U Not Gonna Like This

Earlier this week I composed a post during a fit of anger that was on this weblog for nearly three days some of the regular visitors to this site may have seen. (I have deleted that post.) It's can be *vey easy* to loose one's temper especially when dealing with topics that involve control of your personal freedom by someone else. However, that's no excuse for what I did and I do apologize. I will try to prevent such outburst from happening in the future.

From AWS Forums (link):

Older white women join Kenya's sex tourists By Jeremy Clarke
Mon Nov 26, 8:24 AM ET
(Orginally post at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071126/lf_nm/kenya_sextourism_dc_2)




Bethan, 56, lives in southern England on the same street as best friend Allie, 64.



They are on their first holiday to Kenya, a country they say is "just full of big young boys who like us older girls."



Hard figures are difficult to come by, but local people on the coast estimate that as many as one in five single women visiting from rich countries are in search of sex.




Allie and Bethan -- who both declined to give their full names -- said they planned to spend a whole month touring Kenya's palm-fringed beaches. They would do well to avoid the country's tourism officials.



"It's not evil," said Jake Grieves-Cook, chairman of the Kenya Tourist Board, when asked about the practice of older rich women traveling for sex with young Kenyan men.



"But it's certainly something we frown upon."



Also, the health risks are stark in a country with an AIDS prevalence of 6.9 percent. Although condom use can only be guessed at, Julia Davidson, an academic at Nottingham University who writes on sex tourism, said that in the course of her research she had met women who shunned condoms -- finding them too "businesslike" for their exotic fantasies.



The white beaches of the Indian Ocean coast stretched before the friends as they both walked arm-in-arm with young African men, Allie resting her white haired-head on the shoulder of her companion, a six-foot-four 23-year-old from the Maasai tribe.



He wore new sunglasses he said were a gift from her.



"We both get something we want -- where's the negative?" Allie asked in a bar later, nursing a strong, golden cocktail.



She was still wearing her bikini top, having just pulled on a pair of jeans and a necklace of traditional African beads.



Bethan sipped the same local drink: a powerful mix of honey, fresh limes and vodka known locally as "Dawa," or "medicine."



She kept one eye on her date -- a 20-year-old playing pool, a red bandana tying back dreadlocks and new-looking sports shoes on his feet.



He looked up and came to join her at the table, kissing her, then collecting more coins for the pool game.



"JUST UNWHOLESOME"



Grieves-Cook and many hotel managers say they are doing all they can to discourage the practice of older women picking up local boys, arguing it is far from the type of tourism they want to encourage in the east African nation.



"The head of a local hoteliers' association told me they have begun taking measures -- like refusing guests who want to change from a single to a double room," Grieves-Cook said.



"It's about trying to make those guests feel as uncomfortable as possible ... But it's a fine line. We are 100 percent against anything illegal, such as prostitution. But it's different with something like this -- it's just unwholesome."



These same beaches have long been notorious for attracting another type of sex tourists -- those who abuse children.



As many as 15,000 girls in four coastal districts -- about a third of all 12-18 year-olds girls there -- are involved in casual sex for cash, a joint study by Kenya's government and U.N. children's charity UNICEF reported late last year.




Up to 3,000 more girls and boys are in full-time sex work, it said, some paid for the "most horrific and abnormal acts."



"PREYING ON POVERTY?"



Emerging alongside this black market trade -- and obvious in the bars and on the sand once the sun goes down -- are thousands of elderly white women hoping for romantic, and legal, encounters with much younger Kenyan men.



They go dining at fine restaurants, then dancing, and back to expensive hotel rooms overlooking the coast.



"One type of sex tourist attracted the other," said one manager at a shorefront bar on Mombasa's Bamburi beach.



"Old white guys have always come for the younger girls and boys, preying on their poverty ... But these old women followed ... they never push the legal age limits, they seem happy just doing what is sneered at in their countries."



Experts say some thrive on the social status and financial power that comes from taking much poorer, younger lovers.



"This is what is sold to tourists by tourism companies -- a kind of return to a colonial past, where white women are served, serviced, and pampered by black minions," said Nottinghan University's Davidson.




"LIVE LIKE THE RICH"



Many of the visitors are on the lookout for men like Joseph.



Flashing a dazzling smile and built like an Olympic basketball star, the 22-year-old said he has slept with more than 100 white women, most of them 30 years his senior.



"When I go into the clubs, those are the only women I look for now," he told Reuters. "I get to live like the rich mzungus (white people) who come here from rich countries, staying in the best
hotels and just having my fun."



At one club, a group of about 25 dancing men -- most of them Joseph look-alikes -- edge closer and closer to a crowd of more than a dozen white women, all in their autumn years.



"It's not love, obviously. I didn't come here looking for a husband," Bethan said over a pounding beat from the speakers.



"It's a social arrangement. I buy him a nice shirt and we go out for dinner. For as long as he stays with me he doesn't pay for anything, and I get what I want -- a good time. How is that different from a man buying a young girl dinner?"

The answer comes courtesy of AWS forums. It's a repost of an article from Pete Partiarch on the disappearance of the nice guy:

Anyone reading this blog should know that being a “nice guy” today is the death knell for pretty much any man. Its as if a switch is flipped inside the modern woman who hears “nice” and thinks “loser”. In fact, it is one of the tactics you can use as a Pickup Artist - If a woman seems too interested in a guy and you want her to focus her attention on you, subtly put him down on something, it can be anything, and say “but yeah he’s a really nice guy and all.” Instant lowering of his value. I used it the other day, to great effect, against this guy I know who doesn’t know when to shut the (censored) up and let a man talk to a woman and who always wants to show himself superior to me.

What Happened to All the Nice Guys?
——————————————————————————–
Date: 2007-11-19, 3:52AM PST


I see this question posted with some regularity in the personals section, so I thought I’d take a minute to explain things to the ladies out there that haven’t figured it out.




What happened to all the nice guys?



The answer is simple: you did.




See, if you think back, really hard, you might vaguely remember a Platonic guy pal who always seemed to want to spend time with you. He’d tag along with you when you went shopping, stop by your place for a movie when you were lonely but didn’t feel like going out, or even sit there and hold you while you sobbed and told him about how horribly the (other) guy that you were (censored) treated you.




At the time, you probably joked with your girlfriends about how he was a little puppy dog, always following you around, trying to do things to get you to pay attention to him. They probably teased you because they thought he had a crush on you. Given that his behavior was, admittedly, a little pathetic, you vehemently denied having any romantic feelings for him, and buttressed your position by claiming that you were “just friends.” Besides, he totally wasn’t your type. I mean, he was a little too short, or too bald, or too fat, or too poor, or didn’t know how to dress himself, or basically be or do any of the things that your tall, good-looking, fit, rich, stylish boyfriend at the time pulled off with such ease.




