U Not Gonna Like This

Unfortunately, I'm DEADLY SERIOUS when I say this. In light of events in this country, (Duke Lacrosse Rape case and Crystal Gail Mangum, Lorena Bobbitt, Mary Carol Winkler and way too many others to mention) American Women's changed attitudes towards men and increasingly misandrist laws you must avoid American Women in particular and ALL WESTERN WOMEN in general, to preserve your manhood and to preserve your freedom..


Rules for dealing with women for the 21st Century Male:


Do not marry, do not have children.


(Because they can be used against you in a court of law when you are getting a divorce.)


Do not date American Women or Western Women ever, period.


Keep American Women/Western Women at arms legnth (further if possible) AT ALL TIMES.


Keep all relationships with American Women/Western Women to casual acquaintances. (Nothing more.)

<  

Do not live (cohabitate) or become a common law husband with an American Woman or Western Woman.


Do not have sex with an American Woman or Western Woman.


(Because she can always change her mind later and have you charged with rape.)

Do not hire an American Woman or Western Woman as a stripper.


(Please Google "Duke Lacrosse Rape Case" for more details.)


Do not have sex with an American Woman or Western Woman who is a escort or prostitute.


(Please Google Crystal Gail Mangum, and Aileen Wuornos for more details.)





If you absolutely must have sex GO TO A BROTHEL IN EASERN EUROPE. This will probably be the best bit of advice you'll ever see posted at this web log.


American Women/Western Women are too misandrist to be trusted. And even if they don't hate men there's too great of chance that they will use the anti-male laws to their advantage to punish a man for whatever offense of the moment have he may have committed...



If your a father that has a son in college now make a serious consideration to sending him to a country that is male friendly to work and live.


If you have a son in high school, you might want to consider having a talk with him about studying at a college overseas where things might not be quite as
bad.



You might also want to consider sending your son who is of age and in college overseas on any vacations he may have during the school year to a brothel in
Eastern Europe just in case he wants to do the vertical mambo with a female...



These are just a few things you can do now to make sure you stay out of trouble later.


I'll be back in a few minutes with more..

Right now I'm trying to find an old article on Men's News Daily that I though I had the link to, but it truns out I don't. As soon as I can find it hopefully I can post it. For now I give you this article from 2005 on Battered Woman Syndrome:



Battered Woman Syndrome: A License to Kill?



August 15, 2005
by Paul C. Robbins, Ph.D.



A recent story link at Men's News Daily describes the case of a woman charged with raping and sexually assaulting her children because, among other charges, she dressed her son up as a girl and watched while his stepfather raped him. Her lawyer has a defense: "battered spouse syndrome," otherwise known as "battered woman syndrome" or BWS.



So what is "battered woman syndomre"?



The short answer: it's feminist junk science that turns pre-meditated murder into self-defense.



The long answer: it's a psychological theory largely rejected by psychologists and a legal theory that allows a woman to kill her while he's sleeping and claim she acted in self-defense. Or, as in the case cited above, to absolve her of guilt for aiding and abetting the rape of her children.



BWS was the brainchild of Dr. Lenore Walker, who hoped to explain why women stay with their abusive husbands and kill them. Her explanation was based on experiments conducted on dogs, which were placed in cages and shocked at random. Initially, the dogs would try to escape the shock, but would eventually give up trying to escape, even when experimenters gave them a way to escape. Their condition was called "learned helplessness."



Dr. Walker's purpose was to give a psychological explanation for why women don't leave abusive relationships–they have succumbed to "learned helplessness."



One big problem with this theory: there is no documented case of a human suffering from "learned helplessness," even among battered women.



And it's obvious women do leave abusive relationships. BWS doesn't explain why some women stay and some leave. Nor does it explain why a woman who can pick up a gun and kill her husband cannot pick up the telephone and call the police.



In addition, BWS is not recognized in DSM-IV. There are no standard interview protocols for recognizing BWS. The only study carried out on the syndrome involved a group of battered women but no control group. BWS provides no independent evidence of abuse. In short, most psychologists aren't buying the theory because it has insufficient empirical backing.



Still, BWS has become the basis for a very broad legal defense: a battered woman who kills her husband while he is sleeping or unconscious is entitled to a claim of "self-defense."



A classic self-defense claim involves two elements: imminent threat of unlawful bodily harm and reasonableness. One must show that one's life was in "imminent " or "immediate" danger and that one acted reasonably under the circumstance.



According to feminist Beverly McPhail, the standards of imminent danger and reasonableness should be "relaxed" for abused women:



When women act after the initial assault, the law declares it premeditated rather than self-defense, when actually her actions embody strategies of self-defense and survival. Some legal scholars suggest that the imminence argument be relaxed in cases of battered women, because often the fear is not impending injury but rather inevitable injury.



In other words, a woman who plans and carries out the killing of her husband while he sleeps should be treated the same as a man killing another man because his life was in "imminent" danger.



McPhail argues that the "self-defense standard" is an example of embedding "male bias" into the law because a fight between two men is different than a fight between a man and a woman. The woman is often "smaller, less physically strong and in the context of an intimate, yet abusive, relationship." For a woman to fight back, she argues, is often not "self-defense but suicide."



It may be true that a woman (or a man) is wiser not to fight back. But that's street smarts, not helplessness. That hardly gives her the right to kill him in his sleep when he can raise no defense. And if she kills him before he injures her, her injury was obviously not "inevitable." If she killed him for his life insurance money, that could also be a strategy of "self-defense and survival." Finally, McPhail's explanation leaves unanswered the question of why the woman doesn't just leave and call the police.



BWS asks us to believe the woman doesn't leave because she has succumbed to "learned helplessness." It asks us to overcome our common sense belief that a woman who can plan and carry out a murder can also open the door and leave. After all, even female survivors of the holocaust could leave their concentration camps at the end of the war.



Still, testimony regarding BWS is now accepted in 31 states, not on the basis of scientific validity but on the basis of legal precedent.



Attorney David L. Raybin of Tennessee claims it is effective as a defense:



I know that BWS works. Most recently, my partner.. and I represented a woman ...who had been convicted of murder. We were successful in gaining a new trial because her first attorney was ineffective for failing to raise the BWS issue... Following a remand, we tried the case, put on BWS and our client was convicted of the lesser offense of criminally negligent homicide and was placed on probation. BWS was a significant factor in getting a very different result based on identical facts. (http://www.hwylaw.com/CM/Articles/Articles73.asp)



In The Myth of Male Power, Dr. Warren Farrell describes several cases in which BWS enabled women to be acquitted in court or later pardoned by a sympathetic governor.



So it does work, at least in some cases. In others, either the judge or the jury has rejected the claim. In one case, a woman claimed the defense even though she shot him twice: first in their home, then at a neighbor's home. In another, she tried to hide the gun and gloves used to carry out the murder, but still claimed BWS.



Without scientific backing, BWS becomes nothing more than a legal justification for murder. The woman kills her husband and asks the law to confirm that she was justified in doing so–not because her life was in danger, but because he was abusive. She kills the man, then puts him on trial; if the jury believes she was justified, she is either acquitted or her sentence is reduced.



Either way, the man is dead.



If the state first executed a man and then held his trial, most people would be outraged. And rightly so. McPhail laments that "many times, women are still blamed for their rapes, asked what they wore or did to provoke the attack." And yet BWS permits the murderer to blame the victim for his murder and explain what he did to provoke it. A rape victim at least gets the chance to tell her side
of the story. A murdered man doesn't.


In the end, BWS must be seen for what it is--a failed psychological theory that's become a legal license to kill for women.



I suggest the license be revoked.


Sources:


Dixon, Joe Wheeler. "An Essay on Battered Woman Syndrome." At http://www.psychologyandlaw.com/battered.htm.


Dixon, Joe W. and Kim E. "Gender-specific Clinical Syndromes and Their Admissibility under the Federal Rules of Evidence." American Journal of Trial Advocacy. Summer 2003


Farrell, Warren. Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say. Tarcher Putnam. 1999.


Farrell, Warren. The Myth of Male Power. Simon & Schuster. 1993.


Fumento, Michael. "Battered Justice Syndrome." http://www.consumeralert.org/fumento/batter.htm


McPhail, Beverly. "Justice is elusive for those who are raped or battered." Houston Chronicle. July 30, 2005. At http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/3288611


Raybin, David L. "Battered Woman's Syndrome: Trial Tactics." At http://www.hwylaw.com/CM/Articles/Articles73.asp


Paul C. Robbins, Ph.D.

I was scanning the archives of Men's News Daily and found this article by Carey Roberts from 2005:



Feminist Utopia, Social Nightmare



January 19, 2005



by Carey Roberts




Every era has its utopian movements that hold out the promise of social perfectability. One such movement is feminism, which claims the path to social nirvana is the liberation of women and the creation of a genderless society.



