I started this post as just a brief comment about the month that has past, and the rolling over of the second thousand visitors to the MIsForMalevolent, but instead it has become about finding hope, keeping on with the journey, and spiritual wellbeing – fighting depression. I hope that it helps.
Two Thousand some people have wandered by MIsForMalevolent since I first started it just a little over a month ago. Thanks to you all for your time, and your attention. I hope that you all have found if not encouragement in the facts and thoughts presented (there is little enough to be given), perhaps a sense that you are not alone, and that others have walked this lonely valley, and are walking it even as I write.
Others have picked their way across this barren landscape, scanning the horizon for even the faintest hope. Others have labored across this desert with almost unbearable burdens. You are not alone, even if it feels that way.
You are not what the system labels you.
You are not just a paycheck.
You are not a ‘bad father’.
You are not worthless.
You have a right to joy, and happiness, to have some small possessions, a job and a place to live. Find a way to have these things, because without them you will descend into despair.
If you have to escape to maintain your sanity and peace, do so. If you can live with the persecution, and provide value to your family, do that. But don’t let the system take away your spirit. A living father is worth far more than one who is spiritually or physically dead. Do what is necessary to maintain your mind, your body, and spirit.
You are valuable, far more valuable than you know. You have great gifts to share with the world – your attention, your caring, and your helping hands. Don’t let these assets become lost to the world, and don’t under-rate them.
It may be that you need to find peace with the injustice that men suffer in this world – but don’t fail to support those who need to rage against the machine. And to those who are filled with that rage – know that some people can’t make it unless they find some peace.
Vote with your hands, with your minds, with your feet, and with your mouths. Do things that help other men, vote for leaders who care about men’s rights, move to states, regions, and areas that are male-positive, and let other men know what is going on, and why you do the things you do.
Find things to keep you moving ahead, and to remind you of how far you have come already:
Count the days until you next see your kids.
Count the days until your support payments end, and track how much you have paid.
Track the years since your divorce.
Make a list of 10 things you would like to be able to do in your life, and keep it where you can look at it. You will achieve these things, perhaps sooner than you think.
Pray. Even if you are an atheist. It can’t hurt. It will help, if only to focus your thoughts.
Walk with God.
Finally, find some small piece of joy or for each day, and focus on that. Many days will be dark, and sometimes your life will be full of burning rubble. There is more, this is not all that there is. No one knows what tomorrow will bring. Tomorrow, you may be able to help someone else who needs you, and tomorrow, maybe, you will find a brighter prospect on your horizon.
My best to you in your struggles
-M
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
H is for Help?
You might think, that once you can't afford any legal help, there might be some form of legal aid available to you. But NJ Legal aid doesn't take on divorce matters... especially post-divorce matters... unless there is violence involved.
Hm. How many women who can't afford a lawyer might consider claiming violence occurred just to get free representation? Mostly they probably don't need to -because women's lawyers know that they can get their fees out of the men, but I am sure that there are some. Just another bit of incentive to claim violence, when there wasn't any.
On the off chance you are a man, and have suffered violence at the hands of your spouse, here's how to reach them. Maybe they will talk to you: New Jersey Legal Services System.
There is cheap legal advice available for 35$/hour though. You will have to check your local phone book, or call NJ Legal Services (above) for their number.
Best of luck in your struggles.
-M
Hm. How many women who can't afford a lawyer might consider claiming violence occurred just to get free representation? Mostly they probably don't need to -because women's lawyers know that they can get their fees out of the men, but I am sure that there are some. Just another bit of incentive to claim violence, when there wasn't any.
On the off chance you are a man, and have suffered violence at the hands of your spouse, here's how to reach them. Maybe they will talk to you: New Jersey Legal Services System.
There is cheap legal advice available for 35$/hour though. You will have to check your local phone book, or call NJ Legal Services (above) for their number.
Best of luck in your struggles.
-M
Friday, September 23, 2005
E is for Everything
The divorce courts can and will take everything. Is it community property? Is it not? Doesn't matter.
The following is from the NJ Family Law site:
Got The Alimony Blues? Sell The Guitars:
Alimony arrears must be satisfied. If not, assets will be seized and sold, even if those assets are or were otherwise immune from equitable distribution in a New Jersey divorce. That's the lesson to be learned from this case, in which the trial court [1] ordered the defendant ex-husband to sell his guitar collection to satisfy the alimony arrears and [2] granted attorney's fees in favor of the plaintiff ex-wife . Tiberio v. Johnson, New Jersey Appellate Division, A-1658-03T3, January 14, 2005.
Not that it is a surprise, really. Men aren't allowed property after a divorce. I am guessing that this was an inheritance, or perhaps belonged partly to someone else in the family, whose rights just don't matter either.
Oh, and note, the MAN still gets to pay the legal fees too. Thanks Ma Jersey. Nice.
-M
The following is from the NJ Family Law site:
Got The Alimony Blues? Sell The Guitars:
Alimony arrears must be satisfied. If not, assets will be seized and sold, even if those assets are or were otherwise immune from equitable distribution in a New Jersey divorce. That's the lesson to be learned from this case, in which the trial court [1] ordered the defendant ex-husband to sell his guitar collection to satisfy the alimony arrears and [2] granted attorney's fees in favor of the plaintiff ex-wife . Tiberio v. Johnson, New Jersey Appellate Division, A-1658-03T3, January 14, 2005.
Not that it is a surprise, really. Men aren't allowed property after a divorce. I am guessing that this was an inheritance, or perhaps belonged partly to someone else in the family, whose rights just don't matter either.
Oh, and note, the MAN still gets to pay the legal fees too. Thanks Ma Jersey. Nice.
-M
Thursday, September 22, 2005
D is for Deadline
I am under deadline for the next week or two, so posting is going to be reduced. My heart is still with the movement, very much so, because the whole job thing right now is operating under a garnishment of at least 60%, as those of you who read the little personal bits tossed in know.
It is very true that if I did not have some wonderful people in my life, that I would be on the street right now. I am thankful for them. However, it bothers me that the system is really at this point taking advantage of them, as it also takes advantage of the families and friends of vast numbers of men.
I think that one of the stories that needs to get out, and that needs to be said again, and again, and again, is that your average joe, without cheating or beating, can suddenly find himself divorced, and enslaved:
- because the sex of the parent is the main factor in determining custody
- because child support and alimony have nothing to do with need
- because today jobs come and go
- because finding the next job can take a long time
- because the next one may not pay the same
- and because the courts could care less.
It can and does happen to anyone. No, let me correct that, it could happen to any MAN.
In the meantime, take a look at these blogs that I have recently found:
Nevadans for Equal Parenting - interesting stuff there, and Tim Worstall who also blogged The Case of the Inebriated Identification.
I also notice that I finally crept up from 'wiggly worm' to 'crunchy crustacean' in The TTLB Ecosystem. 'Woo Hoo!' ...ok. I'm not really excited about that. The fact that I will probably break 2K visits if I post anything good in the next couple weeks is more inspiring. Of course then it's a long haul to 10K. :) Maybe I'll celebrate at 5K. Oh, yeah, I'm not getting paid by visit, and if I was, most of it would go to my ex anyway.
My best to all of you in your struggles.
-M
It is very true that if I did not have some wonderful people in my life, that I would be on the street right now. I am thankful for them. However, it bothers me that the system is really at this point taking advantage of them, as it also takes advantage of the families and friends of vast numbers of men.
I think that one of the stories that needs to get out, and that needs to be said again, and again, and again, is that your average joe, without cheating or beating, can suddenly find himself divorced, and enslaved:
- because the sex of the parent is the main factor in determining custody
- because child support and alimony have nothing to do with need
- because today jobs come and go
- because finding the next job can take a long time
- because the next one may not pay the same
- and because the courts could care less.
It can and does happen to anyone. No, let me correct that, it could happen to any MAN.
In the meantime, take a look at these blogs that I have recently found:
Nevadans for Equal Parenting - interesting stuff there, and Tim Worstall who also blogged The Case of the Inebriated Identification.
I also notice that I finally crept up from 'wiggly worm' to 'crunchy crustacean' in The TTLB Ecosystem. 'Woo Hoo!' ...ok. I'm not really excited about that. The fact that I will probably break 2K visits if I post anything good in the next couple weeks is more inspiring. Of course then it's a long haul to 10K. :) Maybe I'll celebrate at 5K. Oh, yeah, I'm not getting paid by visit, and if I was, most of it would go to my ex anyway.
My best to all of you in your struggles.
-M
Friday, September 16, 2005
I is for Invisible Elephant
In building my new list of 'Landscape' links for the side of the page, I linked to my 'U is for Unequal' post as 'Legal Equality?'. I thought that it belonged there, because it cites people in the NJ law profession saying openly what we all (ok, all men) suspect them of - that they treat men much worse than women on purpose. But then something struck me. Something I had read over oh, tewnty, twenty-five times, and hadn't seen. Take a look:
...people [judges] are told to interpret this law broadly in order to maximize protection for the victim. So if anybody ever came back at you and said, 'Gee, that's a real reach in terms of probable cause,' you have a legislatively mandated response which is, 'I erred on the side of caution for the victim' -Nancy Kessler, chief of juvenile and family services for the AOC
Did you see it? Besides the point of the quote -that judges are intentionally unfair to protect women, what else is there that stands out?
Do you see it?
In the quote, women are being described using the word 'victim'. Remember, these are women who are often just saying that 'they feel scared' - and in fact, many of them are just doing this to get their husband thrown out of the house in order to gain leverage in the divorce and custody battle.
The fact that the women were likely in no danger, and that the men's rights are being abused is the whole point of what Nancy is saying. She indicates that women need protection even when they are just 'feeling scared'. And Nancy, the chief of juvenile and family services, in her mind just automatically converted these whimpering women who were at no real risk into 'victims'. And I didn't even notice. The elephant was in front of me, but I couldn't see it.
We are all programed by our culture with a variety of incorrect preconceptions and messages. Some of these messages that tell us that women are innocent, weak and need protection, -and that men are strong and abusive. But when these myths of male and female behavior get translated into law, men suffer greatly. Language IS important, and we need to keep our eyes on the language and what is being said. We need to call a spade a spade, and a woman who has never suffered any physical trauma of any sort cannot rightly be called a 'victim' of domestic violence.
-M
...people [judges] are told to interpret this law broadly in order to maximize protection for the victim. So if anybody ever came back at you and said, 'Gee, that's a real reach in terms of probable cause,' you have a legislatively mandated response which is, 'I erred on the side of caution for the victim' -Nancy Kessler, chief of juvenile and family services for the AOC
Did you see it? Besides the point of the quote -that judges are intentionally unfair to protect women, what else is there that stands out?
Do you see it?
In the quote, women are being described using the word 'victim'. Remember, these are women who are often just saying that 'they feel scared' - and in fact, many of them are just doing this to get their husband thrown out of the house in order to gain leverage in the divorce and custody battle.
The fact that the women were likely in no danger, and that the men's rights are being abused is the whole point of what Nancy is saying. She indicates that women need protection even when they are just 'feeling scared'. And Nancy, the chief of juvenile and family services, in her mind just automatically converted these whimpering women who were at no real risk into 'victims'. And I didn't even notice. The elephant was in front of me, but I couldn't see it.