Eventually, your Platonic buddy drifted away, as your relationship with the boyfriend got more serious and spending time with this other guy was, admittedly, a little weird, if you werent dating him. More time passed, and the boyfriend eventually cheated on you, or became boring, or you realized that the things that attracted you to him weren’t the kinds of things that make for a good, long-term relationship. So, now, you’re single again, and after having tried the bar scene for several months having only encountered players and douche bags, you wonder, “What happened to all the nice guys?”




Well, once again, you did.




You ignored the nice guy. You used him for emotional intimacy without reciprocating, in kind, with physical intimacy. You laughed at his consideration and resented his devotion. You valued the aloof boyfriend more than the attentive “just-a-” friend. Eventually, he took the hint and moved on with his life. He probably came to realize, one day, that women aren’t really attracted to guys who hold doors open; or make dinners just because; or buy you a Christmas gift that you mentioned, in passing, that you really wanted five months ago; or listen when you’re upset; or hold you when you cry. He came to realize that, if he wanted a woman like you, he’d have to act more like the boyfriend that you had. He probably cleaned up his look, started making some money, and generally acted like more of an (censored) than he ever wanted to be.





Fact is, now, he’s probably getting laid, and in a way, your ultimate rejection of him is to thank for that. And I’m sorry that it took the complete absence of “nice guys” in your life for you to realize that you missed them and wanted them. Most women will only have a handful of nice guys stumble into their lives, if that.




So, if you’re looking for a nice guy, here’s what you do:


1.) Build a time machine.


2.) Go back a few years and pull your head out of your (censored).



3.) Take a look at what’s right in front of you and grab ahold of it.


I suppose the other possibility is that you STILL don’t really want a nice guy, but you feel the social pressure to at least appear to have matured beyond your infantile taste in men. In which case, you might be in luck, because the nice guy you claim to want has, in reality, shed his nice guy mantle and is out there looking to unleash his cynicism and resentment onto someone just like you.




If you were five years younger.




So, please: either stop misrepresenting what you want, or own up to the fact that you’ve (censored) yourself over. You’re getting older, after all. It’s time to excise the (censored) and deal with reality. You didn’t want a nice guy then, and he certainly doesn’t (censored) want you, now.




Sincerely,




A Recovering Nice Guy

This from American Women Suck Forum (link):



It's been probably three years since I have been to Hooters. Here was my experience: half of the waitresses were smoking hot with some real stunning ones but their boyfriends were close by at all times. No tats that I could see. The other half were short and fat! My bad luck was that the bartender was a fatty. She should not have been working there as literally there were rolls of fat showing through her uniform. When I walked in I stood at the front for a few minutes hoping to be seated and avoid the bar. Several waitresses walked by and not one single waitress made eye contact or smiled. Not one. They walked right by me with the perma scowl. The only waitress that made eye contact was the bartender because she had no choice. The bartender asked to see my driver's license when I ordered a beer which at this point is just plain offensive. I do not look anywhere close to 21. I look older. She asked for my license to find out what part of town I live in. If I lived in the rich part of town and was young she would be more friendly. Here is the conversation to others from the waitress:



Waitress: shut up (said maybe 5 to 10 times in the 1/2 hour I was there to a guy at the bar)



Waitress: you make me want to kill myself (said this to a patron that was flirting with her but spending a lot of cash)



Waitress: you are old (said to a guy in his 30's as a put down)



Waitress: (yelled various reprimands at other waitresses that were across the room when she had a bar full of men in front of her so it was like shouting in our ears)



Waitress: I hate my job (several waitresses said this)



Waitress: the manager (male) is an %^%%$#, I should be manager (said by bartender)



Waitress: Tracey! ( another waitress that walked up to the bar stool right next to me and started yelling at the bartender to get her attention. I was trying to eat a meal in peace but their were waitresses that were shouting constantly when they did not need to be shouting)



Two male patrons started to get into a verbal fight about a female. They kept getting louder and louder. I started to wonder if one of then was going to pull out a gun and start shooting. The female bartender slammed dishes and threw bottles in the trash so they made a lot of noise. Enough that a few patrons mentioned it but that just made her do it more. It was loud enough to give me a headache by the end of the meal. Nachos, a beer and soup cost me $23. Totally not worth it. The few hot chics did not make up for icy cold demeanor of the waitresses. Really a depressing place to go.



All I can say is the fembots have won. Aw have a seething anger towards men. It's a real hatred. The anger just oozes from their pores. They are all the same. Same icy scowl, same yelling for no valid reason, same cursing at male managers, same vulgar language, same constantly putting down men evry other sentence just different faces. The pretty ones all had boyfriends. It just goes to show that a pretty Aw will never be without a job and will never have trouble getting sex or a boyfriend. It matters nothing of her personality. She can be as vulgar and full of hate as she wants and she will always have dozens or even hundreds of men who want to date her.



My heart goes out to anti-feminist males in their 20's. You are in for a rough time unless you become a PAM, 50 million dollar a year athlete, a criminal or parolee drug addict at which time you will have all the Hooter's girls you can handle. Hooters is almost as low class as strip bars these days.

Here's yet another sickening example of misandry in the news media. (credit: Outcast Superstar)

This time It comes from City-Journal writer Kay S. Hymowitz who bashes men becuase they've finally wised up to what a raw deal marriage is (link) (link) (link) (link) and have decided to take care of themsevles and no one else.(link)

Child-Man In The Promised Land

It’s 1965 and you’re a 26-year-old white guy. You have a factory job, or maybe you work for an insurance broker. Either way, you’re married, probably have been for a few years now; you met your wife in high school, where she was in your sister’s class. You’ve already got one kid, with another on the way. For now, you’re renting an apartment in your parents’ two-family house, but you’re saving up for a three-bedroom ranch house in the next town. Yup, you’re an adult!



Now meet the twenty-first-century you, also 26. You’ve finished college and work in a cubicle in a large Chicago financial-services firm. You live in an apartment with a few single guy friends. In your spare time, you play basketball with your buddies, download the latest indie songs from iTunes, have some fun with the Xbox 360, take a leisurely shower, massage some product into your hair and face—and then it’s off to bars and parties, where you meet, and often bed, girls of widely varied hues and sizes. They come from everywhere: California, Tokyo, Alaska, Australia. Wife? Kids? House? Are you kidding?



Not so long ago, the average mid-twentysomething had achieved most of adulthood’s milestones—high school degree, financial independence, marriage, and children. These days, he lingers—happily—in a new hybrid state of semi-hormonal adolescence and responsible self-reliance. Decades in unfolding, this limbo may not seem like news to many, but in fact it is to the early twenty-first century what adolescence was to the early twentieth: a momentous sociological development of profound economic and cultural import. Some call this new period “emerging adulthood,” others “extended adolescence”; David Brooks recently took a stab with the “Odyssey Years,” a “decade of wandering.”



But while we grapple with the name, it’s time to state what is now obvious to legions of frustrated young women: the limbo doesn’t bring out the best in young men. With women, you could argue that adulthood is in fact emergent. Single women in their twenties and early thirties are joining an international New Girl Order, hyperachieving in both school and an increasingly female-friendly workplace, while packing leisure hours with shopping, traveling, and dining with friends [see “The New Girl Order,” Autumn 2007]. Single Young Males, or SYMs, by contrast, often seem to hang out in a playground of drinking, hooking up, playing Halo 3, and, in many cases, underachieving. With them, adulthood looks as though it’s receding.

