T is for Threats to the System

Recently, I was forced by circumstances to seek employment in another field.

The world has changed, and I have not been able to find employ in my prior field for some time. There were jobs in the new field, and few takers. All I had to do was take some training, and jump some educational and testing hurdles.

Being paranoid, I searched the internet for any evidence that my status as a ‘deadbeat dad’ would be held against me. Nothing. All systems go. So, I set to it. I would be able to earn real money again, make a difference in my children’s lives and my life in a financial way, rather than being a load on the system.

This was great.

I won scholarships and grants to help with my retooling, and just as I was about to start the educational part of my program, a letter from the state licensing board arrived – it was a long bureaucratic checklist letter, and way at the bottom was written in an additional item, which had a check next to it: words to the effect that ‘men with arrears are not eligible for licensing in this field’.

So I called and wrote and spoke to these folks. Sure, the law gives them the right to withhold my license, I said; but I am trying to work – this will enable me to pay! Unless someone is complaining, why would they withhold this license?

True, they said, they need a complainant. But how that works (they candidly told me) was if they found that someone was in arrears, they would send a letter to the local employer, and ask that they initiate a complaint.

Got that? They would solicit, would GENERATE the complaint. Think any employer is going to ignore a request like that from the state licensing board that holds all their licenses in their hands?

You would think it sounds insane, but you would be forgetting two things – one, that there are a lot of folks who earn money pursuing deadbeat dads – seizing their accounts, garnishing their wages, serving as their ‘collections/probation officer’, suing them, serving as judges in the slave courts, - and there is a lot of incentive in terms of grants and matching funds from the federal government for doing all this. It’s a whole industry.

And the men involved, well, they are the disposable pawns, the workers, the slaves in the system that make all of this possible.

If one were to find a way out, others would follow.

To quote words that E.W. Jackson Sr. wrote in a recent and unrelated article: “When a slave escaped from the plantation, it wasn't merely a case of one slave being a problem. That slave became a threat to the institution of slavery and to the master's way of life.”

It is necessary to keep us in, to keep the empire running. Not one slave must be allowed to escape.

Let this be a warning to men everywhere. The entrée to this empire of slavery is marriage. The exit is death.

This is why almost 15,000 men kill themselves each year to escape it.

This is why if a man commits suicide, the odds are he is a divorced man. Because for the oppressed slaves in a slave state, the only escape allowed is death.

My Best To You In Your Struggles

-M

R is for Return

...or maybe 'republish'.

I'm going to restore my posts, which were moved back into 'draft' status because I was worried that they would show up in court. I won't do them all at once (there's a bunch), but I have done a bunch today, and will do more on subsequent days.

What's going on with me? Probably I shouldn't say, because folks are already guessing who the author of this website is. Suffice it to say things are worse than they ever were.

I am a non-citizen, really.

Property rights? What's that?

The biggest riot is that back when I was earning, my ex complained that sometimes she 'had' to shop at a department store she felt was below her (and we aren't talking Value Village here), and that got her an increase which I had to pay, along with the legal fees.

Today, I can't afford hot-dogs, let alone health insurance, housing, hair-gel, and other things that start with 'H'.

But adjustments aren't for me, no, no, no.

See, there's something different about me.

I'm not the woman.

My Best To You In Your Struggles

-M

F is for Finger

Another video to amuse.

G is for Getting Married?

Getting Married?

Thinking about it?

If so, you should take a moment to read this post.

Did you know that better than 60% of marriages end in divorce?

Did you know that women file the vast majority of those divorces?

Did you know that in the vast majority of divorces, women get your children, and you get to visit them on occasion if you are lucky - and women get better than half the assets, and women usually get the house to live in until things get divided, and women generally get support of some sort?

Ok, with that in mind.... ...look at the picture below.

This is an UNEMPLOYMENT PAYMENT CONFIRMATION. This one is for a top earner, who is getting the maximum unemployment possible. He's been out of work for almost 2 years. Take a moment to review it. I'll wait....

Ok, notice anything funny about it?

-Like how the gross is over %1,000 for two weeks, but the actual amount of the check is $280?

Where the heck did all that money go?

Well, see - right there - most of it went to 'Garnishment'. This man, who has his kids, who is out of work for years, loses 65% of his unemployment to his ex-wife.

Want to know what her gross income is?

Would it suprise you to know that she brings home over $100,000?

You may say: Oh, he just needs to go back to court to get that thing adjusted.

