Tuesday, April 26, 2011
This was her strife:
She received no public assistance with childcare costs: daycare, food, clothing, etc., while she knew "at least 10" people who, due to low income or other factors, did. They also received housing assistance in the form of section 8 vouchers and/or child support from their children's father(s). This woman received none of this because she made a good income and her child's father had either successfully fled the state or else had some kind of problem that prevented him from paying any child support of any significance (she was rambling, I didn't catch all of that part) - at this point the host jumped in a demanded that it was a father's job AS A MAN to pay for his children - she vehemently agreed.
I must reply to this woman and so I shall:
1) Yes, its terrible that your tax money is going to help those who may be intentionally not helping themselves. My ex received public assistance at one point and firmly believes she deserves more; essentially she believes she deserves much of other people's money. This is absurd. The point of America is that you work hard but get to keep all that you earn. Minor redistribution of wealth by the state is to be tolerated, at best. Massive redistribution of wealth is called COMMUNISM and is not what the Constitution, Bill of Rights or Declaration of Independence guarantees, either in word or spirit. Communism and even some forms of socialism (the twisted kinds) are nothing but ways and means to pervert the freedom of some or many to the benefit of the few, and in some cases, the "few" are lazy, stupid, irresponsible, dysfunctional or all of the above. To see my ex from the outside you would think she was genuinely in need. To listen to her you would think she had been exploited and harmed. To know her, you'd throw up. She has a college education (an expensive one), but quit her white-collar job to work THREE DAYS PER WEEK as a masseuse. Then she has the gall to think I owe her even more than I pay her in "child" support.
No one owes this woman anything. No one. She's a perfectly healthy, educated and very intelligent 33 year old. The sick, children, elderly, and mentally handicapped cannot genuinely care for themselves and may not have family who can. They can request help. 33 year old college grads who quit middle class jobs deserve squat.
Further many people who need assistance because the politicians have worked with business leaders (Corporate whores) to TOTALLY pervert the domestic economy; foreign countries, especially Asian ones, have lifted even the most basic labor and environmental laws and offer labor and overhead costs that leave America just too damn expensive by comparison. Further, dollar depreciation (Inflation, that is, just printing more money) by the private bank the "Federal" Reserve Board has further made living and raising children in America harder and harder.
Should some people receive assistance in light of these factors? Unrealistically, no. That way, as these factors made living impossible, food riots and revolution would've corrected the problem, starting by implementing tariffs on Chinese imports. Realistically, yes, the very poor - those NOT COLLEGE EDUCATED, unskilled and GENUINELY unable to keep from starving - must have some assistance. The states, borrowing truckloads of cash thanks to interest rates (set by the Federal Reserve Board) at 100-year lows, threw a lot of that money into programs they can't realistically fund long-term. Further, such programs, once started, in many cases encourage those "on the bubble" of being able to help themselves from poor to lower-middle-class STOP their efforts in order to remain "on the dole." This is absurd as well.
As to this woman's claim that she deserves to receive anything from her children's father, the best she deserves is to split costs with the man for the kids. Why? BECAUSE MEN AND WOMEN ARE EQUALS. Oh, and by the way, under current law, if her deadbeat ex had by some miracle nabbed custody of the kids, she would loose up to 50% of her after tax income, BUT WOULD HAVE MANY OF THE SAME BILLS FOR HOUSING THE KIDS as they would sleepover on visits. Its a situation that's damn close to visiting your own kids a few times a month, but having ALL THE SAME BILLS AS IF THEY LIVED WITH YOU, yet with ONLY HALF the income. Thousands of divorced men go through this every day and sit late at night staring at calculators asking them questions with no answers through tight lips and watery eyes. Unfortunately this woman doesn't have that nightmare. That's too bad.
Further, she asserts that BY VIRTUE OF BEING A MAN, her ex should support the kids (for all practical purposes they are now solely her kids). #1: No man should pay one nickel for kids he doesn't get to see - for men that voluntarily run away, that's another matter. #2: Since she talks about his role as a man, WHAT IS HER ROLE AS A MOTHER? What about as a WIFE? Did she fulfill her role? Or did she drive him away? Did one of them cheat? Did she? At best she is entitled to HALF custody and split expenses for the kids. She wasn't married it sounds like and if that's the case SHE IS NOT ENTITLED TO ANYTHING FOR HERSELF FROM HIM. As she said, she makes a good wage; her bills are hers and his bills are his and they have nothing to do with each other. If he doesn't make any money that's his problem. And if she doesn't, that's her problem. ONE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OTHER, PERIOD. These people are adults. The kids are the issue here and the only issue: since men and women are equal, with equal access to jobs, money and resources (eat your phony statistics), child costs must be split. There. Done.
Further I have too many times heard women whine about not receiving enough "child" support because they make a decent wage. I want to ask them "So you expect to make a great wage and keep much of your ex's money as well? When did you imagine yourself to be a little, spoiled, child princess? Because you're not a little girl anymore! You are a grown woman. You can take care of yourself! Marriage is no picnic. Unless your ex was a dysfunctional monster you deserve NOTHING of his. You keep your money and he keeps his. Child expenses split. WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE expecting his money? Does he expect yours?"
Enough of the female "insurance policy." No more woman "guarantee" whereby if you fuck up your relationship with your child's father, he or someone else foots the bill for your children. That's insane and its gone on for years. Children depend on their father, many times financially. So I suggest, women of the world, you either keep your husband happy or help support them or both. Frankly it seems easier to me for many women to simply be moms and wives and forget about working. THAT'S FINE! It makes for clean homes, hot meals, happy husbands and happy children who are kept out of trouble! Somewhere along the line women were convinced they needed a big shot career and 30 years later have discovered THEY ARE NO BETTER OFF for it. That in fact, TO THEM, their relationship was more important. Men have no choice. They must work, they must make money for their family to live. Women had a choice, and still do. If most (not all) women decided to put men first when it came to work they would find a curious side-effect: their own happiness.
In the meantime, please, for the sake of baby Jesus and all the seraphims, cherubs and in the name of St. Peter himself, SPARE ME the I'm-not-that-well-off-because-my-ex-doesn't-give-me-every-cent-he-has story.
Want pity? Then tell me you give your ex $1,200/month after taxes on a $50,000/year income and are expected to support another family - buy a $10k+ wedding ring, house, cars, the works - when you live on just over $2k a month and pay $1k/month in rent.
You wouldn't tell me that. Because after the judge did that to you you would've walked out of court and onto a plane and tried to forget the silly clown-rape that was just perpetrated on you by the joke called a court of justice; a court that did it "on behalf of the kids" and you'd sell pineapples to tourists in Antigua before being someone else's slave in the "free" U.S. of A. You'd probably even join a ultra conservative religion and be happy you were living in a place where people didn't throw you in jail for refusing to be someone else's slave.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
When people are defrauded out of money we all cry foul and demand jail. What do we do when a woman uses AN INNOCENT CHILD to defraud someone out of their money for 18 years or more?
We let her keep the money!
Fathers and Families has helped introduce two paternity fraud bills in the the California legislature this year, one of which (SB 377) will address the injustices faced young men like Thomas. In Thomas’ support letter to Senator Rod Wright (D-Los Angeles), the bill’s author, he explains:
I am writing to you in support of SB 377, because when I was 17 years-old I was victimized by the problem which the bill addresses.
The hospital manipulated me into signing a paternity declaration when my former girlfriend gave birth to a son she said was mine. There was no parental consent nor did I have access to legal counsel or advice. I was never informed of the legal implications of what I was being asked to sign and I did not fully understand them. I thought that because I was a minor, there couldn’t be serious legal implications. I have since learned differently.
The mother of the child has not allowed me to have a relationship with the boy, and several of her relatives have told me that another young man who I knew in our community is in fact the biological father.
I tried to rectify the situation, but the judge ruled me to be the biological father and denied my request to establish paternity, even after the child’s mother initially agreed in court to have DNA testing done.
I am now on the hook for 18 years of child support to support a boy I’m not able to see and who perhaps is not even mine. Moreover, someday I would like to marry and have a family, and I am instead faced with the potential prospect of losing a quarter of my after-tax earnings because I was defrauded.
SB 377 would resolve these kinds of injustices by “invalidating a voluntary declaration of paternity that is signed by a minor parent if it is not also signed by the parent or guardian of the minor parent.” SB 377 would also require that the parent or guardian of the minor parent receive oral and written information relating to the voluntary declaration of paternity.
I wish this legislation had been in place when I was 17—it would have saved me a lot of pain and problems.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
When there is more of something, it is therefore worth significantly less... and less and less.