One hundred years ago, feminism claimed that equal rights under the law was its goal. Once women won the right to vote in 1920, many predicted that having achieved its objective, the women’s movement would close up shop and fade away.



But feminism did not lapse into the dust-heap of history. It merely went underground.



For 40 years, the feminist cause was sustained and nurtured by the Communist Party of the USA. This was accomplished by establishment of the CPUSA Women’s Bureau in the 1920s, and later through the creation of a front organization, the Congress of American Women.



Recognizing its Communist origins, the US Department of Justice placed the CAW on its list of subversive organizations in 1948. (Go to the CPUSA’s web page at www.cpusa.org, and you will see how they have cleverly combined the Communist icons of the hammer and sickle to form a logo that closely resembles the radical feminist hand-mirror symbol.)



When the Civil Rights movement swept the nation in the 1960s, feminism came out of the woodwork. Although feminists still claimed to be working for gender equality, their actions would soon reveal a very different agenda.



Their true intentions became apparent in the feminist position on abortion. In their view, the decision to keep or dispose of an unborn child was the woman’s, and only the woman’s prerogative. No mention of gender equality there.



And the matter of who would gain custody of the kids in the event of divorce – would it be the mother, the father, or both? In the 1970s, the answer became clear, as chapter after chapter of the National Organization for Women came out in opposition to joint custody. This, in spite of the fact that this co-parenting arrangement affords equal rights to both parents – not to mention its benefits for the children.



Next the breast cancer crusade came along. Before long, the National Institutes of Health was spending three times more money on breast cancer research than prostate cancer. Where’s the equality in that?



Then came a series of laws that purported to protect women from predatory males: sexual harassment, domestic violence, and broadly-worded rape statutes. In theory they sounded good. But in practice, they violated men’s fundamental Constitutional protections of due process and equal protection under the law.



Affording equal opportunities to men and women is laudable. But in practice, feminism cares nothing about mere equality. Now, white women have become the most legally-protected and economically-privileged group in America.



At their core, all utopian movements seek to remold human nature. The Marxists demanded that the New Socialist Man place the interests of the state above the needs of the individual. And the feminist movement seeks to achieve a society in which the social and psychological differences between the sexes are eradicated.



But history reveals the populace inevitably begins to resist such extreme psychological make-overs. So the utopians soon look to the government for a solution. That entails placing ever-increasing power in the hands of petty bureaucrats.



When their policies begin to infringe upon individuals’ basic civil rights, the utopians inevitably explain that the ends justify the means. Thus the totalitarian state begins to emerge.



The feminist utopia is a social nightmare to women. Because feminism endeavors to remake women in the image of men. Feminism seeks to remove women’s choice to marry, bear children, and devote themselves to child-rearing.



The feminist utopia is a social nightmare to men. Because feminism wants to remake men in the image of women. In the feminist vision, men are a continual threat to women, so their rights and freedoms must be gradually curtailed.



And the feminist utopia is a nightmare to children. At best, gender feminists see their offspring as an impediment to maternal self-fulfillment. At worst, children are viewed as a contraceptive-abortive failure.



In 1870 Queen Victoria of England wrote, “I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of 'Women's Rights,' with all its attendant horrors …Were women to 'unsex' themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection.”



One hundred and twenty-five years later, we should give her prediction a second look.


Carey Roberts

After seeing the number of blogs web sites and newsletters pop up in the last few years telling men to avoid Marriage like the plague. The this is one article I never thought I would see.. From Men's news Daily Columnist and father's rights activist, Dr. Stephen Baskerville, when he tells men what a growning number of web sites and blogs have been telling men for years:






Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children



Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D.



November 14, 2007 at 11:36 am



Marriage is a foundation of civilized life. No advanced civilization has ever existed without the married, two-parent family. Those who argue that our civilization needs healthy marriages to survive are not exaggerating.





And yet I cannot, in good conscience, urge young men to marry today. For many men (and some women), marriage has become nothing less than a one-way ticket to jail. Even the New York Times has reported on how easily “the divorce court leads to a jail cell,” mostly for men. In fact, if I have one urgent piece of practical advice for young men today it is this: Do not marry and do not have children.





Spreading this message may also, in the long run, be the most effective method of saving marriage as an institution. For until we understand that the principal threat to marriage today is not cultural but political, and that it comes not from homosexuals but from heterosexuals, we will never reverse the decline of marriage. The main destroyer of marriage, it should be obvious, is divorce. Michael McManus of Marriage Savers points out that “divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today’s challenge by gays.” The central problem is the divorce laws.





It is well known that half of all marriages end in divorce. But widespread misconceptions lead many to believe it cannot happen to them. Many conscientious people think they will never be divorced because they do not believe in it. In fact, it is likely to happen to you whether you wish it or not.





First, you do not have to agree to the divorce or commit any legal transgression. Under “no-fault” divorce laws, your spouse can divorce you unilaterally without giving any reasons. The judge will then grant the divorce automatically without any questions.





But further, not only does your spouse incur no penalty for breaking faith; she can actually profit enormously. Simply by filing for divorce, your spouse can take everything you have, also without giving any reasons. First, she will almost certainly get automatic and sole custody of your children and exclude you from them, without having to show that you have done anything wrong. Then any unauthorized contact with your children is a crime. Yes, for seeing your own children you will be subject to arrest.





There is no burden of proof on the court to justify why they are seizing control of your children and allowing your spouse to forcibly keep you from them. The burden of proof (and the financial burden) is on you to show why you should be allowed to see your children.





The divorce industry thus makes it very attractive for your spouse to divorce you and take your children. (All this earns money for lawyers whose bar associations control the careers of judges.) While property divisions and spousal support certainly favor women, the largest windfall comes through the children. With custody, she can then demand “child support” that may amount to half, two-thirds, or more of your income. (The amount is set by committees consisting of feminists, lawyers, and enforcement agents – all of whom have a vested interest in setting the payments as high as possible.) She may spend it however she wishes. You pay the taxes on it, but she gets the tax deduction.





You could easily be left with monthly income of a few hundreds dollars and be forced to move in with relatives or sleep in your car. Once you have sold everything you own, borrowed from relatives, and maximized your credit cards, they then call you a “deadbeat dad” and take you away in handcuffs. You are told you have “abandoned” your children and incarcerated without trial.





Evidence indicates that, as men discover all this, they have already begun an impromptu marriage "strike": refusing to marry or start families, knowing they can be criminalized if their wife files for divorce. "Have anti-father family court policies led to a men's marriage strike?" ask Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson in the Philadelphia Enquirer. In Britain, fathers tour university campuses warning young men not to start families. In his book, From Courtship to Courtroom, Attorney Jed Abraham concludes that the only protection for men to avoid losing their children and everything else is not to start families in the first place.





Is it wise to disseminate such advice? If people stop marrying, what will become of the family and our civilization?





Marriage is already all but dead, legally speaking, and divorce is the principal reason. The fall in the Western birth rate is directly connected with divorce law.





It is also likely that same-sex marriage is being demanded only because of how heterosexuals have already debased marriage through divorce law. “The world of no-strings heterosexual hookups and 50% divorce rates preceded gay marriage,” advocate Andrew Sullivan points out. “All homosexuals are saying…is that, under the current definition, there’s no reason to exclude us. If you want to return straight marriage to the 1950s, go ahead. But until you do, the exclusion of gays is simply an anomaly – and a denial of basic civil equality.”





We will not restore marriage by burying our heads in the sand; nor simply by preaching to young people to marry, as the Bush administration’s government therapy programs now do. The way to restore marriage as an institution in which young people can place their trust, their children, and their lives is to make it an enforceable contract. We urgently need a national debate about divorce, child custody, and the terms under which the government can forcibly sunder the bonds between parents and their children. We owe it to future generations, if there are to be any.







Here are some messages for the comments section:

emarel said,

Bravo, Stephen. this is the message that I give to any young man I meet who is comtemplating marriage. It also helps that more and more young men are concluding that today's young women are not marriage material.

Not enough yet are concluding this, however.

November 14, 2007 at 12:13 pm




mruffolo said,

This message ought to be forwarded to each single man that we know.

Additionally, if his new book gives similar advice with clarity and persuasion, then we ought to give the book to each friend as a Christmas, birthday, or engagement gift.

Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family

http://tinyurl.com/yuo84m

A call to arms against feminism’s selfish war on family. Cool.

November 14, 2007 at 12:15 pm




dysturbd said,

As always, a well written, cogent, succint and straight forward disemination of the facts. Unfortunately, it is an equally damning testament of our current "march" toward a fartherless and Marxist/Socialist society.

