Male Privileges™ cards--Don't leave The Patriarchy without it

The Patriarchy has been giving Male Privileges™ cards to all men upon proof of gender (just step in a booth, unzip, and YOU'RE APPROVED!).

And with Male Privileges™ cards you too can earn $1.33 for each dollar a woman earns.**

Furthermore, when you earn Male Privileges™ points on your card you can redeem them for all sorts of useful things.

For example, Male Privileges™ points can be redeemed for a free circumcision for male children that you father (and, as a bonus, this includes those that really aren't yours due to indiscretions on the part of your wife/girlfriend).

In this way your sons can also enjoy their Male Privileges™ from birth!


**Certain restrictions and limitations apply to Male Privileges™ for men not high up in The Patriarchy.

For example, the $1.33 earned by men for each woman's dollar may require longer hours at more hazardous jobs with less flexibility.

The extra funds earned by men participating in the Male Privileges™ program may also be redistributed to the mother of their children regardless of whether they have custody or not.

(The devil is in the details.)





Inspiration provided by:
Thomas (Tom) Fullery the Younger
Communications Engineer
Ministry of Communications
PATRIARCHY CENTRAL

Visit him at patriarchy_central@yahoo.com

Click here for more.

Everett Herald spins again on DV

The Geez was rudely awakened at Chez Denny at 5 ayem today by this article in the Everett Herald. Now, the Herald is generally sympathetic to the genderists that run the Everett Center for Battered Women, but this time they give props to the City Prosecutor.

My emailed response is below. Lets see if Ms. Reporter has the cajones to read it all the way through, and take me up on my gracious offer to spread some truth.

Email follows:

Hello, Krista

You may be new, or I may not be paying attention, but this is the first time I noticed your byline.

Unlike many who write, I will tell you my biases upfront. Got your armored underwear on? Good.

I have read the Herald since I was six years old, and now my youngest calls me the Geezer (affectionately) Ask Robert how old I am if you think it relevant.

I have twice been the victim of DV, even though I abhor that word. First time wife #1 chased me down a dead end hallway with a 12" bladed kitchen knife. No biggie.

Second time, wife #2 set the five bedroom house on fire, which I paid for with the 12 hour day I just worked, while I was snoozing in the Barcalounger® in the basement, after she left the house with the babies. That one kinda pisses me off when I think about it.

So, now you know my bonafides. I work with Families First of Washington, The Other Parent, and the Washington Civil Rights Council, helping non-custodial men and women, and the men and women that love them, battle the system that is so stacked against them in many areas, and DV, particularly in divorce or custody matters, is certainly the "silver bullet" and the "nuclear option" for moving a guy out of his house, guarantying custody, and a large court-enforced child support award.

Those are my biases. None of this is for publication, by the way, even though Robert Jamieson has written about me in the Pee-Eye Fishwrapper, without my name attached.

Now, on to the article.

First the sidebar on page one. Your source, the Center for Battered Women (NOT men) is known for spreading disinformation, and blatant untruths. I invite you to call me before you print next time, to get "the rest of the story" any time they tell you anything, particularly of a statistical nature. The number is XXX-XXX-XXXX, which is my cell, on 24X7, and I love to talk to the press. The sidebar does not refer to men, but I invite you to have a man call, and see what they do. Answer: One night's voucher in the roach-infested "no-tell" motel, which does zip-nada for a man fleeing an abusive and out of control woman, particularly with children. If a man has no children, they will direct him to a friends couch. Go ahead, find a guy to call them, I will wait...............

Of course, they will SAY they serve men (see above) but they count men that are railroaded into their "treatment" programs, which are not treatment at all, but a yelling session by the genderists (gender feminists, rad-fems, feminazis--take your choice, The boyz told me to quit using feminazi) called the Duluth Model. It is not about treatment, or anger management, and most men in there do not need it. It is simply old communist style indoctrination, using the "wheel of control" as a model. More on the wheel later.

In paragraph two, you talk about beating victims. Do you know that most DV is not about beating, but about loud domestic disagreements, often accompanied by drugs or alcohol? Do you know that it is NOT hard for men or women to leave, but that they actually have a model, or a need, for that heated kind of confrontation? I didn't think you knew that. More later on that, again.

As a reporter, I am surprised (NOT) that you didn't ask why 50 percent of the (you said defendant) plaintiffs failed to press charges in the old days. Actually it is the state that presses charges, IE The people VS. Mr. Smith. The alleged victim didn't press charges in the old days because they knew they were majorly complicit in the action, and were afraid of being busted themselves. Now, you think guys go from zero to "punching" in two seconds? No, women push, shove, kick, scream, and do other "encouraging" behaviors, and they know it, so they didn't show up to testify. Thanks to Sen. Biden, and the copious funding of VAWA, the "service providers", shelters, cops and persecutors (sic) smelled money, and created programs. What they had wasn't working so they created "no drop”, mandatory arrest and other questionable practices. They defined DV to include denigrating speech, yelling, and yes, even a discussion, no matter how calm, about financial spending habits. Yes, according to the laws of the FU-WA (Feminist Utopia of Washington), reigning in the little woman's out of control spending habits is DV!!!!! Check the "wheel of control" mentioned above.