I love the interviewer. She is in no way qualified to interview this man. She knows nothing about even basic finance. The Federal Reserve Board declares 2% inflation is good - that means every dollar you earn is worth 2% less every year. After 5 years, your money buys 10% less than it once did - that's huge. There is no reason for that to happen. No justification. The dollar has lost 95% of its purchasing power over the last 70 years. How? A little inflation every single year. Before we had this mystical entity called the "Federal Reserve Board" (which is a private bank, by the way), the dollar didn't lose ONE OUNCE of value year after year, so any raises or additional money you made REALLY COUNTED and wasn't made just to "keep pace with" inflation. "Prime the pump?" WTF does that even mean? Its a soundbite with no meaning. The more your money buys, the easier it is to live. Devaluing your money is surreptitious theft and there is no reason for it to happen, much less be "desirable." How do people not understand that? Further this Mack woman, in her total stupidity declares the FINANCIAL COMMUNITY thinks its a good idea! Um, you mean those people who trashed the housing market, destroyed the economy, took trillions of taxpayer money and paid themselves bonuses with it? Further, the finance community loves inflation because it FORCES prices of everything up, making their life jaw-droppingly easy. Just buy something and wait 6 months - since you bought that thing in dollars and the dollar is losing value on a constant basis, the thing you bought MUST go up in value and you can sell it and make money - when you sell it you're given dollars in return and even if its more dollars than you bought it for, they are worth less, so how do you really make money off it? Answer: leverage (borrowed money). This is why Wall St. is like a kid with his dad's gun. Wall St. BORROWS BILLIONS and buys things with it. How much of their own money do they use? 1/30th OR LESS of what they spend is actual money of their own. So when I borrow a billion, buy silver with it and silver goes from $1 to $4 per ounce (or from 9 to 42 as it recently did), I make 3 dollars per ounce (or share or unit, whatever you like). I make 3 billion; I pocket 2 billion, pay the 1 billion I borrowed back to the lender and I'm 2 billion clams to the good. Risky? You bet. If the price were to go down, I'm on the hook for billions in losses that I may not be able to cover. Do I worry? Not really. Why? Ben Bernarke is printing money and creating inflation - so the price of silver in dollars MUST go up. Its as close to a sure thing as it gets. This is how normal wall st. working stiffs make 400k+ a year with $2-300,000 dollar bonuses - that's PER year. And the "finance community" thinks 2% inflation is a good idea? WOW, IMAGINE THAT, MS. MACK!!!!!!!! USE YOUR GODDAMN HEAD FOR A SECOND LADY! The other problem is that prices of everything are being supported by money printed out of thin air and if that money is not continually printed, the prices of everything will fall back to their real value - when that happens (not if), everyone who has bought things with borrowed money and waited for the price to go up has their borrowed money CALLED BACK by the lender. The problem? They must ALL SELL what they bought at the same time just as the price of what they bought is crashing. What happens next? Someone calls Henry, "Hank" Paulson and he has to beg Washington for $700 BILLION OF PUBLIC MONEY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT FROM HIS KNEES. Nice system.
Its just like the idea that men must "take care of" a (college educated) woman after divorce. Why does someone with a good middle class job and benefits need to be taken care of? How can it be justified when she makes more than he does or when she gets remarried or co-habitates with another? Its just a soundbite that you've been force-fed to believe and you do; when you step back and examine the issue on its merits it makes no sense for two people who are equally capable to be treated in such a way. Every man went to school with girls who were just as smart or smarter than they were and upon divorce these now women are presumed to be incapable of earning due to some kind of hidden bias, which is demonstrably false, but everyone somehow believes it. Its foolishness squared.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Washington’s Blog strives to provide real-time, well-researched and actionable information. George – the head writer at Washington’s Blog – is a busy professional and a former adjunct professor.
America Is a “Failed State” with a “Dual Justice System … One for Ordinary People and then One for People with Money and Enormous Wealth and Power”
It is now mainstream news that none of the big financial criminals have been prosecuted.
The New York Times is running an article today entitled “In financial crisis, no prosecutions of top figures”, which has been picked up as the leading front-page story by MSNBC. The story even quotes Bill Black:
But their policies have created an exceptional criminogenic environment. There were no criminal referrals from the regulators. No fraud working groups. No national task force. There has been no effective punishment of the elites here.
And the chair of the Financial Crisis Commission, Phil Angelides, said today:
I think there’s a great concern in this country on two fronts. One is there’s a question here, do we have a dual justice system? One for ordinary people and then one for people with money and enormous wealth and power. Secondly, we need deterrents. To the extent laws were broken, we need deterrents. If someone robs a 7-11, they took $500 and they were able to settle the next day for $50 and no admission of wrongdoing, they’d knock over that 7-11 again. And we’ve seen time after time where people and firms have made tens, one hundreds, billions of dollars. They’ve settled charges for pennies on the dollar. At Citigroup for example they represented that they had $13 billion of subprime mortgage exposure when they really had $55 billion. The penalty to the chief financial officer who made $19 million that year, 2007, was $100,000. Goldman was fined $500 million but the date they settled their stock moved up $2 billion. There’s been no real consequence.
Well I think there’s two things here. Number one is it’s up to the prosecutors to do thorough investigations. That’s what we should expect. We don’t want hangmen justice. We don’t want vengeance, but we want thorough investigations. And if people crossed a line they ought to be prosecuted. But there were a lot of people who bellied up to the line and conducted themselves in a way without the highest standards of ethics or moral conduct that hurt the economy badly.
And I think one of the things that’s most troubling to people is there seems to be very little relationship between who drove this crisis, the big financial institutions, the CEOs, regulators who didn’t do their job, and the people who are paying the price, which are millions of people who have lost their jobs, lost their homes, lost their life savings.
As I’ve previously noted, Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan and a host of other well-known financial names have called for prosecution, because the economy cannot recover until fraud is prosecuted.
But Wall Street is so thoroughly in control of both parties, Congress, the White House, and even the judiciary, that prosecutions won’t happen.
No wonder Marc Faber calls the U.S. a failed state, Kenneth Rogoff says our tax systems are “Byzantine labyrinths funneling money to powerful interests”, and experts on third world banana republics from the IMF and the Federal Reserve say the U.S. has become a third world banana republic.
Barry Ritholtz argues that – if the prosecutors won’t do their job – we should prosecute them for nonfeasance.
Max Keiser is a tad more radical, saying that – if the criminals aren’t prosecuted – we should hang the bankers. I’m not sure if it is a sign of public sentiment, but he got a big round of applause for saying that.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Federal Reserve: They Broke The Law
but nobody cares.... (including us)
The reviews found critical weaknesses in servicers’ foreclosure governance processes, foreclosure document preparation processes, and oversight and monitoring of third-party vendors, including foreclosure attorneys.While it is important to note that findings varied across institutions, the weaknesses at each servicer, individually or collectively, resulted in unsafe and unsound practices and violations of applicable federal and state law and requirements.
There it is. If it was illegal, why isn't each instance of that illegality punished?
Then there are the "really cute" things, such as this:
The loan-file reviews showed that borrowers subject to foreclosure in the reviewed files were seriously delinquent on their loans.
It did? Why just a few paragraphs earlier the same report said:
The file reviews did not include a complete analysis of the payment history of each loan prior to foreclosure or potential mortgage-servicing issues outside of the foreclosure process. Accordingly, examiners may not have uncovered cases of misapplied payments or unreasonable fees, particularly when these actions occurred prior to the default that led to the foreclosure action. The foreclosure-file reviews also may not have uncovered certain facts related to the processing of a foreclosure that would lead an examiner to conclude that a foreclosure otherwise should not have proceeded, such as undocumented communications between a servicer employee and the borrower in which the employee told the borrower he or she had to be delinquent on the loan to qualify for a modification.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Monday, April 11, 2011
Apparently not all people believe this or are otherwise opined. In the inner city, many children have no readily accessible park and for others the street is a legitimate option as, like my cousin's, it has low traffic or perhaps is at the end of a dead end street. In my neighborhood, there is a large, safe park, at the end of a nearby street and that is where most children play. I also see them in yards. I do not see them in the streets. I live very close to Boston proper and in between two major highways connected by a high-speed thoroughfare. The population density is VERY high with only a driveway separating most houses. Most homes are two or three family homes and some are populated by families or else 3 to 6 college students. For these reasons the number of cars is quite high and weekday mornings, evenings and weekends are all very high-traffic times.
Yesterday I was driving to do some errands. I got a late start and was driving a bit fast, admittedly, as I turned onto a large one-way street. I slammed on the brakes as I saw a father playing with his son in the middle of the street - with his son at the "top" of the one way street! I couldn't believe it. He shouted at me. I apologized for turning the corner so fast but asked him what he was doing in the street. He acted astounded. He said it was a perfectly fine place to play. I mentioned the park. He said he didn't want to go there. I said the street is not for playing children. He swore at me to slow down. I said many people, rightly or wrongly, drive from 30 to 40 mph going down that street (I was barely doing 25). He shouted at me again. I drove off. His attitude was one of a man who had found me speeding down the sidewalk and not the street.
I suppose it depends on the nature of the street how local people treat it. I've seen those in urban neighborhoods (in Maine, for instance) that seemed safe and large enough for both the occasional car and kids. For those who consider the street to be quiet enough, it may seem to be a relatively harmless place to be. But when combining city streets and those who don't have the sense God gave a frog, the street is not a low-risk area to be. Especially one lined with cars on either side and connected to other major roads in a way that encourages high-speed driving (one way only, long, and at the bottom of a large hill). Whether someone is recklessly driving too fast or simply doesn't understand that the nature of a road that encourages faster speeds, its simply too risky a place for children to be, especially when a safe alternative is but yards away.
Even in the suburbs, people abuse the concept of streets. A road in a ever-increasingly more populated suburban area of southern Maine near where I grew up is one of those streets with a 35 mph speed limit and the kind of naked, windy curves and hills that beg cars to drive faster. Further, this street is in rural Maine, where the suburbs would be considered countryside to people from the city. I have not seen a house without a yard and most homes have very large yards. So the only people on the street are high-speed bikers and perhaps an occasional jogger. That said, the street has a VERY narrow bike line and NO breakdown lane or shoulder of any kind. Drivers must be rather strict in navigating the road - its too narrow. Its far too easy to wander into the bike line and that's what people tend to do rather than drift too close to the center line and oncoming traffic (though I have seen that as well).
