Political pundits had a field day when Labour announced its election campaign slogan, ‘A future fair for all’, this weekend. The blogosphere tweeted for several hours with criticisms (unpronounceable, old hat, banal) and general mickey-taking (free dodgems and whirlitzers anyone?)
OK, so the phrase is a little bit of a tongue twister. And there are strong echoes of Labour’s previous slogans: ‘the future not the past’; ‘the many not the few’. But having a consistent message about our enduring values, which also draws attention to how different the Tories’ priorities and principles are, is surely the point of a campaign slogan?
I’ve spent a lot of time this week thinking about what we can learn from Labour’s past efforts in our drive to build a fairer future.
This was partly sparked by Harriet Harman’s visit to Leicester West on Wednesday. The first stop on our campaign trail was the Brite Centre in Braunstone. We caught the end of the half-term childcare session, met a group of men getting new skills so they can find work in the security business, and talked to people in the fantastic community library.
Next up was the Sure Start Children’s Centre in New Parks. We chatted to staff and parents about the help and support going on that day including the ‘Mums to Tums’ group for expectant mums and new dads, the ‘Parents as Partners in Early Learning’ play session, the new support group for teenage parents and the Multi-access Centre which was giving advice to parents about training and employment.
New skills so people can find work, childcare that gives kids a flying start in life, support for parents when they need it most – it’s what Labour fought for back in 1997 (when I worked with Harriet) and it’s what we’ve delivered in government.
But in this constituency, like so many others, there are still very real problems. Too many families remain trapped in a cycle of poverty and worklessness with all its associated problems. Too many young people still aren’t in education, employment or training, because we haven’t properly tackled the culture of low aspiration and created opportunities for every young person to achieve and shine.
The reasons why we haven’t yet fully achieved the fairer and more equal society we campaigned for back in 1997 are complicated, and beyond the scope of this short blog. But some lessons for the future are clear.
The first is that it takes much longer to change people’s lives than we envisaged back in those heady days when Labour was first elected. I’ve made this point before, but it’s worth repeating: the first children to benefit from Sure Start won’t turn 18 until 2017. Unfortunately, politics isn’t suited to this kind of long-term commitment, but without it we’ll never tackle the complex and entrenched problems faced by some of our families and communities.
The second lesson is that we live in an increasingly global economy, where decisions that directly affect people’s lives are often beyond the control of national governments alone. Companies can close and jobs move in what seems like an instant, hitting local communities hard. Supporting and growing businesses that have stronger local ties and commitments must be a top priority as we move out of the recession.
We should also hold our hands up and admit that Labour came too late to issues like housing, which are incredibly important in constituencies like Leicester West. Labour councils have done what they can, and the government has now pushed housing much further up the political agenda, but there’s a lot of catching up to do.
The fourth lesson is that whilst new buildings and targets for public services can make a big difference in transforming people’s lives, they aren’t sufficient on their own. I saw how services could be delivered in future when I spent last Friday evening at a youth centre with StreetVibe, a charity that provides youth services in this area. There was street dancing, freerunning, DJs and Wii games – plus advice on sexual health, drugs and alcohol discreetly on hand.
The place was packed. It worked because it was organised by the young people themselves and because local public services, like the community sexual health nurse I met from the local PCT, were prepared to work in a different way: on a Friday night, out in the community. This is what engaging and empowering local communities, and modernising public services, looks like in practice. But we need much more of it.
So, let’s be open and honest. Let’s be proud of our achievements but learn from our past, so we can help create a much fairer future for all our communities. If we do this, people may well be persuaded to take a second look at Labour.
Question to the Candidate
You are the best candidate, so do I vote for you, or do I vote for the candidate of the party I want to form the government?
Do you advocate voting reform that will address this dilemma?
I want a fair voting system, but one I understand. I want to vote for the best party for the Government, but also for the best MP. Voting must be simple and every vote should count.
I don’t want multimember constituencies – too much information! I want to elect an MP for my local area.
We need a new voting system that does all this.
There is a problem with the women in this culture. Yes, I know, there are problems with men, too. Believe me, I have heard about them for the last forty years. Some of it true and fair, much of it neither. It was a necessary dialogue just the same. So is this. To understand this we need a brief look at history. Women, in the past, were denied voting rights, couldn’t own land and didn’t have much access to employment that would give them the freedom to make it on their own. This needed to change, and of course, did, as can be confirmed with a cursory glance at the world around you. I laud those changes. But the problem was in how we got here. The reality is that the gender roles of our history were traps for both men and women. Women were relegated to home and children; men to sacrificial roles as protectors and providers. It wasn’t a conspiracy. It was just a matter of survival, and for many thousands of years it worked quite well to that end. But once men made the environment safe enough for women to metaphorically “leave the cave,” it was only natural and right that men change and allow that to happen. And ladies, we did. This is the simple but accurate truth of the matter. Men and women developed gender roles that facilitated the survival of the species. And once those roles were not necessary, they did begin the often complicated path to change. The problem here is that your knowledge of these historical events is largely shaped, convoluted rather, by feminism. Feminists taught you that your history with men was of unremitting evil; that you were chattel, slaves to men who held all power and shut you out with extreme intent. They even gave it a name. Patriarchy. It is a word that has become synonymous with oppression. But feminists were loathe to remind you that “Women and children first,” was the patriarchal mantra, and that much of the social norms, even when misguided, were a product of a code adopted for the sole purpose of preserving your life. It wasn’t always fair, but the unfairness wasn’t always yours. Men died by that code, and trained their sons to do the same. The fact that we still do is the subject for another essay. So what happened? As feminist distortions were increasingly embraced, and intertwined with the legitimate need for change, men did what they usually do. They reacted to the message and not the messenger and unblocked the entrance to that cave. Many of you spit on us on the way out. Many of you still do. It has to stop. This isn’t just about decency. And it is not just about the chasm of mistrust that separates us from each other, or the legions of the walking wounded from this godforsaken gender war. It is about our future. The vilification of men that you have accepted as appropriate now translates to catastrophe for our sons, for your sons. The problem is that what we say, think and feel about people invariably translates into what we actually do to them. Nowhere is this more evident than with our sons, in the here and now. If you take an honest look at the academic environment to which our boys are subjected, you will see that their masculinity itself is under attack with ideology that teaches them they are inherently flawed. Christina Hoff Sommers documented this in her highly recommended book “The War Against Boys.” She writes, “The pedagogy is designed to valorize females, such as teaching history in a woman-centered way. Boys are to be inspired to revere Anita Hill and to “enjoy” quilting. At the same time, schools discourage activities that are natural and traditional to boys, such as playing ball together.” She goes on to say, with sad accuracy, “Most parents have no idea what their children are facing in the gender-charged atmosphere of the public schools.” What Sommers didn’t add to that but I will is the fact that most parents