U Not Gonna Like This

Several days ago I mented that I found 2 post on the Marriage Strike from the Abolish Alimony blog. One was linked to a blog called One Hand Clapping and here's what was written in the comments section:

If marriage is an unneeded opportunity for "guaranteed" sex, and an unwanted opportunity for responsibility, then what is it for? What's in it for me (if I'm a young male)? It looks like mostly a lose-lose situation unless you happen to be one of the lucky few who finds your soul-mate - and what are the odds of that?
DSmith | 07.15.04 - 9:21 am |

So perhaps that's part of it too - marriage is an unappealing possibility because it's a faily high expense in return for - what? Sex can be had pretty freely. You'll marry if you want kids, but I don't, and neither do a fair number of other people my age. Companionship? Maybe. But you also have to consider the kind of women that are out there.
Devilbunny | 07.15.04 - 11:18 am | #

(cont'd)
A friend of mine who lived in NYC told me some of his horror stories of the dating world there. He was looking for a serious relationship - willing to settle down. On a first date, he was asking her about goals for the future. She told him she didn't want to work. He said, "Great, so you'll take care of the kids!" No, she replied, she figured the nanny would do that. When he asked her just what exactly it was that she planned to do, she told him she wanted to shop and go to parties. According to him, she was in no way exceptional.

Why in the world would you attach yourself to that?
Devilbunny | 07.15.04 - 11:20 am | #

a while back my father asked me a question i couldn't answer. he wanted to know what was in it (marriage/relationship) for me. i found i couldn't answer.

marriage is the only business contract in this country that can be ended unilaterally by one party without consequence. i watched it happen to a friend. it seems that the whole institution is structured with the women as beneficiary and the man as the goat. it was always an institition to protect women and children, but the state has stepped in and taken all the security out of it for the men.

i find that the only reason i want to get married is because i was taught that it was the right way to live. with the fact that the person who taught that to me is now questioning why, in this day and age, i would find marriage to be a good idea, i am not so sure anymore.

i have watched many other romantic notions founder on the shoals of reality. will this one founder too?
Sean | 07.15.04 - 11:19 am | #


As a single man in his late thirties, who has never been married and has no children and who has a stable career as a high school history teacher you would think I would attract interest from some of those women in their thirites that were mentioned above, but alas. Dating at this age is awful. A few points:

1) I meet too many women who made those mistakes in their twenties and now are seeking an instant father for their kids.

2) A general observation that with the feminist movement is that women now have the "equal right" to be as big a jerk to men, as we have been accused of being to them for so long. I am actually toying with the idea of the testosteone version of "Sex and the City" I have had so many bad experiences with rude, selfish and unrealistic women in my age group.....
Bob Diethrich | 07.15.04 - 2:32 pm | #


3) Many women have become career and status obsessed (like the example above who wanted to live a life of luxury while her husband worked) I have actually had variations of this conversation too many times to count:

She: "Oh so you're a teacher. That is so great."

a bit later: "What? That's all you earn in year?!" Nose goes up and the conversation ends.

4) My most cynical point: I really think that many women DO NOT WANT NICE MEN! They want a project; some one they can mold and CHANGE! I have seen so many wonderful women throw their lives away trying to change some total loser, while ignoring the good men that were interested in them.
Bob Diethrich | 07.15.04 - 2:35 pm | #


Devilbunny, don't know if you read the NY Post, esp. the Sunday edition. There's a writer who talked about her struggle to find "Mr. Right". It was interesting, albeit not as much as GM Soltis on chess, but she went from guy to guy, often fooling around on the first date. I understand about the pressures of being in a very fast paced environment, but I don't know of any successful relationships based on a one night matress test.

A problem that has been written about is what I call the "Wedding Day Syndrome". I don't recall the source, but it pertains to all the hype over brides having the perfect wedding day, the best day of her life. As I work on figures/models at night, I hear all the ads for "your perfect day. We walked thru the local mall a year or so ago and saw all of these high priced services, 99% aimed at brides. Cont.

Don Parker | 07.15.04 - 2:37 pm | #

So the wedding day is all that the bride could ask for, everyone's eye is on her(esp. if she's wearing a Victoria's Secret type dress), absolutely perfect, the best day in her life.

So the rest of her life is just downhill, right?

I believe that Rev. S stated that he only marries couples that he has been able to council. I've come to the conclusion that he's correct, what with the exploding divorce within the Christian community.

If marriage is important to our society, then perhaps there should be more study/discussion on the topic. Some ideas for within the Christian community are to: encourage short term marrieds to talk with longer term marrieds; why are Christians divorcing so often; why do some couples stay together so long, til death do they part.

As to the secular world, I don't hold out much hope.

Don Parker | 07.15.04 - 2:50 pm | #


I think most young men today would be fools to marry, given both what they've been taught and the current legal and social climate

They've seen what their mothers did to their fathers and have no desire to repeat the experience.
S3 | 07.15.04 - 9:07 pm | #



TO: Kayse
RE: Ahem....

....I think S3 got it right and rather concisely too. The young'ns saw what happened, right before their very eyes. And lived with it afterwards.

They'll have no part of it.

And we're talking about them, Kayse. Not US good ole guys, here.

And as I said, the feminists will die out in a generation or two. They are not reproducing themselves. Their genes are being irradicated, by their own choice.

This will leave the more family-oriented reproducing themselves, instead.

In the military, we refer to this as a 'self-inflicted wound'. And it's mortal to boot.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Your math and/or history are off. Ike had his heart attack, the non-lethal one, in '55.
Chuck Pelto | 07.15.04 - 10:11 pm | #


I'm sorry.
Since about 1970, there has never been such a thing as marriage in western culture.
When you can make a promise of love through thick or thin, and then have laws that encourage divorce at the drop of a hat. A situation where the female has a 97% chance of ending up with the entire family contents-kids,house,and your future income - That is NOT a marriage.That is simply called extortion.
Joe2 | 07.15.04 - 10:39 pm | #



If you couple this reality with two other facts:- Children growing up with no fathers figure[ 35%], and it's companion -lower classes exponential growth, you have an End of Civilization : EndofRome situation.

I suggest that those gentlemen stating that they've been married for 20-30 years belong to an already dead world.

In New Zealand the male doesn't even need to get married. 3 Years living with anyone, is enough for them to Legally take half of all your belongings.

[coming to a country near you, very soon...as your governments realize that they can't tax the workers enough to support all the oncoming lower classes with no work ethics.]
joe2 | 07.15.04 - 10:40 pm | #



Kayse: "The old commercial has two sides: If you want a woman to be more of a woman, try being more of a man."

That theory sure didn't work for dad.

Then again he made a fatal mistake. In the wedding rehearsal, completely out of the blue, the bride-to-be looked at the minister (you know that doe-eyed look for protection and support) and asked: it didn't have to be "love, honour and obey" did it. Well the minister put a protective arm around her and said it most certainly did not! "Love, honour and cherish" it was. Dad said many times he knew right then, or if he didn't know he had a strong premonition, of what this was going to be. He should have turned around then and just run, no sorry, no goodbye, just flee for your life.
David Blue | 07.15.04 - 11:36 pm | #

But he didn't turn back, he went ahead as he'd promised to. And that was where it all went to Hell, and eventually of course to many years family court, which is an especially cruel department of hell.