One day while driving down that road at around 40 mph (5 mph excessive, but certainly not uncommon), I was a bit more toward the bike line - the shoulder portion of the road, when I gasped to see two women pushing carriages down the line with babies in them. They waved their arms and shrieked at me to slow down. At first I was shocked and then scared that I could've killed a baby and then I was curiously stymied.... I wasn't in the bike line but I was but a tire's width away - not at all uncommon for that narrow road. And I wasn't going unusually fast. The truly scary situation was caused by these two ladies thinking they were walking down an elevated, wide sidewalk, and not the naked shoulder of a narrow two lane road that was far from being a breezy, empty, cow path. They genuinely though they were going to push large baby carriages safely down the side of a street when the 'side' was about an 18 inch wide strip of cracked pavement. A street with but two STOP signs at either end. I can only assume they were city transplants or like the lunatic I saw yesterday, entertained the idea that cars should anticipate, identify and navigate well around them at all times. I have not seen or heard of them on the street since then. Like the man around the corner from me with his son, I expect the high traffic volume and speed of the cars did all the dissuading they needed.
Some cities, such as some in Florida have ordinances against children playing in the street - this solves the car vs. children battle that arises as a result of kids playing in trafficked areas. For drivers, pedestrians always have the right of way. That said, I think most drivers agree that pedestrians being in the street is generally a bad idea for both cars and pedestrians. Cars must slam on the brakes and pose the potential for injury to passengers and the passengers of cars around them. Ultimately, people need to get in and out of the street as fast as possible. The "sleepy" nature of many streets may entice children onto them, but they also entice drivers to speed through them. Playing in the street is ultimately an invitation to an "accident," and when you think about it, there's nothing accidental about cars hitting people who are occupying the very space designed for cars and cars only.
If a dad doesn't understand that, then I pray to God he doesn't find out the hard way that small children stand NO CHANCE against 2,500 lbs. of moving automobile.
For no reason the other day I was reminded of Jason Kidd, the basketball player. He's always been a fine player and lived a relatively conservative life, married with 3 kids and was a church going man, as was his wife. Unfortunately, this pretty exterior, as happens in many lives, covered a rotting marriage underneath it all.
Once Jason was accused, arrested and admitted to domestic abuse, his goose was cooked. He was the big, bad monster; the super-strong super athlete who battered and crushed his helpless little wife.
What you need to do dear reader, is this: assume there was violence on both of their parts until proven otherwise. Unless there is evidence his wife never raised a hand in anger at her husband, its a far cry that he was all alone in this. Women don't need fists or weapons. They have divorce lawyers - and those are much more dangerous. Jason is a rich man. She can bankrupt him at the stroke of a pen, and they both know it. So she stayed in the relationship, and further, given that he is seen as some super-strong Hercules, she has carte-blanche to wail on him as she pleases. No one will notice, care or believe that he was the victim of HER hostility. Her hostility, I'm sure she well knows, is totally immune from prosecution, more or less.
Women are not always diminutive and meek. They're not always submissive and helpless. This woman bagged herself a professional athlete who could give she and her children a very comfortable life; he provides a lot of resources. There was COMPETITION for him. STIFF competition. I was in college with athletes like this. There were literally women LINED UP to sleep with these guys and "catch" them. Jason's wife was aggressive and motivated - she could not have been otherwise. So as much as he aggressively pursued her, that was the case for BOTH of them, not just one.
Jason pleaded GUILTY, and attended anger management classes:
Jason continued to attend classes ON HIS OWN. Doesn't sound like something a monster would do. Hmmmm. He also gave up alcohol! No small thing! I know I couldn't do that. So it seems this man made a legitimate effort to turn his life in a different direction.
In January 2001, Jason Kidd was arrested and pleaded guilty to a domestic abuse charge for assaulting his wife Joumana in anger. As part of his plea, Kidd was ordered to attend anger management classes for six months. Kidd completed the mandatory counseling and continued to attend on his own and it was reported that Kidd has since given up alcohol.
What about his wife? Did she get help for her problems? Ahhhhh. You didn't have that question, did you, dear reader? Because you thought after reading the headline, there was only one "problem party" here and that was Mr. Kidd, the beast athlete who couldn't control his temper. With him "fixed" everything should be fine because his wife didn't do anything wrong, right?
He and his wife were both active in their church and were thought to have completely reconciled. On January 9, 2007, Jason Kidd filed for divorce against his wife, citing "extreme cruelty" during their relationship. Kidd contended intense jealousy, paranoia, and the threat of "false domestic abuse claims" to the police as reasons for the divorce.Whups. There it is. He received treatment, for his problems. And made SOME measure of progress, I assume. His wife did not receive treatment on the assumption she had no problem. But I'm guessing Jason returned home to find his wife was just as dysfunctional as ever, it seems largely the result of a poor self-esteem and extreme anxiety. And what do you know, she threatened her husband with more claims of domestic violence. Why not? She was probably as guilty as he was the first time, but they only arrested and convicted him - so now DV is leverage for her to use against him. This is a classic psychology case, by the way. When two people are dysfunctional, their relationship is based on those dysfunctions. Here, one person suddenly eliminated their dysfunction, even if only temporarily, but the other didn't - she tried to start up their dysfunctional relationship again and his response? I WANT OUT. I'm not playing this crazy game with you anymore, crazy lady. Her response? Make good on her threats:
On February 15, 2007 Joumana Kidd filed a counterclaim for divorce, claiming that the NBA star—among countless instances of abuse—"broke her rib and damaged her hearing by smashing her head into the console of a car". The couple have three children (Trey Jason (T.J.), and twins Miah and Jazelle).
Did Jason do any of those things? I don't know. But she called the police during one of their fights. If the severe fight was so bad, why didn't she call the police then as well? Or any of the "other" times she alleges? I'm guessing because she was part of the violence and not strictly the victim of it. She was married to him. She knew how to get a reaction out of him, even a negative one and she did. Fights of these sorts happen because one person isn't getting what they want from the other, so they push and push and push - the other doesn't know what they want and so they eventually snap and violence ensues. They both did it, they both wanted it, they both needed help to stop it.
Jason has since moved on with his life. Is he a wonderful man who should receive medals for being moral and upright? I don't know. I know he got help with the court's order and he was not arrested for violence after that. The new woman in his life has not claimed he has savagely attacked her, and that at least is evidence that he HAS CHOSEN a woman with whom he will not have that vicious, violent dynamic with. This is in essence a much healthier relationship for him.
Jason Kidd announced on his website that he will marry fiancee Porschla Coleman, with whom he has a son, on September 10, 2010. Porschla is a former model and has taken over the reins of the Jason Kidd Foundation.
I have not seen any news of his ex-wife. She did a little t.v. broadcasting and on her website declares herself to be an actress and journalist. She's done some minor t.v. and movie roles, all spin-offs from her modeling career or from being viewed as the innocent battered woman:
One which is titled “Getting Even” in which she plays the principle role of Phillippian Owens, California’s former top advertising executive whose proposal to the love of her life has gone sour.
I can find no information of her receiving treatment for her problems or of establishing a healthy emotional commitment to another man. She also has custody of their 3 children, which itself is a full-time job. I can only wish her the best, but it seems to be she has no intention of changing and is trying to fill her life with a career that is largely based on the fact that she's pleasing to look at. You will find that if she does take up with another man, he too will be accused of beating her or some other domestic altercation. Same person, same result. Its sad the kids have to be in that kind of high-risk environment. But no one cares. No one will accuse her of anything and no one will suggest the kids are better off with Jason (even though he is the only one to receive treatment for his psychological problems).
Friday, April 08, 2011
Marc is of course, spot on. We have a president trying to save the poor (instead of instituting policies to help them help themselves), and a Federal Reserve Board chairman printing money OUT OF THIN AIR which is EXTREMELY INFLATIONARY, causing the price of everything from toothpaste to food to gasoline to skyrocket in price (filled your tank up lately, dear reader?).
The host is aghast. That's because she's either stupid, blind, or trying to play nice for the cameras. Marc further explains the seed causing the poor to not only remain poor but expand in number: 50% of all kids are born out of wedlock and many of them to poor women. On top of that the divorce rate is over 50%. Having lots of children and then breaking families apart is financially devastating and its become so pervasive and socially acceptable, even financial gurus such as Marc Faber are taking notice.
The point Marc makes is that this trend is not simply notable. Its a goddamn nightmare - economically, socially, psychologically, realistically.
It is not 'intelligent' couples who prolong separations, as a judge has claimed, but the adverserial family courts
Sir Nicholas Wall, England's most senior family court judge, said on Monday that intelligent couples made divorce more painful, and also that "often the mother, who finds herself caring for the children, is able to use her power over them to deny the father contact".
I think what the judge was getting at was that shrewd, sly and nefarious people and their lawyers jockey for the slightest advantage make the divorce process more like a world war. As part of the process of scheming, mothers manipulate and use the children or else deny the father contact. This is disgusting from top to bottom and I've seen and heard of it more times than I can count.
It's a little bit rich, this, since it fails to take into account the practical reality that the person who is caring for the children probably doesn't have as much money as the person who is working, so ends up using different leverage. Sure, it's not brilliant parenting to take your children as hostages in a sour squabble, but there's economics underneath that, not a predisposition of gender.
What? Since the person caring for the kids doesn't have "as much money" its ok for them to USE INNOCENT CHILDREN FOR THEIR OWN ENDS? How is that defensible? Not "brilliant parenting?!?!?!" Children who fail to make critical bonds with their father at a young age suffer PERMANENT LIFELONG DAMAGE. This is a PSYCHOLOGICAL FACT. Look it up. But according to Ms. Williams, that's ok. Those of you thinking Mom always does right by the kids? TAKE NOTE.
The more contentious idea is this: "As a rule of thumb my experience is that the more intelligent the parent, the more intractable the dispute". I suspect a conflation, here, of "intelligent" and "loaded": a couple determined to chase a court settlement for their divorce might be quoted between £15,000 and £20,000 by a cheap solicitor, £30,000 to £50,000 by an expensive one. But that is a straightforward divorce: a strikingly "intractable" dispute would run to six or eight or even 10 applications to court over a number of years, and then you would be talking about £100,000, or even more.