have no idea about this because they choose not to. As girls and girls programs increasingly flourish, boys are falling to the sidelines in ever growing numbers. The results of that are chilling. Boys are more likely than ever to drop out of school and engage in delinquency and other problems. They are representing less college graduates every year. With this diminishing education and wholesale marginalization, they are on a fast track to being the “second sex,” that position that so many feminists touted as the greatest evil of human history when they claimed it applied to women. This is the lasting legacy of spitting on men. Your sons will not be the exception. Young men now grow up to be destroyed in corrupt family court systems where women are encouraged to and even praised for using children, their children, like pawns in order to drain the father of assets. And those same children also have their badly needed connection to their fathers severed in the process. When those exploited, abused children start quite naturally to act out and get in trouble, we blame the father who was removed against his will, for of all things, being absent. And the “freedom” women gained on this frenzied path of vengeance and victimization? It doesn’t appear to have settled well. Women are growing increasingly violent. They are matching men in domestic violence, blow for blow, and they are causing the lions share of injury and death to children in the home. But we don’t speak of these things. We are not supposed to. In your position as the identified victim, and mine as the identified perpetrator, there is supposed to be an indelible silence on these matters. For the most part, there is. That silence is destroying us. And it is a silence that is maintained with the collusion of shallow, weak men and misguided, self-serving women, which is to say most of the culture. The only answer I can think of is for men, and for women, to change. Perhaps you will consider this before concluding that men’s rights activists are whiners or woman haters or products of bad mothers. You might actually decide that most men’s rights activists are men who above all else, seek justice. For their children, for themselves, and ultimately for you. I hope that a few of you will read this and consider it the next time you hear someone say “men are pigs,” or when you hear a woman refer to her first born child as “the insurance policy,” or before you nod your head in unconsidered agreement with whatever negatives about men happen to be making the rounds. All of this will be visited on your sons, and their sons. I hope too, that some of you look at your sons and think, and ask yourself what kind of world in which you really want them to live. When your sons choose wives and marry, I hope you consider the agony they will go through when “taken to the cleaners” and robbed of their children in the family courts. You will be forced to stand by powerlessly and watch them have their hearts ripped out. As always, it will look much different to you when the system you help maintain with your silence crushes your son, and not just some obscure, unknown male whom you quietly think is getting what he deserves. It will happen to more than half of them. The best prevention for this last one is to teach our sons to choose carefully; to scrutinize a woman before committing his life and work to her; to evaluate her morals and values as a woman prior to putting a ring on her finger. or even whether it is wise any more to marry in the first place. But how can we do this if we keep teaching them that such evaluations are the stuff of misogyny? Indeed, how can we do this if scrutinizing women at all is such a taboo? And therein lies the rub, ladies. It is indeed time, just as it was for men, for women to be held to scrutiny, and to account. More importantly, it is time for women to do this on their own. I’ll do my best to provide a fair and compassionate mirror in my writings. It is always up to you whether that mirror is a place you want to look.
Years back, in another life, I used to teach at seminars and conferences that provided continuing education units for professional re-certification. In one particular module, I used a portable grease board in a room in front of my waiting audience. Without introducing myself or saying anything else, I used a grease pen to write the words “Men are…”; at the top of the board, and then silently invited the audience to finish the sentence. Almost invariably, “pigs”; or “dogs”; was the first offering, accompanied by a room full of good-natured chuckles. I would nod my head and write it down on the board and return to the audience, still silent, for more. “Controlling,”; says one. “Afraid of commitment,”; says another. “Aggressive.”; “Macho“ “Afraid of intimacy.” “Violent.”; “Sexist,”; and “Power hungry.”; More of the pejoratives, and almost only pejoratives, would come from the audience till the board was full. I then flipped the board to the other side. “Women are…”; was the cue, and the answers were even more rapid fire than they were with men. “Strong.”; “Capable”; “Empowered”; “Sensitive.”; “Nurturing,”; and the like would fly from the audience to the grease board like a barrage of arrows, till that side too was full. “What do you imagine,”; I would ask, taking a strategic pause for a sip of water, “that these answers tell us about the real nature of sexism in the way we view men and women?”; Asking them a question with actual spoken words must of thrown them for a loop, because the stock response to that question was almost invariably a room full of nonplussed, cognitively dissonant faces. And that confusion usually gave way to irritation, clearly at me, though every answer on both sides of that board had come from them. And by the way, the participants in the crowd? They weren’t accountants or nurses or teachers or financial advisors. They were mental health professionals. Counselors, psychotherapists, social workers and the lot. The very people we love to imagine possess the objectivity to rise above the mindset of bigotry and sexism. And the people, despite our want of faith in their work, least likely to actually do it. I wanted a little more pressure so I asked more questions. “How could this affect our therapeutic alliance with clients?- Could it make our relationships with females enabling?- Punitive with men?”; And always, the final question I asked was “Do we carry sexism, against men, unconscious or conscious, into our work with each and every client?”; With that question the anger usually intensified. In one talk, a female participant, a social worker, jumped out of her chair and threw her papers everywhere. “You’re the sexist!”; she hissed at me, and stormed out of the room. She later wrote letters of complaint both about my topic and the fact I would not sign off on her attendance. Welcome to the wacky world of mental health. It is a telling study in the psychology of hate. Indeed, as we peel back the layers of fantasy from the profession, we are forced into a most disturbing conclusion. Psychology is hate. At least as it is practiced in western culture. It’s most evident in the junk psychology market. Since the mid-eighties, get-rich-quick psychology gurus have often made their way to bestseller lists. Books like Robin Norwood’s Women Who Love Too Much, Susan Forwards, Men Who Hate Women and the Women Who Love Them and others have been runaway hits, all predicated on rigid stereotypes of men who hate and women who love; all just more additions to the already crowded grease board. Recently, MRA Mark Rudov appeared on Fox News in a brief debate with Karen Salmansohn on women executives. She was given a nice plug for her new book, Bounce Back. They could have, and probably should have in the interest of balance, given her credit for her previous publication, How to Make Your Man Behave in 21 Days or Less Using the Secrets of Professional Dog Trainers. I don’t make this stuff up. Unfortunately, I don’t have to. Currently, male bashing monarch Phil McGraw reigns in the ratings, and it won’t be long before another emerges, fighting to be top dog in dogging men. All you need is a warped worldview and a nod from Oprah. And these are just the media hucksters. At least we can say that the men and women who embrace their misandry-for-profit schemes are just another dumbed-down group in a dumbed-down media culture. The more culpable and dangerous are the ones with the air of legitimacy. These folks don’t write, or don’t just write. They teach, do research, and most dreadfully, hang out their shingles and help infect the world, one gullible client at a time. The world of psychology in academics and practice has become a weapon in the realm of gender politics. Almost all pretense to objectivity and academic integrity has been forced aside by ideologues with an ax to grind against men and who are using the loathsome disguise of helping professionals to further their agenda. If you think that is extreme, read on. Allaboutcounseling.com