Y is for Yawning

Don't say I'm cheap. Even if I am. :)

If you don't read anything else today, go read Yawning at Hofstra at A Voice for Men.

Brilliant Excerpt:

Even with their neck planted squarely on the guillotine, if a woman’s hand is on the lever, the last words of men will likely as not be, “I’m sorry if I get your blade bloody.”

Men are, it seems, the greatest masochists of all time. Whatever you do, don’t get between a man and an opportunity to excuse a woman for whatever harm she causes to others.

You’ll be road kill in a nanosecond.

And that is precisely what men are becoming. They are like dumb animals that wander onto the super highway of gender politics, unable to grasp the concept of speed and Mac Trucks. After getting hit, the ones who don’t get squashed flat simply limp off to the shoulder, covering their pain with a smile and saying, “Please, ma’am, may I have another?"

Hey, look Hot Air is onto the Hofstra misandry too, with a must read article entitled: Making Children Of Women

Excerpt:

We’ve come to this weird place in our history where women become babies instead of have them. It’s all about choices - but not about consequences. Rights, but not responsibilities. When a woman becomes pregnant, she can choose to kill the baby (or if you’re squeamish, terminate the pregnancy.) Repeatedly, in one case. Or she can choose to claim a goodly percentage of the man’s income for the next 18 years. Women have reproductive choices, men have obligations.

Read the Whole Thing

Related: Falsely accused Hofstra Senior: “Thank God I Filmed It.” Oh yeah, because clearly the testimony of one skank is worth much more than that of five men. Oh, Lookie! we have a name for the young (struggling for a new, appropriate adjective here) woman: Danmell Ndonye.

Excerpt from The Gothamist:

The aunt of falsely accused Kevin Taveras told the Post that when Ndonye was split up from her boyfriend at an on-campus party, she and [Kevin] "started making out, and she said to him, 'Do you want to come back to my dorm?' He said, 'I have friends here with me,' and she said, 'Bring 'em along. It'll be hot.' It started from there. The point is she knew what she was doing... Stalin said to her, 'Are you sure about this?' She said, 'Yeah, sure, I want to.'" (Link)

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.

B is for Back in the Slammer

"She called me, and we're going back to court" related the lawyer.

"We'll make a motion, and the judge will go for it and he'll be tossed back in the slammer."

"And he's not a bad guy, he isn't mean or abusive, or intentionally delinquent, he's just out of work. He's a business suit kind of guy. A manager, and he can't get anything."

"I try and tell her that you can't get blood out of a stone, and that she's wasting her money on me doing these motions, but she doesn't care. Every few months we do it again, like clockwork.

He gets out, more arrears build up, and she gets me to toss him back in."

"You'd think the judges might 'get it' but they don't. It's the system. I figure eventually she will see the argument of diminishing returns, and then it will stop."

There you have it. More or less exact words from a lawyer, about to throw an honestly unemployed man back into jail, for not forking money he doesn't have over to a well-heeled woman who can afford to torment him and keep him in jail.

Yet another case of legal gynocracy. Peonage. Debt servitude. Debtor's prison. Slavery. You name it.

And in today's economy, doubly depressing. More and more men are in this position today. Probably more than ever before. But the law says that the man is guilty. Guilty under all circumstances. Guilty until proven innocent.

Fall late on your payments, and you are guilty of violating the plaintiff's RIGHTS. She has a RIGHT to your money, even when you have none. And not paying is a jailable offense.

Remember that this is what marriage can be, and for many, many men, what it is.

Back in the slammer with you now...

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.

H is for Help - as in SHE Needs Help +Update!

If you haven't seen this article by Glenn Sacks and Ned Holstein, it's time to take your eyes for a walk over to MSN Lifestyle, where they relate the story of David Woods:

Bleeding from the neck from a knife wound delivered by his violent wife, David, a partially disabled ex-Marine is cuffed, and treated like a violent offender.

Only when his children come crying to his defense, and - out of his presence - are able to convince a female sheriff's deputy what really happened, is he uncuffed, and the police begin to treat him like someone other than the offender.

So what happens next? Does his wife go to jail? Certainly assault with a deadly weapon is a felony?

No, instead the officers say that, "She needs help", and direct David to call the emergency mental health line for her health insurance policy.

Those Police, Always So Helpful!