November 14, 2007 at 12:16 pm





Tony Ananda said,

That may be true, Stephen, but every advanced civilization has fallen. They have fallen with strong marriage and child rearing traditions and customs in place. Our civilization will also fall due to many factors, not just feminism and the decline of marriage. Therefore the implication that the decline of marriage is a threat to our civilization is less relevant than you suppose.

November 14, 2007 at 1:13 pm






Free Man said,

As a man in his late 40s who has returned to college to pursue another degree, I find myself associating with early-20s men and women on a regular basis. All in all the students are quite pleasant, and, in many respects, I am filled with pride and optimism regarding the future of our country - through my association with our next generation of leaders.

However, regarding marriage, I believe that our country is heading in an unfavorable direction. NONE of the men I meet are eager to get married as they consider marriage to be a burden, inasmuch as it is: A) a long-term commitment (the longer the better, they hope), and B) it bears deep responsibility.

Virtually ALL of the women I speak to consider themselves 'independent women' and I get the sense that when they think about marriage they are principally thinking about 'the wedding' and how 'marriage will work for them', not the long-term commitment and requisite sacrifice that marriage entails.

Considering the aforementioned divergent perspectives on marriage I believe that marriage in this country will continue its devolution into a very expensive ceremony with a much more expensive (with a long-term emotionally devastating) aftermath, leading to a band of estranged fathers who are shamed and left to foot the bill for their offspring, with whom they cannot spend time, while 'independent women' juggle the responsibilities of career, children, (renewed) dating, and family/friends.

And why is this? Because the quest for perfect equality between the genders created these unintended consequences?

At some point it seems that a significant number of educated men will abandon this scheme altogether and choose to remain unmarried and take all of the available precautions such as to not sire a child - perhaps the worst condemnation of what our American culture has become - the decision to NOT bring a child into this world.

And at some point one would think that educated women, maternal instincts fully intact, will have to decide if raising children alone is worth it, rather than dedicate herself to her career, hobbies, and friends without the responsibilities of child rearing.

Perhaps, we shall evolve to culture where every woman has just one child and juggles these responsibilties with her career, hobbies and friends - the Murphy Brown syndrome - while men retreat to their careers, hobbies and activities with little interaction with children.

Can such a society exist very long?

November 14, 2007 at 1:31 pm






John Dias said,

Steven Baskerville wrote:

"The way to restore marriage as an institution in which young people can place their trust, their children, and their lives is to make it an enforceable contract."

Again, the ridiculous appeal to statism, and by a member of "our side" to boot. Why must marriage be an "enforceable contract?" Enforceable by who? An arbitrator or judge? Steven, you concede the premise that the government has intruded into our lives. Whether it is family law or contract law, you have made the government into the decider. With your solution, it's just a matter of how severe a judgment the government should be allowed to apply.

I think that if people want to get married, they ought to be doing so without a marriage license. This means that the government cannot intrude on the basis that you are (or once were) married. No marriage should be a legal phenomenon. The breakup of the marriage should be a matter recognized, permitted, or granted by a non-binding authority which cannot grant or divide wealth. This can be a church, the local community, a couple's extended family, or even their own personal belief systems. Social pressure, religious pressure, and one's own conscience ought to be the only ties that bind couples who seek a divorce.

I recently commented on this in David Usher's blog. I cannot believe how someone who sees the severity of the problem like Steven does still embraces the State as the final arbiter of a divorce. With Steven's approach, aren't we merely trading one monster for another (seemingly) less severe monster?

November 14, 2007 at 5:55 pm







amfortas said,

A well argued statement of the position most western countries have moved into. A return to the 'old' way is well nigh impossible, as is 'enforcing' contracts. There will always be poor marriage decisions and a way out will always be needed. Human affairs can deteriorate when those involved do not do the maintenance work.

What needs to change is the incentives. Presently, as Steven states succinctly, there is too much incentive to women to break faith and destroy love; a huge financial incentive. There is also a huge financial incentive for the legal players and judiciary. These all need to be removed. The main force that is active against our society today is the Lawyer Profession. These scum need to be contained and if necessary, eradicated.

The 'Statist' route is unwanted but an inevitability of civil affairs. One would no sooner want the State to cease interest in commercial contracts. And the same commercial contract considerations need to apply to marriage. That is, unilateral breaking of contract demands compensation to the aggrieved partner - rather than the encouragement to the corrupt one that modern marriage breaking gets.

Tony Ananda's point is true but not relevant. If A can kill B, and C can kill B, B still ends up dead by either. That civilisations can die from several causes does not reduce the effectiveness of any one cause. The decline of marriage will fundementally weaken and eventually destroy our civilisation regardless of other forces acting against our civilisation.

As I said to Joyanna in my Presidential inteview….

"Fourth Question: Do you believe in marriage between a man and a woman? Would you let gays get married?

I am glad you asked that, Joy. Or should I call you Mistress Joyanna? I believe strongly in marriage. And fidelity. Men and women are a coupling made in heaven and I will cast into Hell-on-Alcatraz ( I will be re-opening that place by the way) all those anti-Family Court scum that have done so much to destroy it. We may need a few more similar island prisons but I will make sure we don’t go down the old luxury apartment route.

The ‘old’ idea of marriage is what I have in mind. Vows, held to by adults. For better and for worse. No backsliding when the going inevitably gets a bit tough. In sickness and health. Marry a loony and live with your choice. Loonies need love too. Maybe choose more carefully. Marry a man, not a wallet. Marry a woman, not a mirage. Get some character and maturity before you even start.

None of this divorce at whim carnage. There is a lot to undo. Gays marrying? A pervert’s fantasy. No way. Not that I care a monkeys toss about this or that person’s sexual proclivities but Marriage is about love and male-female bonking and family, which means children. Children need a father and a mother; no ifs, no buts. No rampant single-motherhood nonsense either. Knickers up and knees together if you ain’t hitched.

My Administration will get out of the Marriage business altogether. None of my damned business managing the process. Contract law is quite able to deal with it. Break your contract and you have to compensate your partner. There is nothing complicated about it. Equal dissolution by mutual agreement? Fine. No unilateralism. Take out what you put in and split the jointly developed assets as per input. No more of this corruption by lawyers and judges stripping family assets. No more massive payouts to crooked partners. Kids? You are both wholly, jointly and severally totally responsible. Deal with it. Do it right or I will then step in and whack you. Poison their young minds against one or the other and its out a high friggin’ window, like a Professor.

My first 100 days will see a wholescale dismantling of the anti-Family Court, along with most other Courts too. There will be much gnashing of teeth, for those few legal carrion that retain their teeth. Corruption will be severely dealt with. I will be seeking out true men and women but expect to find only a few. There will be Appointments of ordinary sensible people to the Bench. Preferably heavy goods vehicle drivers and electrical linesmen. The words ‘Truth’ and ‘Justice’ will be brought out of retirement. All will be equal before the law and no particular group’s ‘interests’ will be put above another’s, even if they are only two foot tall or have genitals of a particular kind. Law will take its place as a subordinate of Justice.

There will be much rejoicing by those on the Left, as, for a while, I will institute just the sort of Court processes they seem to love. Just for them. Secret Courts; guilty until they prove themselves innocent; the judicious use of accusation from all and sundry; no need for evidence; blind eye to perjury; lots of whimsical technicalities. Oh my. There will be fun for all. I might even televise some. They love that sort of thing. Reality TV.

Dispossession will be a normal base level punishment. Restitution and recompense for all that these parasites and thieves have abused, good people, mainly chaps as it happens, will take some time. The rest of some Judges and lawyers’ lives I imagine. Their families and friends are going to be thoroughly pissed off with them.

For the rest of ‘We the People’ it is back to the Magna Carta and Habeus Corpus. Justice, Truth. Equality.

November 14, 2007 at 6:29 pm





Elusive Wapiti said,

"Once you have sold everything you own, borrowed from relatives, and maximized your credit cards, they then call you a “deadbeat dad” and take you away in handcuffs"

Don't forget that after they have stripped you of your ability to make money, including the revocation of professional licenses even though you have had no record of professional negligence or misconduct, you'll be incarcerated for non-payment of child support.

Roger Knight is right. Debtor's prison is back my friends.

"I think that if people want to get married, they ought to be doing so without a marriage license. This means that the government cannot intrude on the basis that you are (or once were) married"

I head somewhere the that "power to tax is the power to destroy". A corollary is that the power to license is the power to destroy. I submit that it's not heterosexual misbehavior that was the cause of the debasement of marriage, as Mr. Sullivan asserts. Instead, I contend that the State's annexation of marriage has nearly destroyed marriage, in much the same way that the Roman Empire's assimilation of the early Christian Church nearly led to the Church's destruction, and directly resulted in the Reformation, several European Crusades, and centuries of warfare.