Yeah.

Would it suprise you to learn that he had been back to court?

That in fact, his ex-wife SUED him for a 'violation' of her rights - because he wasn't paying the full amount of her 'support'?

Would it suprise you that not only did the court not reduce his payments, but that it increased them?

Well, if any of this suprises you, you just plain don't know how the game is played here in good sweet ol' New Jersey.

So, I ask again...

Are You SURE You're Getting Married?


My Best To You In Your Struggles

-M

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

D is for Die (Like a Man)

Today’s statistical foray is into the field of 'Survivorship'. One key way that we measure the relative treatment and condition of the different races is by their relative survivorship over time – how quickly they die off as opposed to the average, and as compared to other races. Black men, for instance, are about 1/3rd less likely to make it to age 80 than white men, and that indicates to us that black men are doing about 33% less well in our society than white men.

And the same logic reasonably applies to the differential in survival rates between men and women – a black male is 50% less likely than a white woman to make it to age 80, and about 35% less likely than a black woman to achieve that age.

And it isn’t about race as much as it is about sex. Life expectancy at birth for black women has uniformly exceeded that of both white men and black men since at least the 1970s. More than your race, your sex determines when you will die.

And the problem doesn’t start at the end of life, or even at age 80. Somehow disparities in being able to care for and raise males start in the very beginning of life. Already at age one, per the survival tables, we have 240 less males per 100,000 than we do white women. Apparently there is something it about white girl babies that their odds of living are just higher. Like, maybe we take care of them better. Oh you may say “That’s just boy babies – they die more.” But if they do, shouldn’t we do something about it? And can you imagine saying something like that about girl babies? 240 out of 100,000 may not seem like a lot, but extrapolate that out to our current population of about 300,000,000, and you find that almost 400,000 of today’s potential males are missing because they died in their first year – males that perhaps could have still been around if we could take care of them as good as we do white girl-babies.

And by the time we get to the 20 year-olds, that number has almost doubled – with about 720,000 missing young men, men who might be around if we socialized and cared for our males the way we do women. But there’s more. Now we are getting into the work, marriage and divorce years. Men are getting married and then divorced, most often not by choice, and find themselves destitute, emasculated, enslaved and financially destroyed, and are also taking jobs that put their lives and health at risk - and the numbers start shooting up. By the time US men hit 45, more than 2.7 milion of them are missing. Dead. 2.7 million men in their mid 40s are dead who would be alive today if we could just do as good a job keeping them alive as we do women.

And it keeps on going up. Without going into detailed age distributions, it can be estimated that over 10 million men have died who might still be around today at age 80 – if only we could have taken as good care of them as we do women.

But instead we hear about ‘breast cancer’ and ‘ovarian cancer’ and ‘women’s heart disease’ and all manner of women’s ailments, and even more tellingly, our media is full of stories about women feeling ‘unfulfilled’ and ‘unhappy’ with their roles in life, and taking weeks and months off to renew themselves.

Few and far between are the organizations raising awareness for men’s concerns – suicide, men’s heart disease, prostate cancer, testicular cancer, penile cancer, male breast cancer, workplace hazards and the like. Where are the stories in the media about men taking months off to renew themselves after half a life of wage slavery? There aren’t many, and you won’t find Oprah, Oxygen or HGTV financing a men’s month off to get rejuvenated either. You gotta earn the money and go do it yourself.

So in case you haven’t figured it out yet, it’s a woman’s world.

Welcome to the Gynocracy



My Best To You In Your Struggles

-M

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



(Data used for calculations in this article is from the CDC’s December 2007 National Vital Statistics Report, Vol 56, No 5 United States Life Tables, 2004 by Elizabeth Arias, PHD, and also from the historical statistical abstracts of census data maintained by the US Census Bureau)

E is for The Economic Lull

I can't imagine why divorce would drop off in bad times.

I mean, if the problem is the evil, cheating man, then the solution is divorce, no? Bearing in mind that the majority (about 70%) of divorces are filed by women, then certainly, if the problems are violence, masculine stubbornness, male ignorance, and the like, and given a divorce system that makes men pay their partner's legal fees, divorce rates should stay the same.

Unless, of course, it isn't about anything but the freaking money.

I've said it before - it's a storm of the spirit - a moral storm, and unfortunately it appears that the majority of women lack a moral compass, and so therefore their partners, the men, are at great risk.