is purportedly an information and referral resource for people seeking mental health services. What it is in reality is a portal, a conduit that induces women into the mentality that it is the vile scourge of manhood at the root of their problems. And they offer feminism as the solution before the first session is booked. Some tidbits from their site include some detailed hype about the fundamentals of feminism and some reassurances that not all feminists are lesbians. I suppose they figure heterosexual women need such basics. And it’s good pre-sell to overcome objections before they are raised. Ask any used car salesman. They even have a nifty section promoting a new masculinity. These Freudettes have the key to re-engineering men for the better, with the implication, of course, that the way men are now is defective and in need of an overhaul. Part of that overhaul is a gag. This is just one of the standouts, as it appears word for word on the site. Openness- To others (especially to women) criticism of our behaviors and attitudes, listen, listen some more, and only speak if the critic wants feedback. This isn’t even speak when spoken to. It is shut up and take it. Speak with permission only, from whichever woman is attacking you at the moment. Ah, the finer aspects of mental health. They have much more there. Enough bogus stats on domestic violence, rape and sexual abuse for a N.O.W. convention, and staunch defenses of feminism tied in directly with the counseling message. Their ultimate point is clearly that sound mental health for women depends on embracing feminism, and with it the hatred for men. Sound advice for those seeking love and intimacy if I ever saw it. At this point, the grease board is showing more grease than board. I wish I could say that this was the bottom of the pit; that the infection stopped there, but we are still dealing more with the symptoms than the actual disease. Enter the American Psychological Association, and it’s Division 51 group The Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity. (SPSMM) You can pronounce the acronym spasm if you want to. I do. And it fits. Here are two of the bullet points of from the Mission Statement on their home page, out there for the world to see. * Endeavors to erode constraining definitions of masculinity which have historically inhibited men’s development, their capacity to form meaningful relationships, and have contributed to the oppression of other people. * Acknowledges its historical debt to feminist-inspired scholarship, and commits itself to support groups such as women, gays, lesbians and people of color that have been uniquely oppressed by the gender/class/race system. Aye, there‘s the rub, and with it goes the last remaining bit of room on the grease board. Men are defective, pernicious banes to civilized society. And feminism is the answer. Even our most revered experts in human nature are saying as much. And this is how it worked in the old Soviet Union. It is wise to consider that in the Solzhenitsyn era of gulags and iron fisted reaction to political dissent, that most of the dissidents were imprisoned in “mental health facilities,”; the logic being that if you disagreed with the state, there must be something wrong with your mind. It was also a strategy of, and yes, I will say it without reservation, the Hitler regime, to poison the minds of the populace with disinformation about Jews, prepping the people to look the other way while they were dispatched in the name of a master race. The plans for men may be less extreme and of longer duration, but it is happening nonetheless. Men are being marginalized year after year. Their numbers in college graduating classes are waning. 42% at last count. They have lost over 80% of the jobs in the current recession. They are dying by suicide and all other manners of death at rates that make women’s lives look like vacations in Fiji. It’s hell having all this power. It is a wonder how we find time to oppress the world with it, much less twirl our moustaches and snicker while we do it. But the anti-male hate machine keeps grinding away. Spasm would no doubt classify the MRM as a mass shared psychosis, and MRA’s individually as antithetical to humanity. I used to remember that social worker who threw the tantrum in my class with a smile. It was a funny image. But that was some years ago. At the time, I knew the sexism was there, but it was not entrenched as deeply as it is today. And I naively thought it would go away. I am not smiling about it any more.
Sometimes the world can make you shake your head so hard your ears could fly off. That is the exactly how I felt when watching this video of Lou Dobbs and feminists trying to out stupid each other over understanding a recent study from the University of Pennsylvania about the declining state of women‘s happiness, years after realizing the dream of women‘s liberation. Try it on yourself, but it’s pretty short, so try not to roll your eyes during the really good parts. Sure, there are men who get satisfaction from their work. But any man, and now any women will tell you that the person who makes a good living doing something they love is as rare as a winning lotto ticket. OK, so women aren’t as happy as they used to be since feminism came along. There are a few men that aren’t either, but for now let’s focus on the bewildered, head scratching Dobbs and try to give him a hand at seeing the obvious. To get it, he will first have to let go of the fantasy that feminist have been selling for roughly as long as there have been feminists. That is, that doing what men do was ever a road to happiness in the first place. What women have just started discovering after forty years of feminism is what men tried to tell them when they started burning bras and whining about male privilege. Namely that male privilege, at least for 99% of men, doesn’t exist and never did. Men, for the most part, live life working at jobs they hate, measuring success by keeping their heads down in the workplace, trying to make some alpha jerk like Lou Dobbs happy, and staying out of trouble. Then they go home and live by pretty much the same rules with their wives or girlfriends. The independence, freedom and personal power of a man’s world that feminists promised came with every paycheck is actually a cruel illusion, behind which is a lifestyle more servile than powerful; more stress than self actualization, and more a monotonous daily grind with pit stops at a mailbox full of bills than a breezy walk through the halls of privilege. Things have only been otherwise in the twisted imaginations of those hoodwinked into thinking this was the way to personal fulfillment. It‘s difficult, I am sure, for Mr. Dobbs to see this, as he lives the exceedingly uncommon life. But I tell you what, Lou, try dragging your fat ass away from that cushy position you are in and drive a cab or a semi for 12 hours a day to make your rent and see how quickly it cures that itch on your head. Or get yourself a union card and spend every day in a coal mine, breathing black death and feeling the walls tremble around you as you work. Oh, and remember while your doing it that you still won’t be seeing many, if any, of those inexplicably disgruntled women down there in the depths with you. If the lighter, easier work that women have chosen isn’t making them happy, despite so many of them popping anti depressants like Chiclets, just imagine what trading in their staplers and post-it notes for shovels would do for them. And it needn’t even be that extreme. Try being an attorney who went to law school with high ideals of justice and now spends every day, spirit fading away, as he lives life forsaking every value he ever believed in and being trapped into staying because his manly obligations are like an anchor around his neck. Or how about a sales rep, being told every day that they are only as good as their last bad moment, being pushed for more no matter what they do. Imagine being really powerless. Imagine being Tom Joad or Willie Loman or Walter Mitty. This is what women protested their way in to; right into the trudging, laborious life that used to be done for them by men. And now this is where they are stuck, just like bugs on flypaper. And so now they are unhappy? Who would have ever imagined, eh? But the best is yet to come. When women finally enter the rest of the man’s domain, they will finally see the fruition of the feminist dream. It will be written in the blisters on their hands; in their backs aching and skin burning from digging in the heat of the sun. And their pain will echo and reverberate in the male dominated halls of dispassion. For when women truly take up residence in a man’s world, their struggles, like men’s, will become invisible. No university will do a study about their happiness. No porcine newscaster will be scratching their head in disbelief and pledging to find answers. And the last thing those women will find when they rage against it all is anyone who cares.