If want to read the rest of the article you can. You can also make a response to the article which will be attached in a "comments" section. Just scroll down to the bottom of the article and you'll see a link there.




Here are some of responses in the comments section (link):

Sent by Douglas Gurney on 01-28-2008:



Well-written piece. But the biggest reason for young men's behavioral changes in the last 40 years was only briefly hinted at: The incredible ease with which young men can get women to have casual sex with them today versus 40 years ago.




I see this all the time. I own a nightclub which is popular among the 25-45 year old demographic (I'm 50). If you haven't seen the way young people hook up today, you literally would not believe it - and I'm in the heart of the Bible Belt!



I have lived in many places, countries, and cultures. This is a worldwide phenomenon. The behavior of men is simply a response (actually a quite logical one) to the changing behavior of women. Simply put, men are a breeding experiment run by women. You reap what you sow - and when a man can sow all he wants and leave the reaping to others, well, why not? The fact that it might be extremely detrimental to our society in the long haul does not concern men these days - any more than illegitimate children concerns many women.



Welcome to our Brave New World.

Sent by Charles Weigle on 01-28-2008:



I'm frustrated by Hymowitz's article. What she observes about modern men is mostly consistent with what I have observed, but she fails to offer any reasonable explanation for why it is happening, or any potential means to address it. Instead, the article degenerates into a shrill attack on the men themselves, as if somehow between 1970 and 2000 a new genetic breed of man appeared in America, one that is somehow incapable of growing up and is unworthy of American womanhood. Hymowitz attaches the epithet "child-man" to this new, inferior breed of man.




More thought needs to be given to the question of what happened in the last 40 years to bring about this situation. It might be useful to think about the things that have not changed. For one, marriage in this country has always been voluntary and based on mutual affection rather than parental pressure. People in the past did not get married because they were forced to, but because they wanted to, just as they do (or don't do) now. For another, men are still men, made of the same genetic material that their fathers and grandfathers were made of. As Hymowitz observes, boys generally become men as a result of getting married and having children, not the other way around. Even before the days of the "child-man," unmarried men were immature, restless, irresponsible. Why did they choose to become married men in the past? Why don't they choose to do so now?





It would seem that something has changed in the nature of marriage itself, and in the economic and social circumstances that surround the decision to get married. One problem is that risks of marriage for men have greatly increased, while the rewards have decreased. Two historical factors seem to underly this change: feminism and no-fault divorce.





Feminism has changed things not because "men are intimidated by strong women" (men always have been intimidated by women, strong and otherwise), but because it has changed the inherent trade-offs of marriage to put the husband at a disadvantage. Feminist doctrine requires wives to deny or devalue the husband's role as provider and protector of the household. This is a role that men are well-suited for and find satisfaction in. Instead, wives are told to look to their husband primarily for companionship and emotional support. This is something that men are less suited for and find less satisfying. Their failure to meet the standards of emotional availability required by their wives often leads to resentment on the part of the wives and frustration for the husband, who senses that his wife wants him to be a grown-up without being a man.



In addition, because it is no longer acceptable to talk about "women's work" or "men's work," the division of labor becomes a source of strife rather than an efficient use of resources. Every household chore must be the subject of litigation.



The ultimate risk for the husband is that his wife's resentment might lead to a divorce. In a situation where courts still favor wives in child custody situations, divorce for the husband can mean financial ruin and the loss of his children.




The question might better be asked, why would a young man want to get married now? Sex, apparently, is generally available. Companionship is also available, and buddies make far less emotional demands than wives do. Wives can no longer be expected to provide domestic comforts (e.g., good cooking) that men value but are generally not very good at providing for themselves. (Although I would suggest that most wives still do provide these comforts, but that feminism has taught them to do so with a sense of resentment).



The question might also be asked, why would a woman want to get married? She can make her own living. The police can protect her from the bad people. Life doesn't require that much heavy lifting anymore.



It seems that the only reason left to get married is to have children. This is not to be underestimated, since children give purpose in life, introduce new levels of love and affection, and still provide a degree of security in old age that cannot be provided by government programs or careful retirement savings. For men, though, there is the greater risk of losing those children through divorce.




The frustrating thing about Hymowitz's article is that she places all the blame for this situation on the "child-men." Women surely can't be completely innocent in this breakdown. After all, the feminist movement in the 60s and 70s was a change in the expectations of women. They demanded that men change to meet those new expectations, but it appears that the men did not change that much. They are still the same "pigs" that they were back then. Only now they don't have any reason to "grow up" by getting married, maybe not so much to gain from it and a lot to lose. Maybe, as it turns out, a man needs a wife like a fish needs a bicycle.




As Hymowitz points out in her book, marriage is fundamentally important to the health of our civilization. And a healthy marriage is fundamentally useful for the people who choose to enter into it. Still, many no longer choose to enter into it. Understanding why that happens will require something better than a sneering new epithet for unmarried young men.

Sent by Jackie Coffee on 01-28-2008:



I read your article with great interest. I was hoping you'd be more forthright in diagnosing the problem of today's SYMs, but alas you just pussyfooted (forgive the pun) around the real issue. Which as I see it, is that women have given away the candy store.



Of course Freud didn't have to ask what men want; that's a slam dunk. And they DO NOT feel threatened by female "empowerment." On the contrary, they consider it a no-strings-attached, gratuitous-sex-for-life, American Express card for which the bill never arrives.



What enables the child-man to "put off family into the hazily distant future" is the law of supply and demand: every child-man knows that the number of women willing to get horizontal after a hamburger and a movie vastly exceeds the number of "squares" who won't. And that's the 800-pound Transformer in the room that everyone ignores.

Sent by Donna Stadler on 01-27-2008:



Two things: the pill and abortion. Men used to get married to have sex. Fear of pregnancy prevented most girls from "giving in," and Papa with a shotgun helped. From there, we have arrived at the place where any guy can find a girl any night who will have sex immediately with him. Why should he get married? No one is demanding or even asking him to grow up.



Divorced parents don't help. Who wants to get married and be unhappy like his parents were?



Baby boomers thought they were so smart. Get rid of the stigma of divorce and out-of-wedlock pregnancies, prevent unwanted pregnacies or kill the "accident," and won't life be grand.



Only thing is, we ruined our kids with the experiment. Maybe we should stop playing God and get back to some of the basics: grow up, get an education, get a job, get married, have kids, and then won't life be grand. Or at least better than now.



Wars have made a lot of men "grow up" too, sadly. I'll bet the guys in the all-volunteer military will end up being the mature ones. Many of the guys that managed to avoid the draft during Viet Nam are now sporting graying ponytails, still smoking "grass," and divorced several times. They have spawned the "cretins" you have described that are ruining our society. I wouldn't want to be a young woman today.