My Best To You In Your Struggles

-M

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

G is for Game

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Best To You In Your Struggles

-M

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

M is for Missed Anniversary

So here we are in the fall of 2009.

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

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

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

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

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

I missed the anniversary of this blog.

Sorry blog.

Happy Belated Anniversary.

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

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

My Best To You In Your Struggles

-M

P is for Purple Heart

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

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

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

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



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

My Best To You In Your Struggles

-M

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

H is for Hmmmm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Best To You In Your Struggles.

-M

Another look at this story - Stockholm Syndrome/PAS

UPDATES:

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

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

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

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

That's why I care.

Update on Jaycee's biological dad from the comments:

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

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

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

My Best To You In Your Struggles

-M

H is for Humanity

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

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

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

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

Less than six thousand dollars a year.

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

Where’s the humanity?

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

This isn’t humanity. This is slavery.

And it stinks.

-M

B is for Bad News

I sat with a lawyer the other day.

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

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

That the things that happened to me could be true.

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

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

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

The lawyer was even semi-encouraging on the phone:

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

So I came in and sat with him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Please give generously.

-Misandrope

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!
-M

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

-M

M is for 'Marriage Strike'

Met a nice, attractive middle-aged man the other day, and noticed he was single, and started chatting with him about his life.

I was foolishly thinking that he might be a good match for one of my single female friends, but here is what I discovered as I spoke to him:

He woke up one day and discovered his wife missing along with his son.

Later he discovered she had pulled up stakes and zapped off to a very distant southern state to marry someone she had met via email and had been corresponding with.

He wanted his son back, and consulted several lawyers, who told him he didn't have a chance of recovering his son.

Eventually, a divorce was finalized with him paying child support, and seeing his son each summer for a short while. Of course, his ex got half of his asset base. (No-Fault Divorce, remember?)

This was a good number of years ago. The man was so self-effacing, he wouldn't even say anything against his ex to this day. But what he did say spoke volumes.

He said he wanted his son back.

And he said he could not imagine ever marrying another woman.

He hadn't heard of the marriage strike. Wasn't a Men's Rights Activist.

He was a 'nice guy', who is no longer in the market for a wife, because of what the system did to him, and allowed to be done to him. No doubt his son will think three times before marrying too, as will his best friend who was with him, and anyone who talks to him and hears his story. And this is another way that the marriage strike expands. - Not through websites like mine spreading the bad news, but through the actual bad news happening to people, and that news percolating through society. And another man, and his son, and his friends drop out of the marriage market, just like that. Without a big fuss, or a lot of noise - they are just gone - no longer part of the marital economy of men-as-slaves.

But don't worry, girls. You probably can still get married, it will probably just have to be someone who earns significanty less than you, and has no assets to risk. That should be a 'love'ly solution to your problems, unless it wasn't really LOVE that you were looking for in the first place.

Oh, and how about we start treating women who disappear with men's children like the kidnappers that they are?


My Best To You In Your Struggles:

-M

W is for WRITE!

Please write a letter to the Michigan Parole Board

Michigan Parole Board
C/O Executive Secretary
PO Box 30003
Lansing, MI 48909

Copy to:

William J. Hetherington #186155
Boyer Road Carson City Correctional Facilities
PO Box 5000
Carson City, MI 48811-5000.

Why?

Lots of reasons here at TMOTS but for my money these:

William was convicted of raping his wife, who brought these accusations simultaneously with seeking custody of their children (nothing fishy there) and sentenced to 15-30 years, when Michigan state law specifies 1-10 years. He is seeking parole, but the parole board refuses on the grounds that he will not confess that he actually committed the rape. Key points from TMOTS's post:

• 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.

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.
-M

MBTYIYS:
-M

M is for Murder

Recently a poor woman was murdered, beaten to death in the Hopatcong area.

The news helpfully tells us she is divorced for some time, with teenaged sons, and was in just a couple days about to use the courts to seek full custody - to cut the boys off from their father, while seeking more support.

We read between the lines that of course the ex-husband is a primary suspect.

Which makes perfect sense.

When you take away all rights from a man, turn him into a slave, and make him pay for all your legal assaults on him, while laying the burden of proof on him, and try to take away his children, rage and violence are actually reasonable.

And this is what is troubling me again today.

At what point is it appropriate for the slave to revolt? Does his life have to be at risk? Or is a life (or twenty years) of unrelenting subjugation worth killing to escape? How about ten years?

