that Segal never married Lynch.

That's right.

She stole his children, and 11.1 Million Canadian Dollars, plus legal fees, all for being a 'Common Law Wife'. Segal lived with Lynch for five years in Toronto.

That's right: five years of 'unmarried life' = 11.1 Million Canadian Dollars, plus the right to steal your children.

And here is what far too many men try to deny - not marrying your partner does not protect you from anythnig. The state has made any kind of long, middle, and even short term relationship with a woman a very dangerous proposition for men.

No wonder the marriage rate is in the can, and older women might as well try and piss up a rope as try and get hitched. No man with an ounce of fiscal sense is likely to gamble that this wife might not change her mind on a whim, and turn his 'golden years' into years of slavery, while stealing his kids.

And a big shout out of 'Congrats' to New Jersey for being the international venue of choice for alienating moms.

Well Done, Well Done Slytherin, I mean, New Jersey!

My best to you in your struggles.


Wednesday, July 16, 2008

J is for Juxtaposition

Two things happened recently that are interesting in their juxtaposition;

The first thing was that someone sent me a note with various links pointing out how many women advertising in the singles markets specify that they do not want divorced men, and especially not divorced men who have had kids.

Do you get that? While enjoying the vast powers that the western world lavishes upon women – in this case the right to pauperize and enslave men while simultaneously stripping them of their children – they are not willing to take on men who have become the victims of this power.

They only want the richest fruit, the fresh spoils, oil from the first squeezing – the extra-virgin man, still full of assets, income and energy.

Not for them the men who have been already plundered by women just like themselves.
Did someone protest? Did someone say that I don’t know that these women, who don’t want to date divorced men, are plunderers?

If they are not plunderers, not hoping to find themselves as slave-owners, why are they insisting only on the rich spoils? If they really want a nice man, why insist that he never have been stripped? Clearly, the assets are what they are asking for. And if they are not abusers, not oppressors, where are their voices speaking out against the enslavement of men?

No, every day they step over the unshaved, divorced man who sleeps by their door, who has no place to live because he has been stripped of all his assets, and can no longer work profitably because the government takes the majority of his income. They walk past the single father who is desperately trying to connect with his child on his once-every-two-weeks visitation. They ignore the quiet divorced man in the office, whose shabby suit and threadbare ties reflect the meager subsistence that the courts allow him. They are on the prowl for fresh meat.

Fresh meat! It’s out there!

And they complain that there are no available men – but what they mean is that there are no rich merchant ships to plunder, no fat gazelles nearby to eviscerate. No, these women are plunderers. They might hide behind religion, or family, or concerns about how difficult life might be when you have to balance budgets, and worry about step-children, but the fact is that they are the predators, who stand silently while men are pillaged by others of their clan, while always thirsting for blood, always sniffing the air for the scent of prey, always hunting, hunting, hunting for the next ripe victim.

Of course, as in all ecosystems, there is escalation of tactics on the side of the prey-animal too, and this is where the second thing in my ‘juxtaposition’ comes in:

I also, just recently ran into a small network of my male school chums that I had fallen out of touch with. These people are today pillars of their communities – businessmen, teachers, peace officers… And not one of them has ever been married. One considered it briefly. I raised the issue with them – but they couldn’t really say why they never married when they were young – they saw the girls going out with the bad-boys, and not them. And today, well, today they are looking at their nest-eggs, and looking forward to their retirement, and planning to travel the world, and do some of the other things that they always wanted to do.

They are NOT looking for long-term relationships. They see that as a quick way to find themselves chained to a treadmill until they die – even in ‘successful’ marriages. So here they are, a small group of very happy, attractive, successful men, all looking forward to their retirement, and not willing to get entangled with someone who can at a whim strip them of everything that they have worked for, and their prospects for an enjoyable retirement.

The prey animals have discovered where the predators are lying in wait – in the traditional breeding grounds of the species - marriage. So, naturally, they are avoiding those areas. Instead they go for brief, anonymous relationships, and the institution of marriage dies a slow and horrible death.

And there is your juxtaposition – on the one hand, women insisting on men who have never been married, and on the other, men, wisely insisting that they will never marry.

My best to you in your struggles!

Monday, June 30, 2008

W is for What’s in a Name?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome to the Gynocracy


Tuesday, June 10, 2008

M is for Myths & Misconceptions

Stephen Baskerville's most recent newsletter contains an excellent breakdown of 5 myths and misconceptions regarding "No-Fault" Divorce.

The following is a synopsis of each myth and misconception Baskerville lists and the facts.

You can read about the details behind each fact Baskerville cites in the article found here: Five Myths about No-Fault Divorce

Here are some of the most common clichés and misconceptions about modern divorce, along with the facts.

Myth 1: No-fault divorce permitted divorce by mutual consent, thus making divorce less acrimonious.

Fact: No-fault divorce is unilateral divorce. It permits divorce by one spouse acting alone for any reason or no reason.

Myth 2: We cannot force people to remain married and should not try.

Fact: It is not a matter of forcing anyone to remain married. The issue is taking responsibility for one's actions in abrogating an agreement.

Myth 3: No-fault divorce has led men to abandon their wives and children.

Fact: This does happen (wives more often than children), but it is greatly exaggerated. The vast majority of no-fault divorces -- especially those involving children -- are filed by wives.

Myth 4: When couples cannot agree or cooperate about matters like how the children should be raised, a judge must decide according to "the best interest of the child."

Fact: It is not the business of government officials to supervise the raising of other people's children.

Myth 5:
Divorce must be made easy because of domestic violence.

Fact: Actual physical violence is legitimate grounds for divorce and always has been. So it does not justify dispensing with all standards of justice, which is what no-fault entails.

No-fault divorce has exacerbated the divorce epidemic on almost every count. We urgently need an extensive public debate on divorce and the connected issues of child custody, domestic violence, child abuse, and child support -- precisely the debate that the divorce industry has suppressed for four decades.

Thursday, May 29, 2008

F is for Fanaticism

One of the best articles that speaks out against the lie that is Feminism I've ever is the absolute rejection of the feminist ideology by a daughter of the famous and influential feminist, Alice Walker.

How my mother's fanatical views tore us apart

by Rebecca Walker

The truth is that I very nearly missed out on becoming a mother - thanks to being brought up by a rabid feminist who thought motherhood was about the worst thing that could happen to a woman.

You see, my mum taught me that children enslave women. I grew up believing that children are millstones around your neck, and the idea that motherhood can make you blissfully happy is a complete fairytale.

Family love? A young Rebecca with her parents

In fact, having a child has been the most rewarding experience of my life. Far from 'enslaving' me, three-and-a-half-year-old Tenzin has opened my world. My only regret is that I discovered the joys of motherhood so late - I have been trying for a second child for two years, but so far with no luck.

I was raised to believe that women need men like a fish needs a bicycle. But I strongly feel children need two parents and the thought of raising Tenzin without my partner, Glen, 52, would be terrifying.

As the child of divorced parents, I know only too well the painful consequences of being brought up in those circumstances. Feminism has much to answer for denigrating men and encouraging women to seek independence whatever the cost to their families.

That's about as damning an indictment you can get...a leading feminist icon, who indoctrinated her daughter from birth in her fanatical ideology, and was ultimately rejected when her daughter saw through the lies and discovered the truth.

Read the whole thing.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

A is for Angry Dad

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!

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:


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 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.


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:

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:


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:

* 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.

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:

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.



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.


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
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!'


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!