“Shaming tactics.” This phrase is familiar to many Men’s Rights Activists. It conjures up the histrionic behavior of female detractors who refuse to argue their points with logic. Yet women are not the only ones guilty of using shaming tactics against men. Male gynocentrists use them, too. Shaming tactics are emotional devices meant to play on a man’s insecurities and shut down debate. They are meant to elicit sympathy for women and to demonize men who ask hard questions. Most, if not all, shaming tactics are basically ad homimem attacks. Anyway, it might be helpful to categorize the major shaming tactics that are used against men whenever a discussion arises about feminism, men’s issues, romance, etc. The following list contains descriptions of shaming tactics, some examples of quotes employing the tactics, and even color-coded aliases for mnemonic purposes. Enjoy. Charge of Irascibility (Code Red) Discussion: The target is accused of having anger management issues. Whatever negative emotions he has are assumed to be unjustifiable. Examples: * “You’re bitter!” * “You need to get over your anger at women.” * “You are so negative!” Response: Anger is a legitimate emotion in the face of injustice. It is important to remember that passive acceptance of evil is not a virtue. Charge of Cowardice (Code Yellow) Discussion: The target is accused of having an unjustifiable fear of interaction with women. Examples: * “You need to get over your fear.” * “Step up and take a chance like a man!” * “You’re afraid of a strong woman!” Response: It is important to remember that there is a difference between bravery and stupidity. The only risks that reasonable people dare to take are calculated risks. One weighs the likely costs and benefits of said risks. As it is, some men are finding out that many women fail a cost-benefit analysis. Charge of Hypersensitivity (Code Blue) – The Crybaby Charge Discussion: The target is accused of being hysterical or exaggerating the problems of men (i.e., he is accused of playing “Chicken Little”). Examples: * “Stop whining!” * “Get over it!” * “Suck it up like a man!” * “You guys don’t have it as nearly as bad as us women!” * “You’re just afraid of losing your male privileges.” * “Your fragile male ego …” * “Wow! You guys need to get a grip!” Response: One who uses the Code Blue shaming tactic reveals a callous indifference to the humanity of men. It may be constructive to confront such an accuser and ask if a certain problem men face needs to be addressed or not (“yes” or “no”), however small it may be seem to be. If the accuser answers in the negative, it may constructive to ask why any man should care about the accuser’s welfare since the favor will obviously not be returned. If the accuser claims to be unable to do anything about the said problem, one can ask the accuser why an attack is necessary against those who are doing something about it. Charge of Puerility (Code Green) – The Peter Pan Charge Discussion: The target is accused of being immature and/or irresponsible in some manner that reflects badly on his status as an adult male. Examples: * “Grow up!” * “You are so immature!” * “Do you live with your mother?” * “I’m not interested in boys. I’m interested in real men.” * “Men are shirking their God-given responsibility to marry and bear children.” Response: It should be remembered that one’s sexual history, marital status, parental status, etc. are not reliable indicators of maturity and accountability. If they were, then we would not hear of white collar crime, divorce, teen sex, unplanned pregnancies, extramarital affairs, etc. Charge of Endangerment (Code Orange) – The Elevated Threat Charge Discussion: The target is accused of being a menace in some undefined manner. This charge may be coupled with some attempt to censor the target. Examples: * “You guys are scary.” * “You make me feel afraid.” Response: It may be constructive to point out that only bigots and tyrants are afraid of having the truth expressed to them. One may also ask why some women think they can handle leadership roles if they are so threatened by a man’s legitimate freedom of expression. Charge of Rationalization (Code Purple) – The Sour Grapes Charge Discussion: The target is accused of explaining away his own failures and/or dissatisfaction by blaming women for his problems. Example: * “You are just bitter because you can’t get laid.” Response: In this case, it must be asked if it really matters how one arrives at the truth. In other words, one may submit to the accuser, “What if the grapes really are sour?” At any rate, the Code Purple shaming tactic is an example of what is called “circumstantial ad hominem.” Charge of Fanaticism (Code Brown) – The Brown Shirts Charge Discussion: The target is accused of subscribing to an intolerant, extremist ideology or of being devoted to an ignorant viewpoint. Examples: * “You’re one of those right-wing wackos.” * “You’re an extremist” * “You sound like the KKK.” * “… more anti-feminist zaniness” Response: One should remember that the truth is not decided by the number of people subscribing to it. Whether or not certain ideas are “out of the mainstream” is besides the point. A correct conclusion is also not necessarily reached by embracing some middle ground between two opposing viewpoints (i.e., the logical fallacy of “False Compromise”). Charge of Invirility (Code Lavender) Discussion: The target’s sexual orientation or masculinity is called into question. Examples: * “Are you gay?” * “I need a real man, not a sissy.” * “You’re such a wimp.” Response: Unless one is working for religious conservatives, it is usually of little consequence if a straight man leaves his accusers guessing about his sexual orientation. Charge of Overgeneralization (Code Gray) Discussion: The target is accused of making generalizations or supporting unwarranted stereotypes about women. Examples: * “I’m not like that!” * “Stop generalizing!” * “That’s a sexist stereotype!” Response: One may point out that feminists and many other women make generalizations about men. Quotations from feminists, for example, can be easily obtained to prove this point. Also, one should note that pointing to a trend is not the same as overgeneralizing. Although not all women may have a certain characteristic, a significant amount of them might. Charge of Misogyny (Code Black) Discussion: The target is accused of displaying some form of unwarranted malice to a particular woman or to women in general. Examples: * “You misogynist creep!” * “Why do you hate women?” * “Do you love your mother?” * “You are insensitive to the plight of women.” * “You are mean-spirited.” * “You view women as doormats.” * “You want to roll back the rights of women!!” * “You are going to make me cry.” Response: One may ask the accuser how does a pro-male agenda become inherently anti-female (especially since feminists often claim that gains for men and women are “not a zero-sum game”). One may also ask the accuser how do they account for women who agree with the target’s viewpoints. The Code Black shaming tactic often integrates the logical fallacies of “argumentum ad misericordiam” (viz., argumentation based on pity for women) and/or “argumentum in terrorem” (viz., arousing fear about what the target wants to do to women). Charge of Instability (Code White) – The White Padded Room Charge Discussion: The target is accused of being emotionally or mentally unstable. Examples: * “You’re unstable.” * “You have issues.” * “You need