"I cannot believe how someone who sees the severity of the problem like Steven does still embraces the State as the final arbiter of a divorce"

Now I make no claim to know Mr. Baskerville's mind, but I suspect he thinks there's a better chance of making marriage an eforceable contract under civil law rather than evicting the State from marriage altogether.

Moreveor, despite the fact that I agree with many/most here that the State's involvement is nothing but bad, I don't think that the majority of people will be able–or willing, in the case of security-seeking women–to shed the State-grants-marriage-and-divorce paradigm.

"…while men retreat to their careers, hobbies and activities with little interaction with children. Can such a society exist very long?
"

The answer to this rhetorical question is no. The involvement of men in the family is crucial to the social development of children. Without the fathers, society devolves into a Hobbesian cesspool of poverty, crime, and desperation. Funny how Feminism doesn't understand this, but then again, feminism is kinda like an auto-immune disease that attacks the very social organs that sustain it.

November 14, 2007 at 6:41 pm






Robert Stevens said,

I will not ever…. ever get "legally married". I will however do a common law contract with the woman I love! In this way the state cannot intrude on the arrangement. We make the decisions, not the corporate state.

I have ,by extensive research.found a way for men to consider marriage again and the possibility of fatherhood. I have found that if you know how the corrupt and crooked system works, you can make it to where they( the state) can't create much of a problem. You will still have to deal with them, but at arms length, not like an eight hundred pound gorilla on your back! Once you learn how to put the public servants back to behaving like "servants" and they understand that you are the soveriegn and they are the servants. You will make the decisions , not them!

A man can reestablish his negotiatiion position, the woman will no longer be able to ally herself with the state and run over you. Women will learn to behave themselves and the orignal God created plan for marriage and family will once again a safe proposition for men!

November 14, 2007 at 6:48 pm






steven deluca said,

In a culture that teaches boys and men that they have less value than women do, and where girls are taught "men are pigs" … all reinforced by seeing a grown man, with: More years of life, more education, a higher status economically, getting down on his knees like a commoner in front of the Queen, and believing that this humiliation is romantic instead of humiliating … while he is begging her to marry him…so that he can risk losing his home, and his children - working hard to get a good career for a good life and then forced to live poorly the next ten or twenty years, while she dates and some other man pays… while the X husband faces prison and is denied visitation … and lshe aughs at him behind his back, or smugly takes the check … as feminist attorneys "stick it" to men… this is so obscene and I can only marvel at the restaint of my gender.

Boys brought up by women and film makers/advertiser in a world where boys are portayed as horny, stupid, and of little value, UNTIL he figures out what girls and women want… while fathers are not spending enough time, those same fathers often brainwashed about gender issues too… Those boys won't stop begging to get maried because of a book, most boys are not reading such books and men are too busy… a book - or a few remarks by a handful of men warning younger men won't override what they have been taught … because they have learned that getting sex, having a woman, is a much better deal for a male than having a man is for a female.

(Go to Hallmark Cards - it gets worse year by year - women are praised, boys and men are portayed as sex starved idiots who are unworthy of the bodies of women) To think that all the years of propaganda that both women and men are fed can be slowed down by a new book… it's not likely.

But those tens of thousands of boys who have seen their fathers get the shaft - add a book, add a touch of advice from men, and we will have a strike going on that will get the attention of everyone within a few years. I will tell my son not to marry until he is older, at least, much older… and I will worry that I am setting him up with my values and fears. But how can I let him marry when I see what is going in on the courts with my brothers.

November 14, 2007 at 10:09 pm






David R. Usher said,

While I had originally thought that an organized marriage strike might be either misconstrued or ineffective, I'm beginning to think that an organized marriage strike in which men set a baseline for change, and boycott the institution until they get what they want.

This would be the most likely avenue to get campus men to rise up and take on campus feminist institutions, because young men already largely understand this problem. I am willing to bet that most of them don't like it, and wanting a better future for themselves, would get involved.

All change begins on college campuses. It would not take too many men on a campus to get things moving, particularly in this day when email moves ideas fast as electrons.

The caveat: not marrying often means living together, and sex being what it is when one gets into college and beyond, this spells even greater increases in illegitimacy (which increased from 26% in 1996 to 36.2% in 2006). So, men would also have to learn to either abstain or to rigidly use visible means of birth control, such as a diaphragm or condoms, so as not to be taken advantage of by women who lie about use of birth control in order to have their way with men.

November 14, 2007 at 11:58 pm






David R. Usher said,

Men would also have to be very strong about not living with women or letting them move in. The acid combination of domestic violence laws (which allow a woman to seize the man's home and property even if she is only living with him and not even on the lease), combined with community property laws (considered married by the state after a few years of shacking up), means that men will have to be roommates.

This is a lot to ask, but its what men will have to do to reasonably protect themselves.

November 15, 2007 at 12:00 am






TheManOnTheStreet said,

Robert Stevens said,

I will not ever…. ever get "legally married". I will however do a common law contract with the woman I love! In this way the state cannot intrude on the arrangement. We make the decisions, not the corporate state.
____________________________

What country/state do you live in Robert? Common law marriage is considered the same as a "legal" marriage when the time comes for 'common divorce' in most states (US). Don't be fooled into thinking that by not having a marriage license you will not be taken to the cleaners if she so desires….

TMOTS

November 15, 2007 at 8:04 am





KRS said,

I think it's ironic that one of the most effective things the men's movement has done so far — the marriage strike — is something that was not a coordinated effort. It has come about not because of a national call for action, but because millions of individual men have decided that marriage is not for them.

People have already started noticing, and we can expect (and have already seen) that our enemies will purposely lie about it and "not understand" its origins. The media will try to make it seem like it's just the lunatic fringe of the "men's movement" who think it's a good idea, when in fact millions of men are involved. Less than 50% of US households are now the traditional nuclear husband / wife/ children arrangement. Gee, I wonder why.

Feminists will twist it to make it seem like it's not the men who are choosing to avoid marriage, but women who are avoiding it cecause they can't find any "good" men anymore. Or else they'll say we are irrelevant anyway, the old fish without a bicycle thing. Or that women are somehow simultaneously the victims both of marriage and of the marriage strike, as though that were possible. Whatever it is, it will be a lie, though.

Tthe bottom line is that peoplea are starting to notice. We are taking away the thing that matters most to women — their dream of being married — just as feminists and the misandrist courts took away our dreams of a loving nuclear family.

We should continue to strike until we can trust the system to treat us fairly, which in my mind means actual court decisions that are fair across the board on all issues.

November 15, 2007 at 8:28 am






cybro said,

The only winning move for men in the marriage game is not to play. There is no other option. Just listen to the guys you work with, they all say the same thing. I love my kids but it's the worst mistake I ever made.

For women, the court system and the legions of parasitic government employees there is absolutely nothing wrong with marriage and divorce. It's working according to plan. They couldn't make it any better for themselves. Don't expect that to change anytime soon.

Maybe someday it will all change but until then the best you can do is take your toys and go play somewhere else.

November 15, 2007 at 9:20 am





college activist said,

…David Usher…you hit the nail right on the head mentioning the fact that most change comes from education/ Academia!!

…I would encourage all mens rights activists who are serious about challengeing feminist doctrine….To enroll/ or re-enroll in even a community college like free man comment #6.

Evening classes are availeable in most cities!!

November 15, 2007 at 11:38 am






KRS said,

I agree. Whenever anyone has said "It is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all", or "At least you had kids (from your marriage)" or some other kind of glib platitude, I make it a point to disagree.

I usually respond "If I had it to do over again, I wouldn't. That goes for both the marriage and the kids."

That often gets their attention.

November 15, 2007 at 11:46 am







Jeff Purkiss said,

Yes, the foundation of a society is the family. Yes, modern politics is anti-male, anti-husband and anti-father. But how did we get into this mess? Why have so many women embraced feminism and so many men embraced homosexuality?

I believe, over the past four or five generations, men have slowly abdicated their roles and responsibilities. The symptoms of failed manhood are feminism, rampant homosexuality and epidemic divorce rates.

Men must reclaim their God-given purpose. And the best hope for this will be in the next generation of men. We must mentor our boys and pass on a vision of authentic manhood that will reverse the trends of family breakdown, community disconnectedness, faith erosion, and national crisis.

November 15, 2007 at 11:47 am





mruffolo said,

An honest (without anger) witness is most persuasive.

When a man express disbelieve in my witness, I usually follow up with, "But do not take my word, go to the county's family courthouse. Sit close to the judge’s bench to hear for yourself. Also, if you have the nerve in the hallway outside the courtroom, then ask a divorcing dad, 'how’s it going?'"

Best times are Monday through Wednesday between 9 and 11AM. It's free and reservation or invitations are not necessary.

November 15, 2007 at 12:20 pm





fourthwire said,

Dave Usher, kudos for your change of opinion about the "marriage strike" being a baseline for change.

