Men’s Activists Say Divorce Courts Are Biased Against Fathers. They’re wrong? No, Hanna Rosin. They’re right. Let’s do the math.

14 May

 

barbie-math1

 

Here’s another laughable piece from Hanna Rosin – surely you remember her – the lady sitting in her comfortable home designed, built, sourced, maintained, heated and powered by men – wondering if men have become obsolete.

 

I don’t know why I even bother with this delusional witch, but let’s look at her new article about how father’s totally don’t get fucked in family courts even though mothers get equal or superior custody arrangements 91.1% of the time.  When you’re looking at percentages in the 90 range, you know you’re dealing with equality.  #feministequality.  Lean In, ladies!  How is it that you are allowing those sneaky bastard men to prevent you from getting equal or better custody arrangements 100% of the time?

 

Last week the actor Jason Patric went to court to “fight ’til I’m dead,” as he put it, to see his 4-year-old son. Patric and his girlfriend conceived the child through in vitro fertilization, and a judge earlier denied Patric any paternal rights. Since then, Patric has become a hero to frustrated fathers everywhere who are alienated from their ex-wives and girlfriends. Patric is part of a movement of vigilante fathers who challenge the assumption that mothers should have any more rights than they do. Skier Bode Miller famously challenged a girlfriend’s right to move to New York after she got pregnant with his child, and earlier this year a group of Utah fathers sued the state over a law allowing mothers to give up their babies for adoption without their consent. The courts, argued one of the Utah plaintiffs, treat men “like they’re scum—like they don’t have rights at all as far as having a relationship with their children.”

 

A few comments here.  First of all, vigilante means a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.

 

Fighting for parental rights through the court system is the exact opposite of vigilante.

 

Secondly, the fact that Patric didn’t literally fuck his son’s mother, and used IVF instead has little bearing beyond legal loopholing in this particular case.  Patric is not only the child’s biological father, he was present in his son’s life from birth up until the courts decided that his failure to actually put his penis in his child’s mother and ejaculate to cause her pregnancy invalidates his right to be his child’s father. Patric presented plenty of evidence to demonstrate his involvement in his little boy’s life.  His son calls him “Dada”. Case fucking closed, in my opinion.

 

It used to be that women had to worry about men disappearing after they got pregnant or divorced. Now, some women have the opposite problem.

 

 

The opposite problem?  Problem?  Fathers wanting to be in their children’s lives in a meaningful way is a fucking problem?  So basically,  Hanna, children are the personal property of women and any attempt by fathers to define their own relationships is a problem needing to be addressed?

 

A growing fathers’ rights movement is aggressively challenging what it sees as the courts’ assumption that the mother is the only real parent.  Men’s rights activists air their grievances about unfair child custody laws on sites such as A Voice for Men and on subreddits like Men’s Rights and The Red Pill. Last year, Ken Cuccinelli was tied to a men’s rights group advocating for divorced fathers. “Men are angry at losing their kids in the divorce court and taking their dream of raising them and reducing it to a child support payment and every other weekend,” writes one men’s rights blogger quoted in Michael Kimmel’s 2013 book Angry White Men. And that view is shared by the broader public. One recent study showed that people are generally in favor of joint custody, but they believe that divorce courts are seriously slanted toward mothers.

 

….aggressively

….grievances

….unfair

….angry

….white

….men

No axe to grind here, Hanna, right?  You’re just being objective and looking at the facts?  No engagement of any caricatures or stereotypes at all.  Nothing to see here, move along.

 

It’s so cute how hoi polloi think they understand the world they live in.  Darling little plebes who actually believe they are capable of parsing and comprehending the reality around them.  Oh broader public, you’re so adorable. Shush now and let the smart ladies tell you how things really are.

 

But is this actually true? “There’s a real perception—even women share it—that courts are unfair to fathers,” says Ira Ellman, a custody expert at Arizona State University. But in fact the great revolution in family court over the past 40 years or so has been the movement away from the presumption that mothers should be the main, or even sole, caretakers for their children. Individual cases like Patric’s may raise novel legal issues, but on the whole, courts are fair to men, particularly men who can afford a decent lawyer.