therapy.” * “Weirdo!” Response: In response to this attack, one may point to peer-reviewed literature and then ask the accuser if the target’s mental and/or emotional condition can explain the existence of valid research on the matter. Charge of Selfishness (Code Silver) Discussion: This attack is self-explanatory. It is a common charge hurled at men who do not want to be bothered with romantic pursuits. Examples: * “You are so materialistic.” * “You are so greedy.” Response: It may be beneficial to turn the accusation back on the one pressing the charge. For instance, one may retort, “So you are saying I shouldn’t spend my money on myself, but should instead spend it on a woman like you —and you accuse me of being selfish?? Just what were you planning to do for me anyway?” Charge of Superficiality (Code Gold) – The All-That-Glitters Charge Discussion: The charge of superficiality is usually hurled at men with regard to their mating preferences. Examples: * “If you didn’t go after bimbos, then …” * “How can you be so shallow and turn down a single mother?” Response: Average-looking women can be just as problematic in their behavior as beautiful, “high-maintanence” women. Regarding the shallowness of women, popular media furnishes plenty of examples where petty demands are made of men by females (viz., those notorious laundry lists of things a man should/should not do for his girlfriend or wife). Charge of Unattractiveness (Code Tan) – The Ugly Tan Charge Discussion: The target is accused of having no romantic potential as far as women are concerned. Examples: * “I bet you are fat and ugly.” * “You can’t get laid!” * “Creep!” * “Loser!” * “Have you thought about the problem being you?” Response: This is another example of “circumstantial ad hominem.” The target’s romantic potential ultimately does not reflect on the merit of his arguments. Charge of Defeatism (Code Maroon) Discussion: This shaming tactic is akin to the Charge of Irascibility and the Charge of Cowardice in that the accuser attacks the target’s negative or guarded attitude about a situation. However, the focus is not so much on the target’s anger or fear, but on the target’s supposed attitude of resignation. Examples: * “Stop being so negative.” * “You are so cynical.” * “If you refuse to have relationships with women, then you are admitting defeat.” * “C’mon! Men are doers, not quitters.” Response: The charge of defeatism can be diffused by explaining that one is merely being realistic about a situation. Also, one can point out that asking men to just accept their mistreatment at the hands of women and society is the real attitude that is defeatist. Many men have not lost their resolve; many have lost their patience. Threat of Withheld Affection (Code Pink) – The Pink Whip Discussion: The target is admonished that his viewpoints or behavior will cause women to reject him as a mate. Examples: * “No woman will marry you with that attitude.” * “Creeps like you will never get laid!” Response: This is an example of the logical fallacy “argumentum ad baculum” (the “appeal to force”). The accuser attempts to negate the validity of a position by pointing to some undesirable circumstance that will befall anyone who takes said position. Really, the only way to deal with the “Pink Whip” is to realize that a man’s happiness and worth is not based on his romantic conquests (including marriage).
Bloody hell ….
Remember that popular TV game show, To Tell the Truth? That was the program that would put three petite women on the stage – one a real-life alligator wrestler and the two others impostors. The contestants would then try to outwit the celebrity guests. It’s now 2004 and Americans are the guests on a remake of To Tell the Truth. The object of the game is to answer the question, What is the real face of feminism? Many people think of feminism as a movement that promotes gender equality and opportunity. And for many years, I counted myself in that group. To deny women the opportunity to get a good education and pursue a career — that seemed abhorrent and contrary to the American Dream. Then the voices of the skeptics demanded a hearing. As early as 1972, Phyllis Schlafly posed this question: “The claim that American women are downtrodden and unfairly treated is the fraud of the century.Why should we lower ourselves to ‘equal rights’ when we already have the status of special privilege?” That editorial launched the movement that eventually defeated the Equal Rights Amendment. But I still counted myself a true believer. In a 1992 article in the Washington Post, Sally Quinn compared the leaders of NOW to the apparatchiks of the Communist Party in the former Soviet Union. She concluded, “many women have come to see the feminist movement as anti-male, anti-child, anti-family, anti-feminine.” That broadside made me blink. Two years later Christina Hoff Sommers released her stunning exposé, Who Stole Feminism? Ms. Sommers methodically dissected and debunked the feminist claims about domestic violence, rape, and women’s health. That was more than I could ignore, so I began to do my own research. I went to my local library, combed through government reports, and surfed the internet. I soon learned that Schlafly, Quinn, and Sommers were right: the feminist claims were actually Ms.-Information. Around that time, millions of women began to reach the same conclusion. In 1992, a Gallup poll found that 33% of American women considered themselves to be feminist. But seven years later, the Gallup poll reported that number had plummeted to 26%. And one CBS poll noted that 22% of women said that being called a feminist would be an “insult.” But substitute the word “women” for “feminist,” and you come up with a very different story. A 1998 Pew survey found that 67% of females (and 66% of males) were favorable to the “women’s movement.” So a large majority of American women do not consider themselves to be feminists, but still support the women’s movement. An obvious and startling conclusion emerges: Women no longer believe that feminism represents their interests or needs. A recent article in the National Review paints a similar picture of waning feminist influence. Feminist thinking holds that a bride taking her husband’s last name “signifies the loss of her very existence as a person under the law,” as former NOW-head Patricia Ireland once put it. But alas, most women have a mind of their own. According to marriage records in Massachusetts, the percentage of surname keepers dropped from 23% in 1990 to 17% in 2000. What’s more, a growing number of women’s organizations have set out to counter the feminist agenda, including the Concerned Women for America, Independent Women’s Forum, Women’s Freedom Network, and the Clare Booth Luce Foundation. And several women’s websites now feature anti-feminist commentary, such as ifeminists.net and ladiesagainstfeminism.com. But there are still a substantial number of persons in our society who cling to the belief that feminism is about promoting equality, fairness, and gender enlightenment. So guest celebrity, our time is up. Which face of feminism is real, and which is the impostor? Is feminism about promoting equality of rights and responsibilities? Or does it aim to foment gender discord and marital break-down? The modern rendition of To Tell the Truth is no mere game show. It’s not about a few hundred dollars in funny money. It’s a real life drama that spells enormous consequences for our culture, our families, and our children.