Now when a woman sees in a minister, and lawyers, and every other agent of official and social power a shield and a lever of power for herself as against her husband and kids - and finds that yes it does work that way - that's doom right there, no saving it. The more a man tries to endure, the worse it's going to be.
Eventually Dad figured that out, and betrayed everybody, especially the kids, because he'd gotten sick of bearing things for the kids, and revenge is a human emotion.

Unfortunately, there is very little chance that anyone ever beat that minister to bloody pulp.
David Blue | 07.15.04 - 11:37 pm | #

Whever I see 'em I'll be posting more news and comments on the Marriage Strike. So stay tuned......

Here's a must read from Pook's Mill on why the illegal immigration is a moot point:

Aging baby boomers will create a nightmare in Social Security and Medicare. No politician will mention this, but they need all these new immigrants in, made citizens, so they can begin making more taxes.

So how is Matriarchy involved? Who makes up the majority of Social Security and Medicare users? Women. (Men die too fast.) They could raise the age of Social Security. They could put on many fixes. But there are also other Matriarchy issues with the Amnesty issue.

Third World Labor saved Feminism. Often, women will work and pay these immigrants to be their nannies. In the early nineties, there was something called "Nanny Gate". Clinton wanted the Head of the Justice Department to be a woman. The first woman went up to the Senate (since Senate must confirm each cabinet post) and, lo and behold, when she paid the nanny she did not pay the nanny's social security cost! Alas! So Clinton dropped her and put up another woman. And, again, when she paid her nanny she did not pay for Social Security. Noticing the pattern, Clinton then got a woman who wouldn't have a child so there would be no nanny gate. Which woman would you guess, by looking at her, would never have a child? Yep, Janet Reno.


Agriculture and Textile industries are also heavily for the Immigration Bill (for the reasons you would expect). But, ultimately, the real reason for the dogged insistence of this bill is that it is believed it will help stop the upcoming Boomer retirement recession (which will be mostly women).

However there's much more to his post than this. He has a few charts that illiustrate this problem. So stop by his site and see the whole post.

I keep hearing all this fuss from women now a days on how men "won't grow up." It's reflected in the media in films like Failure To Launch talked about on television, books, and elsewhere. But where exactly does this "Peter Pan Syndrome" come from? Peter Pan Syndrome has two different meanings as I have found out. The first is an actual personality disorder HERE is the first explanation:

The ‘Peter Pan Syndrome’ affects people who do not want or feel unable to grow up, people with the body of an adult but the mind of a child. They don’t know how to or don’t want to stop being children and start being mothers or fathers.

Peter Pan Syndrome can affect both sexes, but it appears more often among men. Some characteristics of the disorder are the inability of individuals to take on responsibilities, to commit themselves or to keep promises, excessive care about the way they look and personal well-being and their lack of self-confidence, even though they don’t seem to show it and actually come across as exactly the opposite.

However there is a second explanation based on something called "the Social Clock":

The Life Cycle and the Social Clock

Early models of adult development sometimes assumed
that marriage is a requisite life task for full
adulthood. Stage models posited a linear set of stages
that people progressed through over the course of a
lifetime. The concept of the social clock describes
societal expectations for the time at which people are
expected to marry, have children, and accomplish other
life tasks. What are the implications of these
expectations for the ways in which people who are
single are viewed at different ages? For example, are
people who have always been single viewed more
negatively when they are middle-aged adults than when
they are young adults? What are their actual
experiences? That is, do older people who have always
been single fare any differently in terms of health or
well-being than people who are married or who once
were married? (See also the section on Health and
Happiness.)

Stage models, especially those that specify marriage
as a necessary life task for adulthood, prejudge the
lives of singles as deficient. More recently, scholars
have questioned the adequacy of linear stage models,
especially as age-based norms seem to have become less
rigid. A few have attempted to address adult
development issues as they pertain to people who are
single. However, even these sometimes presuppose that
singles must reconcile themselves to their single
lives, rather than posing that possibility as a
question that allows for positive construals of the
single life course.

So there it is. The "Peter Pan Syndrome" that women are currently referring to is based on the idea of the Social Clock and is nothing more than a shaming tactic meant to pressure men into marriage. But as anyone who has ever read this blog will tell you my only advice to men is don't do it : Don't Marry.

Okay. I've editied the sidebar once again. I have removed the link to Fred X becuase I'm not sure he'll be back. Second I've added a few new sites. Thrid, many sites I suggest are on my del.icio.us linkroll. If you don't see it java script is not enabled on your browser. You'll also miss the translation widget (upper right hand corner) and the pdf conversion tool near the bottom of the right hand side of the site. (Please get it from HERE if you don't have it.)

That's it for now. Until next time. .

A post from What Men Are Saying about Women where he quotes Mens News Daily frequent commenter Dennis:

Your gender took that away. Why should men care if society collapses?


Denis said,


“Being forced to rely on one’s weakest skills, being made to feel like a second class citizen and being assigned boring material are all morale busters.”

“According to the National Education Association, only about 25% of U.S. public school teachers are male. Men are discouraged from teaching by low pay and by the stereotype that men who want to work with children or teenagers are pedophiles.”

“The frequent portrayal of men as idiots in commercials and sit-coms can lead boys to have low expectations of themselves.”

You are missing the big picture Eva. There are those morale busters and they are important but they are indicative of bigger issues. Those issues you site do add to the problem, but these issues themselves stem from a bigger problem and male students underperforming is just one result.

For the vast majority of my life this country has had an obsession with meeting not only the needs of girls and women but also an obsession with meeting their wants. This was all based on a lie that women and girls have been disadvantaged in this country by this invisible patriarchy. Men have always done the hard work and men have always done the dying in wartime, and men were always expected to take care of the females. Always.

But because so many of you women for 40+ years bought into the lie of how badly you were treated by the men, and with enforcement by the government, women have far and away all the advantages in both the work world and the family.

Companies for 40+ (years) have been scrambling to hire and promote (women) over the men and that obsession by corporations continues in full force, unabated today. That was a mans primary role: provider. But women and the government see to it that men compete against women with unfair advantage and it is the women who usually win that unfair competition.

In the family, well Eva, let’s just say that you women own the family today. You know it and I know it.

This has been going on for more than 2 generations. The boys you speak of here mostly come from single parent “families”, i.e., sons with a mother but no father present.


In this world, a smarter question would be “why should males really care about anything anymore?”

Your gender has spent 40+ years telling us men you don’t need a man.

OK. You win. We get the message. Actually, we GOT the message a while ago.


Years ago there was a cartoon called Peanuts. You may remember that Lucy would always temp Charlie Brown into kicking the football but at the last minute Lucy pulled away the football and Charlie Brown again would fall on his ass. Charlie Brown always believed Lucy. He always fell on his ass.



Well, men today get it. We know that everything is about girls and women and what they want. Everything wrong in the world is mens fault. Your gender has been trashing us men for decades on that one.

Why the hell should boys and men even bother to get up in the morning?

Yea America will be hurt by ignoring half it’s population. That should not be the concern or responsibility of the men or boys. Why should it be. Your gender has more to lose then the males anyways.

The greatest force that has created civilizations and pushed society forward (all done by men btw) is when men have a stake in their families and society. Men create and work, and propel society forward when they can provide for their families. When men have a stake in society.


Your gender took that away. Why should men care if society collapses?

Unless, of course, all you and the rest of the women care about, is that we men do the fighting and dying to preserve all the perks you have in life these days.


and in the comments section:



darkbhudda said...