Sent by F Wallace on 01-27-2008:


Ms. Hymowitz is wrong. SYMs are not avoiding marriage. They are priced out of it, and of relationships. Young men in their thirties in the 1970s could buy their own houses.


Now, even high-earning MBAs cannot buy their own houses, a prerequisite for marriage and family.



Women with their own earnings require a "premium" over their own status/money/social power, or future expectation of same. "Sex and the City" was more a tale of high-powered young women finding A-Listers unwilling to commit. Because they want the few men with more social power than they possess.



Young men are substituting video games and childish diversions because they lack the ability to gain a woman's intimacy that will lead to marriage. Theodore Dalrymple writes about this extensively in "Life at the Bottom." Even lower-earning women choose bad boys over the regular decent guys. Because women want men with higher status than their own.

Sent by Robert Butsch on 01-27-2008:



Your op-ed piece ("The Child-Man" in the Dallas Morning News) struck a chord with my friend, Justin. Justin is many years younger then I. He's 26, right in the 10-ring of your putative, monolithic Single Young Male demographic. He asked me to compose this in his place since he's getting oiled up for a crazy week in Vegas with a few buddies before stopping in Phoenix on the way back in case there are some Super Bowl tickets left to score. Besides, writing isn't a skill of much use to him in his promising financial-services career.



Anyway, he would like you to pass on his personal thanks to all your New Girl Order, hyper-achieving comrades who have done so much to make his current lifestyle possible. He says there's a ton of them out there in the increasingly female-friendly workplace where he spends his 60-hour weeks, and they've been just super cooperative.



This situation has paid off especially handsomely in the case of Mary, a well-employed and very intelligent and attractive young woman, and presently Justin's main weekend diversion. It seems there's some guy -- also 26, strangely enough -- wanting desperately to marry her. But this guy doesn't have Justin's hunk factor or care-free personality; plus it's pretty obvious, given the career the guy has chosen, that he's never going to make it out of the mid-five-figure income mire. The contemporary adulthood into which Mary is emergent appears to have informed her that there's no way this is what a genuine New Girl wants out of life, so she's made herself regularly available for Justin.



Of course, Justin does sometimes have to sacrifice a little Playstation 3 time to keep Mary company on shopping sprees. Occasionally he even finds it necessary to travel with her to one of her special places. But if things get out of hand, he says he'll just move on. No big thing.



By the way, he says he's tried to work up a little guilt over his pointless, vapid existence, but so far with no success. It's just way too cool. So, once again, a great big thank you from my favorite SYM, Justin.

Here's another response from a gaming web site (link):

tonny from belgiumJan 30th, 2008 - 08:28:07





Appently Hymowitz is describing something without understanding the causes .Men in the sixties lived in a totaly different society,not so much because the lack of computers but because the family tissue was very different .Role modelling was pretty much what it had been for the last hundred thousand years with men going out to work ,bring in the money,strive for a career and a future for his family .





THe ethics of the industry were also different,you joined a company ,provided it with yout labor and productivity and as a reward you got a salary and a future in the company,based on your merits and experience .Most of that has vanished too,nothing is stable anymore.More than half of weddings end in the garbage bin,men are competing with women on the job market,experience doesn't count for much in a job ,productivity is stretched out until all the fun has disappeared out of working.On the work floor modern man is nothing but an extention to the machines .






Due all of that there are remnants of earlier ages,atavisms thet need to be filled in .When we were kids we played knights liberating damsels in distress,cowboys and indians preparing gor manhood,defending one's family against the evils of the outside world .All that has vanished ,the woman we protected is either our competitor ot our boss,our wife is out at work,no ordinary family can function on a single salary anymore .Our kids are left on themselves more than in earlier times .The average day of media warchings azccounts for at least ten people shot on TV or in the streets .




So does it wonder anubody if a lot of adults escape all that in a virtual world .It grants perhaps only virtual satisafaction,but the outside world has even less to offer .

This response comes from one of the webmasters at the Men's Activism blog (link):

"Misandry. Ever hear of it? Because your article was full of it. Did it ever occur to you that men don't marry because the rules are rigged against men? If a divorce follows, who gets the kids? And who gets to deny their former spouse access to those children? If any allegations of domestic violence is made, who automatically gets kicked out of the house (no evidence required)? And who doesn't?




Indeed, your article even stooped to old-style social Darwinism. Chromosomally challenged? Surely it has occurred to your superior intellect that while the male population has EVERY gene that the female population has, they also have additional genes that no females have access to? How does that fit into your superiority paradigm?



And it would be very easy to write a long list of public policy of recent vintage that are clearly anti-male. Which gender gets routinely sexually mutilated at birth? And which does not? Which gender dominates the Ritalin 'drug solution' for school-age children, and which does not? Which gender suffers from much greater rates of school-age violent deaths? And which gender gets more funds to fight school-age deaths? Which gender dies younger (on average)? And which one has more federal and state funding for health care? Between prostate cancer and breast cancer, approximately equal numbers of men and women die, yet which cancer gets 7 times more research funding? In general, which gender's gender-specific health issues gets 50% more federal and state research funding? And which gender, do you suppose, suffers 93% of all workplace fatalities?




And on TV and movies, which gender is routinely sexually injured for 'laughs'? And which is not? Which gender is routinely cast as an idiot? And which is not? Which gender is routinely cast as violently 'evil' or the 'bad guy', and which is not. Lastly, which (allegedly immature) gender, would you speculate, is more likely to risk their lives to help a stranger?"

and in the comments section there:

A toast to the article and response to the author
Submitted Tue, 2008-01-29 20:51.

I'd like to lift a toast to the young men described in your article. How exactly do you respond to a world where "maleness" is routinely denigrated, dispised, and legislated against. There is more hatred for men in western culture than there ever was for women. But then, you wouldn't see that would you? Because you can't.



I think your descriptions are 80% accurate. The fact of the matter is, women are not worth the sacrifice and marriage is a very, very bad deal for men emotionally, economically, and spiritually. And you can thank feminism for that. The USA and the westernized countries entire scheme is to protect and facilitate women, and therefore not a nice place for boys to grow up. There is a reason marriage rates are plummeting and illegitimacy is soaring (now at nearly 40% of all births) - women, in their desperation to have a child and "catch her man", are now pulling the trigger on pregnancy and using deception to do it in pitifully selfish acts of abduction and entrapment on a very wide scale. Women write about it all the time on the internet. Some advocate it "to get their commitment".



The reason young men do not want to make a commitment is it is not worth it. The women are easy, they dress like whores and throw themselves at men. And the boys have caught on to the game. Expect more of the same until the laws that "govern" reproduction and marriage are changed to benefit both sexes equally - rather than the totally one-sided atrocity we have today.

oregon dad

Yep
Submitted by mcc99 on Tue, 2008-01-29 22:40.



I don't care what she and others like her may write, say, or think. It isn't their lives and livelihoods that are on the line when they "tie the knot", at least not like it is for men.