I’m inclined to believe that women just don’t understand us men. Women just can’t seem to understand that the only time smart men are willing to sign on the dotted line is when they’re young and horny, when they have no real assets to lose and before they really understand the principles of wealth creation (ie. early 20s). By the time smart men have a degree or two, a 401k and IRA, a house and a 6 figure income (or at least when they’re closing in on it) they’re not so keen to just give it away for yet another woman. Then when the smart men hit their 30’s and their sex drive drops (from being “yeah i’ll sign anything to get a bit” to “wait a minute, this means you get everything”); all of a sudden, life is under the control of the “big head” and women don’t seem perpelxed by us. Many women can’t seem to understand why we don’t act like horny teenagers anymore and these women refuse to accept that they have lost their power over us. Brothers, in a special posting for dumpyourwifenow.com, Christian J out of Australia writes and delivers a newsworthy article on the affect of Feminism on women. With his kind permission we proudly post. Feminism’s Affect On Women by Christian J of What Men are saying about “Women”. Once more my hat is off to you. You were right, again. Although, like most of my species, I will never fathom comprehension of the female mind – I have seen the dynamics that perpetuate the Feminist Movement. They are Petulance and Envy.One of my friends is married with 4 (yes, four!) children – 3 girls, 1 boy. The oldest girl will turn 16 soon, and the boy will be 15 on his next birthday. The phrase ‘Chalk and Cheese’ is one that springs instantly to mind. The girl is outgoing, gregarious, outwardly confident, doing well at school and socially adept. The boy is morose, withdrawn, not doing well academically, exhibiting all of the classic attention-seeking, alienated behavior patterns; and rumor tells me he is bullying younger children at school. I look around the household and wonder why the siblings should be so markedly different. The answer is of course, gender. The mechanism of this disparity is the one who loves them most – their mother. Visiting one evening, the girl was discussing her exam options and, spurred on by her mother (”Don’t get married too early, darlin’!”), her plans for the future; her career, her house, her husband, her children – IN THAT ORDER! There seemed to be an almost maniacal glee in the mother as the girl outlined the next 20 years of her life, almost like a train timetable. It later dawned on me that the mother had been married in the mid-80’s, and had chosen the wife/mother option, owing to her lack of academic achievement and poor employment prospects locally. No surprise then that after 20 years of Feminist “you can have it all – all you have to do is go out and get it!” propaganda and brainwashing, punted out to her generation and beyond, that the mother is more than a little resentful of her current situation. According to this mother, her husband is to blame for holding her back. The Feminist propaganda and brainwashing machine told her so. I wonder if that was what she considered as she trotted down the aisle to her future ‘hindrance’? It became all too clear to me that, like many generations of men previously living out their thwarted sporting fantasies through their sons, that this mother was attempting to live out her “alternate life fantasies” through her daughter. And, what of the future? For the boy; probably a life touched by delinquency, unless something happens fairly quickly to steer him away from that path. For the girl, following the current pattern, early success to further fuel her sense of entitlement; intelligent, outgoing, assertive, attractive twenty-something females (as if there’s a shortage of them!) have the world at their feet. Her easy tendency to lift her hands and fists, to anything male she takes umbrage with, bodes ill for boyfriends and spouses and any future children when “The Reality Crash” comes. The Bridget Jones Future. As she joins the ‘Bridget Jones Club’ in her late twenties and early thirties, and her biological clock deafens the neighborhood, her perfect man will still be what he always is, a Feminist illusion. So far, everything has fallen into her lap as the Feminist handbook predicted. The career is established and the house being paid for. Life is looking pretty good for the modern girl; she’s got it all! Then one morning, she realizes that her looks are fading, the next generation of ‘bright, young-things’ are snapping at her heels and the ‘romantic opportunities’ she cast aside in favor of her career are not sitting around with their thumbs in a certain orifice and their brains in neutral; waiting for her to change her mind! Perhaps, the hard reality of the situation will impact quickly and she will understand that human relationships are worked hard for, and earned – not a god-given right. The likelihood is that the 20 to 30-odd years of Feminist brainwashing will remain intact. It will never be her fault! “Where are all the good men?” she will whine, as she stamps her little footie. As time passes, her search for Mr. Perfect – that wonderful physically perfect, caring and loving, intelligent and wealthy specimen of manhood that will keep her and her children in the style she would like to become accustomed to – will transform into the desperate search for Mr. Breathing-In-And-Out. Those ‘recreational’ sexual encounters, that she was in control of in her twenties, will become the out-of-control nightmares of her thirties, and beyond – each rejection tearing deeper and deeper into her inflated self-esteem and generating greater and greater resentment towards men ‘who only wanted her for one thing!’ Thus, her resentments are likely to create a self-fulfilling prophecy for her future relationships. It goes like this: If men are only out to use me, then I will be suspicious of men until one of them proves to me otherwise. The men, at the prospect of being treated like criminals by this woman for simply existing, will either shy away from, or drop out of the relationship fairly quickly. Thus, further reinforcing her resentments – and the vicious circle gets tighter and tighter. The so-called, and much touted, historical ‘oppression’ of women by men will be brought into sharper focus and her perceived sense of ‘victim hood’ further stimulated. Once again the Feminist propaganda and brainwashing machine will pander to her now well-established misandric prejudice; absolving her of responsibility for her situation – blame the guys why don’t you? She may even find herself a Feminist therapist to help her deal with her depression; again reinforcing her resentments, pandering to her prejudices with constant ego-boosts – telling her that she has low self-esteem and that ‘all feelings (and, therefore, all behaviors) are valid’ and that she is entitled to feel the way that she does!! This also justifies her previous, and now future, behavior of doing whatever she wanted with scant regard for the feelings of others. All too soon the window of reproductive opportunity closes, leaving a bitter lonely, resentful, man-hating woman to face a childless – and hence biological family-less future. She may meet a man seeking only companionship, however, her resentments and self-inflicted disappointments combined with her energies diverting into her career are likely to put paid to this fairly swiftly. She may meet a man who already has children. She is, however, unlikely to relish the role of unpaid babysitter (to interfere with her career) – and further add to her other resentments – the fact she has no children of her own. It probably won’t last long! In the end she discovers that she cannot cheat ‘Mother Nature’. The Single Mother Future Alternatively, she may meet her ‘wayward, bad-boy, gorgeous hunk’ in her twenties and commit that most ridiculous of female errors, that she can “change him through marriage!”. They’ll make a fairy-tale couple, and the marriage will be exactly how it began, a totally unrealistic fairytale. When reality finally bites, many years later, and she admits to herself that the handsome, immature, philandering jerk she married is still an immature, philandering, jerk – and she hot foots it to the divorce court – the damage is already done. She now faces a future with her children growing up without a father – and all the emotional, social and physical safety risks associated with that. The courts will give her custody of the children and the family home – after all the wastrel husband didn’t pay for it! As for the maintenance payments ordered by the courts, well, if he’d had a job he’d be able to pay! Her looks will be starting to fade, and she won’t be getting any younger! She will be carrying a truck-load of emotional baggage to dump onto either her offspring and/or potential boyfriend/spouse. Her career, which she put on hold, or curtailed, for the children, has stagnated; people will have been promoted over her; and the prospects don’t look good. Her standard of living will probably fall further, owing to increased costs as the children grow, and her stress levels will multiply manifold as she becomes not only primary career for her children, but also sole breadwinner. Once again the Feminist propaganda and brainwashing machine will spring into life to support her. Her husband was a jerk, but, no matter, all men are jerks – you and the children are better off without him! The Feminist support groups and therapists will give her the ‘all feelings are valid’ nonsense (you know the rest!); and her lack of career success is down to the “Glass Ceiling” – she is being discriminated against by the patriarchal system that oppresses women like her (hallelujah, sisters!) Once again, it’s not her fault! She now makes the decision that her children need a real father, and the ordinary guys that slaved through their twenties to build a career structure and financial stability, although not as attractive as her ex-husband, suddenly become targets for her attention. She is then completely gob smacked, and deeply wounded, when these men want absolutely nothing to do with her, except perhaps for some ‘recreational’ sexual adventure – after all, why should they slave their guts out to be the dumping ground for her emotional baggage and a piggy-bank for her surly, snot-nosed brats? Faced with rejection – really, for the first time in her life; her resentments against men begin to grow and fester, the relationship expectations become self-fulfilling prophecies; once again, you know the rest. The Feminists are again on hand to support and absolve her of responsibility for her crappy life, and help her to pass her prejudices of misandry onto her daughters, and also alienate her sons from society. The damaged adult produces damaged children, who grow into damaged adults, to produce damaged children. Then again, it wasn’t her fault; after all she was cheated of her ‘well deserved’ future by the patriarchal conspiracy, and her wastrel husband – conveniently forgetting that no one forced her to marry him! In the end she ends up with the worst of both worlds, and some very damaged children!! Editor’s note: A fellow brother at the Don’t Get Married Forum named anarchiste sums it up best: “I would say that the greatest achievement of feminism has been to uncover the true nature of the human female. What we see now is the real nature of those creatures. Not a pretty sight to see, but how much better off we are now with that knowledge. And we are much better equipped now than we have ever been to deal with them.”