We are all programed by our culture with a variety of incorrect preconceptions and messages. Some of these messages that tell us that women are innocent, weak and need protection, -and that men are strong and abusive. But when these myths of male and female behavior get translated into law, men suffer greatly. Language IS important, and we need to keep our eyes on the language and what is being said. We need to call a spade a spade, and a woman who has never suffered any physical trauma of any sort cannot rightly be called a 'victim' of domestic violence.
-M
Thursday, September 15, 2005
C is for Crushing Injustice
I wonder if anyone who is not a divorced man or support-paying father who has run up against the system, can even begin to comprehend the truly crushing level of injustice at every level in our family court system.
The numbers just don't do it 'justice'.
I mean, you know that women win the vast majority of custody cases, (~38% of men have NO custody, and 77% of the remainder get no time with their children because the courts won't enforce visitation) and that women much more rarely pay any kind of support when they are the higher-earning spouse (~30% of custodial fathers receive support vs ~80% of custodial mothers). And so on, and on, and on....
But until you have gone through it, you just can't appreciate the true, insidious nature of it all.
You might assume that the judges don't enforce the more abusive portions of the law, and provide leeway for men.
And to a small degree, you would probably be right. The law allows for men who are in arrears to be just thrown in jail, but I suspect generally that if you are making payments, they are unlikely to do that, ...well, except for short periods of time to try and shake down your parents, spouses, adult children and friends for extra money for your ex.
But what you can't appreciate until you are there is how every decision, and every step will be tilted in your ex-wife's favor, not just the standard stuff, but mid-size stuff, the big stuff, and the little stuff, every step of the way.
The courts will claim that they are being 'fair'. But mostly 'fair' means giving your ex's lawyer a 'strict talking to' when she violates a court order for the 4th, 5th, and 6th time, and then turning and burdening you with her legal fees for your efforts to enforce the court's orders.
On the legal fees, first you will be told that they are the responsibility of the spouse 'with the ability to pay', and then you will be told it is because you did something wrong, and then the judge will start just making stuff up... ...and you will still be paying (whoops, building up arrears) once you loose ability to pay, and irregardless of the merit of your motions. And the court will give you 10 to 30 days to pay your ex's legal fees. -At best. But mostly they won't throw you in jail if you pay something.
And don't annoy the court by trying to 'enforce your rights' beyond the minimum. (Uh, who said you had rights? They lied.) If you appeal, and they determine it is frivolous they will hit you with penalties. -And in California, they can even penalize you for more than $10,000 for bringing appeals with merit, -they admit it. A penalty of $13,000 was levied in this case, in which a man was appealing being thrown out of his own house, where he was the sole occupant, per an ex-parte order from his wife, claiming that he was 'immediate threat to other occupants'. Perhaps he was frightening his goldfish. His wife then moved in and argued that she 'should be awarded primary custody since she and the kids were living in the house' - while the husband was an unfit parent living in his car.
Every step of the way, you will be punished, and your ex-wife will be coddled. Orders mean nothing when it comes to her. Perjury is ignored. Malicious behavior, fraud, theft, it might as well not have happened. Same with violence against you. She is, after all, the woman.
If you have any property (cars, house, motorcycle... anything), the sherriff will seize them pursuant to the liens on them for your arrears and penalties, and your ex's legal fees and auction them.
Meanwhile, without a trial, your pay will be garnished to 60% or 65% (convicted criminals aren't docked more than 10%), and you will be told that you will have a chance to appear at an ability to pay hearing to adjust this that is months away. Don't worry about eating or paying rent in the meantime. The court sure won't.
If you aren't living in a car already (either a junker not worth towing for auction or not your own), it is because someone has taken you in, or is protecting you from homelessness. Otherwise perhaps you give up, and become one of the lost men, the wandering homeless men who can't set down roots anywhere, or hold a real job, because they are, in fact, now fugitives by the definitions of the Bradley Amendment and the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act.
Right now someone is reading this who hasn't gone through it and saying: "This guy has gone off the deep end." Perhaps you need to see the sad, defeated look on my face as I type. The slump to my shoulders. If I was telling you this, mostly my voice would be low, I would be glancing at the floor, ashamed that I am in this position, the victim, the one who has no rights.
You would see how it affects men to be treated like this - we think: "...somehow, this must be my fault, that I am in this position, that I have nothing, no property, no real income that I can keep, no rights - it must be my fault, that I am a peon, an outcast, a slave in the land of the free."
-No, this isn't a rant, its sad testimony.
There are a few unfortunate and small lessons to be learned. When you fight your ex-wife in court, whenever you appear in court, you are 'fighting city hall'. Avoid doing it where possible. No matter how evil your ex is, she probably is incapable of being as systematically evil as the court system is. Remember the court system is used to dealing with murderers and rapists, pursuing them across the country and imprisoning them - and you are worse than all those, you are an ex-husband. You WILL be treated worse. Try not to take it 'personally', -it isn't your fault; you were born a man.
All my best to you in your struggles...
-M
simulposted on Hate Male Post
The numbers just don't do it 'justice'.
I mean, you know that women win the vast majority of custody cases, (~38% of men have NO custody, and 77% of the remainder get no time with their children because the courts won't enforce visitation) and that women much more rarely pay any kind of support when they are the higher-earning spouse (~30% of custodial fathers receive support vs ~80% of custodial mothers). And so on, and on, and on....
But until you have gone through it, you just can't appreciate the true, insidious nature of it all.
You might assume that the judges don't enforce the more abusive portions of the law, and provide leeway for men.
And to a small degree, you would probably be right. The law allows for men who are in arrears to be just thrown in jail, but I suspect generally that if you are making payments, they are unlikely to do that, ...well, except for short periods of time to try and shake down your parents, spouses, adult children and friends for extra money for your ex.
But what you can't appreciate until you are there is how every decision, and every step will be tilted in your ex-wife's favor, not just the standard stuff, but mid-size stuff, the big stuff, and the little stuff, every step of the way.
The courts will claim that they are being 'fair'. But mostly 'fair' means giving your ex's lawyer a 'strict talking to' when she violates a court order for the 4th, 5th, and 6th time, and then turning and burdening you with her legal fees for your efforts to enforce the court's orders.
On the legal fees, first you will be told that they are the responsibility of the spouse 'with the ability to pay', and then you will be told it is because you did something wrong, and then the judge will start just making stuff up... ...and you will still be paying (whoops, building up arrears) once you loose ability to pay, and irregardless of the merit of your motions. And the court will give you 10 to 30 days to pay your ex's legal fees. -At best. But mostly they won't throw you in jail if you pay something.
And don't annoy the court by trying to 'enforce your rights' beyond the minimum. (Uh, who said you had rights? They lied.) If you appeal, and they determine it is frivolous they will hit you with penalties. -And in California, they can even penalize you for more than $10,000 for bringing appeals with merit, -they admit it. A penalty of $13,000 was levied in this case, in which a man was appealing being thrown out of his own house, where he was the sole occupant, per an ex-parte order from his wife, claiming that he was 'immediate threat to other occupants'. Perhaps he was frightening his goldfish. His wife then moved in and argued that she 'should be awarded primary custody since she and the kids were living in the house' - while the husband was an unfit parent living in his car.
Every step of the way, you will be punished, and your ex-wife will be coddled. Orders mean nothing when it comes to her. Perjury is ignored. Malicious behavior, fraud, theft, it might as well not have happened. Same with violence against you. She is, after all, the woman.
If you have any property (cars, house, motorcycle... anything), the sherriff will seize them pursuant to the liens on them for your arrears and penalties, and your ex's legal fees and auction them.
Meanwhile, without a trial, your pay will be garnished to 60% or 65% (convicted criminals aren't docked more than 10%), and you will be told that you will have a chance to appear at an ability to pay hearing to adjust this that is months away. Don't worry about eating or paying rent in the meantime. The court sure won't.
If you aren't living in a car already (either a junker not worth towing for auction or not your own), it is because someone has taken you in, or is protecting you from homelessness. Otherwise perhaps you give up, and become one of the lost men, the wandering homeless men who can't set down roots anywhere, or hold a real job, because they are, in fact, now fugitives by the definitions of the Bradley Amendment and the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act.
Right now someone is reading this who hasn't gone through it and saying: "This guy has gone off the deep end." Perhaps you need to see the sad, defeated look on my face as I type. The slump to my shoulders. If I was telling you this, mostly my voice would be low, I would be glancing at the floor, ashamed that I am in this position, the victim, the one who has no rights.
You would see how it affects men to be treated like this - we think: "...somehow, this must be my fault, that I am in this position, that I have nothing, no property, no real income that I can keep, no rights - it must be my fault, that I am a peon, an outcast, a slave in the land of the free."
-No, this isn't a rant, its sad testimony.
There are a few unfortunate and small lessons to be learned. When you fight your ex-wife in court, whenever you appear in court, you are 'fighting city hall'. Avoid doing it where possible. No matter how evil your ex is, she probably is incapable of being as systematically evil as the court system is. Remember the court system is used to dealing with murderers and rapists, pursuing them across the country and imprisoning them - and you are worse than all those, you are an ex-husband. You WILL be treated worse. Try not to take it 'personally', -it isn't your fault; you were born a man.
All my best to you in your struggles...
-M
simulposted on Hate Male Post
Friday, September 09, 2005
B is for Breasts
It would be nice to take a break from all my highly controlled male rage against the industrial-feminist-divorce-machine - To focus on a more lighthearted topic that most all men can appreciate.
What comes immediately to mind is the female mammary glands.
Breasts: we all love them, women have them, and Albert is practically a breast himself. *
Oh, sure long legs are nice, a well-rounded tushie is a wonderful thing, but a glimpse of cleavage, or a peak of an aureola, and a man's day has moved to a different level. Women know it too.
Leaf through any women's magazines like Cosmo, or Elle... The cover almost inevitably has cleavage, and inside... ...naked women abound, and they aren't exposing their behinds, -it's all about their chests. Victoria's Secret (a subsidiary of Limited Brands, Inc) runs over 1,000 stores all dedicated to propping up, pushing around and enhancing the bosom. The business isn't been terrible - Limited Brands had revenue of 3.3 Billion in the quarter ending January. Total sales of women's underwear ran about 8.2 Billion in 2003. In comparison, a more male-oriented underwear company, Fruit of the Loom, lacking a mammary focus, dove into bankruptcy, and was rescued by wise old Warren Buffet. I guess he thought that men needed some support too. Well, it's a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway now - (We Are Borg). Total domestic production of men's underwear in the US runs about 1.3 Billion/year and total wholesale men's underwear revenue probably runs 3.9 Billion - roughly half what is spent on women's stuff. Clearly something is much more interesting about women's tops, both financially, and in terms of exposure.
But perhaps that is just the problem - perhaps I am comparing a women's product that they invest in for vanity and sex-appeal, with a men's product that no one cares about. But how to find something appropriate that men buy to show off that isn't coopted by women. Luxury watch research isn't broken down by sex, and muscle cars seem to have as many women as men behind the wheel. I guess I have to face the facts, there isn't anything quite like the female breast in terms of attention lavished on a body part, or sexual differentiation.