And your words of warning about cohabitation is vitally important to understand, particularly from the standpoint of our nation's misandrist DV and reproductive laws.

Marriage and reproduction in America, from a man's perspective is not fundamentally dissimilar to married men having grenades Superglued to their bare torsos…… with women holding lanyards tied to the grenades' pins.

Those women are being provided with financial incentives to yank on the lanyard and run away, leaving their husbands to fend for themselves, however briefly.

The women are also being encouraged by mainstream media's estrogen channels to feel no twinges of conscience for yanking on the lanyards and collecting their payouts.

And those emergency services and law enforcement agencies that men would normally expect to receive assistance from, removing those Superglued grenades removed from their torsos were actually being paid according to the number of exploded torsos collected off pavements.

Not a perfect analogy of course, but it does reflect the degree to which married/cohabiting men are entirely at the mercy of individual women's consciences or lack thereof, rather than enjoying the actual protection of civil and criminal law.

November 15, 2007 at 12:45 pm







fourthwire said,

Jeff Purkis: "I believe, over the past four or five generations, men have slowly abdicated their roles and responsibilities. The symptoms of failed manhood are feminism, rampant homosexuality and epidemic divorce rates."

fourthwire: Jeff, you might try explaining as much to those millions of American men who have been PREVENTED FROM EVEN SEEING THEIR OWN CHILDREN.

Or in other words, your sense of "cause and effect" needs some serious introspection.

Besides…….. What makes you believe that "failed manhood" is any more relevant to your perception of waning marriages than "failed womanhood"?

80% of divorces are initiated by women, Jeff.

And the majority of those women receive financial payouts, custody of any children, and more following those divorces. Yet you seem to believe that "failing manhood" is to blame? Curious bit of logic there, Jeff.

Jeff Purkiss: "Men must reclaim their God-given purpose."

fourthwire: Men must reclaim their civil and criminal rights, first.

November 15, 2007 at 12:53 pm








GreatMRNI said,

Without legal rights within the family there is no authority, without authority within the family there is no manhood. I don’t understand why people seem to miss this very important point. If subjugation is your desire, then by all means get married. You will however be at the mercy of an ill-logical, overly emotional, socially programmed female that most likely hates men.

November 15, 2007 at 3:22 pm





Robert Stevens said,

TMOT I have heard what you said before. It is true a common law contract will not protect you, that is just one of many things a man can do. There are a hundred ways to protect what you have from a bitch exwife and the state. Asset protection has become a fine art in this country because of an over zealous and greedy legal system. Trust me it does work. The only problem is I learned it too late, I could have saved myself a lot of loss and pain,if I had only known this twenty years ago. My goal now is to learn all I can and help others avoid the pain and lose I have endured for so long.

As far as marrying the state, well if you know anything at all about the legal system, you will understand contracts. When you ask the state for permission to marry, ie a marriage license, you are asking them into the relationship. Whether you know it or not. They will then be dictating the terms. Whether it is having children, how those children are raised or in the event of failure( ie divorce) how you will fair afterward, which is usually not too well if you are a man. The state wants control and that spells MONEY. You can't put them completely out, but with some planning and for thought, you can reduce the states involvement and sharply reduce the damage they can do to you in a divorce. You can actually come out with at least some of what you worked so hard to acquire.

I believe this is what will stem the "divorce epidemic". Once a woman can't come out a winner, she will stop this. It is simple really, take away the financial incentive to wreck the marriage and this will slow them down. Once they come out more devasted than a man does, this will put a stop to the bull shit!

November 15, 2007 at 3:58 pm






college activist said,

..Jeff Purkiss..
Fourthwire…

…Men must first fearlessly stand up against the feminist leviathan.

.. And yes jeff, 40 years ago we trained our teachers/social workers….ect. ect. to focus on the girls educations.."help the girls more they have been oppressed for millions of years" was the mantra!!

Well thats all fine, but what males have done is in effect abandonded our next generation of males because of it!!

November 15, 2007 at 4:24 pm









Jeff Purkiss said,

I'm not defending feminism, or the courts, or the education system of 40 years ago. Yes we should defend the rights of men, especially fathers who want a relationship with their kids. But just treating the symptoms won't make the problems go away.

I still say that men must show themselves as responsible husbands, fathers and citizens. But instead, I see much evidence that men are busy and work-a-holic, unaffectionate and uninvolved, self-oriented and sports-crazed, macho or wimpy, absent and/or abusive, all too often cheating men. While feminism is dragging the women down the wrong path, men can have a positive influence only if we've got our act together. I don't believe we do have our act together and I'm afraid we are passing down the wrong masculine image for the next generation.

Let's stop pointing the finger at other's problems until we, as men of today's culture can hold our own as upstanding members of our society.

November 15, 2007 at 6:50 pm





college activist said,

…Jeff ..The main problem is 40-50 years ago the feminist broke up mens social networks such as the Elks clubs, bowling leagues, ect. ect. with the chant "breaking the patriarchy".

men are now divided and conquered, and are indoctrinated by constant exposure to agit-prop; to keep us seperated and suspicious of each other!!

November 15, 2007 at 9:16 pm






roger said,

Actually Jeff, what I see in my neighborhood are very responsible men in intact families being very good men, and very good fathers. They are very successful in business, they coach the kids in various sports, the are involved in their schooling, and they provide "enough" affection. I don't know what it is your are seeing in your neighborhoods. But certainly, watching the world through the biased prism of television is not the way to build an opinion. The media is corrupt and corrupting to people that spend too much time looking at it.

Raise your boys the way men were raised in the 40s 50s and 60s and they'll turn out just fine. It is when you try to appease the social pressures coming from the mass media that you run in to trouble.

November 15, 2007 at 9:59 pm






fourthwire said,

Jeff Purkiss: "I still say that men must show themselves as responsible husbands, fathers and citizens. But instead, I see much evidence that men are busy and work-a-holic, unaffectionate and uninvolved, self-oriented and sports-crazed, macho or wimpy, absent and/or abusive, all too often cheating men."

fourthwire: In fact, most men ARE responsible fathers, husbands, and citizens, so your "evidence" is suspect at best, Jeff.

And unless you've been cut off from events for the last 3 or so decades, men are now FOURTH CLASS CITIZENS in their own nation (behind women, children, and pets).

Men are workaholic? Yes, Jeff….. who do you believe must PAY for those luxuries that the family consumes?

Who pays the lion's share of the bills, who pays for the second SUV, who pays for the children's orthodontics, who pays for the vacations, and who do you believe gets the ax if he actually insists on fiscal responsibility and moderation of spending in the family?

Hate to be the first to break the news to you, Jeff….. but American women are often quite self-obsessed princesses with unshakable belief in their own entitlements and privileges.

And here's another "shocker" for you: many of those entitlement princesses want to QUIT their jobs, as soon as they marry, forcing hubby to BECOME workaholics, if they already were not so.

As for men "cheating", here's another shocker for you: both genders are cheating on their spouses, and have been doing so for quite some time.

With today's communications technology, women can easily keep multiple sexual partners in the wings, waiting, and many of them do so.

Men also cheat, particularly after their wives accept their husbands' sperm donations, procreate one or more times, take control of the ATM and credit cards, then pork up the poundage and lose interest in sex with their husbands.

And in spite of living with an overweight woman who doesn't want to engage her husband in sex, but instead forces him to work harder and harder to try to earn more money to pay those bills, many of those men are too afraid to file for divorce, knowing that they stand to lose custody of any children, and simply be forced to pay, pay, pay while their ex-wives start exercising to lose enough blubber to attract the next sucker.

Try telling those men that they need to be "responsible", Jeff.

Jeff Purkiss: "While feminism is dragging the women down the wrong path, men can have a positive influence only if we've got our act together. I don't believe we do have our act together and I'm afraid we are passing down the wrong masculine image for the next generation."

fourthwire: Bingo! The only way that men can win, under the current laws and court precedents, with respect to marriage………

…… is to refuse to play in what amounts to a rigged game.

And that's why I support the "marriage boycott" - so that fewer men get led to the slaughter at the hands of our "family courts", or simply remain as financial slaves to their entitlement princesses; those outcomes would present PRECISELY "the wrong masculine image for the next generation".

Jeff Purkiss: "Let's stop pointing the finger at other's problems until we, as men of today's culture can hold our own as upstanding members of our society."

fourthwire: Let's start pointing out the issues affecting men and fatherhood in America that have effectively reduced men to fourth class citizens, starting with men's criminal, civil, social, and reproductive rights.

You believe that those men who were divorced and forced to try to pay, pay, pay more than they could afford to their ex-wives…………

……………….until they lost their savings and could no longer borrow money………….