The Marriage Strike By Matthew Weeks For those of you who know me in real life, this will not come as a surprise, but I have no designs on ever getting married. Now, it appears I am not alone in my disposition. “Why Men Won’t Commit: Exploring Young Men’s Attitudes About Sex, Dating and Marriage,” a study released by researchers Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and David Popenoe of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, concludes that men are, indeed, more apprehensive about getting married than before. “The median age of first marriage for men has reached 27, the oldest age in our nation’s history,” Mr. Popenoe remarked in the Washington Times. “If this trend of men waiting to marry continues, it is likely to clash with the timing of marriage and childbearing for the many young women who hope to marry and bear children before they begin to face problems associated with declining fertility,” he continued. You know this is a collegiate study when an examination of a trend that is affecting men is used to fret about the state of women. The study contains several possible explanations for this phenomenon, based on interviews with 60 single men, 25 to 33, who live in four parts of the country. While that level of measurement certainly is not statistically significant enough to reflect any kind of a national trend, responses generally revolved around the possibilities of suffering huge losses if the marriage ends in divorce. (“An ex-wife will take you for all you’ve got” and “men have more to lose financially than women” were common refrains, the study reports.) To humor the study’s results for a few minutes, let’s examine whether or not these young men’s concerns are justified. If we accept the old feminist argument that marriage is slavery for women, then it is undeniable that — given the current state of the nation’s family courts — divorce is slavery for men. Take a hypothetical husband who marries and has two children. There is a 50 percent likelihood that this marriage will end in divorce within eight years, and if it does, the odds are 2-1 it will be the wife who initiates the divorce. It may not matter that the man was a decent husband. The reality of the situation is that few divorces are initiated over abuse or because the man has already abandoned the family. Nor is adultery cited as a factor by divorcing women appreciably more than by divorcing men. The new trend that has taken hold of the court system is what as known as the “no fault” divorce, in which the filing party needs only to cite their general discontent with the marriage in order to be granted a hearing. Women initiate these unilateral divorces-on-demand 3 times as often as men. While the courts may grant the former spouses joint legal custody, the odds are nearly 40 to 1 of the wife winning physical custody. Overnight, the husband, accustomed to seeing his kids every day and being an integral part of their lives, will now be lucky if he is allowed to see them even one day out of the week. Once the couple is divorced, odds are at least even that the wife will interfere with the husband’s visitation rights. Three-quarters of divorced men surveyed say their ex-wives have interfered with their visitation, and 40 percent of mothers studied admitted that they had done so, and that they had generally acted out of spite or in order to punish their exes. Then, of course, there is the issue of financial losses due to court-imposed payments. In the end (99 times out of 100), the wife will keep most of the couple’s assets and –if they jointly own one — the house. The husband will need to set up a new residence and pay at least a third of his take-home pay to his ex in child support, on top of whatever alimony payments the courts impose upon him. These can run as high as another third of his income. (Add the cost of taxes to that and the man gets to keep exactly 13% of his take-home pay — he’d better pray that’s enough to keep him alive.) But as bad as all of this is, it would still make our hypothetical man one of the lucky ones. After all, he could be one of those fathers who cannot see his children at all because his ex has made a false accusation of domestic violence, child abuse, or child molestation. Or a father who can only see his own children under supervised visitation or in nightmarish visitation centers where dads are treated like criminals. He could be one of those fathers whose ex has moved their children hundreds or thousands of miles away, in violation of court orders, which courts often do not enforce. He could be one of those fathers who tears up his life and career again and again in order to follow his children, only to have his ex-wife continually move them. He could be one of the fathers who has lost his job, seen his income drop, or suffered a disabling injury, only to have child support arrearages and interest pile up to create a mountain of debt which he could never hope to pay off. Or a father who is forced to pay 70 percent or 80 percent of his income in child support because the court has imputed an unrealistic income to him. Or a dad who suffers from one of the child support enforcement system’s endless and difficult to correct errors, or who is jailed because he cannot keep up with his payments. Or a dad who reaches old age impoverished because he lost everything he had in a divorce when he was middle-aged and did not have the time and the opportunity to earn it back. Our imaginary man might consider himself lucky if he knew what his life could have been. Over five million divorced men in America are currently experiencing the situation I just outlined. Without a doubt, their stories and experiences are heard by unmarried men. Can anyone truly blame the men for having apprehension? They stand to gain little and lose everything they’ve worked for in their entire lives should they “take the plunge”, so to speak. So ladies, if you have a problem with this, speak to your feminist brethren. This is the legacy which they have left behind. By erasing the stigma of premarital sex and encouraging physical liberation, they have eliminated one of the most powerful incentives in history for men to tie the knot. By advocating government as a surrogate husband in the case of single motherhood, they have eliminated the disincentive for women to file for divorce. And through decades of litigious activism, they have given rise to the bloated and intrusive family court system and stacked it so egregiously against the men of this country that it now appears they are subconsciously engaging in what could be called a “marriage strike”, preferring to play the odds rather than assume a massively disproportionate amount of risk. As for the men, make no mistake, they are slowly beginning to realize that the power is now in their favor. They have more and more perfectly legitimate reasons for remaining unmarried every day. Given a choice between not marrying one’s lady friend — assuming no risk whatsoever and still having the historical benefits of marriage (sex, companionship, etc.) available to them, or marrying the woman and having a 50-50 chance of their lives being utterly destroyed should the woman so much as be “unhappy” with the marriage, the decision is a no-brainer. What women perceive as a “fear of commitment” is really nothing more than a pragmatic assessment of the odds facing men in the prospect of a marriage. Therefore, the trends evident in this study are not much of a surprise. I would wager that if the study were conducted nationally, similar results would be produced. Of course, such a study would invariably seek to address the grievances of the dejected single women of the country. My advice to them would be simple: offer to sign a prenuptial agreement that outlines the exact terms of a possible divorce: how assets would be divided, how any alimony and child support would be handled, and other vital elements that may be causing apprehension. And don’t be insulted if your potential mate asks you to sign one, or if he desires terms that will be equitable to him. No matter how strong your love may be for one another, the demand for eligible bachelors willing to commit to marriage is currently exceeding the supply, and if you won’t sign it, odds are that there’s another woman out there who will. NOTE: Statistics in this article (and, in effect, much of its text) are drawn from Glenn Sacks and Diana Thompson’s Philadelphia Inquirer op-ed of 7/5/2002 entitled: “A Marriage Strike Emerges as Men Decide Not to Risk Loss”