I also haven't mentioned the cleavage enhancing blouse or dress, which is part of the equation too. Much of women's clothing is designed to enhance the male visual enjoyment of the breast, but actually getting caught looking can get you slapped - this is very unfair - isn't that like posting an all-you-can-eat sign in front of the restaurant, and placing bear-traps just inside the door?
And what is with the way some women have of giving the evil eye to those of 'the wrong class' who check them out? -If you dress like a billboard, you can't complain when people stop to read the sign.
Still, men CAN and sometimes DO have breasts. However whereas breasts on women is a good thing, breasts on men is usually a scary thing. A man was actually arrested not long ago for exposing his 'breasts' in Cincinnatti. One wonders whether the 'Topfree Equal Rights Association' (TERA) will rally to his defense. Browsing the TERA site, one begins to appreciate the bra, and the support it provides. The unsupported fatty chest protruberance can be an unattractive thing. Perhaps Chilly in Cincinnatti just needed some male support, like a 'bro' or manziere, and this would have helped him avoid involvement with the local constabulary.
But mostly Men don't have boobs, or anything comparable to dress up. Clearly there is a breast-gap here in the sexual war, a gap that men need to close somehow.
Push-up jocks? butt-enhancers? WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY!
Unfortunately, or fortunately, most men just aren't that concerned about their looks.
And here's hoping we stay that way, sort of ugly, mostly breastless, and proud of it.
-M
* Silly OTT reference to 'The Birdcage'.
What comes immediately to mind is the female mammary glands.
Breasts: we all love them, women have them, and Albert is practically a breast himself. *
Oh, sure long legs are nice, a well-rounded tushie is a wonderful thing, but a glimpse of cleavage, or a peak of an aureola, and a man's day has moved to a different level. Women know it too.
Leaf through any women's magazines like Cosmo, or Elle... The cover almost inevitably has cleavage, and inside... ...naked women abound, and they aren't exposing their behinds, -it's all about their chests. Victoria's Secret (a subsidiary of Limited Brands, Inc) runs over 1,000 stores all dedicated to propping up, pushing around and enhancing the bosom. The business isn't been terrible - Limited Brands had revenue of 3.3 Billion in the quarter ending January. Total sales of women's underwear ran about 8.2 Billion in 2003. In comparison, a more male-oriented underwear company, Fruit of the Loom, lacking a mammary focus, dove into bankruptcy, and was rescued by wise old Warren Buffet. I guess he thought that men needed some support too. Well, it's a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway now - (We Are Borg). Total domestic production of men's underwear in the US runs about 1.3 Billion/year and total wholesale men's underwear revenue probably runs 3.9 Billion - roughly half what is spent on women's stuff. Clearly something is much more interesting about women's tops, both financially, and in terms of exposure.
But perhaps that is just the problem - perhaps I am comparing a women's product that they invest in for vanity and sex-appeal, with a men's product that no one cares about. But how to find something appropriate that men buy to show off that isn't coopted by women. Luxury watch research isn't broken down by sex, and muscle cars seem to have as many women as men behind the wheel. I guess I have to face the facts, there isn't anything quite like the female breast in terms of attention lavished on a body part, or sexual differentiation.
I also haven't mentioned the cleavage enhancing blouse or dress, which is part of the equation too. Much of women's clothing is designed to enhance the male visual enjoyment of the breast, but actually getting caught looking can get you slapped - this is very unfair - isn't that like posting an all-you-can-eat sign in front of the restaurant, and placing bear-traps just inside the door?
And what is with the way some women have of giving the evil eye to those of 'the wrong class' who check them out? -If you dress like a billboard, you can't complain when people stop to read the sign.
Still, men CAN and sometimes DO have breasts. However whereas breasts on women is a good thing, breasts on men is usually a scary thing. A man was actually arrested not long ago for exposing his 'breasts' in Cincinnatti. One wonders whether the 'Topfree Equal Rights Association' (TERA) will rally to his defense. Browsing the TERA site, one begins to appreciate the bra, and the support it provides. The unsupported fatty chest protruberance can be an unattractive thing. Perhaps Chilly in Cincinnatti just needed some male support, like a 'bro' or manziere, and this would have helped him avoid involvement with the local constabulary.
But mostly Men don't have boobs, or anything comparable to dress up. Clearly there is a breast-gap here in the sexual war, a gap that men need to close somehow.
Push-up jocks? butt-enhancers? WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY!
Unfortunately, or fortunately, most men just aren't that concerned about their looks.
And here's hoping we stay that way, sort of ugly, mostly breastless, and proud of it.
-M
* Silly OTT reference to 'The Birdcage'.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
R is for Relentless Persuit
I have just discovered Hate Male, a blog from someone who has clearly encountered our Family Court justice system at some level, and I can't help but be fascinated by the posts there. One remarkable post tells a story detailing how many states (including NJ) have outsourced their probate process relating to support to a firm called Maximus, which perhaps should be called Misandrous Maximus. (It would be a joke name, if it's actions were funny.) Misandrous Maximus falsifies documents, and works the system, taking out orders against their victims in this state and that state irregardless of merit or legality, and the judicial system supports them almost every step of the way irregardless of the facts, while the purported beneficiaries of the orders, (when they exist), claim not to have seen most of the payments. This story ends up in NJ, which is no surprise to us. They couldn't have picked a better state if they were looking for a state to rubberstamp their every and any legal action taken against a man.
From the post:
Child Support Enforcement routinely does business this way. They create arrearages that have no basis in fact and then abuse the fathers to the point that they have no hope. The only way out for all too many of them is suicide. [M-no suprise to us] Then Child Support Enforcement tries to force the obligor's survivors to pay for the "outstanding debt" and they are soon driven to despair as well. [M-remember, child support debts are good against your estate too - even death is not an excuse for non-payment] See the post for the horrifying details.
This all comes home to me though -
In NJ, if a woman REQUESTS that payments be done through probate, that request MUST BE GRANTED. Up until I lost my job, I made my payments by hand though, and now that I am re-employed garnishment is being started, and I am VERY AFRAID that some organization like Misandrous Maximus may now attach to me.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
-M
From the post:
Child Support Enforcement routinely does business this way. They create arrearages that have no basis in fact and then abuse the fathers to the point that they have no hope. The only way out for all too many of them is suicide. [M-no suprise to us] Then Child Support Enforcement tries to force the obligor's survivors to pay for the "outstanding debt" and they are soon driven to despair as well. [M-remember, child support debts are good against your estate too - even death is not an excuse for non-payment] See the post for the horrifying details.
This all comes home to me though -
In NJ, if a woman REQUESTS that payments be done through probate, that request MUST BE GRANTED. Up until I lost my job, I made my payments by hand though, and now that I am re-employed garnishment is being started, and I am VERY AFRAID that some organization like Misandrous Maximus may now attach to me.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
-M
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
S is for Slavery
In prior posts we have established (to most men's satisfaction, if not the courts) that Alimony is Slavery based on the Constitution of the United States, and that it was also involuntary and debt servitude based on the US Code, and we have discussed the fact that divorce hugely increases odds of male suicide, and linked that back to the hopelessness of the slavery and theft of ones children and assets that regularly occurs in divorce.
There are a variety of other ways in which the parallels with slavery are interesting.
First of all, apparently men don't have civil rights:
Jessica Weiler, assistant Michigan attorney general indicated that: "A claim of a debtor's prison punishment is not legitimate in a child support case." in a case where a man was claiming that he was being forced into debt-servitude.
Secondly, the enslaving government of the US has enacted a modern day version of the 'Dred Scott' decision - for those of you whose knowledge of the history of slavery has faded, Dred Scott was a slave who sued for his freedom (and that of his wife) based on the fact that he had resided in states where slavery was illegal, and should have been freed at that point, and should have remained free. The Supreme Court of the US issued an extremely ignorant opinion which basically enforced the rights of slave-holders over their escaped slaves everywhere. Similarly, as men were escaping from 'modern slave states' such as New York, New Jersey, California and Massachusetts to other, free states, the federal government created the 'Bradley Amendment' - which literally forced all states to revoke due process for any man who falls behind on their support and alimony payments, and required them to sieze assets and income of these men, and forbade them from forgiving these debts no matter what the circumstances. Somehow it seems appropriate that the sponsor of this bill, Bill Bradley, was Democratic Senator from my misandrous state, NJ.
We actually have TWO Dred Scott laws, because president Clinton signed a law (the 'deadbeat parents punishment act') making it a FELONY to cross state lines to escape slavery (see here for a summary of Clinton's wrongheaded work against men, set in glowing terms, and with lots of misleading statistics) Clinton also worked to be sure that 'deadbeat' fathers could be quickly identified if those fathers sought work in their new state, and force mothers to identify some male to foot the bills for their support.
Well, in yet another parallel with slavery, there is apparently an Underground Railroad for men: an organization called 'PAFE - the Planetary Alliance for Fathers in Exile which assists men locked into slavery in their home countries in escaping overseas. The Western Standard (registration required, but very worth it), discusses this organization and the flight of educated men from the slave states of North America. The article takes up the story of a Canadian tapped for $22,000 per year in support for children that he wasn't allowed to see. With some cloak-and-dagger and secured emails he is guided in escaping the country. Suddenly. Without notice. Secretly.
PAFE claims that 100,000 men per year abandon the United States alone due to the draconian divorce/support/alimony laws that are in place here. PAFE is quoted as saying "The number of men forced into illegal [...] debtor's prisons in America stands at a quarter of a million" and that many more continue paying into it just to be able to see their children and stay 'safe' day to day. PAFE also indicates that almost 100,000 men have similarly escaped Great Britain, and 137,000 from Australia, moving to Europe and changing their identities.
One father is quoted as saying "I figured [...] either I don't see [my children] from jail, or I don't see them from the U.K. So I chose not to see them from the U.K."
The head of PAFE, a doctor, states that he got into this business when another doctor approached him about doing something to reduce suicide rates among divorced men. It is no surprise to us that he was able to see the link between the misandry of the courts and the suicide rate. As of today, he has helped 4,700 men escape slavery and find safety in exile. If each of these 4,700 is a professional, they may represent over 9 billion dollars in lost skills and future income to Canada - and if the 100,000 number for the US can be believed, (and I think it is low), we may be losing over a quarter of a trillion dollars in future income every year.
So I wonder - how extreme does the enslavement of divorced men have to become before someone in the government starts reigning in our out-of-control divorce industry? The article suggests that few legislators care. Those men wouldn't have voted for them anyway.
-M
There are a variety of other ways in which the parallels with slavery are interesting.
First of all, apparently men don't have civil rights:
Jessica Weiler, assistant Michigan attorney general indicated that: "A claim of a debtor's prison punishment is not legitimate in a child support case." in a case where a man was claiming that he was being forced into debt-servitude.