Intelligent people are more apt to make a wise choice? No. The wily and the shrewd are, and will spend as much as they can to GET as much as they can. Also if they are emotionally distraught, they will spend themselves into bankruptcy. Men get practically nothing as a matter of fact (lose all your money for 2 visits a week? Please.) so they spend like crazy just to try to get something like JOINT custody. Get that? Bankrupt yourself just to see your kids often enough to be reminded they are your kids if you have a penis between your legs. Plus many mothers quite literally get dad all but shut out and take his money too. False accusations of violence, manipulating the children to refuse to see him, moving away: all easy and common to do.
Even to be able to put your hands on the lowest estimate, "middle-class" wouldn't quite do it; you'd also have to be wealthy. Liz Edwards, vice-chair of Resolution (a collection of family lawyers who also train and accredit mediators), counters that divorcing couples do borrow from their parents, remortgage and even sell their houses to fight these cases: "I have had clients with all sorts of levels of wealth." But to fight one of these protracted, bitter contests, you would have to be brimming with cash.
Mom is holding the cards to begin with. Why? Its legally presumed she'll get the kids. So all dad has left for his side is to draw out the battle and make mom poor, not that she'll be poor for long after taking 40-50% of his salary for the next many, many years. My ex and I fought for years - there is a 3-6 month lead time between court dates. Meanwhile? My son had no dad in critical developmental stages of my life - written verbatim on the report submitted to the court by a social worker of THIRTY YEARS EXPERIENCE.
And that's probably a good thing, even if unintentional (one supposes it wasn't with the aim of deterring litigants that the court process became so eye-poppingly expensive). The family courts are an incredibly bad tool for the job of divorcing, and should only be used as an extreme: making it extremely expensive is not a bad way of enforcing that. The intractable super-rich would demonstrate more intelligence if they realised that their strung-out divorces were really no different to anybody else's, and all that was distinguishing them was a lack of financial restraint.
You are fighting for your children, madame. How is making it necessarily a life-crushing financial event a "good thing?" It doesn't act as a deterrent. As you just pointed out above, people mortgage the house and sell off their assets for this fight. You're a man - your ex offers you one or two monthly visits and demands your house and half your income. This will end your ability to ever have another family. So you'll what, agree and end the matter because its too expensive to fight? You've never fought in family court madame. It shows.
Nevertheless, as Ruth Cain, lecturer in law at the University of Kent points out: "Sir Wall says, explicitly, that separating is a failure of parenting. So he's making a tacit point that the middle classes shouldn't split up in the first place. It's unrealistic, it stigmatises divorcing couples, single parents, and mothers." And that's fine – judges being, since the dawn of due process, known for the occasional eruption of conservative opinion. But what is not fine is the fact that a lot of this obstinacy, so damaging to families and so scarring to the lives of children, is not so much signified by the fact that the couple has ended up in court as created by the court process. It's adversarial, which we all accept, and I imagine might be quite intellectually thrilling if you're a corporate behemoth arguing property law against your peer.
"Middle classes shouldn't split up in the first place." That's a conservative opinion? Isn't it simply common sense? Don't get married to eventually split up? Don't ruin the lives of innocent children with divorce? No? Too "conservative" of me? Yes, the court process is INTENTIONALLY adversarial. It should be changed. The problem is going to court is by its VERY NATURE adversarial. These two parties, mom and dad, disagree and probably hate each other. That's not going to end well. The best solution. STAY MARRIED AND STAY THE FUCK OUT OF COURT. But there I go being 'conservative' again.In the context of a divorcing couple, however, it simply involves listing negative things about the other person in the hope of scoring more points with your assassination than they score in their assassination of you. Such a performance could almost have been designed to extinguish the possibility of agreement. It is not uncommon at all for parties to make huge, poisonous claims against each other which turn out to be unfounded. Cain says briskly: "The men always claim that the women are insane, the women always claim that the men are abusers."
I'll be biased, because I am. Most men aren't savage animals that beat their own wives. Beating a man you have a conflict with is rarely done, but we are to believe men savagely attack their WIFE? The most macho men I know of wouldn't dream of raising a hand in anger at their wife, who is their kind and adorable darling. Have some men struck a woman? Sure. The woman, unless very submissive, typically call the police or go to the hospital to get treatment and therefore have physical evidence of abuse - but there is almost never an offer of physical evidence in family court. Why? Because there is none. Its a ruse.
As for women being crazy, not all are, of course, but look. The super-thin image of women plastered on magazines and billboards, the hyper-sexualized image of women, starting at ever younger ages, the concept of permanent youth shoved in women's faces, the competition for men and jobs, the obsession with surgically enhanced celebrities.... all of this creates TREMENDOUS anxiety in women. TREMENDOUS anxiety. Women are VERY sensitive creatures. Its simply how they are made. Next thing you know, one night her husband is too tired to have sex and she thinks he doesn't find her to be attractive anymore. Since she has no self-esteem, irrational and emotion-fueled fits of rage and argument soon ensue - to her husband's confusion and bewilderment - and unless her problems are discovered and checked, its not two weeks before she's talking to a divorce lawyer. Byron said "Women are a reflection of all that is wrong with society." Greedy, lecherous, lusty Western society is pretty fucked up. Due to their sensitivity women are the primary victims of this. Ever look into the statistics on how many girls and women are on ANTI-DEPRESSANTS?
YES, madame. These men's wives ARE crazy.
If this were simple rancour, you could be forgiven for throwing up your hands and simply saying they're all mad – any couple who can't negotiate and ends up in court is mad by definition. But the process is more subtle, as Edwards explains: "When you're together you accept that certain things are happening, and you can counterbalance them, and you make them work in the best way you can. When you're apart, you really go for it. By the time you've said it three times, and a lawyer's reacted, and a Cafcass officer has reacted, and a judge has reacted, you really think there's an enormous danger to your child."
Many family lawyers recognise this, of course: Resolution's stated belief is that any case that ends up in court is a failure, not just of the parents, but also of their respective solicitors.
What a joke. Ever sit across from person who tells you the best they can do is to offer you your own child twice a MONTH unless you offer to pay another $500 a month in "child" support, bringing the total to $1400, or HALF your monthly income!?!?!? And you're telling me that if I refuse and we wind up in court its a failure of the lawyers? Her lawyer maybe. But if mine agrees to that, I'm firing him/her. This is the way family courts do business because the law is so slanted towards the mother, they have no incentive to capitulate or offer anything at all. In fact the biggest complaint the "women's" movement has of the current system is that father's make it expensive by threatening to appeal their custody cases. How terrible. Appeal. Men appeal because they get screwed over to begin with, and the ones that threaten appeal are grasping at whatever they can because THEIR lawyer AND hers are both telling him you're pretty much fucked from every angle so agree to just get a little raped before the judge believes some of her lies and you get nothing. Men have no legal right to their children after divorce - that's a fact. But if a man fails to pay child support OR health insurance for the child FOR ANY REASON OR NO REASON, they can be JAILED, that is, DEPRIVED of their FREEDOM, something the founding fathers of the nation only wanted to happen when a CRIMINAL ACT has been proven beyond a "shadow of a doubt." So if a man is laid off and misses his $1,400/month OR MORE child support payment, he goes to jail and the child support accrues with interest while he's in there (true)?
No offense but that's the gender war equivalent of a nuclear bomb. Imagine doing that to women? This is beyond just unfair laws. This is war.
They run courses to avert acrimony that they hope, in the long term, will become as routinely sought as an antenatal class.
For that message – keep out of court – to really come across, it might be even more helpful for a senior judge to say it. Judges love to fix on one or other class, one or other gender, and blame them for their failure to take responsibility. They should take responsibility themselves, by issuing less of this stern chiding, more in the way of public warning: courts will ruin you, they will take your divisions, expose them, magnify them and ignite them. You will most likely never claw your way back to a civilised relationship afterwards. And it's not even a conspiracy to make money (although they do, also, make money). It's the way they were designed.
What? A "public warning." Wow, that'll work. Courts ALREADY RUIN YOU and give horrible divisions. AND MANY PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY MEN, NEVER CLAW THEIR WAY BACK TO A CIVILIZED RELATIONSHIP AFTERWARD. I had a friend who had a rather civilized divorce, compared to others; the girl is such a nervous, untrusting wreck her current relationships average about 2 weeks. Mine have gone much longer but also always fail... Making family court horrible has already happened. Advertise it more? Sure, go ahead. But I doubt that'll make people less crazy. There was something making family court really distasteful years ago - social stigma, mainly given by religion, and the fact that you would get NOTHING from family court if you were the one that petitioned for the divorce and if you were injured and got something, it wouldn't be much - and you would both pay lawyers tons of money. This created REAL disincentive to get divorced.
LET'S BRING THAT BACK.
People go to court to GET something from it. And they do! Men pay a fortune to get visitation with their kids (if their ex doesn't hit them with a false claim of domestic violence that is believed), and the women get the house, kids, and half his retirement and income.
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS NOW.
Thursday, April 07, 2011
This Ms. Deech is a little off in places, but for the most part she hits the nail square on the head using little more than some facts, common sense, and a little reasoning. Of course she's a small beacon of light in a nation that watches hordes of women graduate college and earn substantial salaries then declare them helpless victims in divorce. I call it American Femi-nazi syndrome. How else would you characterize people thinking and behaving in ways opposed to observable fact?
It's time to update our divorce laws
Tuesday 15 September 2009
Women are still treated as financially dependent on men by laws that haven't been overhauled since 1857. It's unfair all round.