….. and became "deadbeat dads", living out of their cars, forced to eat Ramen noodles,…………………

……………while the ex-wives enjoyed the monthly vaginamony and child support checks, their boyfriends……….

…… but kept restraining orders on their husbands, effectively cutting off any contact between the ex-husband and their own children…….

Do you believe that any parts of such commonplace scenarios in American society today provides men with any basis whatsoever in "becoming upstanding members of our society", Jeff?

November 15, 2007 at 10:42 pm







Jeff Purkiss said,

Your right, Roger. Look around a given neighborhood and you'll find some great husbands and fathers. My evidence is not what I see in my neighborhood. It's the statistical data coming from numerous agencies - government, academic, private liberal and private conservative. As far as the media, I don't have my TV hooked up to anything but a DVD player and I don't read worthless newspapers. I research only from what I believe to be credible sources. And I raise my son based on Christian values while rejecting the cultural bias that has rejected our nations traditional values. But I appreciate your insight and suspect you're a great example for other men.

Fourthwire, I'm sorry for the curve ball that's been thrown at you. Life is tough and I've certainly had my fair share of turbulence in my marriage and family. My Christian faith has been my foundation and has guided me with a hope that I pray you may find some day. I don't believe you'll find it in your damning words toward women. They're only human too and are often the victims as well.

Signing off,

Jeff

November 15, 2007 at 11:00 pm







David R. Usher said,

Actually, a marriage strike is only part of the answer because it does not serve the needs of young men. The best form of marriage strike is for young men to realize that the marriage and employment markets are now global markets, and to prepare themselves to permanently move to a country that supports the marriage contract and refuses to permit feminists and lawyers to socialize the family.

Brazil, Singapore, Korea, and China are four countries where marriage values are extremely important, both from a cultural and legal perspective. Some of these countries do not even allow the sale of feminist books. We call it censorship over here. I call it a real good idea not to allow alligators to come into the living room.

Forget Europe/Australia/New Zealand. All EEC countries are now legally required to adopt eurofeminist laws — which they will do all in good time. Given the instability in the Middle East, everything is risky even if it looks good in the short run.

Japan has slowly been succumbing to feminism since the mid-90's, and divorce rates are rising. Prostitution is becoming endemic. Wives are hiring themselves out to entertain other husbandd, and husbands are paying for entertainment by somebody else's wife. Its awful. Japan is a country in social decline.

Of course, doing this necessitates a willingness to adapt to local politics. Creature comforts are not as good. Staying out of politics, like everyone else does, is a good idea (but some governments might be very interested in having Americans who know how to keep feminism from destroying their country). Fact: if you have a safe future as a father and husband, and you aren't moving to a country that has socialized business out of business, who needs to mess with politics?

A good college education, in specialty fields interesting to the target country is a good idea. Saving up a nest egg, so you don't arrive penniless, is also a good idea. Of course, once you get there you have to choose a wife carefully (yes, mental health, prostitution, and bad temperment exists there too). And, stay away from cities where beach tourism, prostitution, and gambling are on the front page.

Having worked overseas extensively, I can say the American men are highly prized, particularly in Brazil, China, and I believe Korea. In Singapore, you would live in Malaysia (a 20-min ferry ride), probably marry there, and work in Sing. This is because American men (who are quite feminized) naturally treat women with great respect compared to local men.

When you work, try to work for a foreign corporation. Then you are not subject to a wide array of American vagaries, and may also not have to pay U.S. taxes.

It is also possible that Mexico could be a smart future destination: lots of retirees will be moving there, and I believe the Mexican government will, in time, find it smarter to compete technologically than to export laborers.

I think that nothing would send a bigger message to Washington than a marriage strike, emphasized by a lot of the smartest men in America leaving for safer shores. America survived the migration from a manufacturing economy to a leading technology society because of smart men. If the best and brightest leave, and say why when the do, Washington will necessarily have to pay attention.

Moral: If Washington won't listen to men's votes, the best thing to do is for men to vote with their feet. Since marriage in America is about as stupid as planting corn in Death Valley, move where you can plant your fields and reap what you sow.

November 15, 2007 at 11:08 pm





fourthwire said,

Jeff: "I'm sorry for the curve ball that's been thrown at you."

fourthwire: No worries there, Jeff. I have remained unmarried and not fathered any children, so I'm reasonably safe from the government intervening into my life.

I have hope for the future, but I am also a realist, cognizant that American society may be eclipsed by other societies that demonstrate enough collective wisdom to prevent their men from being increasingly marginalized and two-parent families destroyed.

Jeff: "I don't believe you'll find it in your damning words toward women. "

fourthwire: I challenge you to find any falsehoods, misrepresentations, or misstatements in my "damning words toward women", Jeff.

Jeff: "They're only human too and are often the victims as well."

Women are indeed human, but they enjoy a wealth of privileges, entitlements, and rights that men cannot hope to equal, at least while feminists, their sycophants in Congress and the courts, and America's misguided chivalrists continue to support the notion that they are eternally "victims".

While I realize that I am hand-picking a couple of anecdotal examples of modern womenhood, for your education I suggest that you do a Google search on two married couples and note how badly American women behave with impunity:

- Matthew Winkler
- William Hetherington

In both cases, those men's Christian faith no doubt served as their foundation and guided them with hope.

Yet one was murdered and the other is rotting in prison for a heinous crime that he almost certainly never committed.

November 15, 2007 at 11:18 pm





roger said,

good points Mr. Usher.
one additional fine point, however. you can and will find women very interested in you as an american male, for exactly the reasons Mr. Usher points out. However, you CANNOT bring your new bride back with you to the USA. Women change…and the environment is poisoned here and will affect her in a very negative way.

Overseas is good…but you have to stay there.

November 15, 2007 at 11:25 pm







fourthwire said,

David Usher, I cannot possible agree more with you.

Marriage in and of itself can be a tremendously positive personal achievement, lifestyle choice, and social structure for men……..

….. provided that those men marry in those nations that you mention in your informative post.

I lived for quite a few years as an expatriate myself, and also noticed that American men in general are in demand as husband in some nations where their rights are protected and where men can expect to be treated quite well, particularly if they take those precautions that you mention.

And I cannot stress enough how undoubtedly correct you are when you write that Washington MUST begin to take notice when significant numbers of their best and brightest men are seeking to become permanent expatriates.

You're absolutely correct - the marriage boycott in America is only part of the solution!

November 15, 2007 at 11:32 pm

Have feminist finally killed off marrige in the Western hemisphere.. Well, after reading this from a man whom I belived would fight till the bitter for father's rights looks like that's what's happend.
Feminist, you can now pat yourself on the back for a job well done...

Well, I've been pretty busy the last few days and just saw that several of my post had comments! Including this comment on the story about Bill Cosby's new book:

Christina said...

Hi Mezz,

Would you like a copy of the book for review? We'd love to have your opinion!

Thanks,
Christina Stewart

Hello. Thanks for stopping by. Depending on how you deliver your book I might take you up on that offer. Please let me know if you'll send the book by Internet or by postal mail.

The only reason I ask is becuase as you can see by this site I'm an anti-feminist (notice I didn't say anti-female.)

Becuase of this I must keep my real identity, unfortunately.

Let me know how you'll be sending this book and I'll send you a reply.

Ps. I see that you wanted 100 bloggers exactly where are you at numbers wise as far as the total number of bloggers you've gotten so far? I might be able to assist you in spreading the word and getting more reviews.

Thanks again for stopping by.

And as for my readers it's very late. I may or may not do one more post before I call it a night.

So for now until next time..

Stating an frequently unspoken truth from What Men are saying about Women:

For example, Joseph D’Agostino, vice president for communications at the Population Research Institute, sees feminism’s influence on nations’ birth rates. He notes that modern societies now are organized around economic production, not the production of the next generation of human beings. The result ? D’Agostino says feminism "destroys" every single society it touches.

"It is the most socially destructive movement perhaps in the history of the world — and I mean that in the scientific sense," he emphasizes. "Every single culture, every single nation that’s adopted feminism [as a dominant philosophy] is now dying out. Feminism means death."

D’Agostino asserts that feminism has coerced women into going into the workplace in order to maintain middle-class lifestyles. As a result, he says some countries are now offering incentives and even outright cash for women to have children so a society can survive.

"I think that indicates that feminism has already really spiritually killed your society," he says, adding that every single society or subculture in the world that has adopted feminism now has a below-replacement birth rate. "If you now have to pay women to have children, you’ve really reached the point of no return and it’s just not going to work. In fact, lots of countries now are paying women to have children ...."

Evidently that approach is not working.

Again, it's why illegal immigration and all arguements against it are moot points.

Oh well, there's always Eastern Europe...

Someone left a comment about my article "Rescuing Your Money":

BrianFH said...
R U a "market maker"?

Nope. I'm not a stock trader or a speculator, I don't even play one on TV. (Sorry to all you cleché haters out there.)