I have always thought: If being married were as bad for women as feminists claim it is, why do so many women, like the author of this piece of crap, seem so obsessed with the topic? Hell they should be rejoicing that we have no interest either in marriage, nor for many of us, competing in the world of corporate achievements (just leaves them more room to advance). For years now the collective female political and economic psyche has been asking for, nay demanding, and working night and day, for one thing: exactly what the author describes. Now that they have it, they don't want it? They want men to want to marry them? Isn't marriage an act of patriarchal oppression and bourgeois mediocrity? They want men to have aspirations for success and dreams of abundance (to give to them of course), but don't want them standing the way of someone else (a woman)?



One thing you'll never get from the collective feminist crowd is a consistent, straight answer on anything. Goes back to what others have suggested is just the seemingly inherent tendency of women to find men objectionable (collectively) from a moral standpoint for whatever reasons-- desire to control via shaming, a need on their part to feel superior in that way as they can't in others, or whatever. No matter what the reasons the end result is the same, and as common wisdom amply shows: Women are simply never satisfied. The more crap like this they write, the more they show the point.



Now allow me to return to my bachelor's life filled with peace, quiet, and the kind of freedom only a single person can have. I ain't trading it for nothin'.

do i hear whining?
Submitted by daveinga on Tue, 2008-01-29 23:17.



yep, thot so. we are cutting deep and it is taking it's toll. men are immature, selfish and on and on and on. whatever.



women must have marriage. the marriage strike is scaring them to death. funny, so greedy and selfish they destroy what they need to be happy, the thing that defines them most, marriage and having a real family. doesn't sound toooo smart. over fish a fishin' hole and the fish get hard to catch, and scarce. i guess women can always marry each other nowadays. do i see lotsa lesbian love on the horizon? wonder who gets all the goodies in a lesbian divorce? probably not the butch one. maybe this was the n.o.w. lesbians plan all along to get all the women.

Who are they to decided what we should do with our lives
Submitted by AndyOng on Thu, 2008-01-31 01:21.



I don't see why a man enjoying video games and pursuing other 'childish' interest is of any business to others. Isn't ferminism meant to eliminate gender roles to begin with.



If men truly felt threatened by women's empowerment then why are women the ones that are complaining about what men did to bring happiness in their own lives.



My answer to the question poised by the author the article. "what men want?" is to be left alone. I may not have be able to speak for all men. But how often will a man prefer that everything he does in his life at his own expense to be weighted and judged by people who had never lifted a finger for him, people such as the author. It's tiring to be constantly seeking for approval from others in order to be content with yourself.



The author will be better off admitting to her insecurities and arrogance and accept she is desperately forcing herself to a role she is has never been welcomed or qualified to play; a self-appointed authority on what man should and shouldn't do through endless shaming and resentments. Men as a group can easily figure out that getting married to pursue lifelong happiness and stability is different from getting married to be accepted and approved.



And instead thinking about what part she can play in a man's life, how can women be important to a man. You can't have any lasting relationship when it's all about what you want and expect from others. You can't try your very best at hurting people for not giving what you want and expect them to be madly in love with you at the same time.

I leave you with these words:



The best marriage is not having one!



Marriage is like taxes. Taxes take from the hard working to help the ones who are lazy (not talking about paying for roads, public buildings, etc).



Marriage is just another way of taking money from the hard working (and gullible) to the ones who don't want to work in the form of alimony and child support.



When a man marries:




Half of his money and wealth is hers (usually men have more money and wealth than women)
He has to work harder since he has one more mouth and many more to feed in the form of children




All of his disposable income goes to his family now




His vacations are for her and the kids and visit his inlaws




If he gets divorced which is a 65-70% chance he will loose half his wealth due to alimony and child support. He will actually loose a lot more when he adds the years of child support and alimony




And there is more....but who is counting!





When a woman marries:




She usually quits work




She gets to do what she wants




Housework doesn't take as much time as it use to with all the equipment to aid
When she divorces him she gets half or more of his income and wealth through child support and alimony.




If she cheats she still gets the child support and alimony.




Men who marry today just enjoy being poor in financial terms and in emotional terms.



I don't need a woman to feel happy, glad, or rich....I take ownership of my own life and can stand on my own two feet.



Life is simple....stay single....if you are lonely get a dog. Enjoy women, for sure, but on your own terms!


Cheerio. KS



PS....go scuba diving.....it is an awesome rush!

Below is the full text of The Gettysburg Address a speech given at the dedication of the national cemetery at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania on November 19, 1863:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.



Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met here on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.



But in a larger sense we can not dedicate - we can not consecrate - we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled, here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

- Abraham Lincoln

More from The City Journal:




What’s behind the anger, as the Pew data hint, is the rapid change that legal and illegal Hispanic immigration is bringing to longtime black locales. Places like South Los Angeles and Compton, California, have transformed, virtually overnight, into majority-Latino communities. Huge numbers of new immigrants have also surged beyond newcomer magnets California and New York to reach fast-growing southern states like North Carolina and Georgia, bringing change to communities where blacks had gained economic and political power after years of struggle against Jim Crow laws. Since 1990, North Carolina’s Hispanic population has exploded from 76,726 people to nearly 600,000, the majority of them ethnically Mexican. In Georgia, the Hispanic population grew nearly sevenfold, to almost 700,000, from 1990 to 2006.



This Latino “tsunami,” as Los Angeles–based Hispanic-American writer Nicolás Vaca calls it, has intensified the well-founded feeling among blacks that they’re losing economic ground to immigrants. True, early research, conducted in the wake of the big immigration reforms of the 1960s, suggested that the arrival of newcomers had little adverse impact on blacks—one study found that every 10 percent increase in immigration cut black wages by only 0.3 percent. But as the immigrant population has in some places grown six or seven times larger over the last four decades, the downward pull has become a vortex. A recent study by Harvard economist George Borjas and colleagues from the University of Chicago and the University of California estimates that immigration accounted for a 7.4 percentage-point decline in the employment rate of unskilled black males between 1980 and 2000. Even for black males with high school diplomas, immigration shrank employment by nearly 3 percentage points. While immigration hurts black and white low-wage workers, the authors note, the effect is three times as large on blacks because immigrants are more likely to compete directly with them for jobs.



You can read the rest of the article here. (link)

"Sos Papa" helps children who want be able keep an unobstructed relation with its both parents and further family members. (Rough translation by Babelfish)


Sos-Papa (Netherlands)

http://www.sos-papa.com

Here's what's written under the header of his blog:


Newsblog zur Geschlechterdebatte aus dem Blickwinkel der Männerbewegung. (Sorry I can't tell you what that means in English. I don't speak German.)


Genderama

http://genderama.blogspot.com

Update:

I've been told by Rob Case that it means means "Newsblog to the sex debate from the point of view of the men's movement."

Thanks Mr. Case.

Save Indian Family is a strong team of dedicated families comprising of victims of "misuse of 498a", including NRIs, Senior citizens who campaign and create awareness about gross injustice and abuse that happen in Indian Legal system.