Now, after millions of dollars, and 8 years, prosecution in the City of Everett jumped to 73 percent of DV cases. Hmmmm, Ms. Reporter, you compare that number to prosecution of other police reported crimes? Burglary? Theft? Assault (non-DV)? I didn't think you took the time to do that. You would find that way fewer of those cases are prosecuted, which you inadvertently point out, but only your most discerning readers would notice, by mentioning that DV is 20% of the city persecutors (SIC) caseload. Now, in the grand scheme of things, with the loosey-goosey definition of DV, why did you not mention that that seems out of balance?

And you neglected to mention that all DV crimes are already covered under assault laws!!!! So, why do we need special DV laws, special DV prosecutors, and special DV advocates training judges, police and prosecutors? And why do we spend so much on this type of assault instead of all assaults? IS NOT EVERY VICTIM OF ASSAULT IMPORTANT???????? Then why not prosecute some of the non-DV cases?

Lastly, lets take a look at the training the prosecutors, cops, and judges take. Let me give you a little snippet from a real judges training course.

Ready?

New Jersey municipal judge Richard Russell actually urged his colleagues to violate basic constitutional protections: "Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order," he told a judges’ training seminar in 1994. "Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, see ya around. . . . We don’t have to worry about the rights."

I would make a crappy reporter, because my editor would cut my stuff to shreds, because I am old school, and tell the WHOLE story, even the part that doesn't bleed, or otherwise titillate.


********************

Now, I am old, and at home in cornfusion (sic), but when we got to where we talked about Lt. Olafson talking to the perps, I am unclear as to the bulleted comments "men seeking sympathy" and the meaning of the prosecutor and the genderist from the Battered Women's Center head nodding. The way I read it, the bulleted items were NOT viewed by the literati as DV, when, of course, all bulleted items, save perhaps the first one, ARE DV!!!!!

Now, it gets even foggier beyond that. Understand that the CBW makes a ton 'o cash from the "treatment" (NOT) that they provide, by charging these (majorly) men for that treatment, in a group setting, at between $30 and $100 per hour. Additionally, there was a recent US Supreme Court Case in the last couple of months that confirmed that the police are NOT obligated to enforce restraining orders or no contact orders, and therefore the prosecutor, Mr. Cox, is way off base suggesting he and the blue gunned thugs can or will protect supposed victims.

Cox's story of "taking all day" in court on a case, with the "victim" under oath stating that it never happened is over the top. Ask him how many non-DV assaults he has taken "all day" to present. And with the mandatory arrest policies, based on only "saying that it hurts", with no visible marks, and conflicting stories, it is very possible the "victim" was telling the truth!!!

Ok, enough. If you want to hear an up close and personal story about DV, call me. Three doors down is a "lady" who got her next door neighbor thrown in jail for attempting to speak with her about her abysmal treatment of her dog.

Within a week, she got her BF thrown in the pokey for DV, and later that day, admitted that she was the instigator, and that she intentionally yelled so that the neighbors would call the cops. Now, he got out, but can't go to HIS house, where she was staying, or drive HIS car, which she drives like a maniac, even though she has no ownership of the house or the car. Tell me how that is fair????????

Click here for more.

Let's not get all conspiracy theoretical.

A generally excellent letter to the editor on ifeminists on the clear hypocrisy of genderism (aka gender feminism), contrasting the current fringe misandry and sexism in parenthood with caricatures of the well-meant feminist goals of participation in all levels of society and their unintended, undesireable consequences, is spoiled by finishing up with a standard conspiracy theory that this is all about some sort of long term intent to acquire and maintain political power through the manipulation of the next generation.

By and large, I see the point and sympathize, but can't wholeheartedly agree. It seems to me that the writer has described a version of "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence". Having made great strides in acheiving equality some so-called feminists (the genderists) are failing to recognize men's matching rights to equality. Having jumped the fence to graze on the grass of what they see as men's jealously guarded verdant pastures, they don't want to let men into their own paddock.

There are few places where this can be more obvious than in discussions of the injustice that can be found when it comes to child custody. After suffering decades of insistence that men should be more involved in childcare, they are still unable to obtain matching recognition in the courts. Likewise, the stereotyping of men as unpleasant creatures who are forever abusing women perforce abuses the vast majority of good, caring men and fathers. But these and other examples do not add up to a consipracy of gender feminists plotting and battling with the conscious intent to develop a matriarchal society in place of the hated patriarchal one believed to have been in place before.

Yes, let's stand up to the injustices, but let's not get carried away.

[P.S. The editor's note is just disappointing. The ending of the letter makes a good, solid point which can't be mistaken for the actual opinion of the author, the disclaimer softens and weakens it.]