Imagine three sisters. One is very pretty and marries a top footballer; they have no children and it is a short marriage before she leaves him for an international celebrity. The second sister marries a clergyman and has several children; the marriage ends after 30 years as he is moving into retirement. The third sister never marries; she stays at home and nurses first their mother, who has a disability, and then their father, who has Alzheimer's, and dies without making a will. Which of the three sisters will get the windfall, an amount sufficient to keep her in luxury for the rest of her days, when her relationship with a man comes to an end? And which one most needs and deserves financial support, even of the bare minimum?
The divorce courts are still trying to put women in the position they would have been in had the marriage not ended. The message is that getting married to a well-off man is an alternative career to one in the workforce. If you are married to a clergyman with a tied house and little income, you will get next to nothing, and of course not even the continued occupation of the vicarage. If your parents do not make a will in your favour, and you are over the age of majority, you might be able to make a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family & Dependants) Act 1975, but to be eligible the claimant has to have been economically dependant on the deceased, and in the case of the carer daughter, it was more probably the other way round.
The law is of course gender neutral on the face of it. Men too can expect to continue in the style of living to which they have been accustomed if they have the good fortune to divorce a wife who is wealthier than they are.
You hear that guys? Become gold diggers. Its divorce your wife and blow her out before she does the same to you. Ahhh, amoré.
Guy Ritchie reportedly received about £50m from Madonna, the largest ever settlement made for a man. He was worth about £30m and she £300m at the time. Here are some other examples of how maintenance is allocated on divorce. Of course they are all well-off families, for the poor have nothing to allocate. Beverley Charman was awarded £48m after a 28-year marriage during which she pursued no outside employment, a sum legally notable because it went far beyond what had once been the yardstick, namely the spouse's reasonable requirements.
I love how celebs are always brought up when it comes to divorce. Who gives a flying fig what those people do? They have enough money to act like selfish children and so they will. Many want to use their money to court a sexy mate they could otherwise not get. Fine. But the rest of the world has to live in reality. We have bills and only so much income. The poor honestly can't afford to get divorced. Period. If the husband makes most of the couple's money (and being poor, that's very little), then he can't live on his own and pay his ex. So divorce is basically impossible and the poor should be all but banned from divorce. Poor children with poor education and no father are basically the gang members of tomorrow - society simply can't bear it. The middle class is easy - the person who wants out gets nothing and if you're not married, don't bother even showing up to ask for maintenance for a baby out of wedlock. Children out of wedlock and the slack attitude towards LIFELONG marriage is making courtship and mating a farce.
Mr and Mrs Miller married in 2000 and divorced after 3 years, with no children. He was then 40 and she 35, and he left her for another woman. She earned £85K a year and had no assets; he had £17m or so and a huge salary. The award to her of £5m was upheld all the way on appeal. Mr and Mrs McFarlane had three children after a marriage that lasted 16 years. She gave up her career as a solicitor to be a mother. The court of appeal awarded her half the matrimonial assets and £250,000 a year for five years. Her appeal against the time limitation of five years was successful. In the case of White v White, the legal costs of the couple were £500K to gain assets of £1.5m when both their appeals were dismissed by the House of Lords. So a clear first point to notice is that the costs of disputes may amount to as much as the assets. This is because of the lack of certainty. So the procedure is bad and the theory and effects that underlie the awards even worse.
Maintenance law has not been thoroughly overhauled since 1857. It has been left behind by social developments. Most women, even with children, now work or are expected to work; they claim equal pay and opportunities in employment; there is contraception to enable a family to be planned, and more women are entering higher education and the professions than men.
You mean, men and women are equal with equal opportunities? Imagine that. About 20 years after the fact its suddenly relevant. Go figure.
It is contradictory if family law assumes that a woman can and should stay at home and care for their children and be compensated for that on divorce, while society calls for women to take 50% of top jobs.
Society doesn't call for anything. Women work because they want to. My mom worked and did very well and that was in the mid-1980s. Now? How are we even talking about this? My boss's boss is a woman and her boss is a woman and I work for a software company for Chrissake. WOMEN = MEN so far as work goes. Open your bloody eyes. I've got story after story from Massachusetts family court of high-earning women quitting their jobs before going to court and attempting to look like poor, humble, sweet Ms. "He-Screwed-Me-over." Their husbands are then financially destroyed. This is a disgusting ploy. Man, or woman, if you have at least a college education, then it should be assumed you can support yourself and half of your kids needs. PERIOD. If she wanted to quit her job and be a lifelong mom even though she could've worked and made the same money as dad? She has 3, maybe 4 years from the child's birth out of the workforce that can be assumed to be non or low-earning years, if that. After that, YOU CAN WORK AND EARN THE SAME AS ANY MAN. NO EXCUSES. Hell, most MARRIED moms these days take but half a year off to have kids and then cannot afford NOT to return to work! So in divorce she should not work or work less? Why? Why would you expect to make the same money by working less simply because you are divorced, especially when the divorce may very well have been caused by your own infidelity! Why would divorce IMPROVE one's financial position, man or woman?!?!?!
Just under half the workforce is female, and 70% of married women work, even mothers, although the work rate of single mothers is lower; 40% of marriages break down; more women will become widows or single and have to keep themselves; 50% of divorces are of marriages that lasted nine years or less. But the concept of female dependency on the male continues to permeate maintenance laws.
More than that, maintenance laws cushion and legitimise the attitudes of employers who discriminate against women, because they are aware of the "meal ticket for life" mentality.
Employers don't discriminate against those who work hard. Period. But if a man is divorced and was ruined financially and its generally known that women get rich after divorce, then yeah, I can see a male manager think his divorced female employee is doing quite well so he may think about her differently than he should for promotion. So eliminate that by making men and women equal in divorce. Problem fixed.
The strongest argument in favour of maintenance is that the divorced wife will have raised children and her career has been undermined by marriage. Given that most women work, this is a matter of choice; childcare does not take up the whole of a long marriage; and the wealthier the spouses the less likely that there was much to do by way of housework.
Careful madame. Publish sensible paragraphs like that in the U.S. and N.O.W. will most certainly have you hunted down and shot for fear of inciting reasonable discussion on divorce reform in the ole' US of A. You even used the word 'choice'. Horrible. Women can't choose. They don't even have a brain, which is why all of their great employment and earnings is so easy for the feminazis to ignore or lie about.
The notion of "compensation" recently put forward by judges as a basis for awards is unrealistic. It is covering up for the fact that our divorce rate is high because in part the law has made it easy, and we are punishing men and trying to limit the welfare liability of the state by making them pay over assets and pension funds. Perceptions of what might happen to their funds on divorce may affect men's willingness to commit (and women's, if they have means). This adds to the high cost to society of marital breakdown overall. Regardless of the theories, some certainty about the way to split assets may be more important than total fairness, especially when considering how difficult negotiations may impact on the children's wellbeing.
Let me help you narrow that down: MEN, DON'T MARRY. Your wife can ruin you if she chooses, without cause, through no-fault divorce. You will be financially SLAUGHTERED on the basis of "saving the state the welfare money needed to care for your handicapped, unskilled, illiterate" wife. What's that you say? Your wife outdid you in school? Made more than you before leaving work to have kids and now makes your salary or more since returning to work? Shutup you idiot. That's obviously irrelevant. She's a brainless knave. Now cough up that 2 grand in child support you DEADBEAT!
One could actually categorise divorce cases into four. Short marriages with no children; couples on welfare; middle-income couples with a house and not much more; and the wealthy.
For the poor and unemployed there can only be a token order, a reminder to the father that he has children for whom he is responsible, and that the order could be revisited if circumstances change. For the slightly better off, there is reallocation of the house and there may be repayments of legal aid to be made. Then there is one law for the rich and one for the poor, because the wealthy wife gets a lump sum and has no need to pursue, as the poorer may have to, the enforcement of periodical payments.
Nonesense. This is bureaucratic waste. Let's save EVERYONE money. If she leaves she gets none of his money and vice versa unless one of them can prove they were beaten or repeatedly cheated on or some irreparable harm has been done to the children. Divorce must be discouraged. But if someone was cheated on they are to receive a small portion of the other's income for the purpose of raising the children and half of the assets acquired DURING the marriage ONLY. That means the person who was cheated on GETS THE KIDS. Period. We need disincentives for divorce and disincentives for cheating. This does both. Fuck the ludicrous, bankrupting lawyers and fuck the power-hungry judges trying to make the correct judgement on something as complicated as a RELATIONSHIP with a few 15 minute "hearings" that are mainly full of lies.
It is no wonder that England is the divorce capital of Europe and out of step with other European countries. The notion that a wife should get half of the joint assets of a couple after even a short childless marriage has crept up on us without any parliamentary legislation to this effect – the judges have developed the law in a paternalistic and unprincipled fashion that has departed widely from parliamentary intentions.
She shouldn't get half the assets with a short marriage and lots of kids, nevermind none. Not unless she was cheated on. If she cheated on him, she gets zero and pays him, if necessary, enough to feed and clothe the kids. If she was cheated on, assets are split and she gets a small stipend to help pay for child expenses. You'll find her years later, remarried and middle class but probably not filthy rich. Done. Fair. If she wasn't cheated on, beaten, etc. and wants to leave, she gets nothing and he gets the kids. She can visit often. Done. KIDS STAY WITH THE STABLE PARENT. Those are typically the people WHO DON'T CHEAT, man or woman.
Marriage isn't a joke, its not a rental agreement. ITS SUPPOSED TO BE FOR LIFE. Let's make rules that give marriage a little respect. Marrying for 3 years as if you were Liz Taylor and demanding a fortune upon divorce plus any children and lifetime support? Stop acting like a ridiculous child and grow up. You're not getting what you didn't earn and you're only getting ANYTHING if you were unfairly harmed. So do yourself a favor and stay married. Others do it. What one person can do another can do. So eat those excuses and find a way.