We specifically fight against:



1) Abuse of old and sick people, especially by Legal means when
they are arrested and put in jail (without investigation) just by one
line of false complaint by their daughter-in-law. We want this law
for daughter-in-law section 498a to be changed.



2) Counsellors from NGOs forcing men to diswon parents and live as
slaves of their wives and in-laws.



3) Large scale Techie-NRI bashing by NGOs and by Media without
considering their great contribution to making India a global power.



4) Draconian laws which are abused by dishonest daughter-in-law to
victimise innocent mothers and unmarried sisters.



5) Daughter-in-laws mentally and physically harassing old, sick in-
laws and not providing them with proper food and healthcare.



6) We fight against NGOs/feminists who support jailing of old and
sick innocent people without investigations under section 498a.



Save Indian Family Foundation


http://www.saveindianfamily.org

This Digest will expose the loopholes and ambiguities in Indian Laws followed by our Legal System. It will empower citizens to be cautious of such laws.

On the topic of sexual harassment he posted these comments:


Women groups are really going at it. They are working more aggressively when they realized that now people aren’t blindly accepting their legal provision to protect women’s so-called ‘rights’. People are now opposing their biased laws. Their deception is exposed now. Women groups have already made a perfect formula in the name of IPC 498A and Domestic Violence Bill to ruin Indian families, and now they have their sight on the corporate world. They have shown to the people that women’s so-called rights are all about violation of fundamental rights of men. IPC 498A is rampantly misused, Domestic Violence Bill is open to heavy misuse and this sexual harassment at workplace law, too is composed in a manner appropriate for misuse. Women groups are not interested in protecting actual victims; they want to harass men legally.

You can check out the rest of his post here. (link)


Indian Laws

http://indianlaws.blogspot.com

I remember the first time I saw the slogan "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle", I knew knew my face had just been spit in. Men were not just useless to women, we were irrelevant. We had no purpose in a woman's life, and did not belong in her world at all. It was a message of hate, dismissal, and refutation. But, I also saw it as a warning of what was to come. It was like seeing clouds on the horizon, and knowing that it is time to get under cover because a storm is brewing. And, since it was obviously smearing shit in my face, it was going to be a shit storm.




Soon it became apparent that women could say any damn thing they wanted about men - no matter how wrong, no matter how hateful, no matter how unfair - and that was fine, but every time I stood up to that and said "no, that is wrong, there is another point of view" I'd get some little fem-bot harpy in my face shrieking the same old tired slogans, like a mindless Chatty Cathy doll, about how I was threatened by losing my power, wanted to keep women "in their place", was probably violent, and was a misogynist. The dull predictability and regularity of it all was only kept from being terminally boring by the shrillness and sheer vehemence of the attacks.



Man bashing and man hating harms women, because it makes men hate them back - eventually. A puppy returns love for love, but if you beat it will eventually turn mean and will one day turn on you when you raise your fist or your stick (or the club of words) to hit it. Men are no different. When women talk about treating men like dogs, I wish they would. It would be an improvement. Most women treat their dogs far better than they treat their men.


You can go here to read the rest. (link)

Rob Case started is blogging for this month and has reposted a good idea for how to publicly interact with women made by a commenter over at the blog of activist/columnist Glenn Sacks:

21st Century Gentleman's Rules of Engagement



Richard C. August:




January 27th, 2008 at 9:02 am



What do men actually owe women, if we owe them anything at all? All we owe women is our love and attention, and enough respect to realize that without women, sons cannot be born to become men themselves. If these women are our wives, and not our ex-wives, we owe them financial support and care. If these women are our daughters, we owe them continued love and financial support only until they can financially support themselves.



Anything beyond that, and we owe women only one thing -- ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. I repeat, WE OWE WOMEN ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.



Oh, I correct myself. We do owe women one or two things:



We owe them first an apology for even bothering with them, and second, we owe them the man's #1 rule for survival in the world of women. That is to NEVER TOUCH A WOMAN WHO IS NOT A FAMILY MEMBER, UNLESS IT IS YOUR JOB TO TOUCH HER (e. g. Fireman, Hairdresser, Policeman, Doctor, Actor, Rescue Worker/EMT) OR UNLESS THE WOMAN IS IN IMMEDIATE PHYSICAL NEED THAT REQUIRES TOUCHING HER TO RELIEVE A PHYSICAL CONDITION (e. g. administering First Aid, rescuing her, picking her up after a fall, or relief from a physical handicap). Above all that, NEVER TOUCH A WOMAN SEXUALLY UNLESS SHE IS YOUR WIFE!!!



Other rules for survival in the world of women are:



• Never touch or handle a woman unless she is one of your own family members, or she has an immediate medical or physical need due to a first-aid emergency or physical handicap. Hands off!!


• If you must touch a woman, try to do so in a public area with other people watching, and be extremely circumspect where on her body and how you touch her.


• Always be polite and direct and pointed in your communications with any woman. Never use foul language in her presence. Never use double entendres with her. Do not beat around the bush.


• Again, never cuss or swear or use foul language in a woman’s presence, no matter what language she uses.


• Never be alone with a woman unless she is your wife. If she is not your wife, and she wants to be alone with you, politely refuse and either get into a public area, or leave if you are able. GET PUBLIC, or GET AWAY.


• If you and a woman are alone in an office at work, keep that door open wide. If you can, ensure that another co-worker or co-manager is present with both of you.


• Do not proposition any woman for anything.


• Do not discuss sex, religion, politics, or feminism with her, unless the forum for such discussion is open and public and in the presence of many people.


• If a woman offers you a date, politely refuse. Give her the brush!


• If you and a woman are at a party, make sure that you remain among groups of people, and that your own behavior is circumspect. Take pride in yourself and how you act in such a situation.


• If you and a woman are at a party, stay sober, PERIOD, as drunkenness can cause you to say or do something you will regret later.


• If you and a woman are at a night club or party, dance with her only with extreme caution and discretion, remembering at all times that the woman is to remain HANDS OFF except as stated above.


• Ensure that any potential for "romance" or "passion" are negated or eliminated, especially in public.


• Except as manners and customs absolutely demand it, DON'T GIVE A WOMAN ANYTHING AS A GIFT.


• If a woman needs a ride, call a cab for her if you must. Then, get away as fast as you can, or, if you and she cannot get away, make sure that you ride with a third person. THIS IS A MUST!


• Keep all arguments with a woman to a calm and logical minimum. If the arguments get physical, get away NOW!! RUN!!! Do the right thing, and get as far away from the physically violent situation as time and distance will allow.


• If you work with a woman who is an egotistical, power-hungry man-hater, just do whatever she says to you to do, and otherwise avoid her. Do not stay around her. Remember, anything you do with her only feeds her ego, even if all she does is call you a “wimp” or a “wuss.” If you beat her, then that only enables her to say what a violent person you are. If you ignore her, she will only tell her friends what an impotent wuss you are. But if you do what she says, and otherwise avoid her, all she can say about you is that you are indifferent to her, but are otherwise a fair worker.