Click here for more.

Alito's Outrageous Claim

All the hoopla now surrounding Judge Alito’s dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey 14 years ago, which stated that a woman should be required to inform her husband prior to getting an abortion, is missing the point entirely. And does so deliberately.

For an example of how twisted the arguments are, check out this column in Slate by William Saletan. Saletan claims that because Alito referred to the simple fact that the Court found no undue burden in requiring a minor to get consent from her parents prior to getting an abortion, it should also be assumed that it would not be an undue burden for a wife to inform with her husband first.

All the usual hysterical claims are made in this column and all of the others as genderists attempt to fan the flames that would burn Alito’s nomination. Saletan makes the specious argument that since Alito referred to parental consent, he must think that all adult women are nothing more than girls.

Now, here's my question, Judge. Do you really think an undue burden for a grown woman is the same as an undue burden for a teenager? Do you think a woman deserves no more deference than a girl?

Well, no. This is an example of the logic errors made deliberately by the genderist crowd in order to confuse intellectual debate. They count on the reader to be ignorant or at least incapable of understanding the logic of an argument.

Alito was using the Court’s finding regarding the “burden” required for teenagers to consent their parents in order to have a means of measuring the possible burden placed on an adult woman. There is nothing in this line of thinking that equates the treatment or “deference” of society towards a woman with that of a mere girl. Moreover, the requirement of a woman seeking an abortion was simply to “inform,” while that of a teenage girl was to acquire “consent.”

In spite of himself, Saletan touches on the real reason that a woman should be required to inform her husband (or even lover, in my opinion) that she will abort a fetus that is formed partly of his genetic material.

And the other argument is that the husband has such a profound interest in keeping the fetus alive—and his wife has such a small interest in controlling what happens to her body—that the government can force her to consult him even if she's so afraid of him, or so certain she can't have this baby, that she won't talk to him unless we threaten her with criminal charges.

Why, yes. Perhaps the husband does have a profound interest in keeping the fetus alive. Perhaps the husband believes that he should take responsibility for creating a life. Perhaps the husband – now hold on to your chair – believes that he has some rights with regard to a fetus that he played a 50% role in creating. Perhaps the guy just wants to have a baby and thought, at the time of conception, that this was the plan. Maybe he should at least be informed when his wife has changed her mind.

And, what is so horrible about that? From the genderist perspective, the simple idea that a husband or a man would have any rights at all is abhorrent. There is nothing in Alito’s decision that diminishes the status of a woman as an equal to her husband. It simply says that a woman is equal, but not more equal, than her husband and the father of the fetus. In fact, it does not even go that far. The woman is still more equal, because all she needs to do is inform her husband and does not require his consent. She still has all the rights she had before, including the right to make the abortion decision, and with that right comes a simple obligation to let another obviously and rightfully interested party know what she has decided.

If anyone is equating women with girls, it is Saletan and other genderists like him. Using his stretching of logic to make unintended inferences, he is suggesting that women should never have any obligations. How far should we take that? Should women not be required to pay taxes because they have a right to their income, but not an obligation to report it to the IRS?

Worse, we keep children in the dark about some things in order to protect them or simply because they have no role to play in adult decisions. So, are the genderists saying that men are really just boys and should be kept in the dark about such important matters? Does an adult man have no role in making an "adult" decision? In fact, by keeping the truth from a man, they are conspiring to take away his ability to make a choice - the choice of whether he can remain married to a woman that would abort a fetus he played a role in creating. If abortion is all about choice, why shouldn't he have a choice too?

Alito’s argument is about providing at least a smidgen of rights to fathers. What an outrageous idea! If anyone in this debate had any gumption at all, or if they cared one iota about the most basic rights of men and fathers, they would point out that the least a wife can do is inform her husband that she is aborting their child. In fact, as a prelude to Hillary Rodham running for President on the Democratic ticket, Republicans should corner her side into admitting that they believe men and fathers in fact don’t have rights. Really, there is no other reasonable interpretation of their position on this matter and many others.

But, alas, with the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), we know that Republicans too do not believe that men or fathers have all of the Constitutional rights that women have. Or, at least, they are willing to trade away these rights for political expediency or simply to avoid being labeled as misogynists.

This is one of the reasons that the country is cooling to conservatives. That cooling is coming from men who thought they were voting for a political party that would uphold their most basic rights and put up a defense to genderist forces that would tear down their families in order to re-engineer society. In the wake of VAWA, and the weak defense of Alito’s opinion, we now know that is not the case.

So, who will we vote for now?

Click here for more.

Books that don't exist

I read an unfavorable review of "Are Men Necessary" and started poking around a little on Amazon.com and without any difficulty found a plethora of female-positive, male-negative books. Of course, I have seen this before, but then I remembered my "gender-switch" game and decided to apply it to some of them. The results are below, together with the links to the books from which they are derived (don't worry, I make no money from these links). Perhaps this will stimulate some thought - if you saw such titles in a bookshop, what would you think?