Bye Guys! It's Been Nice! Stop By Anytime!

David notes: "Now, isn't that strange? When she had a fat lip, it was a felony and I was going to jail. But when they finally realized that she tried to stab me in the neck, it stopped being a crime, and instead it was a mental health issue."

-And they think SHE Needs Help.

No, I think SHE is getting all the help she needs.

Enabling, Misandrist Help.

Howabout giving David and his children a hand, and locking this woman up?

It is interesting that the wife here actually makes a habit of accusing David of criminal and violent behavior against her. Accusing him of what she is actually guilty of. Something I think a few of us are familiar with...

And in case someone wanders by, and claims that men ARE usually the perpetrator, hey, it's time for a trip to the CDC, which just released a study indicating when violence is one-sided, women are the perpetrator 70-freaking-percent of the time, and when violence was reciprocal, women were most likely to have struck first.

Do go read the rest of the article.

Update:

And don't we hear an echo of this in the Hofstra False Rape case? The men's reputations and families were dragged through the mud... but the young woman? "Authorities have not released the accuser's name, saying they are concerned over her safety." -And; "Her actions and her demeanor depict a very troubled young woman in need of much help."

Want to get really enraged? Listen to the harpie feminist DA who claims 'no crime occurred', and seems to think the important thing is that they 'got her to admit the truth', and she somehow thinks that this 'put an end to this injustice'. How about THIS injustice? It is true that her community 'has real victims of sexual assault'. FALSELY ACCUSED MEN. How about some charges for the criminal in this case? (Hat tip Misandry Review.)

More Misandrist, Enabling Help for the Offending Women. More Abuse for the Men.

Update Update: Yet another example? Merced cops toss an unarmed, legless man out of his wheelchair, removing his pants in the process, snatch his 2-year-old daughter, and drag him off to jail, all on the claim of his wife that he punched her in the stomach 3 times. But lookie lookie, as you read through, you find the wife not quite so innocent: "Police took Phifer, Williams' wife, into custody during the incident on an outstanding $10,000 misdemeanor warrant for domestic violence." (on page 3) Hmmm, any bets as to who was the real violent offender? No word on how many times they tazed Phifer. "Recounting the experience, Williams broke into tears. "How much resisting am I going to do with no legs? No feet?" he wept. "It's ridiculous what they did to me. How far am I gonna run? Where am I gonna go?""

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.

S is for Statistics

Back in 2006, I posted a review of sentencing of men vs women by our courts entitled H is for Happy (it was the New Year). I like sentencing stats - they reflect the actual functioning of the courts, and hint to us at the injustices that might be happening in other parts of the process.

My intent was to discover if the evidence of our eyes was true, and if women in general were getting a whole different kind of justice when they went to court.

The numbers were shocking - across the board, women were recieving much shorter sentences - about 40% shorter than what was doled out to men. And it of course leads you to wonder what kind of biases are occuring in the arrest, trial and probation phases.

Well, I thought it was time to re-visit this question, and I found a nifty and huge government database to work against:

United States Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Federal Justice Statistics Program: Defendants Sentenced Under the Sentencing Reform Act, 2007 [United States] [Computer file]. ICPSR24232-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2009-02-23. doi:10.3886/ICPSR24232

Apparently they turn one of these out every year or did up to '07. You can download your copy here, (registration required) but the dataset is kind of large, and unless you have a recent copy of excel and/or are pretty good with databases, this isn't fun. Happily, I love this kind of thing and so:

I took the data, which is at an individual level, and first determined the average sentence length by gender: The average woman was sentenced to a 59% shorter sentence than the average man, with the average sentence (across all offenses) for a man being 57 months, and the average sentence for a woman being 23 months.