I agree. I really do wonder what is the point of getting up in the morning and going to work. A single greedy or insane female can destroy your career with a false sexual harassment claim. Women are promoted above men even when they are not qualified. Then they go and get pregnant. HR makes jokes than most men enjoy being sexually harassed.

I work less than 40 hours a week now. What is the point of working long hours? It is only stolen through taxes to pay for greedy and selfish women.




Chet said...

I've actually thought that for quite some time -- as a male there's nothing in this society for me to care about. Changes to the legal system saw to that. I wouldn't lift a finger to fight for this country; there's nothing here for males worth fighting for.

I wonder if females really understand the predicament they're facing. In the not to distant future, the male-generated resources that currently bolster the females' artificial life style will no longer be available, due to depression and war. Men will fight for themselves, neither defending nor caring about women. Then let their collective female whining fall on the ears of men and boys who endured the haughtiness, mocking and derision these females displayed.



Anonymous said...

You are absolutely spot on about the motivation that Men have in our current Western culture. Boys from their youngest years are treated like future abusers, rapists,criminals and thugs. It was not always like this. Add to that financial subsidies in Female only Scholarships and you have the current demotivated Male populace. Men must realize that we don't have to settle for our second class status. We can go expat take our skills, capital and know how where it is wanted and where Women appreciate us for more than just a check or paying the invoice.


Outsourcing can be done to our overpriced, artificially priced Women. There are acceptable substitutes we can utilize to meet our love and Familial needs. Live outside the US somewhere where Spanish, Eastern European, or Asian Languages are spoken. Live there for just two years. It will completely change your perspective on life. US Women in particular fear this so much, they added a Tarrif so to speak to the reauthorization of the VAWA.


Don't follow their script. Write your own and think outside the box. Join the Marriage Strike and refuse to spawn an annuity. You are under no obligation to support your own oppression, NONE. Living well and being happy in this Vale of Tears is the best revenge.

Khankrumthebulgar



Denis said,

EVA EMAILS ME:

Well, the following should give a little insight of the inner working of Eva’s brain:

Eva Ellsworth wrote:

You wrote, “Your gender has spent 40+ years telling us men you don’t need a man.” I am sick and tired of being blamed for something I DIDN’T DO and that most women didn’t support. Most women were fine with men being the providers, but were told that it was unaccceptable to want to be a wife and mother and that, if a woman didn’t excel in college and at careers, she was a failure and a burden. Men didn’t exactly complain when women went to work and brought men their paychecks. Most men show no signs of wanting to be providers.

Well too damn bad Eva. YOUR GENDER…e.g., FEMALES brought this situation about, both through action and inaction. Most women bought into feminism early and many women support it today-even if they don’t want to be CALLED feminists. Most women have at least one unfair perk they don’t want to give up. Until that little perk becomes an issue these women appear normal and even fair. We men supported equal rights for women. Who told you it was unacceptable to be wives and mothers? Not men. It was the feminists. And you believed them why again? How is THAT my fault or problem? And when things went too far, women, including yourself waited until the bottom of the 12th inning to say one word about the unfairness. And mainly because men were starting to get noticeably hostile. (stick around-it’s gonna get a LOT worse).

(Some people call it The Backlash, I call it Hurricane Blowback!)

If you are sick and tired of hearing about uncomfortable truths that is not my problem. Get used to it. I don’t respond well to whining women. Especially American women.

“Years ago there was a cartoon called Peanuts. You may remember that Lucy
would always temp Charlie Brown into kicking the football but at the
last minute Lucy pulled away the football and Charlie Brown again would
fall on his ass. Charlie Brown always believed Lucy. He always fell on
his ass.” That is what happened to women. The goal posts were moved, so that being homemakers was no longer acceptable to society. We accomodated and worked our asses off only to learn that was unacceptable to men.

Oh PLEASE! Who the hell said being a homemaker was not acceptable? Feminists. Not men. We men don’t have any problem with hard work either and we recognize it and accept it in women when it occurs. No man I have ever known, and that includes myself, has complained about something earned fairly. As a guy, in my lifetime, there have been far more examples-far more-of incompetent women getting ahead for one reason: their anatomy.

“Well, men today get it. We know that everything is about girls and women
and what they want. Everything wrong in the world is mens fault. Your
gender has been trashing us men for decades on that one.” I can see from your comments that you have no clue what women, (normal women, not hard core gender feminists), want. I haven’t heard any women in real life, say “everything,” (or anything for that matter), is men’s fault. Maybe you should turn off “The View” or whatever you are watching.

Yea right. It’s easy to see things as not so bad when it’s your side that is not on the receiving end of the unfairness and injustice. And like a typical American woman you presume to know me so well that you are convinced I could not know “normal women”. Please. It is the normal women who now make up the 8 in 10 who initiate divorce (in a 50+ divorce rate culture). I know of many men who went down this road. Yea they were normal alright. And they knew exactly how to maximize their return on that deal. I could site plenty of differing examples with the same message-women take advantage of their advantages when they need to or want to. Because they can. Women know those advantages are out there. We men know those advantages are out there for women too. We also know that we men have no such advantages. Funny, when women were yapping and complaining in the 60s and 70s men could not jump to their aid fast enough. All men get today from women (and you are yet another example-*yawn*) is whining. And no empathy. Your problem is that you are an American woman.


Since you blame all women for the actions of a few feminists, do you also blame all whites for slavery.

Actually I blame feminists for injustice against blacks. Modern feminism started with the WKKK and the discrimination and hatred of blacks since the Civil War and the end of slavery falls squarely on the early feminists and the suffragetes. Feminists, along with all those duped “normal” women who have spread feminism’s destruction throughout this country have done far more damage to American society than any other group. For more on this go to “Margaret Sanger-More Feminist Hate” at [http://mensnewsdaily.com/wp/index.php?s=margaret+sanger]

When you read it, be sure to not blow a gasket. The truth is sometimes hard to handle.



And as far as the for women being bashed by men to abandon thier roles as wives and mothers I once again reach into the archives and pull out this page from the defunct David Throop Men's Issues page:


Selected quotes on abolishing the traditional family
Gerry Harbison harbison@xxxxxx.xxx.xxx writes

Some feminists object to the nuclear family. Some examples


Judith Stacey

The belief that married-couple families are superior is probably the most pervasive prejudice in the Western world.

Toni Morrison:

The little nuclear family is a paradigm that just doesn't work

Barbara Ehrenreich, as quoted by Stephen Chapman, from Time:

"Only with the occasional celebrity crime do we allow ourselves to think the nearly unthinkable: that the family may not be the ideal and perfect living arrangement after all -- that it can be a nest of pathology and a cradle of gruesome violence," she writes. "Even in the ostensibly 'functional,' nonviolent family, where no one is killed or maimed, feelings are routinely bruised and often twisted out of shape. There is the slap or the put-down that violates a child's shaky sense of self, the cold, distracted stare that drives a spouse to tears, the little digs and rivalries."

Ms. Ehrenreich extols the "long and honorable tradition of 'anti-family' thought," waxing nostalgic for those early feminists who regarded marriage as just another version of prostitution. This deeply defective institution "can hardly be the moral foundation of everything else," she argues, pining for the day when "someone invents a sustainable alternative."

And of course our own Gordon Fitch....

"The nuclear family is a hotbed of violence and depravity."
[Gordon Fitch clarifies his statement. -DRT]

Note that none of the authors above said 'traditional male-dominated family'. It is evidently not the religious right model they object to, but any nuclear family.