Secondly, the enslaving government of the US has enacted a modern day version of the 'Dred Scott' decision - for those of you whose knowledge of the history of slavery has faded, Dred Scott was a slave who sued for his freedom (and that of his wife) based on the fact that he had resided in states where slavery was illegal, and should have been freed at that point, and should have remained free. The Supreme Court of the US issued an extremely ignorant opinion which basically enforced the rights of slave-holders over their escaped slaves everywhere. Similarly, as men were escaping from 'modern slave states' such as New York, New Jersey, California and Massachusetts to other, free states, the federal government created the 'Bradley Amendment' - which literally forced all states to revoke due process for any man who falls behind on their support and alimony payments, and required them to sieze assets and income of these men, and forbade them from forgiving these debts no matter what the circumstances. Somehow it seems appropriate that the sponsor of this bill, Bill Bradley, was Democratic Senator from my misandrous state, NJ.
We actually have TWO Dred Scott laws, because president Clinton signed a law (the 'deadbeat parents punishment act') making it a FELONY to cross state lines to escape slavery (see here for a summary of Clinton's wrongheaded work against men, set in glowing terms, and with lots of misleading statistics) Clinton also worked to be sure that 'deadbeat' fathers could be quickly identified if those fathers sought work in their new state, and force mothers to identify some male to foot the bills for their support.
Well, in yet another parallel with slavery, there is apparently an Underground Railroad for men: an organization called 'PAFE - the Planetary Alliance for Fathers in Exile which assists men locked into slavery in their home countries in escaping overseas. The Western Standard (registration required, but very worth it), discusses this organization and the flight of educated men from the slave states of North America. The article takes up the story of a Canadian tapped for $22,000 per year in support for children that he wasn't allowed to see. With some cloak-and-dagger and secured emails he is guided in escaping the country. Suddenly. Without notice. Secretly.
PAFE claims that 100,000 men per year abandon the United States alone due to the draconian divorce/support/alimony laws that are in place here. PAFE is quoted as saying "The number of men forced into illegal [...] debtor's prisons in America stands at a quarter of a million" and that many more continue paying into it just to be able to see their children and stay 'safe' day to day. PAFE also indicates that almost 100,000 men have similarly escaped Great Britain, and 137,000 from Australia, moving to Europe and changing their identities.
One father is quoted as saying "I figured [...] either I don't see [my children] from jail, or I don't see them from the U.K. So I chose not to see them from the U.K."
The head of PAFE, a doctor, states that he got into this business when another doctor approached him about doing something to reduce suicide rates among divorced men. It is no surprise to us that he was able to see the link between the misandry of the courts and the suicide rate. As of today, he has helped 4,700 men escape slavery and find safety in exile. If each of these 4,700 is a professional, they may represent over 9 billion dollars in lost skills and future income to Canada - and if the 100,000 number for the US can be believed, (and I think it is low), we may be losing over a quarter of a trillion dollars in future income every year.
So I wonder - how extreme does the enslavement of divorced men have to become before someone in the government starts reigning in our out-of-control divorce industry? The article suggests that few legislators care. Those men wouldn't have voted for them anyway.
-M
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
P is for Paternity
OK, it was only a matter of time before I got to Paternity. I considered titling this 'p is for privacy' in an attempt to parallel the interesting (unique?, bizarre?) way the courts and women's movement utilized a 'right to privacy' as a justificantion for access to abortion (and wonder why it doesn’t apply to men), but decided that was too abstruse, and besides, I eventually want to do another piece on loss of privacy in divorce, soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo....
Let's talk about paternity. Imagine that the state has created a contractual state that you enter into without signing a contract, but by behavior - by doing a particular thing (like marriage). And further imagine that you can be compelled to fulfill that contract, even if you never did that particular thing. Such is the case with paternity law in most states.
Now first of all, it should be clear that except for totally insane wackos, (which unfortunately make up a large percentage of the human race, and apparently almost all family court judges), it is clear that 'having sex with someone' is not 'consenting to become a father', and one should not imply the other, or any of the responsibilities that go with it.
Admittedly, our legal system is in a different place. The general gist of legal thought on this subject is, more or less, that men all know that women can get pregnant, and so if men have something that resembles sex with women, they should be responsible for the woman's subsequent choice to have or not have that child, and spend much of the rest of their lives supporting it. This wrongheaded, misandrous argument is additionally bolstered by another idiotic argument, the argument that the offspring in question deserves to be parented by someone, especially someone other than the state, and therefore SOMEONE (i.e. someone male) must be tapped to support it. (…sounds like Dr Seuss – “someone, someone had to you see, so they picked out two someones, boy you and boy me”) The purported biological father being around, and having the necessary male parts to identify his sex, he is drafted. Note, DNA testing not usually being to hand, women can just name the father, his name ends up appearing on a support order, and months or years later, you find your salary disappearing down a black hole of child support, whether you were the actual parent or not.
The state has gone to extremes to protect their flawed logic of paternity. Fathers have been enslaved who were lied to about the reproductive status or intent of the mother. Fathers have been enslaved who had their sperm transferred from mouth to ... well, you get it, and fathers have been enslaved who were merely sperm-donors (2nd example). Even 'fathers' below the age of consent who were raped by older women - young boys - have been enslaved. And now that with DNA we can PROVE fatherhood, many presumed 'paternities' - with vast amounts of support paid and received - have been overturned. But usually not the support orders that go with those paternities - the courts want to preserve the wrong paternity for support reasons - they claim that 1) their original ruling stands as to paternity (even if proven false) because the court is never wrong (cough, cough) and besides the kid's mom needs the money, that 2) the child 'needs a father' and the only one to hand should fill the role, and 3) that the 'trauma' of having the child learn that he is not the biological child of the father who has been supporting the child for years is more important than the right of this non-father not to be enslaved. (Note, if we didn’t believe in slavery in this country in the first place, this wouldn’t be a problem, but unfortunately, we do.)
All of this may seem outrageous, unbelievable and insane to you, but this is just another part of our misandrous legal culture. Please follow the links, and read the stories, and support the National Center for Men's "Voluntary Fatherhood Project". Help win equal rights for men, or don't complain when some girlfriend from your high school, or college, or from 10, 15, even 18 years ago comes hunting for the potential father with the deepest pockets to pay her decade of back support, and you, (or if you are a woman, your boyfriend/fiancee/husband) are(/is) the one who fits the bill. ...Yeah, ...it can happen. Men get 30 days or so to contest paternity. The mother gets 18 years to change their minds about needing help and hunt some man down.
Oh, and let's think about what courts are incentivizing with all this... Having already made marriage something no financially prudent man would ever enter into - the courts are saying that you should only engage in one-night-stands with women who you don't tell your real name to, and will never see again.
Ma Jersey Sings:
Just date her once
Don't see her again
Or you'll forever be
Her Sugar-Man
-M
Let's talk about paternity. Imagine that the state has created a contractual state that you enter into without signing a contract, but by behavior - by doing a particular thing (like marriage). And further imagine that you can be compelled to fulfill that contract, even if you never did that particular thing. Such is the case with paternity law in most states.
Now first of all, it should be clear that except for totally insane wackos, (which unfortunately make up a large percentage of the human race, and apparently almost all family court judges), it is clear that 'having sex with someone' is not 'consenting to become a father', and one should not imply the other, or any of the responsibilities that go with it.
Admittedly, our legal system is in a different place. The general gist of legal thought on this subject is, more or less, that men all know that women can get pregnant, and so if men have something that resembles sex with women, they should be responsible for the woman's subsequent choice to have or not have that child, and spend much of the rest of their lives supporting it. This wrongheaded, misandrous argument is additionally bolstered by another idiotic argument, the argument that the offspring in question deserves to be parented by someone, especially someone other than the state, and therefore SOMEONE (i.e. someone male) must be tapped to support it. (…sounds like Dr Seuss – “someone, someone had to you see, so they picked out two someones, boy you and boy me”) The purported biological father being around, and having the necessary male parts to identify his sex, he is drafted. Note, DNA testing not usually being to hand, women can just name the father, his name ends up appearing on a support order, and months or years later, you find your salary disappearing down a black hole of child support, whether you were the actual parent or not.
The state has gone to extremes to protect their flawed logic of paternity. Fathers have been enslaved who were lied to about the reproductive status or intent of the mother. Fathers have been enslaved who had their sperm transferred from mouth to ... well, you get it, and fathers have been enslaved who were merely sperm-donors (2nd example). Even 'fathers' below the age of consent who were raped by older women - young boys - have been enslaved. And now that with DNA we can PROVE fatherhood, many presumed 'paternities' - with vast amounts of support paid and received - have been overturned. But usually not the support orders that go with those paternities - the courts want to preserve the wrong paternity for support reasons - they claim that 1) their original ruling stands as to paternity (even if proven false) because the court is never wrong (cough, cough) and besides the kid's mom needs the money, that 2) the child 'needs a father' and the only one to hand should fill the role, and 3) that the 'trauma' of having the child learn that he is not the biological child of the father who has been supporting the child for years is more important than the right of this non-father not to be enslaved. (Note, if we didn’t believe in slavery in this country in the first place, this wouldn’t be a problem, but unfortunately, we do.)
All of this may seem outrageous, unbelievable and insane to you, but this is just another part of our misandrous legal culture. Please follow the links, and read the stories, and support the National Center for Men's "Voluntary Fatherhood Project". Help win equal rights for men, or don't complain when some girlfriend from your high school, or college, or from 10, 15, even 18 years ago comes hunting for the potential father with the deepest pockets to pay her decade of back support, and you, (or if you are a woman, your boyfriend/fiancee/husband) are(/is) the one who fits the bill. ...Yeah, ...it can happen. Men get 30 days or so to contest paternity. The mother gets 18 years to change their minds about needing help and hunt some man down.
Oh, and let's think about what courts are incentivizing with all this... Having already made marriage something no financially prudent man would ever enter into - the courts are saying that you should only engage in one-night-stands with women who you don't tell your real name to, and will never see again.
Ma Jersey Sings:
Just date her once
Don't see her again
Or you'll forever be
Her Sugar-Man
-M
Friday, September 02, 2005
C is for Child Support
this content is totally stolen, but rearranged, it will make a great post. I will credit the fathersrights tripod site for collecting this great data into one place:
2/3 of children are not men's
women seek 2/3 of divorces
men don't get custody
I think the best
Much or all of this data collected originally by the fathers rights website (http://members.tripod.com/~fathersrights/) at http://members.tripod.com/~fathersrights/stats.html
-------------------------------------
the below is the text of the tripod site, in case it goes down or is whacked or something.
Statistics
"Ninety percent of divorced fathers have less than full custody of their children." Jonathan M. Honeycutt, Ph.D.(c), M.P.A., M.A., I.P.C. Director of Research, Clinical & Consulting Psychotherapist, National Institute for Divorce Research, Panama City, Florida.
Children from fatherless homes account for:
63% of youth suicides. (Source: US Dept. of Health & Human Services, Bureau of the Census).
71% of pregnant teenagers. (Source: US Dept. of Health & Human Services)
90% of all homeless and runaway children.
70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders. (Source: Center for Disease Control).
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger. (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol. 14, p. 403-26, 1978).
71% of all high school dropouts. (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools).
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers. (Source: Rainbows for all God`s Children).
85% of all youths sitting in prisons. (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992).