If men and women are really committing the same crimes, this already givs us significant evidence of bias, but let's compare apples with apples. The database gives us the primary offense, and we can break the data down by that:

The following list outlines, per the data that you can download and work with yourself, the percentages less (or more) that women are sentenced for the exact same crime as men:

51% 1 Murder
43% 2 Manslaughter
37% 3 Kidnapping/Hostage
68% 4 Sexual Abuse
34% 5 Assault
57% 6 Bank Robbery
24% 9 Arson
47% 10 Drugs: Trafficking
50% 11 Drugs: Communicatn facilities
81% 12 Drugs: Simple possession
54% 13 Firearms: Use & possess
(21%) 15 Burg/Breaking & Entering
14% 16 Auto Theft
57% 17 Larceny
45% 18 Fraud
46% 19 Embezzlement
49% 20 Forgery/Counterfeiting
40% 21 Bribery
14% 22 Tax offenses
40% 23 Money laundering
62% 24 Racktring (includes extortion)
100% 25 Gambling/Lottery
41% 26 Civil rights offenses
51% 27 Immigration
43% 28 Pornography/Prostitution
32% 29 Offenses in prisons
60% 30 Administration of justice
117% 31 Environmental offenses
34% 32 National defense offenses
100% 33 Antitrust violations
(253%) 34 Food and drug offenses
63% 35 Traffic violations

And now it is possible to calculate how much less, on average, by crime, a woman is sentenced to than a man: 40%. Note that there are only two (2) areas in which women's sentences exceed men's.

Now perhaps the sentences being meted out to women are appropriate, and those given to men are out of line. With this nifty database to hand, I can calculate how many excess years are being doled out to men per primary offense, and the number is.... for 2007...

(drum roll please)

142,036.17 years.

Think of that, 142,036.17 years of productive male effort flushed away in the US court system just in 2007, - because men are not viewed as being as worthy of mercy as women.

Think what you could achieve with an army of 142,036 men working for you for a year! Even if these are difficult, or slothful men, a lot could be done! But it is necessary to lock them away, because, as you know,

...they just aren't women....

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

My Best To You In Your Struggles

-M


p.s.

While I was in the neighborhood, and with the HBD/VDare/BNP/Bio-Cons and the like in the back of my mind, I wondered what the stats would say about Blacks as opposed to Whites in the courts.

And those who are Black do suffer from bias in some big-ticket items - murder (your average White gets a 7.3 year sentence according to the data, but your average Black gets 23 years), Manslaugter (Whites get a 23% discount), Arson (51% discount), and Drug Posession (75%!).

But the balance tips the other way for white-collar crimes, and the sentencing balances out around 4% in favor of the Black Man if you average across offenses. Whites are beaten up for Embezzelment -75%, Gambling -296%, Civil Rights Offenses -181%, and the like.

I guess that judges and prosecutors get 'fed up' with certain crimes in certain communities and races and sentence those extra hard, thinking that that will make a difference. Or perhaps certain crimes occurr more predominately in different communities, and repeat offenders get whacked. The data is there to parse that out if anyone is interested.

It's also fair to note that the things that blacks are being sentenced with carry much longer terms than what whites get sentenced with, but, you know, I am running a Men's Rights blog here, not a generic Civil Rights blog. If some Civil Rights guy wants to dig down on this data, and isn't technical enough to mince the data properly, I'd be glad to help.

Heck, maybe a grant could be written. :)

There might be grant money for studying how the court system screws BLACK men.
(Bitter? Me? Nooooooooooooooooo)

pps - had a brain spasm and typed 'years' instead of 'months' as the units for the average sentences in the 7th paragraph above. This has been fixed. In years (for those who can't divide by 12) it is 4.8 years for average male sentence, and 1.97 for average female sentence. The ratio remains the same, of course, with women getting a 59% discount on average. The other numbers (like the excess years men serve) did not suffer this problem.

V is for Vampires

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

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

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

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

Other falsehoods Sommers challenged with significant evidence:

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

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

Not.

Read the article.

-M

E is for Exposure, and Explicit

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

So insane: Let’s count the ways:

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

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


I think most prosecutors would have let this go,


- unless, of course, the perpetrator was male.


My best to you in your struggles…

M

B is for Biting My Tongue

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

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

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

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

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

I'd like to see some change, myself.

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

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.

-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

E is for Effect, as in ‘Cause And’

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

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

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

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

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

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

Male-Female Relations:

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

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

Economic:

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

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

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

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

It certainly looks like where we may be going.

More About This Blog

We are having many more visitors than I expected for a brand new blog, and one that I do not dare publicize among my own friends, as it would indubitably would show up in court, (demonstrating for the court my bad faith, bad attitude, and general male-ness) like so many other things that one might normally consider private have. (I am contemplating a special post, called 'P is for Privacy', but that is for another day.) As such, I think it is appropriate for me to lay down some standards of behavior, that you can expect from me, and which I will expect from you all, disclaim what I should disclaim, and also provide some advice.