Are Women Necessary?

Let's Face It, Women Are $$#%\›$: What Men Can Do About It

Bastard: In Praise of Difficult Men

The Natural Superiority of Men

Ditch That Bitch: Dealing With Women Who Control and Hurt Men

Why Does She Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Women

No Visible Wounds: Identifying Non-Physical Abuse of Men by Their Women

Anger Busting 101: The New ABC's for Angry Women & the Men Who Love Them

How to Spot a Dangerous Woman Before You Get Involved

When Women Batter Men: New Insights into Ending Abusive Relationships

Nasty Women (actually, this one really does exist)

Christian Women Who Hate Men

Women Who Hate Men and the Men Who Love Them

Keeping the Faith: Guidance for Christian Men Facing Abuse

Feminist Perspectives of Husband Abuse

Rethinking Violence against Men

Men and Female Violence: The Visions and Struggles of the Battered Men's Movement

Lifelines: Men, Female Violence, and Personal Safety

Battered Men and Feminist Lawmaking

Battered Men in the Courtroom: The Power of Judicial Responses

Battering of Men: The Failure of Intervention and the Case for Prevention

Surviving Domestic Violence: Voices of Men Who Broke Free

When the Woman You Love Treats You Like the Man She Hates: How to Deal With Abusive Behavior from Those You Love the Most

Intervention for Women Who Batter: An Ecological Approach

Diary of a Crack Addict's Husband

When Battered Men Kill

Convicted Survivors: The Imprisonment of Battered Men Who Kill

Fighting Back: A Battered Man's Desperate Struggle to Survive

Battered Man

Shattered Dreams: An Abused Husband's Escape to Freedom

Dear Jane: Love Letters and Lessons Learned from the Husband of an Alcoholic

The Ones Who Got away: Men Who Left Abusive Partners


It is interesting that, having made this list and the gender switches, I am concerned that some visitors to this site may get the wrong idea, especially after I leave the blatantly misandrist (and now here misogynist) titles behind and start getting into the serious books on abuse. I fear that some might think that I am trying to deny that there abused women and abusive men out there. If you think that, then you have missed my point completely and I suggest you reconsider. If, on the other hand, you think that I am being a pathetic, whiny male in suggesting these titles, consider then your attitude towards the women who buy the real titles to which they are linked and, I respectfully suggest, ask yourself why the difference?

(Simulposted on Just Another Disenfranchised Father)

Click here for more.

I is for Imagine...

Imagine a world with no violence, Imagine a world with equality. Unfortunately, we lack both.

Let's imagine something else, ...imagine a 15-year-old young man holding down a 12-year-old girl, pulling her pants and underwear down, and helping a male pit bull to penetrate her anally while the girl cries and tries to escape. Then after a quarter of a minute, the young man beating the dog to pull it off the girl. Imagine further that the perpetrator is a member of a gang and well-known as a bully.

What do you think that the response of the state would be to such a crime? I see the state trying the young man as an adult, placing him on a sex-offenders registry, and some jail time. I see outrage from the prosecutor and the judge. This pervert-in-the-making would get no sympathy from any judge in any civilized country.

But imagine if we switched the sexes. In Toronto, (as in much of the 'civilized' West) apparently women are treated somewhat differently than men in such matters. Here a bizzare sexual act of torture was carried out, and the perpetrator, a known gang member and bully walks out of court with just probation, and some 'counseling', and with her name protected because of her juvenile status. She walks, free to assault another.

Perhaps most shocking were the Judge's comments in the case:

He "would not equate this offence with one of incest or a serious sexual assault" that would result in "psychological damage far in excess of the physical nature."
"The offence before me was spontaneous, lasting about 10, 15 seconds," said the judge. "It started as an ill-advised joke between friends."

How many times do we hear similar comments from rapists and abusers: "It was kind of accidental", "We were just horsing around", "She wasn't hurt, it was just sex... ...what's the big deal?", or maybe "It didn't even last that long".

RIGHT, IT WAS SO SHORT A TIME, THE DOG BARELY GOT ANY...

Lovely.

Glad to know the State is still protecting men and women equally under the law. -NOT.

Yours
-M

I saw this story on Men's Activisim.org care of Masculiste.
Simulposted on MIsForMalevolent

Click here for more.

A Call to Arms

Men's News Daily hosts a great post by an 89-year old veteran; Maurice Conway, which I excerpt heavily below.


In WWII, I fought for democracy. Today, I fight for JUSTICE

I am an 89-year-old veteran of the Second World War who served in the war as a member of the British Royal Marines. In recognition of my service during the bombing of London, I received a citation from the Lord Mayor of London. Ten years after the war, in 1955, I moved from Britain to Canada, where I currently reside.