The State of Fatherhood
37.9% of fathers have no access/visitation rights. (Source: p.6, col.II, para. 6, lines 4 & 5, Census Bureau P-60, #173, Sept 1991.)
"40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the non-custodial father's visitation on at least one occasion, to punish the ex-spouse." (Source: p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing Fulton) Frequency of visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in Reports by Fathers and Mothers. Sanford Braver et al, Am. J. of Orthopsychiatry, 1991.)
"Overall, approximately 50% of mothers "see no value in the father`s continued contact with his children...." (Source: Surviving the Breakup, Joan Kelly & Judith Wallerstein, p. 125)
Only 11% of mothers value their husband's input when it comes to handling problems with their kids. Teachers & doctors rated 45%, and close friends & relatives rated %16.(Source: EDK Associates survey of 500 women for Redbook Magazine. Redbook, November 1994, p. 36)
"The former spouse (mother) was the greatest obstacle to having more frequent contact with the children." (Source: Increasing our understanding of fathers who have infrequent contact with their children, James Dudley, Family Relations, Vol. 4, p. 281, July 1991.)
"A clear majority (70%) of fathers felt that they had too little time with their children." (Source: Visitation and the Noncustodial Father, Mary Ann Kock & Carol Lowery, Journal of Divorce, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 54, Winter 1984.)
"Very few of the children were satisfied with the amount of contact with their fathers, after divorce." (Source: Visitation and the Noncustodial Father, Koch & Lowery, Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 50, Winter 1984.)
"Feelings of anger towards their former spouses hindered effective involvement on the part of fathers; angry mothers would sometimes sabotage father's efforts to visit their children." (Source: Ahrons and Miller, Am. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 63. p. 442, July `93.)
"Mothers may prevent visits to retaliate against fathers for problems in their marital or post-marital relationship." (Source: Seltzer, Shaeffer & Charing, Journal of Marriage & the Family, Vol. 51, p. 1015, November 1989.)
In a study: "Visitational Interference - A National Study" by Ms. J Annette Vanini, M.S.W. and Edward Nichols, M.S.W., it was found that 77% of non-custodial fathers are NOT able to "visit" their children, as ordered by the court, as a result of "visitation interference" perpetuated by the custodial parent. In other words, non-compliance with court ordered visitation is three times the problem of non-compliance with court ordered child support and impacts the children of divorce even more.Originally published Sept. 1992
Child Support
Information from multiple sources show that only 10% of all noncustodial fathers fit the "deadbeat dad" category: 90% of the fathers with joint custody paid the support due. Fathers with visitation rights pay 79.1%; and 44.5% of those with NO visitation rights still financially support their children. (Source: Census Bureau report. Series P-23, No. 173).
Additionally, of those not paying support, 66% are not doing so because they lack the financial resources to pay (Source: GAO report: GAO/HRD-92-39 FS).
The Poverty Studies Institute at the University of Wisconsin, Madison discovered in 1993 that 52% of fathers who owe child support earn less than $6,155 per year.
66% of single mothers work less than full time while only 10% of fathers fall into this category. In addition, almost 47% of non-custodial mothers default on support compared with the 27% of fathers who default. (Source: Garansky and Meyer, DHHS Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, 1991).
Total Custodial Mothers: 11,268,000. Total Custodial Fathers 2,907,000 (Source: Current Population Reports, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Series P-20, No. 458, 1991).
66% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to inability to pay. (Source: U.S. General Accounting Office Report, GAO/HRD-92-39FS January 1992).
The following is sourced from: Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security Policy, Oct. 1991, Authors: Meyer and Garansky.
Custodial mothers who receive a support award: 79.6%
Custodial fathers who receive a support award: 29.9%
Non-custodial mothers who totally default on support: 46.9%
Non-custodial fathers who totally default on support: 26.9%
2/3 of children are not men's
women seek 2/3 of divorces
men don't get custody
I think the best
Much or all of this data collected originally by the fathers rights website (http://members.tripod.com/~fathersrights/) at http://members.tripod.com/~fathersrights/stats.html
-------------------------------------
the below is the text of the tripod site, in case it goes down or is whacked or something.
Statistics
"Ninety percent of divorced fathers have less than full custody of their children." Jonathan M. Honeycutt, Ph.D.(c), M.P.A., M.A., I.P.C. Director of Research, Clinical & Consulting Psychotherapist, National Institute for Divorce Research, Panama City, Florida.
Children from fatherless homes account for:
63% of youth suicides. (Source: US Dept. of Health & Human Services, Bureau of the Census).
71% of pregnant teenagers. (Source: US Dept. of Health & Human Services)
90% of all homeless and runaway children.
70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders. (Source: Center for Disease Control).
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger. (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol. 14, p. 403-26, 1978).
71% of all high school dropouts. (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools).
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers. (Source: Rainbows for all God`s Children).
85% of all youths sitting in prisons. (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992).
The State of Fatherhood
37.9% of fathers have no access/visitation rights. (Source: p.6, col.II, para. 6, lines 4 & 5, Census Bureau P-60, #173, Sept 1991.)
"40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the non-custodial father's visitation on at least one occasion, to punish the ex-spouse." (Source: p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing Fulton) Frequency of visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in Reports by Fathers and Mothers. Sanford Braver et al, Am. J. of Orthopsychiatry, 1991.)
"Overall, approximately 50% of mothers "see no value in the father`s continued contact with his children...." (Source: Surviving the Breakup, Joan Kelly & Judith Wallerstein, p. 125)
Only 11% of mothers value their husband's input when it comes to handling problems with their kids. Teachers & doctors rated 45%, and close friends & relatives rated %16.(Source: EDK Associates survey of 500 women for Redbook Magazine. Redbook, November 1994, p. 36)
"The former spouse (mother) was the greatest obstacle to having more frequent contact with the children." (Source: Increasing our understanding of fathers who have infrequent contact with their children, James Dudley, Family Relations, Vol. 4, p. 281, July 1991.)
"A clear majority (70%) of fathers felt that they had too little time with their children." (Source: Visitation and the Noncustodial Father, Mary Ann Kock & Carol Lowery, Journal of Divorce, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 54, Winter 1984.)
"Very few of the children were satisfied with the amount of contact with their fathers, after divorce." (Source: Visitation and the Noncustodial Father, Koch & Lowery, Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 50, Winter 1984.)
"Feelings of anger towards their former spouses hindered effective involvement on the part of fathers; angry mothers would sometimes sabotage father's efforts to visit their children." (Source: Ahrons and Miller, Am. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 63. p. 442, July `93.)
"Mothers may prevent visits to retaliate against fathers for problems in their marital or post-marital relationship." (Source: Seltzer, Shaeffer & Charing, Journal of Marriage & the Family, Vol. 51, p. 1015, November 1989.)
In a study: "Visitational Interference - A National Study" by Ms. J Annette Vanini, M.S.W. and Edward Nichols, M.S.W., it was found that 77% of non-custodial fathers are NOT able to "visit" their children, as ordered by the court, as a result of "visitation interference" perpetuated by the custodial parent. In other words, non-compliance with court ordered visitation is three times the problem of non-compliance with court ordered child support and impacts the children of divorce even more.Originally published Sept. 1992
Child Support
Information from multiple sources show that only 10% of all noncustodial fathers fit the "deadbeat dad" category: 90% of the fathers with joint custody paid the support due. Fathers with visitation rights pay 79.1%; and 44.5% of those with NO visitation rights still financially support their children. (Source: Census Bureau report. Series P-23, No. 173).
Additionally, of those not paying support, 66% are not doing so because they lack the financial resources to pay (Source: GAO report: GAO/HRD-92-39 FS).
The Poverty Studies Institute at the University of Wisconsin, Madison discovered in 1993 that 52% of fathers who owe child support earn less than $6,155 per year.
66% of single mothers work less than full time while only 10% of fathers fall into this category. In addition, almost 47% of non-custodial mothers default on support compared with the 27% of fathers who default. (Source: Garansky and Meyer, DHHS Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, 1991).
Total Custodial Mothers: 11,268,000. Total Custodial Fathers 2,907,000 (Source: Current Population Reports, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Series P-20, No. 458, 1991).
66% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to inability to pay. (Source: U.S. General Accounting Office Report, GAO/HRD-92-39FS January 1992).
The following is sourced from: Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security Policy, Oct. 1991, Authors: Meyer and Garansky.
Custodial mothers who receive a support award: 79.6%
Custodial fathers who receive a support award: 29.9%
Non-custodial mothers who totally default on support: 46.9%
Non-custodial fathers who totally default on support: 26.9%
A is for Alpha-Bet - or - What's on the Reading List?
...At some point I figure I will have completed an entire alphabet of divorce. Perhaps I will have it published and have it placed in the 'self-improvement' section of Barnes and Noble - there not being a Men's Rights section. Searching their Website for "men's rights" gives you the following: (Sorted by Top Matches):
Let's see... -The first three are all the same; basically the message is "A normal male body isn't good enough, you need to look like you take steroids":
#1 Men's Health® Hard Body Plan
#2 The Abs Diet Eat Right Every Time Guide
#3 The Body Sculpting Bible for Men
And next comes...
#4 Women, Sex and Dating for the Single Man: aka: "Why aren't you married yet, something must be wrong with you."
#5 Essential Manners for Men aka: "Learn how to act like a woman."
#6 Looking for Mr. Right ...as in, "it mentions men, it must be a match!"
#7 A Man, a Can, a Plan aka: "Men can't cook, except maybe with cans! "
#8 Life with Jeeves: The Inimitable Jeeves, Very Good Jeeves! and Right Ho, Jeeves ...Umm - maybe aka: "I could be really cool if I either HAD a servant with a bitter sense of humor who had no life of his own, or if I WAS a servant with a bitter sense of humor who had no life of his own." Actually, the latter sounds very much like my life, given what the courts are doing to me, and the two jobs me and my new wife are both doing to support the court orders against me.
#9 I'm with Stupid The cover shows Adam and Eve, and Eve is pointing at Adam. ...Haw Haw Haw... (choke)
and, #10, wait for it.....
#10 Stop Getting Dumped!: All You Need To Know To Make Men Fall Madly In Love With You and Marry 'The One' In 3 Years or Less ...Hmmm, perhaps this showed up because there is a sentence about how you need to distract the poor potential spouse from all those "Men's Rights" that he will be losing.
Perhaps someone says "NOT FAIR! - I bet a search on women's rights would turn up matches just as ridiculous!" Well, I was never one to leave a good turn un-stoned: Searching "Women's Rights" turns up: (I am leaving the links intact so you can go look at them, I am not going to comment on them here, except to note that they all do deal with women's rights.)
Susan B. Anthony: Champion of Women's Rights
No-Nonsense Guide to Women's Rights
The Dance of the Dissident Daughter: A Woman's Journey from Christian Tradition to the Sacred Feminine
Breadwinner
Women's Rights
Women's Rights in France, Vol. 74
Women's Rights: Changing Attitudes, 1900-2000
Veil and the Male Elite: A Feminist Interpretation of Women's Rights in Islam
Women's Rights
and...