There are several factors that play into the current situation:

First, the retirement of the Baby Boomers (See HERE,and HERE for more.)

Second, overspending of money by the U.S. govt. ($9 trillion gross national debt is owed by the "General Fund." )

This caused forigen govts. to stop using dollars as early as 2004 (maybe late 2003.) Countries in the Middle East and Europe have been ditching dollars for about 3-4 years now. (A sort of "flight-to-liquidity" for a much more stable currency if you will, more and more countries have been using dollars.) The pace of dollar dumping has increased with the Sub Prime Meltdown.

And of course the aforementioned the Sub-Prime Time Bomb™ from HERE:

Chain lightning

11 November 2007

Cliff Taylor explains why a crisis which began with a
dip in the US housing market has set off a sequence of
events culminating in severe bad news for the Irish
economy.

Slowly but surely, it has become clear that the crisis
started by sub-prime lending in the US is set to have
a major impact on the world economy. In the space of
just over three months, the crisis has broken, then
appeared to ease, then returned with a vengeance.

Here is how the trend has unfolded, and how it has
become clear that it is of major significance for our
economy. Is the current turmoil in financial markets
still due to the US sub-prime crisis?

Timeline

June 30, 2004
The US Federal Reserve starts a cycle of interest rate
rises that lift borrowing costs from 1 per cent, their
lowest level since the 1950s, to their current levels.
The Fed raises rates 17 times to slow inflation, with
two recent cuts in response to the crisis.

August 2005 – 2006
Higher borrowing costs begin to affect the US housing
market and the property boom starts to slow. Defaults
on sub-prime mortgages start to increase.

March 12, 2007
Shares in New Century Financial, one of the biggest
sub-prime lenders in the US, are suspended amid fears
it may be heading for bankruptcy.

April 2
New Century Financial files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection.

June 14
Reports emerge that Bear Stearns is liquidating its
assets in a hedge fund that made large bets on the US
sub-prime market.

June 20
Merrill Lynch seizes and sells $800 million (€545
million) of bonds that are being used as collateral
for loans made to Bear Stearns’ hedge funds.

July 4
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) in Britain says
it will take action against five brokers that sell
sub-prime mortgages, claiming they offer loans to
people who should not be given them.

July 20
Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke warns that the
crisis in the US sub-prime lending market could cost
up to $100 billion.

July 26
Steady falls in Irish banking shares drive the Iseq
index below 8,500.

July 27
Worries about the sub-prime crisis hammer global stock
markets and the main US Dow Jones stock index loses
4.2 per cent in five sessions, its worst weekly
decline in almost five years.

August 3
US stock markets fall heavily. A top Bear Stearns
executive says credit markets are in the worst turmoil
he has seen in 22 years.

August 5
AIB executives buy shares in the bank. Chief executive
Eugene Sheehy spends €2.8 million buying AIB stock in
a move that should bolster confidence in the share
price outlook.

August 6
American Home Mortgage, one of the largest US
independent home loan providers, files for bankruptcy
after laying off most of its staff.

August 9
French bank BNP Paribas suspends three investment
funds worth €2 billion (stg£1.4 billion), citing
problems in the US sub-prime mortgage sector. BNP says
it cannot value the assets in the fund, because the
market has disappeared.
Dutch bank NIBC announces losses of €137 million from
asset-backed securities in the first half of this
year. The European Central Bank (ECB) pumps €95
billion into the eurozone banking market to allay
fears about a sub-prime credit crunch. The US Federal
Reserve and the Bank of Japan take similar steps.

August 13
Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs says it will pump $2
billion into one of its funds to help shore up its
value.

August 17
The US Federal Reserve cuts the interest rate at which
it lends to banks by a quarter of a percentage point
to help banks deal with credit problems.

August 26
German regional bank SachsenLB is sold to Germany’s
biggest regional bank, Landesbank Baden-Wuerttemberg,
after coming close to collapsing because of its
exposure to sub-prime debt.

September 4
The rate at which British banks lend to each other –
known as the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor) –
rises to its highest level in almost nine years.

September 14
British bank Northern Rock says ‘‘extreme conditions’’
in financial markets forced it to approach the Bank of
England for assistance. The Iseq index falls to below
8,000.

September 17
Northern Rock’s problems deepen as the bank run gets
worse and queues of worried customers lengthen at many
of its 76 branches. The Iseq plummets to below 7,500.

September 18
The Fed cuts interest rates by 0.5 per cent. A rally
in Irish shares begins which takes the index back
above 8,500 over the next month.

October 31
The Fed cuts rates by a further 0.25 per cent.

November 3
Continued concerns of further sub-prime losses among
international banks drags shares down further. The
Iseq falls below 7,000.

November 8
Irish bank stocks plummet to their lowest levels in
three years.

© Post Publications Limited

These factors have caused gold to stealiy rise higher during the last several months and will probably hit it's high ($850) before the end of this month. In addition the Euro is also doing better against the dollar. The dollar will probably crash, if it doesn't there will be a prolonged crisis or long term recession.

For some reason when the dollar slides gold goes up. I dunno why this is but if I ever find out I'll be glad to post an explanation..

HERE is a Newswire article with further information.

So at this particular point in time it would just be a good idea to start trying to make a move towards acquiring some bullion coins and Euros to try to ease the impact of the comming financial problems.

PS. I've heard that the British Pound aslo had a crisis in which it lost 80% of it's value but I'm having a diffcult time finding anything about it. Again, if I find anything about this I'll post it.

So start trying to make money in Euros, and try to buy bullion coins whenver money allows you to do so, and you may end up better off in the long run. (Or at least until any pending crisis is over.)

Okay. as many of you are painfully aware of by now gas prices are on the rise and will only get higher. What you'll want to do is to find alternative modes of transportation. The best the alternative methods of would be to find a hybrid gas/electric car. Or a hybrid gas/electric scooter or motorcycle.

I spent a number of hours on Thursday and Friday gathering together links for different motocycle, car, and scooter dealer web sites. Here are the links..


First keep an eye on gas prices:

http://ottawagasprices.com/links.shtml

http://www.gasbuddy.com

http://www.virginiagasprices.com

http://www.marylandgasprices.com

http://www.californiagasprices.com

http://gasprices.mapquest.com/index.jsp

http://www.texasgasprices.com

http://www.floridastategasprices.com/

http://www.newyorkstategasprices.com/


Next look at the alternatives:

http://www.universalelectricvehicle.com/

http://www.venturi.fr/

http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php

http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/

http://www.osgv.org/

http://www.electriccarsociety.com/

http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/

http://www.thegostore.com/electrichog.html

http://tncscooters.com/

http://www.mycityscooters.com/

http://www.badsey.com/

http://www.electricscooters.tk/

http://www.evdeals.com/

http://www.electric-scooters-info.com/

http://www.tangotrikes.com/

http://www.electric-scooters-galore.com/

http://www.e-max-ltd.com/products/index.php

http://www.evtamerica.com/

http://www.electriccars.com/

http://www.e-ride.com/

http://www.feelgoodcars.com/

http://www.bigmanev.com/index.html

http://www.cart-rite.com/home.html

http://www.commutercars.com/

http://www.gemcar.com/

http://www.itiselectric.com/

http://www.cloudelectric.com/home

http://electricwheelsinc.blogspot.com/

http://nycewheels.com/

http://www.ikoo.us/

http://www.electricwheelsinc.com/

http://www.leitra.dk/news.php

http://www.evfinder.com/twowheel.htm

http://www.electric-bikes.com/

http://www.extremescooters.biz/mopeds.asp

http://urbanscooters.com/

http://www.skytran.net/

http://www.powabyke.com/electric_scooters/index/index.html

http://www.europed.net/

http://store.thegostore.com/

http://www.evadermotorsports.com/

http://www.egovehicles.com/

http://www.mistermoped.com/

http://www.evthai.com/

http://www.zapworld.com/

http://www.voltagevehicles.com/

http://www.fiveflagsmotorbikes.com/

http://www.ecomoped.com/

http://www.e-junkie.com/?r=7595

http://www.scooterwiki.com/

http://www.twowheelsrule.com/

http://www.elektrobay.com/noflash.html

http://www.vulcanzone.com/index.php

http://www.parkandcharge.com/

http://www.lightningcarcompany.com/

http://www.bikebudi.com/Default.asp?uxi=&cr=check

http://www.x-tremescooters.com/

http://alsss.com/store/index.php

http://www.brammo.com/

http://www.enertiabike.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_motorcycles_and_scooters

http://electricmotorcycles.net/modules/wordpress/?p=177

http://www.electricmotorbike.org/

http://www.ngvcommunity.com/

http://www.iangv.org/?PageID=130

http://www.rotarex.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hybrid_vehicles

http://www.evdl.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Electric_vehicles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_electric_vehicle

http://www.fordvehicles.com/escapehybrid/

http://www.cars-and-trees.com/

http://www.hybridcar.com/information-center/hybrid-car-overview/hybrid-car-sales-figures-9.html

http://www.electricdrive.org/index.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Plug-in_hybrid_vehicles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_hybrid

http://www.howstuffworks.com/plug-in-hybrid-car.htm

http://www.electrictransport.net/shop/

http://www.eaa-phev.org/

http://blogs.edmunds.com/GreenCarAdvisor/category/cat.Plug-insandElectric

http://www.electricwheelsinc.com/

http://www.alienscooters.com/

http://www.gekgo.com/

http://www.largoscooters.com/go-hubinstructions.html

http://www.cab-bike.com/

http://www.velomobiles.net/

http://www.mainebrook.com/opac/

http://www.aerorider.com/

http://www.go-one.us/

http://www.piaggiousa.com/

http://www.urbanmover.com/

http://www.electroscoot.com/nonflash/index.html

http://www.greenemotor.com/htm/home.php


Good luck with your alternative vehical hunt...