During the war effort, my comrades and I sacrificed our way of life, as we knew it then, in order to defend Great Britain and its allies (including Canada) from an evil that was sweeping over Europe. We fought to ensure freedom and democracy with the hope and expectation that the generations that followed us would have a better and more prosperous way of life. Many of my comrades gave their lives to this end. I am one of the few of my generation who still remain alive today. Although I may be old in body, I am young in mind and spirit, and I still believe in those same principles that my comrades and I fought for during the war.

Unfortunately, today, another very terrible evil is sweeping over our land. It is an evil that comes not from outside of our country but from within it. It comes not from people of other nations but from our own people right here at home. It is an evil that my comrades, if they were alive today, would fight along side of me just as valiantly as they fought against those who tried to enslave the free nations of the world and to take away our freedom and democracy back in 1939.

The evil of which I speak about now is our family justice system. It seems to have no mercy on children or their parents, especially good loving fathers who seem to be taking the brunt of the abuse by the justice system. Many of the fathers being destroyed today by Canada's Family Justice System are the sons and grandsons of the many brave men who fought and died for Great Britain and its allies during the war. Many of the fathers who died during the war did so, not only for the cause of Democracy and Freedom but also a desire to give their descendants a better and more secure way of life.

[...]

It is time that all, not just a few, stand up and do something to stop this needless destruction of children and families by our justice system. In many ways, what is being done to children and their families by our courts is no less horrific than some of the crimes committed by our enemies during the war. Families today are being led into courts to be financially and emotionally destroyed just as families were being led into the gas chambers during the war.

Read it All, and then ACT. Do not sit quietly by while our rights continue to be eroded. Don't let one more man be flushed down the drain of no-fault divorce into legalized slavery. Do something every week to create motion in our cause. Share your experience, speak to legislators, write to friends, newspapers and representatives. You owe it to yourself, you owe it to your families, and you owe it to the heroes who gave their lives to protect our way of life.

Don't contemplate it -ACT.

Yours
-M

(Simulposted on MIsForMalevolent)

Click here for more.

Dowd is to Family as Fish is to Bicycle

NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd appeared on the Larry King show tonight (pre-recorded apparently) to tout her new book “Are Men Necessary?”

She was full of her usual genderist drivel, which she unsuccessfully tries to smooth over with chilly humor. No surprise there.

Ironically, what I found the most humorous about Dowd was her attempted serious response to Larry King’s last question. King asked her if she wanted to get married and have children some day.

Dowd’s response: “Yes, I would like to have all of that.”

Now, that is funny! Good luck, Ms. Dowd, in your frantic search for a man willing to make a sacrifice like that. You better hurry, because if you’re not in your forties already, you look to be pretty close.

Many of you may be asking what planet Dowd is from, realizing that no man on this planet would be willing to marry her and, worse, impregnate her, after she wrote a book asking whether men are really necessary.

This may seem a mysterious question with no answer. But, there is another book on the market by a guy named Thomas Ellis that may explain it all for you. Ellis’ new book is called “The Rantings of a Single Male.” His prose is unique, direct, and full of painful truth as well as gut splitting humor. The chapter entitled “Incompatible Histories” may shed some light on Dowd’s incompatible desire for family life.

I can’t say enough about how good Ellis’ book is. Once the domain of women only, we now finally have a book written for men, explaining the perplexities of genderism, that men will actually buy, read, and enjoy. Pick it up. You will not regret it.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that “The Rantings of a Single Male” will go down in history as an early 21st century classic.

Click here for more.

Parents take another hit in the culture wars

By Kathleen Parker
November 6, 2005

Parents increasingly at war against a culture they find aggressively sexualized just lost another battle. This time against the local school board.

In a recent ruling, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (that be the Left Coast) determined that parents do not have a fundamental right to control when, where and how their children are taught about sex.

Rather the state -- in its far greater wisdom about what's right and wrong -- has ultimate power over your kids.

This is not a new battle, of course. Parents and school boards have argued for years about sex education. But this decision is especially offensive because the children involved are so young.

The ruling stems from a case filed by a group of Palmdale, Calif., parents whose elementary school children were given a questionnaire of dubious content. In their complaint, the parents said they would not have allowed their children to participate in the survey had they known of the sexual nature of some of the questions.

Kids ages 7 through 10 were asked, for example, to rate the following activities according to how often they experienced the thought or emotion:

"Touching my private parts too much."

"Thinking about having sex."

"Thinking about touching other people's private parts."

"Thinking about sex when I don't want to."

"Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside."

"Not trusting people because they might want sex."

"Getting scared or upset when I think about sex."

"Having sex feelings in my body."

"Can't stop thinking about sex."

"Getting upset when people talk about sex."

Obviously, not every 7-year-old is ready to contemplate those kinds of questions. If you're a parent, there's no contest as to who should determine when such subjects are raised. Parents should.

Not so fast, and not according to the 9th Circuit.

The court made clear that it was not passing judgment on the appropriateness of the questions themselves, but only on the constitutional questions raised in the case. Herewith, plaintiff's evidence as to why the law is, indeed, an ass and why what is "legal" is not always right.