 

Hold up, now.  Men who can afford a decent lawyer is not most men.  And the very fact that a good lawyer is needed strongly implies the laws are anything but fair.  If they were fair, and applied with true equality and generosity, why would a fancy lawyer be needed?  And how is it that women can manage to face the courts over custody matters and not need a good lawyer?

 

Perhaps because the courts are biased in the women’s favor?  Just think for one goddamn second about what you are saying, Hanna.  Black defendants get treated very fairly by the courts if they can afford a good lawyer.  Therefore systemic discrimination against blacks in the courts doesn’t exist?

 

Cases like Patric’s and Miller’s, which involve fathers who never married the mothers, are relatively new to the courts, but divorce courts have a long history of trying to keep up with changing gender dynamics. In the 1970s, family courts began to move away from assuming a model of breadwinner husband and dependent wife. Instead, courts assumed interdependence, meaning that husband and wife shared assets and domestic duties. Pretty rapidly, Naomi Cahn and June Carbone explain in their new book, Marriage Markets: How Inequality Is Remaking the American Family, the rules became more “gender neutral.” As the image of an abandoned, innocent wife faded, alimony declined. The maternal presumption that mothers should automatically get custody of children in the “tender years”—meaning younger than 7—also faded. And the vast majority of states moved toward an assumption of joint custody. In 2000, for example, a new law in Wisconsin directed courts to maximize the time children spent with both parents.

 

The “rules” may be more gender neutral, but nice dodge, Hanna.  We are not talking about the “rules”.  We are talking about how they are applied.  Rules mean jack shit if they are not actually being enforced.

 

Men’s rights activists complain that despite the legal changes, mother preference still lingers, and studies have shown that through the 1980s sole mother custody still prevailed. But more recently judges have been catching up to the law.

….complain

 

Yeah, just shut up already all you fathers who actually love and want to be with your children.  Mommy has spoken. The children are hers.  Stop complaining.

 

According to one of the most thorough surveys of child custody outcomes, which looked at Wisconsin between 1996 and 2007, the percentage of divorce cases in which the mother got sole custody dropped from 60.4 to 45.7 percent while the percentage of equal shared custody cases, in just that decade, doubled from 15.8 to 30.5. And a recent survey by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers shows a rapid increase in mothers paying child support.

 

Oh dear, Barbie.  Here comes the math, from the actual study.

 

 

Sole custody goes to the mother 45.7% of the time

Primary custody goes to the mother 13.0% of the time

Shared custody is agreed to 32.4% of the time

45.7 + 13 = 58.7

58.7% of the time, mothers are awarded sole or primary custody

45.7 + 13 + 32.4 = 91.1

91.1% of the time, mothers are awarded equal or more custody

 

Sole custody goes to the father 7.0% of the time

Primary custody goes to the father 1.9% of the time

Shared custody is the same as women, obviously – 32.4% of the time

7 + 1.9 = 8.9

So fathers are the sole or primary custodians of their children in 8.9% of all cases, versus 58.7% of the time for women.

7 + 1.9 + 32.4 = 41.3

Fathers get equal or better custody 41.3% of the time, compared to 91.1% for mothers.

8.9% vs 58.7%

41.3% vs 91.1%

Not only are fathers nowhere close to equal treatment, they are not even halfway.

I’m beginning to think my joke about #feministequality isn’t a joke at all.