Europeans have entirely different attitudes and laws from ours. Most European nations could offer an attractive model for reform in this country. What is needed is an end to discretion and the recognition of autonomy in contracts, with the aim of reducing costs and promoting negotiation in a better spirit. Matrimonial and non-matrimonial property would have to be defined. Premarital assets should be excluded, especially when the parties are older or have been previously married, and so should legacies and gifts. Subject to the existence of an agreement made by the couple to the contrary, the postmarital matrimonial assets could be divided equally, but in the case of a short marriage, say three years or less, there should be no division at all, but the parties should go back to the position they were in before they married. If there are children and the home is too small for sensible division, then it should as now be retained for the occupation of the carer, with eventual sale and division when the children reach 18.
All correct except for the house. If it really is a no-fault divorce or fault can't be found, sell the house and divide the debt or profit equally. Both walk away and start over. Assets earned BEFORE the marriage ARE NOT SUBJECT TO DIVISION AFTER MARRIAGE. Hell-o. Why do I have a right to what someone else did or earned without me? I DON'T. PERIOD. And vice versa. Gender does not count and should not.
The line "but the parties should go back to the position they were in before they married," is critical here. UNLESS THERE IS CAUSE, that's what should happen at all times when divorce occurs. Child expenses can be split. Otherwise, you're on your own. IN MARRIAGE YOU GET MORE - MORE SEX, MORE MONEY, MORE RESOURCES, MORE LOVE, MORE RESPONSIBILITY, MORE PAIN, MORE CHORES, MORE OBLIGATIONS, ETC. Some of those are good, some just make life harder. WELCOME TO LIFE. Its the same for everyone. Outside of marriage you go back to what every single person has. You see less of your kids, keep more of your own money but have less overall and while you'll have more time and less responsibility, you'll probably feel quite empty.
Our so called divorce "laws" are seldom anything but a means of some class of people trying to have their cake and eat it too, typically by bending some quack statistic to a bunch of lawmakers who are on the take. What is a "law" anyway? Its a rule made up to prevent unfair harm, in essence. But all I've seen of laws are ways to inflict unfair harm and enrich special interests.
What of the future of maintenance? Certainly it should cease to be payable if the wife cohabits with another man. Should it be awarded at all? If we had a divorce system based on misconduct, then it would be easy to find a rationale pinned to guilt and innocence, but that is unlikely to be the case ever again. My extreme view, which will never hold sway, is that no maintenance should be payable unless the claimant spouse is unable to work or has the care of young children. The primary aim of maintenance should be rehabilitative; it should be permanent only for older women and the incapacitated who are not cared for by the state. That is the price of easy divorce granted on a theoretical ground of irretrievable breakdown without fault. The government has shirked responsibility for re-examining the law; no Royal Commission, no parliamentary debate. It is time to call for reform, not by judges struggling to cope, but by our legislators.
Just imagine. Unless the kids are VERY young - that is BABIES OR TODDLERS - get off your ass and work and forget getting rich off your ex. Oh no. Women would have to go to college and then get jobs and skills. ....Wait. THEY ALREADY DO THAT. And today they do it even more than men. And yet they collect from men in divorce? TOTALLY NONSENSICAL.
So my wife and I split up I would give her the bulk of my money (tax-free)...... WHY? If I loafed about on my ass during the relationship and she made all the money, she would have to give me large sums of her income because..... WHY?
I work hard to provide a home for me and my son - its not my choice or fault he doesn't live with me. His mother also provides him a home - she uses some of my income to do so, but could afford it had she not quit her job (her choice). So if I one day become rich (hahaha), is it my duty to give her extra money to "support" my son when she refuses to support him herself to her full ability? Conversely if she makes plenty of money and he lives with me and I've decided to be a freelance writer and make quite little, is it her responsibility to ensure I have enough money to provide him with accommodations consistent with someone's definition of his previous "lifestyle?!?!"
If young women have nice handbags its because they probably worked for the money to buy them. If men have nice clothes or cars, its for the same reason. Does one OWE the other the money for these things that create the term "lifestyle" AFTER they divorce? No. Why would they? You get out of marriage what you do WHILE you are married, not before or after. If you received someone's money despite not being married to them that would mean marriage had a beginning but that divorce did not represent its end. That would separate money from marriage and make someone's money accessible to you because you were ONCE married to them. That demeans marriage. How did we even get to a point where you could take someone's money for YEARS AFTER divorcing them? That doesn't make any sense! It came about when women complained (in 1950 I guess) that men could divorce them and leave them with the kids and no money. But women are as educated as men and make as much as men - so that argument doesn't hold true anymore, so....WTF? Our divorce laws allow the non-working partner to use and destroy the working partner for personal gain through divorce. Most people love to see men suffer, so imagine lesbians or gay men - why would the one who makes less money keep 40% of the income of the other every week, every month, for years after divorce? And the house? And the kids? And their retirement? Marriage-come-divorce has become the gateway to Marxism. Why not just divide every asset earned during the marriage 50/50 and split time with the kids evenly and send each person on their merry way to earn whatever money they can? We earn what we earn and keep it when unmarried. Why does a failed marriage turn one person into another's slave? One person into another's "rich" benefactor, whilst not being rich?
The outrageous sums paid by the family "breadwinner" today amount to a king's ransom, in effect a reward for getting divorced, nay, an INCENTIVE to get divorced. My ex literally has the attitude "Well of course I get a lot of money from him (me). We broke up and I have our son!" As if splitting from a man whose child you had somehow automatically entitles you to large sums of his money for life. This is tantamount to declaring I am the one at fault for the dissolution of our relationship when in fact it was she who demonstrably lied, cheated and stole (yes, all three, in spades. If I had split us up, I'd feel much less wronged). I've heard of the same attitudes from the ex-wives and ex-girlfriends of other men - once enriched with his money by the courts - for leaving him or cheating on him - they seek to rationalize their behavior with the outcome.
The fact that mindset exists is MADNESS. Imagine a man who cheated on his wife saying this: "Well of course my ex-wife makes me rich with her money, I have our son!" As if the child justifies support FOR HIM as well as the child for TENS OF YEARS after divorce. For a grown, college-educated man who works?!?! That's silly and irresponsible. In that case there would be 10 million newspaper columnists demanding blood and justice.
Further, like many men, I wasn't even married to my ex. I wanted to get married, but she cheated before I could ask. Then in divorce court, I was treated the same as if I were married! So what is the point of getting married!?!!?!? The law is supposed to PUNISH bad behavior. Not reward it. And yet it is doing EXACTLY that!
This is an edited extract of Ruth Deech's Gresham College lecture.
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
- Spotswood Rice
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Let's be clear: marriage is a covenant. Its a deal. Its an exchange. Historically its been about a man's exclusive access to a woman's reproductive abilities in exchange for a man's resources - and if you can read, AT ALL, you will find out that women are interested in a man's genetic material for reproduction, his resources, or access to them, and his devotion to her, that is, his desire to remain by her after reproduction occurs. This is merely science, and its hundreds of years old. We are animals and this is how we process mate selection and reproduction. Don't believe me? Then just look it up. There are only about 50 million books written on the subject.
Probably 90% of the men in the father's movement or men's rights movement are men that either want to be married, were married or else see no point in marrying and they fight for what is in essence, good marriages. That is, good unions - a good and fair deal for both them and women. They must fight for this because the massive onslaught of feminism has so distorted and confused our ideals for roles and mate selection that there are decidedly fewer and fewer women AND men that meet the above "traditional" criteria. Frankly the argument has gotten quite silly: the Western world is quite wealthy and the argument is like watching kings argue over who will be supremely rich and selfish instead of regular rich and selfish.
Below is the most asnine argument. That men are disgustingly selfish and must "hate" women if they are unhappy with the current pair-bond arrangement. Further that men ask for too much and that women's criticisms are all valid and perfectly true. As if this was 18th century India and men were asking to keep harems or marry 10 women. And its complete with the underlying tones of "Men have it all and poor women struggle." That's verifiable bullshit. Further there is a GROWING list of evidence suggesting and even proving that THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE.
But let's here what feckle Jeff has to say on the subject. It should, as usual, illustrate the opposite of what genuinely makes sense:
Explainer: What’s an MRA?
By Jeff Fecke | October 12, 2007
From time to time, it’s good to remember that not everyone knows the lingo of the feminist and pro-feminist folks here at the Village of Shakes. In an ongoing quest to educate our readership, I want to take the time to explain a term I’ve thrown around liberally: MRA.
What is an MRA?
He’s a Men’s Rights Activist, part of the broader Men’s Rights Movement. He–
Wait, wait. “Men’s Rights Movement?”
Is that like the “National Association for the Advancement of White People” or the folks who think the Christian Right is oppressed?
I'd say this is an apples-to-oranges argument, but its not even that close. Men are being compared to the "dominant" white class. So poor white people in the South are part of the "dominant" white class too, eh Jeff? Right. I'm sure they'd agree. Class doesn't follow race as closely as it once did. But that's beside the point. The correct question would be "Who is the Men's Right's Movement comprised of? What do they want, and are there genuine facts backing any complaints or arguments they might have?" Jeff does a fine job of avoiding ALL of these questions. Well done, as always Jeff.
Yes, the Men’s Rights Movement is the same kind of animal. All of these groups share a common worldview, that the traditionally oppressed groups, be they women, minorities, or non-Christians, have somehow seized control of the country and are systematically denying the straight, white, Christian men their rights.