This is an intellectually legitimate viewpoint, although I claim I am entitled to object to suggestions that the family is intrinsically some sort of concentration camp, in the same way *anyone* is entitled to object to a blanket condemnation of the way they live. The dishonesty is in feminists pretending that there is not a significant anti-family movement in feminism. It suggests a stealth campaign, in which the real agenda is concealed.


And by way of sheaffer@xxxxxxx.com (Robert Sheaffer)

From Female Liberation by Roxanne Dunbar.

"How will the family unit be destroyed? ... the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare."

From article, "Is Marriage the Answer?" by Barbara Findlen, Ms magazine, May-June, 1995:

"Feminists have long criticized marriage as a place of oppression, danger, and drudgery for women."

From Sisterhood Is Powerful, Morgan (ed), 1970 p. 537.

"The Feminists -v- The Marriage License Bureau of the State of New York...All the discriminatory practices against women are patterned and rationalized by this slavery-like practice. We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage."

From Phyllis Chesler, Women and Madness, p. 294

"most mother-women give up whatever ghost of a unique and human self they may have when they 'marry' and raise children."

Alice Walker in "Embracing the Dark and the Light," Essence, July 1982. As cited in Andrea Dworkin's "Right-Wing Women":

"...I submit that any sexual intercourse between a free man and a human being he owns or controls is rape."

The context of the quote in RWW makes it clear that marriage is such a form of control

Lenore Walker, speaking at a Laguna Beach conference, as reported in the SF Chronicle:

"Our research and most other studies show that wife-battering occurs in 50 percent of families throughout the nation."

The SF Chronicle comments, "Only the most crazed man-hater could believe that." [I suspect it has more to do with hating marriage than hating men - DRT]

Lenore Walker, after visiting one of the early shelters for battered
women, wrote:

"I was struck by what a beneficial alternative to the nuclear family this arrangement [communal housing and child raising] was for these women and children." (p.195) The Battered Woman

Andrea Dworkin:

"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership."

Contributed by rodvan@xxxxxx.com (Rod Van Mechelen):

Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969.

"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ... "Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests. ...

"Families make possible the super-exploitation of women by training them to look upon their work outside the home as peripheral to their 'true' role. ... No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her speical responsibilities to her children. ... Families will be finally destroyed only when a revolutionary social and economic organization permits people's needs for love and security to be met in ways that do not impose divisions of labor, or any external roles, at all."

Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone; E. P. Dutton

In fucking, as in reproduction, sex and economics are inextricably joined. In male-supremacist cultures, women are believed to embody carnality; women are sex. A man wants what a woman has--sex. He can steal it [prostitution], lease it over the long term marriage [marriage in the United States], or own it outright [marriage in most societies]. A man can do some or all of the above, over and over again.

Note please that 8 out of the 9 names that appear on the list are women.

So there you have it. Women are their own agents of unhappiness. I may or may not write something else in a few minutes.

Nabbed from the Way Back Machine a story that appeared on the now defunct David Throop Men's Issues Page:

If you think that it cannot happen to you because you are one of the "good guys", think again.



Consider the case of James B. Maas, professor of psychology at Cornell University. Maas is the kind of professor others envy -- his introductory course on psychology is always filled to capacity, and the Cornell Daily Sun's annual poll of undergraduates rated the course the most popular on campus again and again. In 1993, Maas was awarded the Stephen H Weiss Presidential Fellowship, a prestigious teaching award.



Affectionate and outgoing, Maas has made it a practice (perhaps unwisely) to include his students, and particularly his teaching aides and research assistants, in his family life. On at least one occasion, he hired a student to serve as nanny for his children, and students were customarily present at family events such as birthday and holiday parties. Maas is universally acknowledged to be generous toward his students -- with his time, attention and money.



For the most part, Maas' efforts on behalf of his students were met with gratitude and loyalty. But a handful of the female students who had once been employed by Maas later came to see their experiences with him through an ideological lens. Twin sisters who had worked for Maas enjoyed a warm relationship with him. But they subsequently became teaching assistants to Andrea Parrot, a professor of human ecology and a gender feminist who believes that any woman who "feels pressured into sexual contact on any occasion is as much a victim (of rape) as the person who is attacked in the streets."



The twins rethought their friendly relationship with Maas. They remembered the affectionate hugs (always in front of third parties, often the professor's wife, but never mind), the gifts of watches and so on -- and concluded that what they had experienced as a warm friendship was actually sexual harassment.



The twins then recruited a third coed, a friend of theirs, who had served as a nanny to Maas and had, since graduation, been seeing a social worker who encouraged her to think of herself as a victim.



The three coeds then combed the list of former students and assistants to Maas, looking for allies. It was quite a list since Maas had employed upward of 500 students in various capacities (teaching assistants, film crew members for documentaries reasearch assistants) for 31 years. Almost all of Maas' former students responded to the twins with disbelief, and hundreds wrote to Maas directly to express their outrage at the accusations. But there was one student who claimed that Maas had once touched her breast seven years earlier (which Maas vehemently denies), and the lynching mob was off.



The bundled accusations of these four former students were presented to the college's Professional Ethics Committee in a procedure that bore all the marks of a star chamber. Neither Maas nor his adviser (a lawyer was not permitted) was allowed to be in the room while the women testified -- for fear of upsetting them. Maas had to listen to their testimony via earphones in a room two floors away. Witnesses who testified on Maas' behalf were bullied and mistreated.



One woman who said Maas' behavior had never been improper was instructed that she didn't understand secual harassment (she had been raped). A letter to Maas from one of the accusers expressing her deep gratitude for "everything you have done for me over the years" was ignored.



But even taking all of the accusations (except the breast touching) as true, the case against Maas just didn't add up to anything like sexual harassment. The bulk of the charges concern friendly hugs and kisses.



The committee acknowledged that Maas was not seeking sexual favors. But that didn't stop them -- and, later, the entire university -- from decreeing that Maas was guilty. Moreover, against its own policy, the Professional Ethics Committee leaked its verdict to the press, leading to an irrevocable loss of reputation to Maas.

Found them while doing some browsing for other information. This listing has been Marked for Death™©® by the Wikipedia staff so I though I would post it before it gets deleted:

Socialist Ten Commandments

Used in all the Socialist Sunday Schools, and committed to memory by the children.

Love your school companions, who will be your co-workers in life.

Love learning which is the food of the mind; be as grateful to your teachers as to your parents.

Make every day holy by good and useful deeds and kindly actions.

Honour good men and women; be courteous to all; bow down to none.

Do not hate or speak evil of any one; do not be revengeful, but
stand up for your rights and resist oppression.

Do not be cowardly. Be a good friend to the weak, and love justice.

Remember that all good things of the earth are produced by labour.


Whoever enjoys them without working for them is stealing the bread of the workers.

Observe and think in order to discover the truth.


Do not believe what is contrary to reason, and never deceive yourself or others.

Do not think that they who love their own country must hate and despise other nations, or wish for war, which is a remnant of barbarism.

Look forward to the day when all men and women will be free citizens of one
community, and live together as equals in peace and righteousness.


Socialist Club, 16 Wood Street, Bolton (circa 1912)

I saw this story posted at Yahoo! News several months before I stopped writing, but 
found it again after "googling" it from MSNBC:

In prison tapes, ‘Junior’ Gotti laments mob life
Modern mob losing its manliness, he told one friend

As he languished in a federal prison in
2003, John "Junior" Gotti had plenty to worry about.