Chief among the parents' arguments was that they were deprived of their fundamental right to "control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs."

Sounds reasonable to any attentive parent. Who else should decide when a child learns about something so intimately bound to moral values? Apparently, the state should.

Even though the Supreme Court has ruled that parents have a constitutional right to make decisions about the care, custody and control of their children, the judges in this case ruled that parents do not have an "exclusive" right.

(Not to worry. Those hot flashes you're feeling are perfectly normal. Anger is an appropriate emotion under the circumstances, even if it's not constitutionally protected.)

In other words, the state can determine what's appropriate for your children based on what the state decides is good for society. Given that we're all concerned about sexual abuse and domestic violence, we should be permitted to ask children questions that might shed light on such problems, right? So goes the thinking.

But as parents know, children are notoriously unreliable little scamps when it comes to answering questions honestly -- especially questions they're not emotionally or intellectually equipped to understand.

The most chilling piece of the ruling was this assertion: "We further hold that a psychological survey is a reasonable state action pursuant to legitimate educational as well as health and welfare interests of the state."

Really. So now the state is in the business of psychoanalysis. Never mind that posing phase-inappropriate questions to children might create psychological complications that didn't exist before the helpful questionnaire was administered.

While legal experts argue about whether the ruling is constitutionally correct, common sense tells us that the superior right of parents to instruct their children about sex is among the most fundamental of parenting concerns.

The idea that the state knows best is not only ludicrous, but also dangerous. Bit by bit, with rulings like this, the state gains greater power over family autonomy and, inevitably, over personal freedom.

As the implicit message sinks in that the state knows best and parents aren't to be trusted, advocates for private schools and voucher programs should have no trouble finding new recruits.

Kathleen Parker can be reached at kparker@orlandosentinel.com or 407-420-5202.

Click here for more.

Found this one, and had to share

I am strong. I am invincible. I am in your face. I am woman. I am pregnant. Brother can you spare a dime?

Click here for more.

"If" by Rudyard Kipling

Some inspiration for those of us facing adversity:


If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream--and not make dreams your master,
If you can think--and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings--nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much,
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And--which is more--you'll be a Man, my son!


You can find it as a free mp3 read by Michael Caine here.

Click here for more.

New Term: Genderism

Yes, we coined a new term in the posting below.

Christina Hoff Sommers correctly re-characterized contemporary feminism as gender feminism in her book "Who Stole Feminism." Sommmers definition of gender feminism still stands and has become a universal term applied to the brand of feminism that wears misandrist blinders.

But, further refinement is always a good thing. We encourage everyone to begin using the term "genderism" from now on. Using the term "feminism" in any sort of label for today's cult of disaffected misandrists leaves a hint of something positive (e.g., equality for women). We know that achieving something positive is about the last thing they are after.

So, let's purify the term and take it right down to its essence: genderism.

Click here for more.

Pushing Back Against Genderism

Amatuer journalist extraordinaire Nicole Brodeur asks the question: Are feminists onboard or overboard?

As for me, I’m just plain bored. Brodeur’s question is irrelevant. The silly and artificial debate Broduer posses between perpetually whinny Maureen Dowd and anachronistic Gloria Steinem is a sideshow to a much larger and more important story. It's like newspapers debating whether color print or black and white print are more important to their future as their circulation plummets.

We all know that contemporary feminism, or gender feminism as we call it now much to chagrin of Women Studies graduates everywhere, has veered from a pursuit of equality of opportunity to simple hatefulness and spite. Look at the curriculum of any university Women Studies program or the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and that fact is plain enough to see. Yawn.

While feminism is now a misnomer for today’s disaffected genderism, the interesting story is the fact that men and fathers took so long to respond to a frontal attack inspired by hate. But, this is changing, and it is changing fast.

Glenn Sacks, a leader in the men and fathers movement, provides an example of the increasing effectiveness of these organizations stepping up to repair the destruction reeked by 30 plus years of unabated misandry. PBS recently aired a program purporting to expose how women seemingly are loosing custody of children to abusive men. Yes, according to PBS and the creators of the documentary, this is yet another “epidemic” of female victimhood.

Loose with facts, and imaginative in their story telling, the PBS documentary claims that practically every divorced father that wants to maintain a relationship with his children is abusive. This is as utterly silly as it is false, but amazingly for the past 20 or so years, these sorts of assertions have been taken seriously by the media and policy makers. Thus, we have pervasive claims of girls loosing their voice in high school (even though they have long outperformed boys on practically every measure of academic success), claims that 1 in the 3 women are abused by men at some point in their lives (even though study after study shows men and women share abusive tendencies in equal proportions), and claims that college campuses are date rape Mecca’s for every young man (again, with made up “statistics”).

In its arrogance, genderist controlled PBS never thought it had to worry about a negative response from its propaganda. Men and fathers, though, are starting to push back. Sacks has uncovered damning facts demonstrating the extent to which Women Studies trained documentary makers are willing to not simply stretch the truth, but completely fabricate reality: One of the so-called abused mothers featured in the PBS documentary has actually been convicted of child abuse, while her ex-husband has fought hard to protect his children from her.