Women's Rights
Clearly, Barnes and Noble has, and perhaps the publishers they carry have, a very misandrous view of men – when asked about “men’s rights” we hear “they are flabby and need to tone up”, “they need to get some manners”, and “Pity they can’t Cook”, and “They should just get married”. –Lovely. There are a decent number of men’s rights authors out there. Why aren’t they listed?
For me, its time to get back to the slave-pits.
(Used to be the coal-mines, before alimony and child support, but now I don't get to keep what I earn.)
-M
p.s. No, I don't get anything if you click on the links above, so if you aren't interested in looking at the books, don't waste your time or tire your clicky-finger on my account.
Update - related news: The Geezer struggles with a library who has a policy that excluded men's studies.
Update 4-May-06: Ran Across Thomas Berger's Regiment of Women, mentioned in the comments - way over the top!
Let's see... -The first three are all the same; basically the message is "A normal male body isn't good enough, you need to look like you take steroids":
#1 Men's Health® Hard Body Plan
#2 The Abs Diet Eat Right Every Time Guide
#3 The Body Sculpting Bible for Men
And next comes...
#4 Women, Sex and Dating for the Single Man: aka: "Why aren't you married yet, something must be wrong with you."
#5 Essential Manners for Men aka: "Learn how to act like a woman."
#6 Looking for Mr. Right ...as in, "it mentions men, it must be a match!"
#7 A Man, a Can, a Plan aka: "Men can't cook, except maybe with cans! "
#8 Life with Jeeves: The Inimitable Jeeves, Very Good Jeeves! and Right Ho, Jeeves ...Umm - maybe aka: "I could be really cool if I either HAD a servant with a bitter sense of humor who had no life of his own, or if I WAS a servant with a bitter sense of humor who had no life of his own." Actually, the latter sounds very much like my life, given what the courts are doing to me, and the two jobs me and my new wife are both doing to support the court orders against me.
#9 I'm with Stupid The cover shows Adam and Eve, and Eve is pointing at Adam. ...Haw Haw Haw... (choke)
and, #10, wait for it.....
#10 Stop Getting Dumped!: All You Need To Know To Make Men Fall Madly In Love With You and Marry 'The One' In 3 Years or Less ...Hmmm, perhaps this showed up because there is a sentence about how you need to distract the poor potential spouse from all those "Men's Rights" that he will be losing.
Perhaps someone says "NOT FAIR! - I bet a search on women's rights would turn up matches just as ridiculous!" Well, I was never one to leave a good turn un-stoned: Searching "Women's Rights" turns up: (I am leaving the links intact so you can go look at them, I am not going to comment on them here, except to note that they all do deal with women's rights.)
Susan B. Anthony: Champion of Women's Rights
No-Nonsense Guide to Women's Rights
The Dance of the Dissident Daughter: A Woman's Journey from Christian Tradition to the Sacred Feminine
Breadwinner
Women's Rights
Women's Rights in France, Vol. 74
Women's Rights: Changing Attitudes, 1900-2000
Veil and the Male Elite: A Feminist Interpretation of Women's Rights in Islam
Women's Rights
and...
Women's Rights
Clearly, Barnes and Noble has, and perhaps the publishers they carry have, a very misandrous view of men – when asked about “men’s rights” we hear “they are flabby and need to tone up”, “they need to get some manners”, and “Pity they can’t Cook”, and “They should just get married”. –Lovely. There are a decent number of men’s rights authors out there. Why aren’t they listed?
For me, its time to get back to the slave-pits.
(Used to be the coal-mines, before alimony and child support, but now I don't get to keep what I earn.)
-M
p.s. No, I don't get anything if you click on the links above, so if you aren't interested in looking at the books, don't waste your time or tire your clicky-finger on my account.
Update - related news: The Geezer struggles with a library who has a policy that excluded men's studies.
Update 4-May-06: Ran Across Thomas Berger's Regiment of Women, mentioned in the comments - way over the top!
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
S is for Superior Firepower
Well, it seems like just yesterday we found out about how North Carolina wants to issue concealed weapons to women who file for a restraining order - restraining orders which have been requested, in many cases, to get the husband out of the house, and deny him access to his children.
Now I see via an article on equalparenting-bc.ca that in Canada, if a man actually owns arms during a divorce, they will often be confiscated, and the ownership of the weapons will become grounds for a restraining order. So the right to bear arms, apparently only applies to women once divorce is in the air. I can't believe that this is restricted to Canada, and wonder how many men in other countries, along with losing their income, assets, houses and children have had their firearms confiscated, and how often US women have claimed that they were in fear for their lives, not for anything the man has done, but because the man owned a gun. (Of course, in the US, a woman doesn't have to give a reason she is afraid of her husband to get a Temporary Restraining Order, so maybe this doesn't come up as much.)
The article has some good quotes that echo things happening here in the states, such as the way women are often encouraged to misrepresent the facts so as to gain advantage during a divorce, and how whereas their lies are taken seriously, there are no repercussions if and when their lies are discovered:
Painting gun owners as unstable potential threats is part of a trend in nasty separation battles, explains one family lawyer, who asked not to be identified. "In an ugly divorce, the first thing you have to do is put the spouse in a bad light," she says. "A common question is, 'Has there ever been any sexual abuse of the children, has he ever threatened you, ever hit you, anything you're scared of, can you even insinuate that he threatened you? Then we can probably get him out of the house and have him look bad in a court battle." The ethics walk a fine line, she adds. "You don't say, 'Make it up,' but, 'Looking back, can you, in hindsight, say it may have been construed as a threat?"
And in the next paragraph:
"False allegations are not against the law," says [Ross] Bailey [executive-at-large with the Parents' Coalition of B.C.]. "You can lie on an affidavit and you don't get called on it like you do in criminal court. They can say, 'Yes he does have guns and he has threatened me.' The fact is, the more you lie, the more you get."
The article ends with a line that I would like help wrap up my post too, a quote that explains what is wrong with US divorce to a tee:
Whenever one makes a law [that] arms one group of people with a club to beat the other, that club invariably will be used.
In short women have been armed with a bigger club - in court they have overwhelmingly superior firepower - the confiscation of men's arms, and the issuing of arms to women is just a translation of that legal firepower into physical ordinance.
-M
Now I see via an article on equalparenting-bc.ca that in Canada, if a man actually owns arms during a divorce, they will often be confiscated, and the ownership of the weapons will become grounds for a restraining order. So the right to bear arms, apparently only applies to women once divorce is in the air. I can't believe that this is restricted to Canada, and wonder how many men in other countries, along with losing their income, assets, houses and children have had their firearms confiscated, and how often US women have claimed that they were in fear for their lives, not for anything the man has done, but because the man owned a gun. (Of course, in the US, a woman doesn't have to give a reason she is afraid of her husband to get a Temporary Restraining Order, so maybe this doesn't come up as much.)
The article has some good quotes that echo things happening here in the states, such as the way women are often encouraged to misrepresent the facts so as to gain advantage during a divorce, and how whereas their lies are taken seriously, there are no repercussions if and when their lies are discovered:
Painting gun owners as unstable potential threats is part of a trend in nasty separation battles, explains one family lawyer, who asked not to be identified. "In an ugly divorce, the first thing you have to do is put the spouse in a bad light," she says. "A common question is, 'Has there ever been any sexual abuse of the children, has he ever threatened you, ever hit you, anything you're scared of, can you even insinuate that he threatened you? Then we can probably get him out of the house and have him look bad in a court battle." The ethics walk a fine line, she adds. "You don't say, 'Make it up,' but, 'Looking back, can you, in hindsight, say it may have been construed as a threat?"
And in the next paragraph:
"False allegations are not against the law," says [Ross] Bailey [executive-at-large with the Parents' Coalition of B.C.]. "You can lie on an affidavit and you don't get called on it like you do in criminal court. They can say, 'Yes he does have guns and he has threatened me.' The fact is, the more you lie, the more you get."
The article ends with a line that I would like help wrap up my post too, a quote that explains what is wrong with US divorce to a tee:
Whenever one makes a law [that] arms one group of people with a club to beat the other, that club invariably will be used.
In short women have been armed with a bigger club - in court they have overwhelmingly superior firepower - the confiscation of men's arms, and the issuing of arms to women is just a translation of that legal firepower into physical ordinance.
-M
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
D is also for Deadbeat
Kentucky still doesn't get it, or at least not Jefferson County, as Glenn Sacks' post on the ongoing persecution of Deadbeat Dads shows. County Attorney Irv Maze recently published the names of 1,000 'deadbeat parents' in the Louisville Courier-Journal (Article) (Quotes from article below). Irv claims that the list is helping his office 'locate debtors'. I have a whole series of problems with this, as you might imagine:
- If he has their addresses, I gather that he has already located them, and if he hasn't gotten their address right, isn't he publishing someone else's address, and putting whoever really lives at that address at risk?
- And by the way, did these 'deadbeat dads' get a full jury trial, where it was determined by a jury of their peers that they rightfully and reasonably should be paying the specified amounts? -Remember, alimony and child support judgements are only very rarely (read 'almost never') supported by anything resembling a trial, instead you are guilty until you can prove yourself innocent.
- And did a group of the alleged (alleged, because he didn't get a trial) deadbeat's peers or even a group of lawyers or judges review case law at a sentancing hearing, and decide that publishing their names was appropriate, given their crimes?
I gather that none of these questions was adequately asked or answered by Attorney Maze, and not only that, that he is not aware that the vast majority of 'deadbeat dads' are not people who are choosing not to pay their support and alimony, but instead are people who CANNOT pay the judgements against them, again, judgements entered into without the benefit of a jury, or any peer review of the reasonableness of the fines and punishments being levied. Irv either just doesn't get it, or is pandering to an ignorant class of voters, instead of persuing justice.
In his article, Glenn cites the statistics and facts on deadbeat dads, how the majority are simple laborers and the like, people without huge earning potential against whom huge judgements have been made - again, just to reiterate, without trial or review. Whereas these statistics are great, and help to debunk the 'deadbeat dad' myth, they totally shortchange another group - the men who did (prior to their divorce) have resources and education, who are now, because of job loss or financial difficulty on top of their divorce, now barely evading being a 'deadbeat dad', or who have slipped into that state due to the immensity of the debts loaded upon them by the legal system in spite of their job loss or 'underemployment'. ...Men who are required, in many cases, to continue to finance a six figure lifestyle for their ex, while just scraping by themselves. Men whose life, lifestyle, and prospects somehow just don't matter anymore. Men, often locked out of their children's lives, and prevented from having their own anymore. Men who are enslaved to their ex, and the machinery of divorce- the family law system. We call these people the 'Disposable Dads', and under the current law it's most of us.
-M
p.s.
Irv is so unrepentant or more likely clueless as to post the list on his county web-site, along with his phone, and an address and an email. Howabout letting him know what he is doing wrong? The man is also up for re-election in 2006. Maybe the locals will boot him.
Also the Louisville Courier-Journal Article does make an effort to represent part of the men's-rights side:
But some fathers' rights advocates criticized publishing the names of parents who owe child support, saying the public shame unfairly stigmatizes fathers.
Jeffery Leving, a prominent Chicago lawyer who lobbies for fathers seeking custody and visitation rights, heads the state-appointed Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood.