As I write this, I am aware that I am probably going to offend some readers, but, then again, I have found that we in society are afraid and unaccepting of the truth, therefore taking offense. I can not apologize for what I am about to say, however I can only hope to attempt to undo the wrong that I have done. To start with, here is a little bit about myself. Before I was married, I was an extreme feminist, with the hopes and dreams of equality, having the same thoughts and beliefs as others in the fight for true equality. It wasn’t like the feminists of today, who only want to gain complete control, power, and to have revenge, destroying everything that the true feminists have fought so hard for (true gender equality). It is my hope that by posting my story and comments, that it will encourage other women, (we/you know who you are), to come forward and to tell the truth about themselves and their experience. Here is my story, as shameful as it may be. I am a single mother of two. When I decided to leave my marriage, (I was bored), I went to three different lawyers for advice. I was asked by all 3 of them if I was ever abused by my husband. My answer was, never in any way shape or form was my husband abusive towards me. To my utter disbelief, all of them told me the same thing. Unless I accused my husband of abuse, I would not gain sole custody of my children. They also told me that by making these allegations against him, that I would get EVERYTHING and more. When I asked them how we would prove the allegations, I was told that the courts don’t require proof, and to go to a women’s shelter, and that they would help me, and that it would support my allegations of abuse. Having been brought up in a very religious family, I was very uncomfortable with this advice. I was then told by the lawyers, that if I wanted the full support of legal aid, I had no choice but to make the allegations against my husband. Having no money to pay for legal expenses, I did as I was advised. Reluctantly I took my children to a women’s shelter. I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. On the outside, it appears as they want the public and their funders to see it. This is however, far from the truth. This place was a form of a cult, (for lack of a better term). Male bashing was a top priority, and the administration was very adamant about recruiting yet another woman (me), to join this man-haters club. They even have a game plan on how to win in court. By following their simple plan step by step, I would not only get sole custody of my children, but also the car, house and land, plus finances for the rest of my life. However, if I did not follow their game plan, but if I played fairly, I would lose everything, and I would be endangering the lives of other women, and would jeopardize any funding for them. The administration must have noticed that their brain washing techniques were not working as fast as they wanted, so I was ‘thrown’ at the other women staying there. Terms such as ‘sperm donors’, and that all men were abusive and must die, were used on a daily basis. They were very convincing, and not wanting to jeopardize my fellow house mates, I went along with their game plan. As soon as I said that I would follow their game plan, things moved very quickly. I saw the man that I was once married to destroyed emotionally, financially and physically. I was granted sole custody of our children, and because of a restraining order, I gained the house and car, so that our children wouldn’t lose everything that they were used to. Not only was there a restraining order against him, he was also charged with assault. The man who had equally created our children, helped raise them, and who loves them dearly, was ordered to stay away from them, and to pay me, (more than I ever needed), support for them. Like I said, I destroyed him, leaving him with very little to survive. My brother is now going through a custody battle, where my former sister-in-law is playing exactly the same game that was taught to me by a women’s shelter, and my brother is in the same shoes that I once put my ex in. Knowing how I destroyed my ex, and seeing the wrong that I had committed, I have made it my personal endeavor to help my brother with his fight. He recently joined a men’s group, and he receives messages on the net from shared parenting, epoc_news etc. As he was thrown out of his home, he now lives with me, which gives me the opportunity to read the messages from these groups. I must admit, sometimes there is a message or two that is of great help, but for the most part, these groups have to stop playing ‘Mr. Nice Guy’.
I can understand that there are people out there who never want responsibility, But the vast majority of the so called peter pan “boys” your talking about are actually waaay too smart. We realized 50% of marriages end in divorce. With 3/4 being no fault initiated by the female spouse. And with the misandry mentality of burn him in the courts.. And the blatantly sexist family courts. No thank you. Women need to learn to play fair. Whats mine is mine whats yours is yours. But as long as women think “whats his is mine and whats mine is mine” Western civilization can burn. Might sound a bit selfish but I don’t want to run the risk of living my life in financial destitution and poverty because I married the wrong chick.
The decision of a young man to not marry today is hardly the man-child of this misogynist article, but rather a very wise and adult decision of a male who has correctly determined that there is simply far too much risk and far too few benefits for men in marriage today. The men of today are wising up to a vicious game that is drastically stacked against them/him. The truth is that more than 67% of marriages will end in divorce. 92% of the time it will be initiated by the woman for no other reason than she is “unfulfilled” – oh, and because she gets the kids, the house, at least ½ the assets and most of his future after tax income for the next 18 years. The man will get raked over in family court. He will lose the house. He will see his kids 2 out of 14 days (if the ex doesn’t level unsubstantiated “abuse” claims.) He will be forced to hand over 40-50% of his take-home pay. If he loses his job due to illness or downsizing, the State will toss him in jail. While jailed the arrearage will grow and the state will charge interest. The State will revoke his driver’s and professional licenses, make him virtually unemployable. If you were to take up sky-diving, and the instructor informed you that 67% of the parachutes were defective, would you take the plunge? The men’s Marriage Strike is alive and well, thank you. nomarriage.com
remove the spam