The jail, he told visitors, was crawling with
informants. He had money problems. Old friends were
getting indicted. Other members of the Gotti clan were
stealing his money.

But at the root of his troubles was this: The modern
mob, he lamented, was losing its manliness.
"Now are we men? Or are we punks or rats or weasels?
You tell me," he angrily asked one friend while
serving a racketeering sentence.

A post from the comments section of What Men Are saying about Women:

Anonymous said...

The problem with feminism is that it never sought
to improve emotional or psychological relations
between men and women, or to cultivate genuine respect
for women. Instead, it sought to grant women
"freedoms" that are artificial and self-destructive
that are merely allow women to have a superficial
resemblance of equality.


But because men and women are so incredibly different, equality cannot possibly mean treating one exactly like the other, any more than
feeding both humans and plants plant food is a practice of genuine equality. Real equality means accepting people as they are and giving them what they need, not demanding that they all be alike, because it is impossible to make people exactly like each other.

Under the guise of gender equality, women are now
made to work as long and as hard as men, which
seriously impacts their physical and psychological
health, and yet they STILL have the responsibility to
raise their children just as they did before. And
because children will always need their mothers (and
fathers too) to stay home and take care of them, all
this "equality" has done is deprive children of their
mothers and cruelly work women like slaves. Now,
instead of having no fathers, children don't have
mothers either.

At the heart of this is a much more insidious,
subtle form of patriarchy. Women's "rights" were
fiercely supported by the business elite (all of whom
were men at the time women's rights became an issue),
because it meant that they could double the size of
their workforce of women had to work, and yet make a
single family wage entirely unsustainable - the dream
of all unscrupulous tycoons and moguls since time
immemorial!

And their dream has arrived - Americans,
particulaly American women, work as hard or harder
than many women in third world nations.

We should go back to the way it used to be - that
women COULD work if they wished, but didn't have to
and were encouraged, in particular, to avoid
occupations that were physically demanding or
dangerous - because most women simply don't have the
physical strength, endurance and reflexes to deal with
such danger. Men too were discouraged from certain
types of work - nannies, caregivers, and so forth -
because men lack the emotional resilience and
softheartedness that women possess.

The core of my argument is therefore that people
should follow their own nature - the attempt to
masculinize women and feminize men has only led us to
the disaster that is modern life.

The Jig Iz Up. American Women Not Wanted 4 Marriage.

This crazy bit of news from the Mens News Daily archives:

Incredible New NY Bill Will Make Staring at Women a Crime

August 27, 2007 at 1:20 pm

A letter from Jeff, a reader, about an incredible new New York bill:

"Dear Glenn

"This year, a couple of women complained to New York City Councilman Peter Vallone, Jr., about a man standing under the subway steps at their station and looking up their skirts.

"He has responded with city legislation, introduced yesterday, that would make all voyeurism in New York a misdemeanor.

"Staring at women is rude. But, if it were turned into a crime, we all know what would happen.

"You get all types of people on the subway here, everyone from rude men looking for cheap thrills to mentally ill, paranoid women. These problems are best handled by the individuals involved. Passing laws just to appease a couple of female constituents is just not a good idea.

"Peter Vallone is a relatively moderate voice on a city council dominated by wild-eyed extremists. I was surprised at this move. The New York Chapter of the ACLU recognizes this legislation as too broad and have recommended against its passage."

I would agree with Jeff that staring at women can be rude. Making it a crime is quite another matter. I would also add that some women do everything they possibly can so men will look at them. Or if that's not their intent, they sure make it seem that way. The New York Sun article on the new bill is below.

Law Would Be Curtains for Voyeurs
By Grace Rauth
New York Sun, August 23, 2007

New legislation before the City Council could make it illegal for New Yorkers to look at a naked neighbor.

Council Member Peter Vallone Jr., a Democrat of Queens, is proposing to outlaw voyeurism by extending a state law that forbids nonconsensual peeping with cameras. He'd apply the law to also include, in the city, peeping with the naked eye.

The law would target offenders who crane their necks to peer under the dresses of women scampering up and down subway stairs. But the legislation also would ensnare anyone caught glancing into the window of a private bedroom or bathroom, which, in a city full of densely packed apartment buildings, is a hazard or a pleasure of urban life, depending on how you look at it, or who your neighbors are.

"If you have an expectation of privacy and someone is looking at you, you would be violating this law," Mr. Vallone said. It would not, for example, protect someone who stands naked beside her living room window, he said.

The New York Civil Liberties Union said the legislation, which was officially introduced yesterday, was too broad and could lead to abuse. The bill's "lack of clarity confers a license for abuse on those empowered to enforce the law by leaving it up to the individual police officer to decide which kinds of viewing are lawful and which kinds are degrading and hence unlawful," the group's executive director, Donna Lieberman, said in a statement.

Under Mr. Vallone's bill, characters on the television show "Friends," which was set in New York City, probably would be serving hard time. The cast regularly watched a man who lived across the street, known as the "ugly naked guy." A nudist, he might not have pressed charges.

While the bill was designed to deal with repeat offenders who do their peeping in public, Mr. Vallone acknowledged that, "invariably, other situations are going to get caught up in this."

Violations would be considered misdemeanors, punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a $500 fine.

The bill states that it would be illegal for anyone to deliberately view another person in a private place when they are in a state of undress, having sex, or using the bathroom, without that person's knowledge or consent. In a public place, it would be illegal for a person to deliberately or repeatedly go to a position to view "another person's sexual or intimate parts" when "such parts are not otherwise visible to the public."

A spokesman for Mr. Vallone, Andrew Moesel, said the law would be easier to enforce than some might think. A victim of peeping would be able to call the police and give a description of the offender.

Read the full article here.

and in the comments section:

shatteredmen said,

"A victim of peeping would be able to call the police and give a description of the offender."

Whats new? They do this with domestic violence with the VAWA. All a woman has to do is accuse a man of abuse and authorities have to accept it. Now a vindictive woman will be able to claim that you were looking at her by simply making sure she is in a public place that you often go to.

Jim Peterson said,

I am encouraged to know these old winos under the stairs still have a pair. I was just commenting yesterday how the saddest thing about hobos and drunks is that they seem not to be attracted to all the young women they are making fools of themselves in front of. I saw an old drunk turn to look at a gorgeous 50 year old woman the other day and I was shocked that he cared. Mostly, a man who would let himself run down like that no longer has any testosterone or will to compete.

Someone please find the contact information, phone number, for Donna Lieberman.

August 28, 2007

amfortas said,

Another law, framed in non-gender terms, (Hah!) but aimed just at men. But you won't find women marching in the streets demanding equality.

August 28, 2007

Ed said,

Again, you guys are all correct but the outrage over the government wasting time over this is where? What;s next? Thinking about a woman will get you 5-6 at Rikers?

God, is anyone else outraged over the silliness that goes on in this country? The current administration playing paranooid delusional politics and the "skools" dumbing down so much our kids can barely read? Forget about math. Femal(e) this, feamle that, polical correctness this, political correctnes that. Does ANYONE give a political s**t about any of this?

A crime for starring at a woman? Virginia trying to force men to register on some list if they had sex out of wedlock?

Has this country lost it's politically correct mind?

If people from other countries read these stories they must be sitting there scratching their heads asking "what the f**k are those guys on?".