Berkeley law professor Mary Ann Mason tracked the changing priorities of divorce courts over three decades. The biggest recent change, she writes, is the courts’ preference for the “friendly parent,” meaning the one who can get along with the other parent. Mothers who get in the way of a father’s involvement can in fact be penalized by the courts. In their book, Cahn and Carbone tell the story of the Renauds, a divorcing Vermont couple whose case was resolved in 2004. Before the divorce, the couple shared child care. The mother took Fridays off to be with the children, and the father took them to and from day care and was an involved dad. The marriage ended when the father told the mother that he was having an affair with a colleague. In another era, the mother would have gotten sole custody of the children and alimony, but not much child support. Now, “the mother’s ability to retain custody depends on her willingness to support the father’s involvement,” Cahn and Carbone write. In this case, the mother accused the father of abuse and neglect. When the investigators could not confirm the charges, the court awarded the father 50 percent custody and made the mother’s custody contingent on her working to repair the relationship with the father.

That’s nice, Hanna.  You cherry picked a single court case in which the mother’s custody is contingent on her being a decent fucking human being to her children’s father. Go back to the very beginning and look at Jason Patric again.  His child’s mother, supported by courts that give not one single fuck about either the father or the child, is denying him any access to his son at all.  Do you have any idea how much that vindictive shrew is hurting her own child?  Where does he think Daddy went?  Is Daddy dead?  Why can’t I see my Daddy anymore.

The real inequality in family courts these days is not based on gender, but on income. Wealthy men have successfully fought against proposed reforms that would have forced them to pay more child support. With elite, college educated men, “it’s outrageous how little they can end up paying in child support in some cases,” says Ellman, the Arizona State professor. But poor men are in a different predicament. Welfare reform in the 1990s included an effort to track down fathers who weren’t paying child support. As the economy sank, those fathers fell behind on their payments and often wound up in jail or permanent debt, as Elaine Sorensen of the Urban Institute has documented.

How dare those wealthy men refuse to shell out to their gold-digging ex-wives?  The bastards!  Of course, if the wives were truly concerned about the welfare of their children, wanting to provide them with all the resources their wealthy father offers, they would have stayed married.

Poor men put in jail because they were dumb enough to become unemployed?  Yeah, let’s throw them in jail and make them beholden to the women who gave birth to their children for the rest of their natural lives.  Make sure those sorry bastards turn every penny over to the children mother.

Rock.  Hard place.  Pick one, please, but only if you’re male.

 

A father who never married the mother of his child has a much shakier legal status. Petitioning the courts for paternal rights as a father who had a child out of wedlock is complicated to do and much less likely to be successful. A legal system that has evolved to recognize equal, interdependent parents doesn’t really apply. As Cahn and Carbone have written, in this social class the women are generally better off and choose not to marry the fathers, precisely because they want to avoid future legal disputes over children. If that father is Jason Patric or Bode Miller, he can probably afford a lawyer and get sympathetic publicity. But if he’s not, the best a poor father can hope for if he wants to impact his child is to be a steady paycheck.

So, the moral of the whole story is that courts are totally fair to men as long as they are rich and married. Unmarried men have virtually no chance of obtaining custody of their own children and women would be wise to never get married because …duh…then no man will ever be ever take her personal property children.

…the best a poor father can hope for if he wants to impact his child is to be a steady paycheck.

 

This sentence is why the MHRM exists in the first place.

 

Keep talking, Hanna.  You make our work easier with every stupid word you write.

 

So thanks?

 

Lots of love,

 

JB

 

79 Responses to “Men’s Activists Say Divorce Courts Are Biased Against Fathers. They’re wrong? No, Hanna Rosin. They’re right. Let’s do the math.”

  1. acethepug May 14, 2014 at 15:12 #

    Don’t confuse them with facts, jb, their minds are already made up.

    Well written and said, by the way.

    Thanks for posting 🙂

    Like

  2. AdVader May 14, 2014 at 15:30 #

    but, but, whatever, surely its all in the best interest of children, or not?

    Like

  3. Bad Dog (@bad_fido) May 14, 2014 at 15:58 #

    Also, I don’t know how it works your side of the pond, but this side child support payments are calculated thus: I am required to pay 20% of my net income to my ex-wife. If I see my kids >1 day a week, that figure drops by 1/7th. If I see them >2 days a week, by 2/7ths and so on. The only way I pay nothing, is if I have them ALL week, not half the time as you would expect. The only way this maths works is if the financial contribution expected from the mother is 0 (and it is the mother in 95% of cases, I asked). And this is until they are 18! By what warped logic can that be justified? Best ask Hanna, non?