Oh, is it, Jeff. Why? Because to you it "seems" insane on its face? Ever hear of looking beneath the surface for facts Jeff? Guess what, the world kept turning after you left school, back in the day when "men ruled the world." If you've even SPOKEN to someone under the age of 25 lately you would learn how things have changed between men and women, but I doubt you ever leave your cave. Further, control of anything is done with money and influence. The National Organization for Women has BOTH in SPADES. And they lobby actively on behalf of "feminist" candidates. That's ironic. You see, N.O.W. was founded in 1966 to work for "repeal of abortion laws, and public funding of child care" primarily - that's right off NOW's own website. We have both of those now (child care is publicly funded for single mom's - dad's and married couples pay outrageous sums), so what DOES "NOW" do now? Sponsors feminists into positions of power? Why do we even have "feminists" anymore? Women have every opportunity men have and the statistics prove it. So....wtf? Further, many modern day "feminists" I've listen to in depth all sound less to be helping women and more to be hurting men - after all women have all they help they've ever needed - what's left? In actuality many feminists sound as though they harbor a deep-seated HATRED of men. Further, N.O.W. has become so large and powerful, running for office without advocating "support" (read: federal taxpayer dollars) for some kind of "women's issue" (men aren't really allowed to have any) is nearly impossible. Over the years this has gotten so bad "men" (who are told to "man up" work hard and don't expect any help) have finally woken up to realize they are at a disadvantage; that women may divorce them WITHOUT REASON OR CAUSE (its called no-fault divorce, strongly advocated by women's groups and instituted by states in the 1970s), take half of their income and in most cases their house and retirement too! This is what happens when you're asleep at the wheel Jeff, my pedigree chum. People get one-sided laws passed that blindside you. And so the Men's movement has sprouted - not to ask for anything special, but to get back to being equal at the very least! Starting with not being divorced out of our homes and away from our children for no legitimate reason! Not to mention legal and Just remedy if our wives were to commit adultery!
Jeff's next brainchild? Men want to beat and rape their wives. Nice Jeff. Nice and crazy.
Well, yes, but don’t ignore the reason for the pushback: men’s traditional privileges really are under attack. It’s just that these rights, like the right to beat and rape your wife with impunity, are anathema to a truly free and equitable society.
Men's traditional "privileges"? When a woman who is, in the opinion of a social worker of 30 years experience, "unstable and unfit to care for a minor child" is given my son, tens of thousands of my hard earned saved money in child support and a license to spend it on whatever she wants, then I've lost RIGHTS sir. RIGHTS. Not privileges. Seeing my own son is not a privilege, its a right. I am one-half his creator - I have an inalienable and GOD-GIVEN right to see him given I am fit. Despite his mother accusing me of being everything but a white man, I do see him - and he asks constantly to see more of me, as would any son who only gets to see his father a paltry two days per week. It is my right to see my son as often as his mother does and vice versa. Further should my son chose to live with me instead of his mother when he is of age (13 in MA), his mother has a right to pay for only half of his expenses and no more. THAT sir, is equitable and fair. EQUAL. Men have no privileges. Their RIGHTS in the family have been REMOVED and NO LONGER EXIST. Get it?
So they agitate for the right to rape and assault?
Not in so many words.
Jeff, when you get divorced, thanks to our N.O.W.-sponsored laws, women OWN their husbands in divorce. They can and do ask for absolutely anything, especially at the advice of their lawyers. And you're saying men ask women to spend eternity with them and then.... SAVAGELY ATTACK AND BEAT THEM? So a guy dates a woman for months or years and then... just when she doesn't expect it, he BASHES her face in? Jeff, what have you been smoking, buddy? That's so far beyond reason and sense, I can't imagine what's wrong with you. Further, the handful of crackpots who actually do things like that are emotionally and psychologically distrubed - but thanks for declaring ALL men disturbed.
But the MRAs do certainly seem preoccupied by the loss of that privilege. Look at the Glenn Sacks/Helen Smith interview we talked about early this week. It was all about how the Violence Against Women Act is a debacle for men, because, they say, men get sent to jail unfairly in domestic disputes. VAWA is a traditional hobby-horse for the MRA set.
Fire from the hip, Jeff. You rule, buddy. Did you ever even READ VAWA?!!?!? But let's back up. Here in the U.S., where more women go to college, law school and medical school, our pressing emergency is..... violence against women. Huh? Where? I don't know of any hordes of women who have been assaulted. Do you? Assaults are rare. This isn't Africa. Women are not second class citizens. They haven't been for decades. Able women are educated, paid well and commonly purchase everything they could ever need. Further, have you ANY information or education into domestic violence? You can be accused of domestic violence RIGHT NOW as you sit and type, by a woman who passes you on the street and be convicted. Because there is no DISCOVERY of evidence or any evidence required to convict you. The judge simply believes her, disbelieves you (or else is worried that if you are discharged and did attack said woman, the judge would be drawn and quartered), and presto you have a restraining order against you. Further, if that accusation is from your ex, that order can be extended to your own children. You are then BANNED by LAW from seeing your own children... all on the word (nothing more) of a woman who dislikes you and has incentive to falsely accuse you. You don't even examine the underlying questions, causes, or facts to what you speak about. Are you stupid or just narrow minded? If your girlfriend or wife hits you or throws something at you and then calls the police and accuses you of striking her - while she stands there with red knuckles and you across from her have PHYSICAL evidence of marks and bruises on your body - the police officers are REQUIRED BY LAW TO ARREST YOU AND ONLY YOU. There is a MANDATORY arrest law of men in domestic disputes. Even though YOU are the victim and SHE is the perpetrator as defined BY THE EVIDENCE! So yeah, Jeff. Men kind of have a problem with that.
Does this explain the obsession with the Duke Rape Case?
Yep. The Duke Rape Case is a rallying cry because, according to the MRAs, it proves that men are constantly being falsely accused of rape. Never mind that in this case, charges were dropped — it’s proof of a biased system, according to the MRAs, which is why they believe that women should be charged for rape allegations that don’t result in convictions.
What?!? Wouldn’t that radically curtail the number of real reports of rape that women make?
Nope. Its called an affirmative defense. You are innocent until proven guilty in this country, despite you wanting it to be illegal to have a penis, Jeff. So if a woman accuses you of rape and you know and it was NOTHING BUT CONSENSUAL SEX or else you didn't even touch the lady, the law could stipulate that she could be accused of making a false rape charge, but to be convicted you would have to prove she did it with intent and malice - that would be tough to do in all but the most obvious of cases - still it would act as a deterrent for women NOT to blatantly and recklessly accuse someone of rape with no evidence of any kind - Jesus Christ man, without a rape kit being run, or some kind of physical evidence, how do you know a rape occurred? What's the matter Jeff, haven't you ever dated the crazy hot chic? The one who is unstable but is so sexy you can't think? They exist pal. And just like some men who are jerks and do bad things, some women can also do bad things, and that includes accuse a man of rape when she knows damn well he's innocent. Why? Perhaps he insulted her, broke up with her, cheated on her, or lied or betrayed her - many women take those things VERY personally and while they're ugly things, THEY DON'T JUSTIFY FALSE RAPE ACCUSATIONS. RAPE IS A FELONY JEFF. It ought to be charged and proven only when PHYSICAL evidence exists. I have a friend who's classmate was FALSELY accused and convicted of rape AND SENT TO JAIL WITH MURDERERS AND FELONS. The woman who accused him (she slept with him at a party) recanted months later. Whups. Yeah, sorry about that buddy. I'm sure you'll always fondly remember being sodomized by a man 70 pounds heavier and smelling of turpentine and clorox.
Well, yes. That’s the point. It’s the same reason that any discussion of date rape or contraception is instantly decried as “legislating sex” and “requiring a contract for touching.” MRAs would like the option of putting a toe (or other body part) over the line once in a while without fear that they’ll end up going to jail.
So are MRAs concerned about anything other than raping and beating women?
Yeah, those who beat and rape like monsters calmly form political action committees and form legal defense funds to defend innocent men. Then they make their primary objective equal custodial time with their own children. A real bunch of ugly monsters. Then they have the nerve to suggest the money they make is actually theirs. Wow, imagine that. Next thing you know they'll suggest they shouldn't be falsely imprisoned. Its like your article Jeff is a joke without a punch line.
Oh, sure — they also don’t want to pay child support. There’s a huge segment of MRAdom that’s fed by divorced men angry that their ex got custody of the kids, and now they have to fork over money to support them.
Why would that be?
Well, for some men, it’s the “she’s taking my money” thing. They would have been much more comfortable in the 1800s when all marital property belonged to the man of the house, and divorce meant penury for the woman. Now assets are divided evenly, and the custodial parent gets support to pay for the kids. And the custodial parent is usually the mother.
Its like you can't read Jeff. First off, many men DON'T WANT TO GET DIVORCED. FACTS STATE THAT WOMEN INITIATE THE MAJORITY OF DIVORCES. Married men rank as the happiest people in society, but that conflicts with your "men are monsters" theory, so I'm sure you'll ignore it. Secondly, assets are not divided evenly. The custodial parent, usually mom (she's treated like another child of the man's) gets the HOUSE as well as HALF of the man's income AND retirement. Uh, most people have all their wealth in their house, Jeff. Its their life savings. So when she gets the house, you call that an even cut of the assets? Right.
So Jeff, my buddy who's wife divorced him because she was screwing a doctor at the Hospital she worked at (she was a doctor too - you see women have careers) divorced him, took the kids and the house he paid half for and then sold the house for an 800,000 dollar profit (she timed the housing boom), want to know what his end of that 800k was? Yeah. Zero. Not one penny. Plus he gives his DOCTOR ex-wife, who remarried... ANOTHER DOCTOR, half of his income. Yeah, men are really whiny little bitches, eh Jeff? I mean, what a jerk this guy is, living in his basement apartment and feeling bitter. He should've just sodomized himself after BEING DIVORCED BY A WEALTHY WOMAN and smiled.