Ma Jersey herself gives us a hint: if you murder someone in a crime of passion, and are truly regretful, and well behaved in jail, you can be back out on the streets in as little as five years.

So Ma Jersey is telling us that we should kill our wives when they win unreasonably onerous judgements against us that will lock us into slavery for significantly more than five years.

But beating her to death? Surely that is over the top? Again, Ma Jersey steps in to help us out with the question. If you bought a gun, and ammo, and loaded the gun, and brought it to where your ex wife was, and pulled the gun, and shot her... ...that would show a lot of premeditation. If you instead showed up at the home you bought with the money that you earned and that she owns now, and bludgeoned her to death with one of her mahogany chairs, or one of her equestrian trophies, or one of her designer golf clubs, or crushed her under her antique china cabinet, that's a crime of passion. Premeditated murder can get you life as a man. (As a woman, premeditated murder of your ex can get you free therapy.) Crimes of passion are more forgivable, per Ma Jersey.

Sigh.

I FEEL like ending this post here, saying that I won't address the MORAL aspects of the situation until Ma Jersey addresses the moral aspects of reducing divorced men to slaves... ...but that itself would be immoral.

Folks, even though Ma Jersey seems to find some balance between a ten year alimony/support sentance and a crime-of-passion murder, it isn't O.K. to kill your ex-wife. Morally, the slave should not kill the master unless his mortal life is at risk. Instead, your duty, if you cannot or will not bear the slavery, is to run away. Escape it somehow.

Yes, you may be relegated to a much more limited life, in a foreign or remote region, but that is the trade-off. You are a legal slave in the US. The state will be 100% against you, and 100% for her. If you stay here, she can take the majority of your earnings and all your assets. So you can earn nothing and own nothing, live at risk of having everything taken, live as a slave, or leave the country. Morally, murdering her for just stealing from you and enslaving you is wrong.

You f*ked up, and let yourself become a breadwinner for a parasite.

A parasite with legal rights, and a soul, whose life you are morally and legally forbidden to end.

It needs to be said again and again;
Don't live with women
Don't earn more than your woman
Don't marry women

Because sooner or later, they will become bored with you, tired of you, annoyed with you, and realize that they can have all the financial benefits of being married to you, and most of your assets, without having to put up with you, yourself. -by casting you into legal slavery.

And that's a tempatation that most women cannot resist, *and the most likely outcome of marriage* - an outcome men don't have the legal right to resist.

Don't live with women
Don't earn more than your woman
Don't marry women

Unless, of course, being a slave is something you have always aspired to.

MBTYIYS:
M

S is for "Should Men Get Married?"

Dr Helen opined some time ago on 'should men get married?', and the outlook isn't cheerful, as I have noted in this blog before (see here and here.

I think some of the commenters on Dr Helen's blog have it right. On the odds, marriage in general is not a winning proposition.

But looking at this again, I wanted to review it in terms of real money, and see how it stacked up.

In general people get married for the following real benefits;

Love
Sex
Children
Cheaper to live together

I think that covers it. So let's put a value on these things. Yeah, I know, you can't. But we are talking about stuff that is getting settled in a court of law, so let's think of it like a lawyer would:

Love: hardest to quantify, but let's value it like having a personal executive assistant who is paid enough to actually care about your stuff. Say $80,000/year.

Sex: note we aren't talking porn-star stuff here, we're talking real world, in a busy life. A decent prostitute would cost you $200/night, but I'll knock that to $100/night because you have her on retainer, and it happens to be the same person as your executive assistant.
So that's maybe $10,000 per year, if you are lucky.

Children: they say you can't put a value on a human life, but the courts do it all the time. They seem to think that a life is worth something like $100,000 per year. Sometimes they treat kids like more, sometimes much less. Let's go with $100,000 per year, for however many you have.

Cheaper to live together; well, this just isn't true. You might get a cheaper year at first, but year 2 you'll find yourself redecorating so that everything matches, and once you have kids you need a new house, clothes for kids, your wife not respecting budgets, finance charges... Come to think of it, it has to cost you at least $50,000/ year.

Ok, so if your average marriage lasts 7 years, let's assume that the first 4 are pretty good, and the last 3 living hell. So we'll go with 4 years of the personal assistant and sex for $90,000/year.
Total value for the average marriage: $370,000

But the kids and living expenses are yours until the marriage ends, and so we can net the two ($50,000) and multiply by seven: $350,000.

So the total value received from the average marriage is about $720,000.

Not so bad, right?