It's becoming rediculous to read the paper and think this was once the epicenter of great thought, it even prodcued the Federalist Papers. The founding FATHERS must surely be turning over in their graves.

The depth and breath of the stupidity and inaneness of these silly laws literally leaves me speachless.

Again, give women the upper hand and viola'. Our forefathers knew this.

August 28, 2007

bombbombbombbomb said,

Maybe a law stating that if a women does not want to be looked at that she wear more clothes, until she no longer "feels" uncomfortable being looked at. Maybe there should be a law against people looking at my crotch when I wear a speedo .

August 28, 2007

Ray Blumhorst said,

And what would be the response from New York's, gender feminized, political minds if someone proposed this as a legal solution to stop all the female exhibitionism going on in New York?

Burqa

Once again, it appears to me that the leftist, political institution of hate and government is more focused on criminalizing all things male, than it is in equitably addressing the factual dynamics of human sexuality in its totality.

August 28, 2007

Ray Blumhorst said,

Please check out these photos (link below) from the Los Angeles Commission on Assaults Against Women. Scroll down to see the posters and enlarge to read the words on the posters. Can we expect to see a similar program in New York City entitled, "This is Not an Invitation to Look at Me?"

Where does the irresponsibility of women end? Are we to the point yet where all gender feminists will start wearing and using baby pacifiers in public to show where their brains really are?

Notice the insidious words on the seemingly innocent picture of an adult man walking with a little girl in this vile pogrom )in my opinion).

This is not an invitation to rape me

August 28, 2007

Denis said,

"Where does the irresponsibility of women end?"

Women have rights without responsibilities.

Men have responsibilities without rights.

The former defines a child. The latter defines a slave.

In America, women are increasingly becoming children while men are becoming slaves more and more.

Men who are expecting women to finally behave as equals will have a long wait.

Men expecting women to speak out about this, and demand equality. will have a long wait.

My last two comments are indicative of inferior people. But calling women what they are, inferior, WILL cause women and many feminised men to speak out about THAT conclusion.

Go ahead. It only proves my point further.

August 28, 2007

anti armchair generals said,

Glen Sacks,
You have reported incredible stories that I have not seen anywhere else. What happens if Victoria's Secret has models on the runvay. What hapens to various pageants and parades if held in NYC.?

August 28, 2007

fourthwire said,

Staring at a woman a crime? This country has completely lost its nuts! Quite a few mentally ill women would cheerfully dress provocatively, walk casually through the area, then phone the police!

Male sexuality is being steadily criminallized at the behest of the feminazis. There are enough completely ball-less politicians such as New York City Councilman Peter Vallone to pander to those bitches to make such misandry de rigeur in America today.

Soon men will be forced to avert their eyes from women, as the slaves of old had to avert their eyes from the ruling classes.

New York City - Gynocracy Capital Of The East Coast………

August 30, 2007

Just like Dennis said, women have rights without responsibility. I've seen it in Mardi Gras videos women going around in nothing more than body paint to advertise their sexuality to a man for a pair of plastic beads. But should any other man "respond" to that advertisment by attempting to feel them up they scream to the man to stop. As if the other men around her are not supposed to respond to a 20 year old naked woman standing only a few feet away from them with anything other than a bit of curious admiration.(Like staring at a painting in an art gallery.) (Then of course they want to charge the man who responded with sexual assult.)

I've often though to myself that women have rights with no responsibility. Dennis is just the first man to say so in public. If you enjoy your freedom avoid american women / western women like the plague...

Well, I've still got the Eternal Bachelor archivesweb site open in abother browser window and sawsomething he wrote in 2006, a post called Divorce Ruins Men:

05 October 2006

I found this neat summary of how badly men come out of divorces from a law firm’s website, a must-read for anyone still wondering why more and more men are on a marriage strike. It relates to British divorce law incidentally, but obviously it’s still worth non-Brits having a read as family law in most Western countries are similar in practice, and identical in principle.

There’s nothing here that most of us guys didn’t already know of course, but it’s worth directing any clueless men about to get married, who don’t think divorce is “that bad”, to read through it. Let them know that if they marry, their chances of being divorced are at least 30% and possible 80%, depending on where they live. In fact, the more a man will lose in a divorce depending on the local divorce laws, the higher the chance his wife will file for divorce on a whim.

The author, Terry Hall, is obviously selling his services as a solicitor to help men in the case of divorce, and what’s most notable is that he is so pessimistic! Even at the end he admits that the best a man can do in a divorce is to try not to “make a bad situation worse.” Bearing in mind Mr Hall is advertising himself and his legal skills to divorcing men here, it truly shows how terrible divorce laws are stacked against men if, even in his own self-marketing, a divorce lawyer can’t help but admit to us men that, in the event of a divorce, we’re fucked, and the best a lawyer can do is try to reduce how fucked we are to a tolerable level.

and in the comments section:

At 7:00 PM, pete said…

How do they justify giving free legal aid to women, but not to men? Has there ever been an occasion where a woman has had to hire an attorney and pay legal fees out of her own pocket?

How wonderful for women - they get everything. While the man is lucky to leave with the shirt on his back.

At 7:54 PM, Anonymous said…

beanns37’s shaming language is laughable. Do women still expect that to phase us?

Throughout history, marriage has been a good but not great deal for men (excluding monarchies and marriages for political reasons). Even before feminism, a husband was still a wage slave however he had the benefit of getting a home cooked meal, clean house, sex (which was considered a wifely duty back then) and someone to raise his children. So although it wasn’t a great deal, it wasn’t a bad deal either for a man to get married.

With the advent of feminism and divorce laws, marriage has turned into a major liability for men. So dangerous that it should be on the list which includes smoking, drinking, and trans fats as things one should avoid. Today, the norm for a husband is to expect disrespect, continuous insults, and outrageous demands and expectations from his wife with little to no gratitude for his contributions to the marriage. Should he divorce he loses 1/2 his assets, the house, custody of his kids, etc. Combine all these factors with the typical entitlement mentality of the women today and it doesn’t take a genius to see its a dangrous combination.

Marriage in its current state is deplorable and has absolutely nothing to offer men. The problem is too many men out there think their woman isn’t like that, won’t disrespect them, etc. The greatest complaint I get from my married friends is that their wives’ personalities change after marriage. This makes complete sense since the marriage and divorce laws of today do not put any restraint on a woman’s behavior. If you cheat and she divorces you, she gets 1/2. If she cheats and you divorce her, she still gets 1/2. With parameters like this what prevents a woman’s behavior from spiraling out of control? Marriage should be avoided like the plague.

At 8:05 PM, Anonymous said…

Personally i find it all tragic. I have been screwed financially in my divorce and had a 3 year expensive battle in the courts just to obtain alternate weekends.

My last girlfriend wanted to settle down and have children. I would have loved too but my survival instinct kicked in. If it happened again, i would not be able to afford a roof over my head and would in effect lose the relationship with my child from the first marriage.

It’s a lottery and if you can afford to lose, good luck. If you can’t afford to lose, don’t buy a ticket.

I have been honest and open with my ex-girlfriend and hope she will find a man to settle down with and have children.

I don’t hate women, i hate what happens when things go wrong.

At 8:12 PM, Captain Zarmband said…

The lawyer forgot to mention that your ex will also help herself to half your pension. You will also find that any and all of the joint debts (bank loans, overdrafts) will be dropped in the man’s lap and he will have to pay them off.