1. Nothing is Real: Everything that I personally put here is my best understanding of the subject, but likely won't stand up in a court of law for one millisecond, or will be vehemently denied, and then done anyway. I am not responsible for what other people post, or for what happens on external websites linked to from this page. It is even possible that malicious hackers might modify this page without my permission, and that misleading information might be posted. Therefore nothing here should be taken as guidance for your actions. DON'T DO THIS AT HOME. LAWYERS ARE TRAINED PROFESSIONALS WHO CAN HELP YOU WITH THIS PROCESS. YOU SHOULD CONSULT A LAWYER BEFORE TAKING ANY SIGNIFICANT ACTION IN YOUR SEPARATION/DIVORCE, AND BE WILLING TO DISCHARGE HIM OR HER AT A MOMENT'S NOTICE. IT IS PROBABLY BEST TO HAVE SEVERAL LAWYERS WHO WILL ADVISE YOU ON YOUR MATTER, IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT. I AM NOT A LAWYER, AND THIS WEB-SITE SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. Instead, and at best it will hopefully show you what can and might happen. Please consult your best, and most trusted advisors, preferably people who will never, ever speak to your wife, ex, or potential ex, or their friends, and act accordingly.
   DISCLAIMER TO DISCLAIMER #1: Although I still advocate legal advice if you can get it, extensive experience has shown me that for anyone other than perhaps the very rich, using legal representation means that you pay two lawyers to lose your case, while spending more than you are arguing about. -For what it is worth. Perhaps best to consult with lawyers and represent yourself. Perhaps.
2. Reality Changes: What is presented here as things that will likely happen is generally based on the past performance of the legal system. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns. Divorce law is kind of like the wild west, especially in New Jersey, and likely in your state, too. As much of divorce processes depend on the discretion and prejudices of the judge(s) and the various lawyers involved, both as your mouthpieces, and as members of settlement panels, and as much of divorce law is in actual conflict with normal human rights, your results may vary, and in fact, portions of the legal environment may, and hopefully will, get turned on their ear at any point. Don't hold your breath, but stay on your toes, and don't hold everything written here to be forever true.
3. My posts here may change: Individual posts made by me will be adjusted here over time. I will notice grammatical and other mostly minor things in the first day or so following my creation of a new post and tweak them. I will mostly not call this to your attention. If you call my attention to an item needing change (via a post or email) I will change it (unless I disagree) and give you credit. If major changes are required or facts are clearly wrong, I will find some way to mark up the original text, and give credit again to my correctors.
4. Protect Yourselves: Don't post anything here under your real name, and please don't post anything here that is so specific that it identifies you. For now you can post anonymously, but I would suggest that you get an email (or better, a chain of emails that forward to each other) that protect your identity (see sneakemail.com for one alternative) and register here under one of these identities. Web-sites can and have been forced to identify posters. The courts also have in the past and may again in the future decide that it is 'likely' that you posted something due to your IP address, which they may be able to obtain. Please be advised and act accordingly.
5. Selection is Good: I don't give you the right to post pointless or troll-like comments, or deranged blather, nor am I required to preserve your comments. Abuse, racism, and the like will not be tolerated, and save your dirty words for some other venue. I will try to be generous in judging posts, but mostly, if your post is not quickly wiped out, it will be because I think it is truly great, and adds to or substantiates our discussion in some real way.
6. Be Brave: All of this should not discourage you from posting, nor should it make you think that I am unhappy to have received a post that I end up removing. My standards will inevitably not be yours, and that is life, and if lots of people say something that I think is deranged, I am more liable to let one of those posts stand, and note that whereas I disagree, this is apparently a common line of thinking. Don't try and overwhelm me with a deranged viewpoint though, I can see IPs and the like, and I will just turn on registration, and ban you.
7. Change is Work: Also, with regard to any fear I have generated by pointing out the privacy/legal issues above, life is short, and if you never speak out, you will never be heard. And there is no shame in anonymity, it stands in the great lineage of the fathers of the American Revolution, most notably Thomas Paine, whose words of encouragement to the colonials were also anonymous. Truly, these ARE the times that try men's souls.

All my best to all of you in your struggles.

-M