But the problem is that the average marriage DOES end in divorce. And men lose their kids, and pay alimony and support.

So if having your kids is worth $100,000/year, having that kid stolen away and kept from you with only brief weekly or monthly furloughs is losing that benefit. Think of it as them being unjustly imprisoned, which they will be until they are 18. So assume 10 years of unjust imprisonment fot your kids: $1,000,000.

Next let's look at support/alimony.
Your average wage-earner makes somewhere in the $40-50,000 range,
But I suspect this is NOT what your 7-year marriage, 2.5 kids father makes. I think this father earns more likle $80,000, on average.
And, alimony and child support are going to, on average, eat around 2/3 of that - costing you a real $53,000 per year, for the next 10 years or so: $530,000

Now let's talk about what you lose in the divorce. Most people have net debt, which is divided, but your average 2.5-kids-7-year-marriage-father doesn't. You can't live in debt with kids and a family to worry about. You have to make things work every day, and have a plan for when it doesn't. You have to have half a year in assets to float you when your company goes under, or you get fired. So you have 50,000 in liquid assets plus retirement, and a house that is probably worth, on average, $175,000. Half of these go to your wife in divorce. This is a real expense to you, because, on average, the man earned the money that paid for them. I am sure people will argue about this, but we are in the small numbers here compared to the above: of $225,000 you lose $112,000 to your ex.

Now let's talk legal expenses. Let's just say that you aren't very acrimonious, and you only have a few legal problems after the divorce and put your total legal costs at $60,000 including what you have to file to really end support at the end of the whole period. I think that the average is higher, but let's use this.

Now let's talk about your personal situation. You may think that the above covers everything, but you have lost one other thing that is not accounted for in the above, which is your freedom. You are REQUIRED by law to not only keep earning what you were earning at the time of the marriage, but to get reasonable raises. You are an indentured servant for ten years. What is reasonable compensation for being required to consistently earn a particular number for the next ten years without fail? Nowadays people change jobs every 2-3 years, and are often out of work for months (see the half a year in assets above). So a very real cost of having to be a wage slave for ten years is the coverage of the job transitions. Let's say there are three job transitions during the 10 years, and they last 4 months. four twelfths of $80,000 , multiplied by three job losses is $80,0000 you will need just to cover the financial implications of the job transitions.

But again, what about what the real value of you committing to being a wage slave for 10 years, minus the financial implications, just the 'I have to slog off to work for people who I don't see and who mostly hate me' factor. How much would you demand in additional compensation for working for a firm that hates you, while withholding 2/3rds of your income, and committing to this situationfor 10 years? Well, it would have to pay me back the 2/3rds, or I wouldn't do it, but I am already counting that as a negative above, so I won't double count it, so it becomes how much to work for people who hate me for 10 years, plus the stress of jumping through hoops to get the next job and the next job where they also hate me. I think, that I would need to see double my salary before I committed to this kind of situation. So for your average working divorced father, we are talking about a real value of $80,000 per year (he already earns the 80k, this is the doubling part). Over 10 years that is $800,000

So total cost of the divorce, including your suffering: $2,694,500
Compared to your anticipated benefits (including your joys in children, sex, help) of: $720,000.

The net benefit (cost) of the average marriage is way negative: ($1,974,500).

If someone proposed to you a venture that would on average eat up the next twenty years of your life, which represents a total cost of about two million dollars including pain and suffering, and which leaves the average person very unhappy, would you do it?

Or more simply: On Average, Should Men Marry?


The simple answer, based on the numbers, is:


No,
Nixt,
No Way,
Not,
Not in Twenty Years,
Not in Two Million Dollars,
Not on Your Life.


But I want to end on a positive note, and that is the following, which many of you may not find positive:

The analysis above is correct for the average person,

- but the average person should not marry,

- and the person that they should marry should not be average.

For marriage to work, it must be entered into by loving, giving, dedicated people who will both try hard to put their partner's interests first, day in and day out, on the easy days and the hard days, in the good years and in the bad years, and enter into this venture knowing that many of the years may be very tough years.

For marriage to work well, it must contain two souls who are ethical, moral, upstanding, honest, and brave.

If you can be the kind of person described above -if you can always put your lover first -even when you are fighting, and if you can find someone who is always putting you first, and loves doing that, and whom you can trust with your life and the things you care most about, even when you are fighting...

- then marry that person. It will be the best thing that you ever did.

My best to you in your struggles!

-M

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.

-M