Marriage and divorce is a legal and financial con trick waged on men. Women are mercilessly greedy and self-centred. If you’re a man you will ignore these warnings at your peril. You may think that your beloved is different, I can assure you that women are all the same, grasping, greedy and manipulative. They also have all the feminist-inspired legislation on their side. My advice? Don’t get married….don’t let her move in. You will regret it.

At 9:18 PM, Anonymous said…

What’s the problem? Stay single. Let women call you a loser or a woman hater. They know the deck is stacked in their favor. Of course they are going to say those things. What do you expect? It will not last though. All the courts care about is money. When the worm turns the courts will go after them next. What goes around comes around. Stay single and stay out of court.

At 9:27 PM, Anonymous said…

@beann37
ROFLMAO
Good to hear that from you, I know whom not to marry. Despite the horrible treatment of men in divorce you still demand of Duncan Idaho to marry.

Do you think before you write something?

Duncan and many would like to have a caring wife, well educated kids and a happy marriage.
But marriage today is a racket. An women are the racketeers.

Despite women wish constantly to be regarded as strong, they are still treated in court as if they were in need of protection. As a consequence men are plundered.

It is everywhere the same, GB is not an exception. When the incentives for divorce are high, divorce rates go up.

At 9:41 PM, byrdeye said…

What beanns37 is saying is that she is a failed mother, failed wife and failed woman…all at the ripe age of 38. Most likely a 5, tops. And $20 that her dress size is double-digit, too.

And of course she doesn’t hate men - because what’s there to hate? More than likely, she has dissed nice guy after nice guy of her own free will. As a woman, she is over-privileged and over-entitled by us in society and lives her life on a silver platter. No matter how bad she screws up, us men will always be there to prop her back up. So, what’s not to like?

WOMEN GOT IT THE BEST IN OUR MATRIARX TODAY! That’s why so many men hate women, but women just loooove us chumps! Makes perfect sense! Deeuuurrr!

But, who cares what she thinks? She’s old, fugly, fugged-up & plain doesn’t matter

At 3:43 AM, Mamonaku187 said…

That article is at once the scariest, most infuriating, and the saddest couple of paragraphs ever.

All Men have the duty to spread the word as far and as wide as we possibly can.

Until divorce laws change, there is no point in getting married in the West.

At 9:14 AM, Anonymous said…

My Father is happily married (never divorced) and sometimes jokes about how if my Mother left him she’d take everything. Last year, I decided to have a chat with him about the current state of divorce laws. He hadn’t realised just how bad they had become, and at the end of the conversation he commented that “there’s no incentive to get married these days. It’s not worth it.”

Ever since that conversation with my Dad, I can see the desperation of women who complain that “men should grow up and not be scared of commitment”.

Interestingly, I’m not alone. One of my friends recently visited his parents and was surprised when they brought up the subject of marriage. The funny part is that they both advised him _not_ to get married (Again both parents are happily married, never divorced). He said that the most surprising part was that his Dad knew all about the current divorce laws. Near the end of conversation, his parents asked if he was okay with not having children (they were fine with it). Of course, my friend has no intention of getting married or having children.

Something is very wrong when parents are advising their sons not to get married and not to have children.

At 5:46 PM, Paul Parmenter said…

The lawyer’s article is a must-read for every man thinking of marriage. In fact it is a must-read for every man, period. It can stand as a historic document that will tell future generations the tale of our times. Thanks for the link Duncan.

What it tells us is that the divorce laws and the way they are interpreted are corrupt, evil and rotten to the core. A poisonous recipe for destroying men, depriving children of their fathers, and encouraging women to behave abominably towards both.

The sooner this festering heap of injustice is swept away into the dustbin of history, the better. And it can take a whole shower of loathsome individuals, who live off it, with them. I include the greedy lawyers, the soulless judges, the serial incompetents of the CSA, the useless politicians who set it all up, and the despicable wives who grab, grab, grab because the system rewards them for doing so.

No wonder men are in revolt. They are fully justified.

At 5:27 PM, Anonymous said…

A recent analysis of Marriages to Foreign Women in the US Reveals the following. US Marriages to Foreign Women in 1999 5,000 or there abouts. In 2005 37,500 Marriages to Foreign Women. US Feminists are horrified to find US Men saying No to Marriage to US Women.

This trend will only accelerate. Face it Ladies. You are being outsourced. More and More US Men are going overseas. Tired of their treatment. To our Brothers in the UK,Canada,Kiwis, and Aussie Men find a decent Foreign Wife. We can kill Feminism. Western Women must understand their hatred of Men means they need to become Lesbians. This is the logical progression to Western Feminism. And let them die alone, childless.

Western Women must feel the pain of their hatred towards their Men. We will see more and more desperate Cougars looking for younger Men to exploit. These are the true fruits of Feminism in the West.

Khankrumthebulgar

I came across this old article by way of the Eternal Bachelor archives :

NZ and Australia in 'man drought'

CANBERRA - Is the great Kiwi OE stealing our men? With far more 30-something women than men, this is not a good time to be a single woman looking for a mate in the Antipodes.

Nor is the news good for governments on either side of the Tasman, increasingly chewing their nails as their economies outstrip the supply of skills needed to feed them.

And our young, single men continue to vanish at a gathering pace, heading overseas and never returning.


According to Australian demographer Bernard Salt, that's already resulted in an increasingly matriarchal New Zealand culture and will continue to change everything from households to consumption patterns.

I've the discovered an archives of the now defunct Eternal Bachelor blog and noyiced a post called A trio of articles. He googled the word "divorce" and posted several of the stories from the results. It was some of the comments that I wanted to highlight here:

At 6:35 PM, Christopher in Oregon said…

This is why I have always taken issue with those men who claim that you have a better chance when marrying foreign women.

You don’t.

I spent most of my life as a Mormon, and both of my brothers got involved with women they met as Mormon missionaries. One girl was from Switzerland, the other from Norway. One of my stupid brothers married one of these broads. Both of these women were certifiably INSANE, I kid you not. Such marriages were quite common in Mormonism, and I got a first-hand look at how these marriages worked out. Plus, I know several guys from work who married Filipino women, and one married a Korean.

Almost without exception, these marriages were/are very unhappy, with the women only trying to come to the U.S. in order to get their green card, and then bring all of their stinking relatives over. it’s just that simple.

A couple of months ago I was being pursued at work by a Romanian gal, who at 40, is quite good looking, but a nutty-fundy-Wacko. She finally got frustrated, and asked me to “marry her and move her into my house”. I kid you not. I felt my gonads shriveling up royally.

Men who think it’s just the American culture that corrupts women are not entirely correct. It worsens women, to be sure, but ALL women throughout the world have the same rotten, dishonest, adulterous nature. A man is a fool if he thinks he can marry a foreigner and live happily ever after.

Women are the same the world over, and one pussy smells just as bad as another.

At 11:22 PM, Lisa said…

Men who think it’s just the American culture that corrupts women are not entirely correct. It worsens women, to be sure, but ALL women throughout the world have the same rotten, dishonest, adulterous nature. A man is a fool if he thinks he can marry a foreigner and live happily ever after.

Not to mention if any of these women have access to American movies they are subjected to messages of the western feminists. They are likely viewing these movies as the ideal.

At 12:13 AM, Anonymous said…

>>This is why I have always taken issue with those men who claim that you have a better chance when marrying foreign women.

>>You don’t.