• Never, ever comment about a woman’s appearance, hair, perfume, or body.


• Never have sex with a woman unless she is your wife. Never even proposition any woman who is not married to you for sex at all. If you are propositioned by a woman for sex, politely but directly refuse, unless she is your wife.


• If you are married, stay married and stay in it for the long haul, even if you have to stay married for the sake of the children. Children need both parents, as well as the Hillary Clinton “Village,” to be raised happy and healthy, provided both parents are neither violent nor abusive.


• If your marriage is gone sour, get counseling from a qualified marital counselor.


• If your marriage is undergoing a divorce, get a qualified lawyer of exceptional quality and GO ON THE ATTACK!! Do not pander to your ex-wife’s whims, and do not let your ex-wife or her lawyer turn you into a wimp. The best defense is an awesome attack, and you must first go after her lawsuit – and yours – with bravado and thought and vindictiveness, first attacking her credibility and then attacking her reasoning for requesting child support for a child that is SUPPOSED to be YOURS, and for alimony in these days of working women.


• If you are married or undergoing a divorce, never, EVER let your guard down, not even during the sex act!!


• Remember, anything she does or says to you is her business, but whatever you do or say to her is both of your business, and that if you do or say anything to her that she deems unwelcome, she will GIVE YOU THE BUSINESS!!

It's not a very good time to be a man in Britain these days. It's seems as though both the govt. and the media intend on heaping helping of misandry on them. Here's the latest example: (credit: Eternal Bachelor)



Good news for British men: there have never been so many attractive, single women from abroad looking for love. The bad news? They think you're a lazy, unchivalrous, emotionally retarded and - eek - effeminate bunch. Hey, steady on now girls, says Julia Llewellyn Smith




And that's just part of the headlines.. There' over three pages of this stuff if you care to read it here..

This story from Masculinisme:




The Best Kept Lie in America

Fathers Without Rights



by Jim Manion



Seven more months before I am a truly free man. I am not in prison, but I can be at any moment. If I miss my bi-monthly commitment, even once, they will find me. And they will put me away.



It has been almost 12 years since I accepted and agreed to the terms of my limited freedom. I am a free man as long as I submit to what I call unrestricted welfare.



I never saw a judge, nor a jury. My sentence was meted out by an anonymous judicial system that presumed my guilt before I even entered the system. A guilty man by judicial and legislative fiat. Guilty by association. Guilty because I was a man. A man who did everything to make a home for his wife and children to be.



I have another 7 months left before my economic probation ends. I have paid a substantial portion of my income for the last 12 years to buy my freedom from incarceration. And if I continue to pay the tribute for another 7 months, I will finally be a free man. In the event I miss even one payment, I will be put into jail, I will not be allowed to drive a car, my livelihood will be eliminated and my bank accounts will be seized by the State.



I am not on any terrorist list. I have never been judged guilty of any crime. And I am not wanted for any infraction of the law.



My High Crime was becoming a father. I never considered it a crime at all. I was there when my two daughters were born. They were both Caesarian babies, so I was the first to hold them and talk to them. My first words to both of them, "I love you. I am Your Daddy, and you are beautiful." When the nurse placed these hysterical bundles into my arms, my words and my feelings calmed them. They stopped the cries and looked and maybe even smiled at this beast of a man that cradled them in his arms.



The world stopped when I held them both for the first time. The only thing I can recall from both experiences is when a doctor insisted that I needed to let them take my daughters for their first checkup. I will go to my grave with the vision of those little eyes focusing for the first time on me. The first sight outside the womb. Incredible.



I worked very hard to support my babies. Education was important, and I saved for their future. No matter how hard I worked, and despite the hours, I always kissed them both goodnight, even in those wee hours when they were fast alseep. No matter what time I arrived home.



I had moved from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to take a new job that would create a wonderful environment for my family. The move was a necessity since I had just been merged out of a job. The mother of my children claimed she was having an extremely difficult time being away from her family, despite the fact that she had the house she wanted in the location she and the children loved.



One day I came home from work to see a large rental truck in my driveway. Her male friend from Pennsylvania had flown down to North Carolina to help her move back to live temporarily with her mother. I was told it was for my children. My 10 year old and 7 year old daughters could not make the adjustment. My daughters were my life, and I could not bear to see them suffer.



I was 'sentenced' in 1994. A temporary order for custody gave her custody of my daughters. A battle regarding my competence as a father and the incompetence of my children's mother had no effect. And my subsequent battles with solid proof that my daughters' new stepfather was a probable threat to them, did nothing to change the course of events.



Their stepfather was the male friend who was there on a moments notice to move my family back to Pennsylvania. While I knew their new stepfather, I really knew nothing about him. He was under the same roof as my daughters, and his past was a mystery. What I found out about his past led me into a crash course on pedophilia. Suffice it to say that in the mid 1980's, he was finally caught after numerous complaints about a man prowling school bus stops and pleasuring himself in front of pre pubescent girls. He plead guilty to two separate instances involving two different girls. And this incident lead to his divorce from his first wife, and restrictions on visitation with his son.



This information had no impact on the court. The court punted to a court appointed psychologist with no background in dealing with pedophilia. And ordered me to pay for the psychologist. While the psychologist stated that this man still had unresolved issues, she pronounced him "cured" based only on his word that he was OK. This man was abused as a child by his own father, and was caught in one of many high risk incidents. As anyone who specializes in this area will tell you, these people are never cured. The Center For Missing and Exploited Children was appalled when I relayed this story to them 10 years ago.



While my daughters were living under the same roof with this man, I was the one that could go to jail in a heartbeat. I could never miss a support payment, yet my ex was free to marry a man convicted of what today would be pedophilia. My daughters were taught that he was the victim, and instructed tat their loving step father was being persecuted by their biological father. And my ex was and is still free to continue the vile hatred against me that she has taught my daughters. It has taken a long time, but I have finally let go. Those precious angels that I held in my arms have been taught to hate me. And believe me, they do hate me.



My daughters have not been in my home for 4 years. There is always an excuse. But the real reason is that I have been painted as a terrible person. My payments have reinforced the hatred. Those payments are accountable to no one. They are a form of welfare, but welfare without accountability. I would never mind giving my earnings to my daughters. Never.



Child support is a major problem. It is most definitely welfare. It is welfare with no restrictions. And it encourages divided families. I would have, and still would, give my life for my daughters. However, I have endured over 12 years of extreme pain, e.g., having my children tell me to my face that their new Daddy, the man convicted of masturbating in front of little girls as bus stops, was their real father now.



The Court took the path of least resistance, and sentenced my daughters to a life in the same house with a a man who was attracted to girls of their age group. I was simultaneously given probation from a modern day debtors prison.



All I ever cared about up to that point was gone. And I was further sentenced to paying my tribute only to support the sexual predator living with my babies. My daughters are out of his target range now, and despite the fact that they are ashamed to be associated with me, I now have the best wife a man could ever hope for. And I have moved on, realizing that my daughters are lost to me forever, at least in this world.