Well in the bad news department Glenn Sacks writes at Mens News Daily that a new anti-male domestic violence law was passed by Texas voters:

Background: In my co-authored column, From a Felony to a Phone Call: Texas Prop 13 Will Allow Innocent Men to Be Jailed Without Bail (Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, Austin-American Statesman, 10/22/07), Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, and I criticized a Texas Proposition which drew wide support from many state newspapers. Unfortunately, our column was the only published opposition I saw, against a slew of editorials and op-eds in favor.

Reflecting again the weakness of our movement, Proposition 13 passed with Texas voters by a wide margin on Tuesday. Proposition 13 is a dangerous measure which will harm innocent men by greatly eroding the rights of those accused of domestic violence. The measure grants judges the ability to hold without bail those accused of nonviolent, trivial, or accidental violations of temporary restraining orders.

Under current Texas law, the only defendants ineligible for bail are those accused of capital crimes. In addition, judges are provided discretion to deny bail to those who have been both charged with a felony and convicted or indicted for a previous felony. To deny bail, there must be “evidence substantially showing the guilt of the accused.”

Prop 13 obliterates this, and opens the road for many innocent men to be held without bail. Like many states, Texas has adopted aggressive arrest procedures on domestic violence calls. The result has been that men are sometimes arrested for misdemeanor domestic violence based on thin evidence. After the arrest, Emergency Protective Orders are entered against the accused, typically barring him from going home or having any contact with his children. Fathers can violate the orders by innocent acts such as calling their own children, accidentally running into them and their mother in the mall, or going to their Little League games.

Under Prop 13, judges will have the power to incarcerate without bail men who violate their EPOs. Moreover, the Proposition lowers the evidence standard from Substantial Showing to Preponderance of the Evidence, which can rapidly degenerate into a “he said/she said” contest that men usually lose.

Even worse, Prop 13 also encourages the legislature to pass a law which would allow fathers who violate temporary ex parte protective orders to be jailed without bail. Women can obtain these orders by claiming their male partners abused them, and the men are then booted out of their own homes without ever having a chance to defend themselves in court.

To learn more about Proposition 13, click here

.


and in the comments section:




college activist said,

…Feminist run domestic violence training is taking place in many police jurisdictions. They sit down all the officers..and like a mother scolding her children, they tell these officers that if they are arresting more than 2% women in domestic violence situations.."they're doing it wrong"

..So in order to meet the feminist 2% DV quotas, police are manipulateing who did what, and or holding men in jail until they plead guilty to a lessor charge of something they simply did't do!!

..Dr. Warren Farrel in his book "The myth of male power" states that some jurisdiction persue the feminist DV quotas..while others just do their jobs as officers of the law!!…

We need a bold investigateive journalist to go undercover and expose this…………"" equal protection of the law gap""
November 10, 2007 at 9:39 pm


TheManOnTheStreet said,

Now Now Glenn, according to Amanda, you are just a proponent for wife beaters. And this sort of law will put all those wife beaters and rapists in jail where they belong! You wouldn't want all these abused women not to have protection now would you?

TMOTS
November 11, 2007 at 6:22 am


JamesH said,

So TMOTS,

from what I can gather is that it is OK to jail alleged male DV offenders, but as far as alleged female offenders go. They are innocent.

What is becoming extremely apparent is that the DV industry in particular is more interested in punative action, rather than preventative action. Of course, to take preventative action would mean closely examining all the contribuiting factors which may lead to physical DV. Unfortunately things like emotional and psychological abuses do not leave bruises. So such behaviour tends to be more covert.

Erin Pizzey labelled them as the "Family Terrorist". In communist regimes a person just had to be accused of being a 'dissident' and they could be jailed or set to 're-education centres' for most of their lives.

Today communism is alive and well when all takes is an allegation of abuse to have only men locked up and removed from their houses. The war on terror is happening with the feminist El Quieda, in living rooms of houses.

November 11, 2007 at 1:00 pm


Roger Knight said,

I am afraid we will just have to wait until enough people experience this tyranny first hand before body politics such as Texas finally get a clue.

November 11, 2007 at 2:43 pm



mruffolo said,

I was jailed for yelling during a disagreement with my wife.

Though I had about ten years experience and the a couple of graduate degrees, the battery charge showed up on all employment searches, making it nearly impossible to make it to the second round of job interviews at a large, reputable company.

It took about 2.5 years and about $1,500 to "expunge" the public record. The government's private record of the matter remains permanently.

I have heard from many men that received beatings from their wives (some mentioned they were bleeding), and when they called 911, the police arrested the man.

Additionally, I live in a large, liberal city so hear the man-is-abusive-to-me-story from women, yet these women do not mention blood or broken arms or black eyes or bruses. The women only say he was "abusive."

With Hillary Rodham Clinton as President, I expect tougher DV laws then the "boys club" has passed.

November 11, 2007 at 3:50 pm


college activist said,

..A couple thoughts on tempering the domestic violence hysteria!!

Domestic violence is the fem's gravy train..which gives them more money for more agit-prop…which gets them more money..We'll call this the domestic violence gravy train circle..or wheel… if you prefer!!

..Men need to grab onto these new studies and like a pit bull that locks it's jaws and doesn't let go…press for equal rights under the law for men!!

..Send these new studies to newspapers..legislators..colleges..ect.ect.
Demand equal protection under the law!!

November 11, 2007 at 4:58 pm


and the clincher:



Robert Stevens said,

People are generally unaware and unconcious about voting for such things as proposition 13. The fault for the passage of this blantanly anti-man, anti-male and unconstitutional piece of crap they want to call law, is that the fathers/mens rights movement has not educated people. People are basically ignorant about the law and the often malicious intent of those who want to pass them.

The fathers rights/mens rights/ family law reform movement needs to get busy bringing the hard, politically incorrect and just down right ugly intent of the feminist out into the open. We need to demonstrate just why laws like propostion 13 need to be defeated and not only that, repeal and do away with most of the so called domestic violence laws. No… I not in favor of harming women. We just need to go back to the constitution, ie "Real Law" We don't have any special provisions in the law to solely protect women. The old common law standard of an injured party making claim should be enough.

That, folks is equal protection and that is the "real law", That would restore the balance in the law, women could no longer start a fight then run to the law. If it is proven she started the fight and attacked man. She is arrested and charged with good old fashioned and the very constitutional charge of " assault and battery" If it is the opposite circumstance, then charge the man with the same assault and battery. If she lies about these thing , we charge her with perjury and in Texas. that carries a fine of 10,000 and two years in prison. Enforce the real law and do away with this racket they have created.

The women may not like it and the those that make their living off this racket would be out of a job, but it would restore balance. Women would have to "grow up" socially. legally and morally. We could restore marriage and the family unit.

We could then have room to lock up real criminals. We could free up millions of dollars to do what is really needed, ie make sure our people don't go hungry or without a home. REbuild the economy and do away with out of control government spending. Infact bring some the some of the bastards who started this little rebellion up on charges of high treason against fathers and their children.

We would one day have a safe , healthy and growing society. A vibrant economy where people can make a living, very low taxes and government servants , who act just like they know they are servants.

November 11, 2007 at 6:24 pm


daveinga said,

this is crazy. has the whole country gone mad?

since i was a young boy there has been talk of the "end times". the more i watch this bunch of half men butt (c*nt) kissing fools the more i come to believe.

texas - of all places. got women killing children by the dozens and getting off by claiming to be crazy. but let a man raise his voice to his wife, or be in her way, and he could spend more time in jail than the whole bunch of child killers put together.

2012 end of days sounds about right. right at the end of hitlery's reign of terror.

November 11, 2007 at 6:24 pm