Most fathers behind on child support don't pay because they don't have the money, often because of illness or unemployment, Leving said. Many who can pay but don't have been denied visitation rights, he said.
"I've never seen a list of deadbeat moms who don't allow visitation," he said, adding that the U.S. child-support enforcement system is "gender biased."
but the article ends with comments from the executive director of a community center in Newburg called 'The Lighthouse' who claims that children 'refuse to learn' because the 'absent' (uh, expelled? denied? disposed-of?) father falls behind on support and so there is no incentive to learn. This seems like unfortunate spin, with little basis in fact, and ignoring the very real facts that men are often denied the minimal visitation rights granted by the court, and are left paying outrageous sums for a family that they cannot see, and to an ex-spouse who often enjoys a lifestyle better than theirs.
L is for Leprosy
One of the problems that divorced people face is the attitude of our culture towards divorce. Divorced people are seen as being unethical people who care more about their social and sex lives than about their vows and offspring. They are excluded from groups and shunned in gatherings – almost as if they had leprosy. Men get the worst of it, because they are assumed to be at fault. They hear obnoxious comments about ‘having a middle age crisis’ and ‘thinking with their little head’ even by those who should know better. When men complain that they are getting shafted in the divorce and post-divorce actions, people argue that ‘that is the price you pay’, or that ‘you should have thought about that before you had children’. Add to that the condemnation of the church – the Catholic Church, for instance, is more forgiving of murderers than of divorced people – just confess and repent, and you can be forgiven and receive the sacraments, but if your ex-spouse is still alive, you can’t be forgiven for divorce. (See, not only the state treats murderers better than divorced men.)
Well I have two news flashes for the world:
1) Most men don’t file for divorce – Women file for divorce twice as often as men.
2) Divorced men aren’t suffering from a middle age crisis – women in their 40s are filing for 66% of the divorces, and infidelity is not usually a reason for the divorce.
I don’t feel that divorce itself is evil. If you follow the teachings of the church closely, (and most people have some sort of faith) you will probably NOT be intimate with, or cohabit with your spouse prior to marriage, and this leads to many persons who are just incompatible being married - they just don't know their spouse. On the other hand, cohabitation won’t do you any good if you aren’t very willing to leave in search of a better partner, and once people are living together, they often feel that they must marry to justify their flaunting of convention. Once married, they may realize that they have made a huge mistake – which marrying the wrong person is. Sometimes they struggle with their marriage to this wrong person for years and years, sliding farther into despair as they go along, with the pressure of community, church, and state on them to keep trying to ‘make it work’ and ‘stay for the children’. So our culture pushes people into marriage who shouldn’t be there, tries to keep them there, no matter how awful it is, and then condemns them when they divorce.
What about the children though? Those innocent victims of divorce whose lives are torn apart? Shouldn’t people stay together ‘for the children’ if they have had some? I say no. Although our culture often seems to believe that marriage is about children, it is not. Children are an important responsibility that comes out of a marriage, but fundamentally, a marriage is a union between two people who love each other. If that love dies, and cannot be rekindled, staying in that marriage is a little piece of hell, like being nailed into a coffin with the corpse of someone you once loved, except that the corpse isn’t a quiet cohabitant, no it keeps grabbing you, or, most likely, abusing you in a variety of ways. Forcing someone to remain in a situation like that is a crime, and leads to hatred – and a household full of hatred is not a good place to raise children. Far better, after making a reasonable effort to save the marriage, to split and remain as amicable as possible, then to stay and create a living hell on earth.
So, people, get it through your heads; sometimes divorce is the best solution possible, men don’t just abandon marriages for the next cute thing that comes along, and the statistics show that if anything, middle-aged men are just stable as their younger counterparts, and possibly more stable. It’s time our culture learned that divorced people aren’t incurably evil. It’s time to stop treating them like lepers.
-M
Well I have two news flashes for the world:
1) Most men don’t file for divorce – Women file for divorce twice as often as men.
2) Divorced men aren’t suffering from a middle age crisis – women in their 40s are filing for 66% of the divorces, and infidelity is not usually a reason for the divorce.
I don’t feel that divorce itself is evil. If you follow the teachings of the church closely, (and most people have some sort of faith) you will probably NOT be intimate with, or cohabit with your spouse prior to marriage, and this leads to many persons who are just incompatible being married - they just don't know their spouse. On the other hand, cohabitation won’t do you any good if you aren’t very willing to leave in search of a better partner, and once people are living together, they often feel that they must marry to justify their flaunting of convention. Once married, they may realize that they have made a huge mistake – which marrying the wrong person is. Sometimes they struggle with their marriage to this wrong person for years and years, sliding farther into despair as they go along, with the pressure of community, church, and state on them to keep trying to ‘make it work’ and ‘stay for the children’. So our culture pushes people into marriage who shouldn’t be there, tries to keep them there, no matter how awful it is, and then condemns them when they divorce.
What about the children though? Those innocent victims of divorce whose lives are torn apart? Shouldn’t people stay together ‘for the children’ if they have had some? I say no. Although our culture often seems to believe that marriage is about children, it is not. Children are an important responsibility that comes out of a marriage, but fundamentally, a marriage is a union between two people who love each other. If that love dies, and cannot be rekindled, staying in that marriage is a little piece of hell, like being nailed into a coffin with the corpse of someone you once loved, except that the corpse isn’t a quiet cohabitant, no it keeps grabbing you, or, most likely, abusing you in a variety of ways. Forcing someone to remain in a situation like that is a crime, and leads to hatred – and a household full of hatred is not a good place to raise children. Far better, after making a reasonable effort to save the marriage, to split and remain as amicable as possible, then to stay and create a living hell on earth.
So, people, get it through your heads; sometimes divorce is the best solution possible, men don’t just abandon marriages for the next cute thing that comes along, and the statistics show that if anything, middle-aged men are just stable as their younger counterparts, and possibly more stable. It’s time our culture learned that divorced people aren’t incurably evil. It’s time to stop treating them like lepers.
-M
Friday, August 26, 2005
M is for Malevolent Pt II
In the original post by this title, I cited the various evil things that the court system does to men, such as stealing assets, income, and offspring, without any real recourse, and since then we have come to learn that the judges are not just unfair on their own, but are trained to treat men unfairly, unequally - granting, for instance, restraining orders where no evidence of abuse is in evidence, and always interpereting the law 'against' the man. (see also here, and here, hat tip to fatherhoodcoalition.org) Well new evidence of evil has just rolled in; now a law has passed the legislature in North Carolina that would require the state to assist women who seek restraining orders against men in obtaining 'carry concealed' permits and guns, and giving local sherrifs legal leeway to grant these permits in these 'emergency situations'. Let's see, we want to give guns to women when we know already that 40% or more of them have just lied to have their hubbie thrown out of the house so that they can better steal his assets and keep him from his children. Oh, that's just lovely. Steal the bull-elephant's food, his home, and his children, and when he comes trumpeting towards you, blow him away with your state-provided gun. Yet another example of how the state is clearly misandrous.
But there is good news! The law can still be vetoed: North Carolinans, call your Gov - he can still veto it before Oct 1. After that, it's puttin the guns in the hands of the thieves, always a winning strategy I think.
-M
hat tip to the DesertLightJournal for alerting me to this story.
p.s. The following quote from the fatherhoodcoalition might shed some further light on why issuing guns with restraing orders is bad:
Almost 90% of judicial magistrates in New South Wales acknowledged that protective orders were used in divorce - often on the advice of a solicitor - to deprive fathers of access to their children. Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Women's Bar Association, writes that restraining orders are doled out 'like candy.' 'Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply,' and 'the facts have become irrelevant,' she reports.
But there is good news! The law can still be vetoed: North Carolinans, call your Gov - he can still veto it before Oct 1. After that, it's puttin the guns in the hands of the thieves, always a winning strategy I think.
-M
hat tip to the DesertLightJournal for alerting me to this story.
p.s. The following quote from the fatherhoodcoalition might shed some further light on why issuing guns with restraing orders is bad:
Almost 90% of judicial magistrates in New South Wales acknowledged that protective orders were used in divorce - often on the advice of a solicitor - to deprive fathers of access to their children. Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Women's Bar Association, writes that restraining orders are doled out 'like candy.' 'Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply,' and 'the facts have become irrelevant,' she reports.
A is for Alimony Part II - or - Why Alimony is Wrong
Alimony is wrong.
Note that I don’t phrase this as a question – this isn’t a game show, although many men are in ‘jeopardy’. Still, for many, it is a question – some people just don’t 'get' that anything could be wrong with the concept or execution of alimony. In fact many consider it misogynous to verbalize the idea that alimony might be wrong. Once, when I commented that my well-compensated ex should just get on with her life, one of my lawyers said: “All men say that.” No tiptoeing around PC language like; ‘higher wage earner’, no, my lawyer said it the way it is – men pay alimony and women collect it, and men don’t like it. But let’s get to the point of my post – that Alimony Is Wrong. That Alimony is Wrong needs to be explained to the world, in very simple language that can be understood by all. So, getting to it:
Alimony Is Wrong Because:
Alimony is a form of slavery: If you get divorced, earn more than your ex spouse, are a man and get a divorce you will be paying a significant portion of your income to her against your will for years – without the choice to change careers and earn less (oh, you can change careers, but the courts will ‘impute’ your prior income to you and take the alimony out of your salary before it hits your bank account). This is slavery. Wikipedia defines slavery as follows: “Slavery is a condition of control over a person, known as a slave, against his or her will, enforced by violence or other forms of coercion. Slavery almost always occurs for the purpose of securing the labor of the slave.” It goes on to note that ‘Chattel Slavery’ is a specific form where the slaves can be bought and sold. So short of being bought and sold, alimony makes men slaves. The Constitution’s Thirteenth Amendment has the following to say on slavery: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Very simply, Alimony is Slavery, and against the human rights specified in the Constitution of the United States.
Alimony is Involuntary Servitude: The Department of Justice notes on involuntary servitude that US Code specifies that it is “unlawful to hold a person in a condition of slavery, that is, a condition of compulsory service or labor against his/her will.”, and further requires as a definition of Involuntary Servitude: “that the victim be held against his/her will by actual force, threats of force, or threats of legal coercion”. They continue to note that the US Code “[…]prohibits compelling a person to work against his/her will by creating a ‘climate of fear’ through the use of force, the threat of force, or the threat of legal coercion.” They couldn’t have described the process of enforcing alimony and child support better if they had put their mind to it. -Title 18 USC Section 1584
Alimony and Child Support are “Debt Servitude” or “Peonage”: A debt is the requirement that an individual pay a sum of money, and tying this debt to labor that you require an individual to undertake in order to pay off this sum is peonage under the US Code. When a court in addition imputes a man’s income, attaches to his wages, and takes more than 10% of his income (65% being what the court is allowed to take in NJ), without recourse being allowed to bankruptcy, it becomes an even more obvious. Clearly Alimony is Debt Servitude/Peonage. -Title 18 USC Section 1581
Divorce Agreements Specifying Alimony are Unconscionable Contracts: An unconscionable contract is a contract that is “so unfair to a party that no reasonable or informed person would agree to it.” Clearly any contract that reduces one party to involuntary servitude or debt servitude must be considered unconscionable. To prove this, lawyers usually try to prove that the contract was signed under duress, undue influence, or unconscionable bargaining. Duress includes threats of imprisonment (hmm, sounds familiar) and threats of withholding or taking money or goods in exchange for payments or signatures (this is also a pervasive element of divorce). Undue Influence seems moot in a court system where the Judges are trained to ignore men's rights, and men are assumed to need to pay. I think it is fair to presume that undue influence is present in alimony, because the man really has no choice but to sign the divorce contract. Unconscionable Bargaining is where one party did not understand the consequence of signing the contract. Mostly at the divorce agreement stage, men understand too well, but have no choice (duress) – but their fate was sealed at another signature point – the marriage contract signing point. I think it is fair to argue that men paying alimony in general did not understand the implications of marriage when they got married, and in most cases would not have done so if they had known the very real and mechanical outcome of the failure of their marriage. In this way, a foundational agreement that is presumed in the divorce agreement is a product of unconscionable bargaining. So in several ways, divorce agreements specifying alimony are unconscionable contracts.