Well, that is sort of unfair. Shouldn’t it fall equally?
In a truly just and equitable society, it would. But we don’t live in a truly just and equitable society. Women end up as the primary caregiver most of the time. And the custody system is designed to favor the primary caregiver in awarding custody. If men were more often the primary caregivers, they would more often win custody.
And if women earned what her husband did, she's have that money. Because as you say, Jeff, life is unfair. Oh, wait, his money is hers in your world, isn't it? So she gets credit for being caregiver and keeps the kids in light of that because the system "favors the primary caregiver," but the money HE EARNS is also hers? So he gets no kids and no money? Gee and women lobbied for this system? Imagine that.Is anything ever not hers, Jeff?
Every once in a while a primary caregiver dad gets custody AND half of his ex-wife's income. Why don't you go ask those women how they feel about the "primary caregiver-take-all system we have? Let me guess - you'll change your mind when its a woman losing her income. Guess when lesbians with kids split up, they'll be one woman who you must really hate, Jeff.
Further even when fathers are the primary caregiver they seldom get custody. Look it up. Further, what about EQUAL caregiving, Mr. suddenly-taking-up-the-equality-issue-he-previously-ignored? Why not have equal time with the kids and split expenses. After all, WOMEN ARE ENTITLED TO A CAREER, right, Mr. We-must-help-women?
You mentioned divorced families. What about unmarried men who father children?
Why not say "What about unmarried women who get pregnant?" Oh that's right, pregnancy is never her fault in your world, right Jeff? Its like falling down the stairs. One can trip and a penis falls into one's vagina. Right? As you see it, men stalk women to impregnant them and then abandon them. Right? Your divorced with a kid Jeff. Was that your plan?
Well, funny you should mention that. The MRAs are big into the Choice for Men concept.
What is that?
They believe that men should be able to opt out of being fathers to a child if they want to.
Yeah, I know. Their argument is that women can get abortions, but men don’t have control of pregnancy after their semen leaves their bodies, so men should have an abortion-like option of legally terminating paternity in order to get out of paying child support.
But–but–don’t women actually go through pregnancy?
What does a woman's pregnancy have to do with my choice not to have kids? So if she had the baby instantly things would be different? Girls are educated, Jeff. They know what happens when a penis ejaculates inside them. Give them some credit. They wanted to get pregnant, you fool. What's accidental about sex without a condom? And why is that only one person's fault? What do mother's teach their daughters? To HOPE he wears a condom?!?!?!?!
Ah, yes, but you’re applying logic. The law right now says that what happens in your body is your business. I’m free to go get a vasectomy if I want to avoid fathering any more children, for example.
So to ensure a woman NEVER gets accidentally pregnant I should get a vasectomy? Why doesn't she get her tubes tied? Because that would be ludicrous to expect, right? But cutting off things in my penis is gentle and humane? How about the "old way?" Unless you are MARRIED, you are own your own as a woman with a baby. What would happen? Women sure as shit would demand marriage a whole lot more often. And men would be forced to marry them or else move on. What's so wrong about that?
But a fetus is contained inside a woman; if that ever changes, I suppose men would have the right to abortions for any children they carry to term. But given that child support is for the child, not for the mother, it seems a bit ridiculous to give men an opt-out clause.
If I get a woman pregnant - even if its my wife - and I want the baby and she doesn't, I can do nothing. She can abort and not even notify me. But if I don't want a child and she does, I am bound and obligated to support it for life? With a woman I don't want to marry? I see. When a woman screws around having sex with some random guy and gets pregnant that's his problem, and when a guys does it, that's also his problem. Nice LOGIC there buckaroo. Heads she wins, tails I lose. And the guy just doesn't pay a lump sum - even a big one - and get to walkaway from a child he doesn't want (with a woman he doesn't want to marry). He's legally and financially chained to this woman, who may be a one night stand (and/or crazy), for 20 years. Sounds fair. Totally. Especially given the amount of women initiating sex, the amount of GIRLS IN GRADE SCHOOL BOYS ARE TELLING GUIDANCE COUNSELORS INITIATED PHYSICAL CONTACT FIRST and then PUSH FOR MORE. Yeah, women can get laid whenever they want, but the consequences of their actions? ALL MEN'S FAULT. Further sorry, but one child doesn't cost 1-2 THOUSAND dollars per month to raise. I could raise my son MYSELF with NO MONEY FROM MY EX and still spend less than that. So the extra cash? That's for mom. So NO, CHILD SUPPORT IS NOT JUST FOR CHILDREN. PROVEN FACT.
You brought up abortion–I’m guessing the MRAs aren’t exactly pro-choice, are they?
They’re pro-choice for men. They think, by and large, that abortion is fine, if it gets them out of fatherhood when they want to, and they think, by and large, that abortion is evil if it keeps them from being fathers when they want to.
Just stop man. No, I don't have to be a father until I want to be - its called free choice and its a free country, so as much as you want to enslave men via some kind of nut-wing big-brother council, YOU DO NOT CONTROL THE OUTCOME OF MY LIFE. And a woman I never married controlling my life? THAT'S NO BETTER. Besides, reason to me how it is just that only women have a choice in when, where and how to have children when THEY REQUIRE A MAN in order to conceive? You don't believe in boyfriends or husbands or anything, do you Jeff? YOU HAVE JUST REDUCED MEN TO NOTHING MORE THAN SPERM DONORS who are at a woman's mercy after ejaculating. You are a hardcore feminazi in a man's body, Jeff. Live with that.
They’re big fans of spousal notification laws, and as you can see by the “Choice for Men” rhetoric, they’re also big fans of having the legal system help them manipulate women into terminating pregnancies that they would otherwise carry to term.
Right Jeff. The best thing for women is to have lots of kids out of wedlock with men who don't want kids. Because having a father who is forced to enrich your mother and kiss any chance of a family of his own goodbye is really healthy and beneficial to a child. And when he moves away because he can't take being a slave to his ex, a woman he hasn't touched for a decade, can't take being manipulated and threatened with a court that can raise his child support AT WILL FOR NO REASON, or else when he falls into depression and blows his head off, and junior is left asking what happened to dad, THAT'S A MUCH BETTER WORLD FOR KIDS, EH JEFF? Throw away every statistic showing kids of proper nuclear families SURPASS kids from broken families in every category we have a name for, because that doesn't matter on planet Jeff. All that matters is that men are slaves to women at all times. Your divorced Jeff. How is it in slave land? 'Bout time you gave your ex more money isn't it?
So is there anything that the MRAs have a legitimate point on?
They’re right about the fact that society in general views a “successful father” as a guy who brings home the bacon, not a guy who cares for his kids. Of course, for most MRA’s, that’s just a way of complaining about child support, but they’re right that the law struggles to balance the interests of both parents in child custody cases.
Precious Jeff. So if I have a right to care for my kids, I can see them nearly as much as their mom does, right? But if I see them as much as mom does, don't I have a right to provide them with a bedroom and toys and all that she provides them? We are EQUAL, mom and I. Remember? If she quits her job and works for pennies, you don't expect me to take responsibility, do you? Does SHE take responsibility for MY choices??!?!?!?
Of course, if fathers are undervalued as caregivers, it’s for the same reason that women are undervalued as employees — because neither fits the model of what men and women are “supposed to do.”
How do you solve that?
With the novel idea that men and women should be able to map out their own destinies, free from being directed on what they’re “supposed to do.” It’s a political ideology called “feminism.”
Huh? What are you saying? That I'm free to map out my own destiny> Yeah, I know. That's why I'm shouting at you. You've spent your whole article supporting a system that shackles me to my ex and bankrupts me in the process. But feminism will free me? Jeff, you're confused. At best. Have you even READ what N.O.W. supports? What N.O.W. calls "feminism." VAWA was feminism Jeff. It put men in jail without due cause. It handed out restraining orders to divorcing women like candy with no questions asked and banned fathers from seeing their children. It made being a man practically a crime. Feminists think anything a man wants that is even mildly traditional (a women who looks sexy for him or cooks for him) must be wicked and evil, regardless of what men ACTUALLY WANT. Feminists today write women a blank check to do anything but abdicate her of any responsibility from what results. Men like me demand equal accountability and morons like you call men mean and wicked and cruel. Jeff, read up man. You're not even qualified to blog the way you're talking here.
The MRAs with legitimate gripes would be well-served to embrace feminism. But given the overall hatred of women woven into the fabric of the movement, I won’t hold my breath.
Read and repeat until you grow a brain:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (and women) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
My second family has no security because idiots like you Jeff have made them entirely financially beholden to some woman I slept with as a stupid kid in college. A woman who has done everything in her power to absolve herself of the responsibility of getting pregnant by a son she deems to be only hers for personal reasons but only my responsibility for legal and financial ones. That disparity cannot stand in a nation that is supposed to hold all citizens EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE AND LIABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS. Thanks to imbeciles like you Jeff a woman may have 2 or more men supporting the same child; may have child support from 2, 3, 4, or more fathers for different children and collect child support by the thousands from each, in essence enterprising her own uterus.
My ex has an ex-husband, ex-boyfriend, current boyfriend and son. She put 4 men into her life and they all give her something. Your assessment? Women suffer at the hands of men. Comical. You do women no favors sir. You give them nothing but excuses and rationales for bad behavior while declaring the men involved with them as Satan himself. You are an embarrassment to men everywhere and I ask that you and your vagina kindly stop pretending to be a man.