So, Nicole Brodeur can continue to quote irrelevant women like Steinem when they suggest that America was once a place where all women had to wear head-to-toe Burkhas. And, she can continue to show herself as bitter about the fact that she pays child support. But, the real action is elsewhere. And, it doesn’t paint a pretty picture of contemporary feminism turned genderism.

We know she reads this blog.

Click here for more.

S is for Suicide

This blog entry is based on one composed for MIsForMalevolent on Thursday, August 18, 2005, but which needed revisiting due to the criticality of the subject matter. I have revised the original post quite a bit to make the points clearer, and added a lot of emphasis and even some math. Don't be scared. Just adding, subtracting, and multiplying. ...Take deep breaths... You'll be fine.

If you are moderately familiar with the topic at hand...

...which is the treatment of men by our society...

- you probably have wondered how men can survive the crushing depression that they must feel while struggling with a strongly biased legal system that is eager to enslave them.

Well, many men don’t survive it.

Suicide rates for men and boys are already much higher than those for women and girls – with 75% of all suicides being committed by men - over 22,000 men per year. (The rate is 80% in Canada, perhaps reflecting their system, which is often even more abusive of men. )

And suicide rates for divorced men are even higher than that - divorced and separated men are TWICE AS LIKELY to commit suicide as other men, per the study "Marital Status and Suicide in the National Longitudinal Mortality Study" by Augustine J. Kposowa, Ph.D., at the University of California at Riverside. CBS News covered the report in some detail here.

The study showed that being single versus being married made no difference in suicide rates.
- Simply 'being married' does not provide singificant mental health benefits relating to suicide.

Even more tellingly, for women marital status, married, single, separated or divorced, made NO STATISTICAL DIFFERENCE in suicide rates.
- So somehow, divorce affects men in a much more significant way than women. One wonders what that way could be...

Previous to this study, increased rates of suicide for men had been explained away by claiming that significant mental and physical health benefits were to be had from married life, and by 'congitive differences' between men and women - women purportedly spending more time 'processing' their problems and thinking more 'inclusively' than men, Well Dr. Kposowa's research has exposed that canard, (wait, let me speak plainly:) that misandrous, shovenist tripe for what it is.

Let's take a moment and really reveiw those numbers, which we will extrapolate using the published rough perecentages in the CBS news article:

Total Suicides: 30,000 per year
Men's Suicides: 22,500 per year
Women's Suicides: 7,500 per year
Divorced/Separated Men's Suicides: 14,850 per year.

Hmm. I wonder how many men committed suicide outside of a divorce/separation.
...Well, I know how to subtract, lets see...

Non Divorced/Separated Men's Suicides: 7,650 per year.
Wait... that's approximately equal to the number of suicides for women.

So it seems reasonable to guess, that if it were not for the way men are treated in divorce, those 14,850 men PER YEAR would still be alive.

One can only wonder what value the approximately 148,000 men killed by divorce over the last decade would have added to our country if they had not been driven to suicide by our country's misandry.

Imagine the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of children growing up over the last decade without fathers, brothers, sisters and parents bereft of their son or brother. Men who died for the crime of getting married to the wrong person.

The total loss is mind-numbing.

Dr. Kposowa's study; the first study that cared enough about men to look at the details of why men kill themselves; shows us that if you hear about a man committing sucide the odds are better than 2:1 that he is either a divorcee or going through a divorce.

Suicide is a dramatic and extreme way out of a very bad situation. -A way out that few would choose.

The significant increase (2:1) in suicides following a divorce for men is very significant.

These men are the canaries in the coal-mine of our family court system. They are literally dying to tell us something, and apparently that something is about... Divorce.

SO NOW COMES THE BIG QUESTION:

What is so terrible about divorce that men would kill themselves to escape it?

The answer is simple: Slavery. To quote Adrian Banks' article on suicide and divorce:

So what is the main cause of [divorced male] suicide? […] The answer to this question is not that difficult, but before someone can accept the truth of the main causes of suicide, one must first accept the truth that slavery is just as much an institution today as it has been throughout history. The more oppressive and cruel the enslavement, the more suicides there will be among the enslaved classes of society. Why do you think that, in pre civil war times, slaves were kept in the holes of ships and not allowed on the decks? Simple, it kept the slave trader's precious cargo of labor from jumping into the ocean. As Winston Churchill stated during World War II, "it is better to perish that to live as slaves." […] In a divorce situation today, there need not be any legitimate grounds thanks to no fault divorce. A man can be a hard working fellow who supports his family and loves his children, but if his wife decides to divorce him, there is nothing he can do.

Kposowa cites "financial obligations," in explaining the preponderance of divorcees amongst male suicides noting that "The courts in the United States are in a position now whereby money is given to the woman, or the man is forced to pay alimony, child support. The man is also asked, in some [perhaps most] cases, to vacate the house."