Alimony is Chauvinist in Effect – Discriminatory Against Men: The vastly overwhelming majority of alimony-payers are men, and it is well known and admitted that divorce laws relating to alimony and division of property are applied differently depending on who the sex of the higher wage-earner is. This is against our guarantee of equal rights in the constitution.
Feel free to add your own reasons, and I will return to add more myself. But for now…
-Good Evening and Best Wishes
-M
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
I is for (dis)Incentive pt IV
Tomorrow I hope to be too busy to post. But who knows? There has been a bit of posting action on 'N is for Nuturer' below, might be worth a glance....
I wanted to call atention to a couple different posts on the web about a different form of 'incentive' relating to marriage... ...rather than focusing on the relative rates of divorce between states, these posts call atention to the dis-incentive provided by our oppressive legal system as it affects the overall marriage rate- -producing what some are calling 'the marriage strike'. If you haven't seen this yet, take a look at this editorial at ifeminists by Wendy McElroy and also at this post by Matt Weeks that Wendy links to in her editorial. Oh, and Matt got a good part of his data and text from Glenn Sacks. All are well worth a read.
Marriage is down overall, and the factors pointed out by Wendy, Matt and Glenn (factors that we have also addressed here) are not insignificant. I worry that things will get still worse before they improve.
Yours,
-M
I wanted to call atention to a couple different posts on the web about a different form of 'incentive' relating to marriage... ...rather than focusing on the relative rates of divorce between states, these posts call atention to the dis-incentive provided by our oppressive legal system as it affects the overall marriage rate- -producing what some are calling 'the marriage strike'. If you haven't seen this yet, take a look at this editorial at ifeminists by Wendy McElroy and also at this post by Matt Weeks that Wendy links to in her editorial. Oh, and Matt got a good part of his data and text from Glenn Sacks. All are well worth a read.
Marriage is down overall, and the factors pointed out by Wendy, Matt and Glenn (factors that we have also addressed here) are not insignificant. I worry that things will get still worse before they improve.
Yours,
-M
I is for Incentive, Part III
Or, in some cases, Dis-Incentive
This post continues my series on the relative incentives or disincentives to marriage and divorce in different states, ranking them by their friendliness to men.
On the topic of incentives and disincentives, it occurs to me that a disincentive to marry for a man may be percieved by a significant percentage of the female population as an incentive to marry. So, in other words, one reason why we don't see a good correlation between states with worse laws for men and reduced marriage rates, might be that these laws actually incentivize women, causing them to be more eager for marriage, and to be willing to do more to get to that hallowed and highly lucrative state. After all, all you need is to get one hard-working and slightly naiive man to stay married to you for a few years, and have a child (a goal for many women anyway) and voilla! you have a second income for decades, perhaps even life, and everyone mooning over your hard luck with lots of sympathy.
I was thinking, and I figured that my last post was probably over-complex, with weighting factors and all - leaving readers saying, 'but, how do we know if we agree with his weightings?' and 'but what if he did the math wrong?' and wanting some simpler presentation of some of the basic facts. So I thought a simple list might help with that:
States where child support (supposedly) is not a percentage of income, and alimony ignores standard of living:
West Virginia
Wyoming
Oklahoma
Maine
Indiana
Kansas - state divides non-marital assets in divorce
Idaho - state divides non-marital assets in divorce
Louisiana - state divides non-marital assets in divorce
States where, although Child Support is a percentage, Alimony is not:
Mississippi
Arkansas
North Dakota - state divides non-marital assets in divorce
Perhaps tomorrow, I will go looking on the web to try and see if divorces in these states really reflect the supposedly advantageous legal situation that the data seems to show, or if the laws are ignored in order to care for the victim (woman), as we saw was happening in NY and NJ in U is for Unequal.
-M
Data for this study came from Abanet.
This post continues my series on the relative incentives or disincentives to marriage and divorce in different states, ranking them by their friendliness to men.
On the topic of incentives and disincentives, it occurs to me that a disincentive to marry for a man may be percieved by a significant percentage of the female population as an incentive to marry. So, in other words, one reason why we don't see a good correlation between states with worse laws for men and reduced marriage rates, might be that these laws actually incentivize women, causing them to be more eager for marriage, and to be willing to do more to get to that hallowed and highly lucrative state. After all, all you need is to get one hard-working and slightly naiive man to stay married to you for a few years, and have a child (a goal for many women anyway) and voilla! you have a second income for decades, perhaps even life, and everyone mooning over your hard luck with lots of sympathy.
I was thinking, and I figured that my last post was probably over-complex, with weighting factors and all - leaving readers saying, 'but, how do we know if we agree with his weightings?' and 'but what if he did the math wrong?' and wanting some simpler presentation of some of the basic facts. So I thought a simple list might help with that:
States where child support (supposedly) is not a percentage of income, and alimony ignores standard of living:
West Virginia
Wyoming
Oklahoma
Maine
Indiana
Kansas - state divides non-marital assets in divorce
Idaho - state divides non-marital assets in divorce
Louisiana - state divides non-marital assets in divorce
States where, although Child Support is a percentage, Alimony is not:
Mississippi
Arkansas
North Dakota - state divides non-marital assets in divorce
Perhaps tomorrow, I will go looking on the web to try and see if divorces in these states really reflect the supposedly advantageous legal situation that the data seems to show, or if the laws are ignored in order to care for the victim (woman), as we saw was happening in NY and NJ in U is for Unequal.
-M
Data for this study came from Abanet.
Monday, August 22, 2005
I is for Incentive Part II
AKA "10 Best States for a Guy to get Divorced In"
So I added weights to my analysis of states, and considered relative merits of the factors I had, and theorized and considered, and here is what I finally came up with:
Factors Considered in Order of Weight (Most Important to Least) and Why:
Major Factors: (181% to 70% Weighting)
Joint Custody Recognized: (47 States) – almost everyone claims to recognize joint custody - but if they don’t even claim to support joint custody, I figure they must be beyond the beyond. Note that custody drives child support, and sometimes alimony, and that children are usually considered your most valuable possession.
Child Support not a percentage of Income: (34 States) – I counted this as more important than alimony because states often (but not always) load the heaviest financial burdens on men here, and child support is not tax-deductible.
Alimony Ignores Standard of Living: (11) – There are only 11 states that claim not to consider standard of living – the rest of the states enslave men. Nuff said.
Secondary Factors: (40% to 20%)
College not Considered in Support: (33) – Although it is nice to pay for your kids’ college, for the state to mandate such a huge expense is inappropriate.
Only Marital Property Divided: (32) – Certainly being able to retain some of your family inheritances, pre-marital assets, and gifts as yours alone has significant value to men, even if it is difficult to do in practice. Especially with couples marrying later in life, this is relatively important.
Shared Parenting Offsets Support: (28) – Imagine paying a huge support number, even if you have the kids most of the time. Also having a law about this indicates that the state occasionally does allow joint custody and/or occasionally gives custody to the man.
Custody not a Factor in Alimony: (24) – Child support should be child support and spousal support should be spousal support. Blending the two seems like a bad idea, and a sign of murky thinking.
I added in a few other factors – consideration of fault in a divorce I actually weighted negatively, as I have seen enough of the court system to know that fault would generally be weighted against the man, there are 10 ‘community property’ states out there, and I weighted that against them (15%) – (division of marital property exclusion handled most of that already), the 12 states recognizing common law marriages got a minor strike against them (7%) (would be nice to be able to live in sin without having to be enslaved) and the 9 states making all income community property for tax purposes got a really minor tap (2%).
With all that said, here is my current ranking of the states in terms of friendliness to men in marriage, from best to worst. Reviewing the data, you can see that although some of the states that are known abusers of men have lower marriage rates, there is no great correspondence between abuse and low marriage rates in terms of the laws and weightings in this table. Still, this table may be of interest to those contemplating marriage, although it says nothing about the actual way the laws are applied - I apologize for the lack of lovely format, struggling with html inside the blogger is not worth my time.
State, Wtd Rank, Rank%, Marriage Rate 2001 as % of range, excluding NV and HI
West Virginia 1 100% 30.30%
Wyoming 2 100% 54.55%
Oklahoma 3 98% 0.00%
Maine 4 97% 41.41%
Indiana 5 95% 8.08%
Kansas 6 95% 27.27%
Idaho 7 90% 65.66%
Maryland 8 86% 22.22%
North Carolina 9 86% 29.29%
Virginia 10 86% 41.41%
Delaware 11 85% 18.18%
Nebraska 12 85% 32.32%
Ohio 13 85% 24.24%
Colorado 14 83% 38.38%
Kentucky 15 83% 42.42%
Florida 16 80% 48.48%
Louisiana 17 79% 37.37%
New Mexico 18 78% 30.30%
Pennsylvania 19 78% 11.11%
Michigan 20 78% 18.18%
Vermont 21 78% 50.51%
New Jersey 22 77% 17.17%
Rhode Island 23 74% 37.37%
Missouri 24 74% 27.27%
Mississippi 25 74% 18.18%
Utah 26 73% 57.58%
South Dakota 27 73% 42.42%
Montana 28 70% 23.23%
Oregon 29 70% 28.28%
Arizona 30 68% 31.31%
North Dakota 31 67% 17.17%
South Carolina 32 66% 44.44%
Minnesota 33 64% 19.19%
Nevada 34 61% 708.08%
Connecticut 35 61% 7.07%
Georgia 36 59% 14.14%
District of Columbia 37 59% 19.19%
Hawaii 38 56% 156.57%
Wisconsin 39 55% 16.16%
Tennessee 40 53% 90.91%
Illinois 41 50% 24.24%
Alabama 42 50% 47.47%
Iowa 43 48% 23.23%
Alaska 44 46% 33.33%
Massachusetts 45 44% 15.15%
Texas 46 44% 45.45%
New Hampshire 47 40% 37.37%
California 48 40% 17.17%
Arkansas 49 38% 100.00%
New York 50 29% 30.30%
Washington 51 26% 23.23%
My best to all: -M
Data for my study came from abanet .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