I have kept this bottled up for the last 10 plus years. I share it now not for sympathy nor understanding. But because I know I am not alone. And my silence would be the greatest injustice. My youngest is 18 now, and old enough to bear the truth. After all, she is my daughter, and she has her father's thick hide. As does my 21 year old. They were deprived of the one person in this world that put their lives before his own. My love for them was destroyed in their eyes by a judicial system that pandered to their mother, no matter what.



That is the Pennsylvania court system. Judy Mulligan, of the Allegheny County Family Court, was the unseen judge. And Judge Mulligan takes no responsibility. Per Judge Mulligan, that's the system.



I have no animosity toward Judge Mulligan. None whatsoever. But I want her to think about the path of destruction the good judge created. You placed my daughters with a convicted pedophile and ordered that this man was a better father to my children than a decorated member of the US Army and licensed attorney in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. You ignored his criminal record. I spent everything I had to make things right, but your self righteous and insulated life ignored the threat of pedophilia. And your malfeasance deprived my children of the only person on this Earth who refused to use them as pawns. I am certain that my love for my daughters was consciously used against me, And the fact that I would not lie under oath, something that is apparently a given in Family Court, was the final nail in the coffin.



I will pay for Judy Mulligan's judicial ignorance and abject negligence for 7 more months. And perhaps Judge Mulligan's children or grandchildren will be mentored by or housed with a pedophile some day. After all, the good Judge sees nothing wrong with that situation.



It is no wonder that Pittsburgh, PA is a bankrupt city. It is bankrupt economically now, but it has been morally bankrupt for at least the last 12 years. Not a condition caused by its citizens, but a condition created by elected judges.



Judy Mulligan is the poster child for judicial incompetence. And despite the fact that I have not followed her career, I am certain that she is still on the bench. And she continues to put vulnerable children at great risk. I am certain the good judge maintains the same standard with her own offspring.

A story from the archives of Men's News Daily:

Forget the Bicycle, Get in the Boat!




June 26, 2003



by Joe Blow



This is my response to Karen De Coster’s recent piece "Fishes and Bicycles: Who’s Paying For Dinner?"



While Karen and I see eye to eye on most things this is not necessarily one of them. I offer an alternative, decidedly male, tongue-in-cheek perspective on the issue of dinner. Granted, Karen’s position is light-hearted, not PC (what would you expect from the self-professed Queen of Political Incorrectness?), and oh-so-traditional, but it also contains a very disturbing element: a lack of respect for men as equals.



While Karen is an accomplished writer and fellow paleolibertarian she (sadly) also displays the same attitude towards men as many of the feminists that she so often ridicules: a pronounced sense of female superiority and male ineptness - except when it comes to males as beasts of burden doing all of those things that women don’t want to do themselves. How convenient. She is really saying, "Do as I say, not as I do." The term hypocritical tyrant comes to mind.



Karen writes, "Women want more authority and control over men." Spoken like a true tyrant. She goes on to say, "Okay guys, so modern Left-feminism has made a laughingstock out of some of you, but that’s no excuse. It’s not too late to turn your conduct around right here and now. Expecting a woman to pay for dinner - on a date - is wimpy, guys." Expecting a man to (always) pay for dinner - on a date - is narcissistic, a bedrock trait of (female) tyrants.



"Men buy our meals and we maintain things like laundry, shopping lists, and the long, long list of his ‘Male Faults.’" Such a deal! For the privilege of forking over $50 for dinner we get an added bonus, a list of our faults, as defined, specified, scrutinized, categorized, and documented by a female tyrant. Let’s buy some more women dinner!



"But guys are indispensable in other, manly ways…. Ever get a hankerin’ for some sort of snack at around midnight? Especially in January, when it’s 13 below zero, and you don’t want to go out? Men do these things and they don’t complain. Send them out to the store for blueberry-almond-fudge-broccoli ice cream at midnight, and they’ll go." This sounds much like the orders that Hitler gave to his troops on the Eastern front headed for Moscow. They didn’t complain either because most of them froze to death in Russia wearing summer uniforms.



"How about carrying the bags - all six of them - on your trip to the Mall of America? Or any shopping mall will do." Being a beast of burden is not my idea of self-actualization, the tip of Maslow’s pyramidal hierarchy of needs. I say anyone who buys more stuff than they alone can carry isn’t wrapped too tight in the first place - and probably also owns at least 30 pairs of shoes.



"Men also run out to pick up the Chinese, carry-out order in the middle of rush hour traffic. Part of the bargain is that you let him stop and pick up a six-pack on the way back." Bingo! Note the "you let him stop and pick up a six-pack" crack. Since when does a man need permission to buy a six-pack? That great American hero, Al Bundy, said it best, "Pretty women make us buy beer, ugly women make us drink beer." (Of course, real men make their own beer, but that’s another piece altogether.)



"Despite Gloria Steinem, every fish needs a bicycle to carry out the masculine act of buying her dinner." Balderdash! Forget the bicycle, get in the boat, we’re going fishing instead. Dinner will be what we catch, clean, and cook.



If you want to get to know someone don’t head for the restaurant, head for the bait shop, enroute to the boat. Instead of perusing a wine list and selecting the proper fork you should be checking out the minnows and choosing the proper jig to catch those giant crappies.



Watching a woman bait her own hook will tell you much more about her than you ordering her a $30 bottle of wine. Bring along your camcorder because if she shows up wearing 3" heels with manicured nails you are probably in line for at least one Oscar in the documentary category.



Ensure that your cooler is well stocked with brewskis, preferably homebrew. If she asks you for a Gold Cadillac (or any other drink that requires a blender) just tell her that you don’t have a liquor license while you hand her a frosty homebrew instead. Her reaction will speak volumes so pay close attention.



Should it get rough or start raining you will be treated to even more inside information regarding what makes this particular woman tick. High Maintenance types will melt on the spot, much like the Wicked Witch of the West. They belong indoors with the rest of the Painted Ladies instead of enjoying the great outdoors with you so don’t expect too much from them.



Who knows? You could get lucky and find a former tomboy (with two older brothers!) who not only baits her own hook, but also knows how to clean and fillet a 6 lb. walleye. The two of you may have to fight over who gets to cook dinner. If you ever catch one of these keepers, please let me know. I’ll open a door for her any day of the week, and not because she wants me to.



So, Karen, are we taking my boat or yours?




Joe Blow

The Men's Advice Line helpline provides a range of services aimed primarily at men experiencing domestic abuse from their partner.



Mens Advice Line

http://www.mensadviceline.org.uk

VeV — (Switzerland)

Separated, divorced: we support an equally good relationship for the children with the Father and the Mother.


http://www.vev.ch

Canada's only independent media source dedicated exclusively to news and information related to the Canadian Justice System and Canada's system of child protection.


Canada Court Watch

http://www.canadacourtwatch.com