Kposowa also notes: "If a man loses custody of the children and the woman keeps those children, there are situations whereby she may not allow the man to see the children, and that causes some depression." -No kidding.

Suicidal divorced men are merely slaves leaping from the decks
– consider the facts:

• Most marriages end in divorce – over 60% by my numbers.
• 66% of these are initiated by the wife and few of them for abuse or any real fault. -No-fault divorces are initiated by women three times as often as by men.
• The courts award physical custody to the man about 3% of the time – the odds are 40 to 1 against the man winning physical custody.
• Truly shared custody is so rare that the courts don’t even know how to calculate support for it – their spreadsheets don’t support it. They have to fill out one for the father as primary, and one for the mother, and then average the two. - I believe that loss of access to one’s children and alienation are key factors in male suicide.
• Women commonly interfere with the visitation rights of the ex husband. 75% of men complain of this behavior, and 40% of women admit it. If one assumes complaints are lower than the actual number of abuses, the numbers must be staggering.
• Add the loss of the vast majority of the marital assets and the house, and everything that the man has worked for, financial contributions being where men are expected to excel, and what they are supposed to judge themselves by, and you have taken away a lot of the reasons that men have to live.
• Add alimony and child support, all while not being allowed to co-parent your own children.
• Add to all this the fact that the state’s machinery grinds very finely – loss of a job, ‘underemployment’, and bankruptcy are good enough reasons to lose almost any debt, but not alimony and child support, no, these continue unabated, plus penalties and legal fees.
• And if our poor man is unlucky enough to lose his job, or become ‘underemployed’, then the legal system in many of our states, including NJ, will take 60-65% of his income, even unemployment, irregardless of what his spouse is earning. Imagine, a spouse with a $150,000 salary, collecting 65% of the income of a man scratching by on $405 per week unemployment, or a $40,000/year job. NJ would do it in a heartbeat. I bet they already have.

So divorced men have good reason to be casting themselves from the decks.

Having lost their wives, their children, their assets, and finally their ability to earn a living, and being relegated to permanent poverty, divorced men are killing themselves in record numbers - over 15,000 men per year, killed by divorce.

Our job is to support them, and encourage our government to notice, and care.

-M

(simulposted on MIsForMalevolent- oh, and it wasn't really posted at 9am, I just knew I would be 'OOT' today.)

Related posts:
Why Alimony is Wrong
Other Ways Alimony is Like Slavery
Further Bankruptcy Rights Revoked for Men - Making Divorce Even More Like Debt Servitude
P is for Paternity - or how to catch yourself a slave
D is for Divorce - 'the financial haircut club for men'
D is for Dance of Death - a bit on Perry Manley and others

See The State of Fatherhood for more information
If you feel suicidal, the divorce info page on suicide might be a good place to look.
I also recommend looking at Swallowed by a Snake.

Click here for more.

A Fathers Rights Judge?

Is it possible that Samuel Alito, new nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States is concerned with Men's Rights?

Well the man is concerned with carefully following the constitution - at least he says so, the following is from Alito's remarks upon being nominated:

Every time that I have entered the courtroom during the past 15 years, I have been mindful of the solemn responsibility that goes with service as a federal judge. Federal judges have the duty to interpret the Constitution and the laws faithfully and fairly, to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans, and to do these things with care and with restraint, always keeping in mind the limited role that the courts play in our constitutional system. And I pledge that if confirmed I will do everything within my power to fulfill that responsibility.

Sounds good, although I suppose it might be fluff, but Michelle Malkin alerts us to the following from US News , which I am sure makes gender femininsts' hair stand right on end:

In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito was the sole dissenter on the Third Circuit, which struck a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking abortions to consult their husbands. He argued that many of the potential reasons for an abortion, such as "economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition . . . may be obviated by discussion prior to abortion." The case went on to the Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court's decision 6 to 3.

In the same article, his freedom of speech views draw interest:

Some observers say that Alito cannot be easily pigeon-holed. In Saxe v. State College Area School District, Alito, writing for the panel, argued that the school does not have the right to punish students for vulgar language or harassment when it doesn't disrupt the school day. "Sam struck that down as a violation of free speech," Kmiec says. "That's not a conservative outcome."

Men who find that their angry words are converted by a feminist court into criminal harrasment and who lose their children and residence as a result might take heart from that finding.

Strict Constitutionalism is clearly a strong pillar in support of men's rights, certainly a good sign for a men's activist on the court... but the idea that men might have a right to be consulted in the birth of a future child?

That's breathtaking.

There is a lot more to learn about this new nominee -he has an extensive record to review- but we can hope that he may play a key role in the challenges to our country's federally enforced enslavement of men that are currently brewing.

So there is some hope, wish I wasn't trapped in the trenches, and that I could wait for some case to liberate me.

My best to you in your struggles...

-M

Simulposted on MIsForMalevolent

Click here for more.