Sure you do, but you gotta’ be smarter than a rock. Using the example of two dummies who married women from two of the most screwed up nations in the world tells us nothing about women in other countries.

Also, just because the further you get from the English speaking and European countries your odds go up, doesn’t mean you can simply marry the first attractive woman you see and expect success. AND THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT MOST MEN DO.

And, yes, if you marry women from very poor nations and bring them to the States, there is a good chance you are marrying a woman because she wants her papers. Why is this a big surprise? Does anyone know the divorce rate in the Philippine Islands, compared to 79% in California? Zero, they don’t even have divorce in the law.

Unlike most of you, I am married to a Mexican wife for more than 31 years. I also counseled divorced men, and see men doing all sorts of stupid things, then blaming everyone but themselves. The single biggest mistake men make is to marry a woman because she’s gorgeous, instead of looking for character, honesty, willingness to communicate, and personality. AND THAT’S WHAT MOST MEN DO.

A few years ago, I arranged for a Canadian man to communicate with a friend in Mexico City. I told him in plain English not to get serious until he had visited her at least two or three times. A few months later, having only communicated by telephone A LOT, he sent her money to travel to Canada. He had never set eyes on her before. But, goshie darn, she sounded so good over the phone! She ended up pregnant, they eventually married, she got pregnant again, and they divorced.

Should this be used as an example of troubles of marrying a foreign woman? No, only of stupid men doing stupid things.

The real secret is to move to a country which does not have vicious, anti-male divorce laws, and keep her there. Women do behave differently when they realize they have all the power and you have none. Just as men behave differently when they have all the power.

But, only a man who knows little about women from different countries can conclude all women in all nations are insane. Stupid, chest or face oriented men will pick bad wives even when they have to work at it.

Note that I would never again marry any woman in the US, no matter how wonderful, because of the laws. I would if I became single again, marry here in Mexico. There are a lot of sane women here; just don’t take them to the States. Feminist insanity is contagious.

Let me also point out that a Russian woman who arranges meetings with Russian women says the divorce rate of men who marry Russian women more than 15 years younger is approximately 100%.

Anonymous age 64

A post from The Inferno:

Only Women Can Stop False Allegations of Rape


Male Samizdat has put together a nice list linked below in response to this feminist garbage.

Only Women Can Stop False Rape Accusations (Male Samizdat)

If you haven't seen it and don't want to waste your time, the feminists that spread around their ridiculous list are trying to imply that many men really do think it's okay to rape a woman if she's drunk, going for a jog, or watching TV. Many (if not all) of the reasons these women think men use to justify rape are pretty stupid.

I like Male Samizdat's parody of the feminist list since it shows how ridiculous it is while also pointing out the dirty secret of false accusations. However, I think we can make a better list (although a poorer parody) using reasons that women actually use to justify a false accusation of rape.

Without further ado, here is my list.

• If you have sex with a guy and regret it the next day, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  
• If your husband catches you having sex with another man, don't falsely accuse your lover of rape.
  
• If you get into a bar fight and don't want to tell the judge during custody hearings where the bruises really came from, don't falsely accuse a man of rape.
  
• If you have sex with a guy and he tells his friends about it, don't falsely accuse him of rape to protect your reputation.
  
• If you're pissed off at the cop that arrested you or gave you a ticket, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  
• If your boyfriend breaks up with you, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  
• If you feel deprived of attention, don't falsely accuse a man of rape.
  
• If you are a hired as a stripper for some Duke lacrosse players from wealthy families, don't falsely accuse them of rape to try to get money out of them.
  
• If you want to have an abortion without people thinking you're an immoral baby-killer, don't falsely claim the baby is the product of rape.
  
• If a man rejects your sexual advances, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  
• If one of your friends sees you having sex with a random guy at a party, don't falsely accuse him of rape just so your friends won't think you're a slut.
  
• If you are having an affair while your husband is overseas and are afraid you might be pregnant, don't falsely accuse a man of rape to hide your infidelity.
  
• If your boyfriend is cheating on you, don't falsely accuse him of rape.
  
• If you have sex with every guy in a fraternity while they video tape it and realize it was a bad idea the next day, don't falsely accuse them of rape.
  
• If you think you were infected with a sexually transmitted disease by your boyfriend, don't falsely accuse him or some other man of rape.
  
• If you are a teacher and have sex with one of your students in school, don't falsely accuse him of rape to avoid losing your job.
  
• If you are a pregnant teenager and don't want your parents to know you are sexually active, don't falsely accuse a man of rape.
  
• If you make some poor decisions, take responsibility. Don't falsely accuse a man of rape. The above scenarios are all based on real incidents in which a man was falsely accused of rape.
  
• A 1994 study conducted by Dr. Eugene Kanin concluded that at least 41% of rape allegations in the studied area were false. The actual numbers are probably much higher since allegations were only counted as false if the accuser recanted, even after being told that recanting will result in charges for filing a false police report. Cases where the alleged victim decided to drop the charges were not counted as false accusations.

Last night I spotted a post at What Men are saying about Women about the Duke LaCrosse case by Dr. Stephen Baskerville:

The falsely-accused Duke University lacrosse players are suing the city of Durham and prosecutor Michael Nifong for malicious prosecution, claiming “one of the most chilling episodes of premeditated police, prosecutorial, and scientific misconduct in modern American history.” In fact, their ordeal was nothing out of the ordinary.





Few Americans realize how extensively our criminal justice system has been corrupted by leftist ideology. It has now reached the point where the criminals are prosecuting law-abiding citizens.



Conservatives who rightly decry judicial activism in constitutional law have trouble accepting the equally serious corruption of criminal justice.


Understandably attached to principles of law and order, many fail to realize how complete is the perversion of our justice system and continue to presume guilt. Conservatives are correct that criminals often go free but fail to understand that this happens because of a politicized judiciary that criminalizes the innocent.



Hyping the racial factor has also allowed us to avoid the most serious implications of the Duke case. The far more powerful ideological force driving this and other miscarriages of justice is institutionalized feminism. There is little indication that white people are being systematically incarcerated on trumped-up accusations of non-existent crimes against blacks. This is precisely what is happening to men (and even some women), both white and black, accused of the “gender” crimes that feminists have turned into a political agenda.




the article continues:



Many were appalled that Duke faculty members should publicly demand that the lacrosse players confess – as if professors are prosecutors, judges, and jurors. Yet precisely this modus operandi has long characterized “women’s studies” programs, breading grounds of false accusations that have polluted the curricula of thousands of colleges and universities with political ideology masquerading as scholarship, turned students and faculty into police informers, and incited young women into believing that every personal hurt is a crime of “violence.” “If a woman did falsely accuse a man of rape,” opines one graduate of such programs, “she may have had reasons to.” A Vassar College assistant dean thinks false criminal accusations contribute to a man’s education: “I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration.” Such views have long been dismissed as extremist, but we see the fruits of them at Duke.




Seen in the larger context of feminist justice, the Duke case demonstrates that the corruption of the criminal justice system by political ideology may now be most direct danger to Americans’ freedom. Judicial abuse is a particularly insidious tyranny because it perverts the instruments of justice themselves.


This is where “social” justice has led us. Decades of pursuing this illusory, subjective, and politically defined “justice” have left Americans so incapable of distinguishing guilt from innocence that we are now inured to the most open injustice.


I skipped a few paragraphs but this one is a must read. (Please go HERE to read the whole thing.)