    Like

  4. RSD May 14, 2014 at 15:58 #

    Great article. I took my kids from their mother 8 years ago because of her poor choices. Fortunately she does not have the ability or brains to fight me. My issue is that according to our divorce decree she and I have full joint legal and physical custody (which was great for me at the time), with my having to pay child support. I constantly worry when I see articles of men getting screwed that were she to fight or get pissed off for some reason, she would get all of her rights and the last 8 years of support that I have not paid her since I took the kids. To note, I have seen less than $500 from her in all of that time. I even spoke to numerous attorneys when I first took my kids and they told me I was wasting my time and money going to court because It was unlikely I would ever get more rights than I had and may even have to pay support while having the kids full time. I feel for any father that goes through this as I really am one of the lucky few, even though at times I worry my luck may run out.

    Like

  5. Denis, Donald L May 14, 2014 at 16:04 #

    I had my computer read this out loud so I could hear it while making breakfast. It calls you “juggybitch.”

    Donald Denis donald-denis@uiowa.edu

    Like

  6. theasdgamer May 14, 2014 at 16:10 #

    Very fine post–persuasive and compelling.

    Like

  7. AdVader May 14, 2014 at 16:26 #

    divorce is child abuse, thus the divorcing parent is unfit.

    Like

  8. realityforever May 14, 2014 at 16:39 #

    Judgy Bitch, as smart as you are, could you write an article or make a video- Hell, write a BOOK about how it’s not MEN who are causing half of all children to be raised by single mothers, but women? Most of the population is still under this horribly outdated notion that men just ‘abandon’ women and don’t want to be fathers.

    Women initiate 70% of divorces and at least half of women have no intention of staying with the father in the first place or getting married. So many of them follow the ‘Honey Boo Boo’ model – have 3 different children by 3 different fathers so they can collect 3 times the amount of money they can get from staying with just one man. I know SO many women like this including my sister.

    But the number one aspect of all of this that people need to get through their thick skulls is that men have NO POWER IN ANY OF IT AT ALL.

    Imagine a home where a husband and wife have 2 children. One day the wife says, “I’m tired of you and I want a divorce because I’m no longer ‘in’ love with you.” The father then says, “NO! I’m staying here for my children!! I’m not leaving!!” LOL. In the next 20 minutes he’s going to be escorted out in a new matching pair of handcuffs, prob with a restraining order and probably NEVER get to see his children again.

    Fathers can’t ‘MAN UP’ even if they want to because they have NO POWER AT ALL legally or otherwise. This notion that men are to blame is INSANE and it’s nauseating that our entire society is still stuck in 1965 with their notions about single motherhood- ‘Papa was a Rolling Stone’ and all of that nonsense from another TIME- another ERA. There IS no where to go or run even if you wanted to. If you’re a father, you can’t just fly off to the other side of the country – they’ll track you down and garnish your wages and throw you in jail no matter WHERE you go. Even if you flee to most other 1st world countries!

    The formula is simple: If you as a man do not make significantly more than the State can pay her to live without you, you’re OUT. Period. Most women are that cold, cruel and cut and dried and we all know it.

    THEN to be blamed and called a dead beat and a piece of shit for something someone ELSE is doing? Beyond insane.

    Like

  9. judgybitch May 14, 2014 at 16:50 #

    In some ways, I am ridiculously naive. I know stuff like that happens but I’ve only really confronted it this year. There is a woman who looks to be about 45 with a daughter in our dance troupe. She has four children from three different men and collects enough child support to live in a McMansion and drive an SUV. Her oldest daughter is 13, and it turns out the Mom is only 29. Three failed marriages behind her, four kids and she lives a nicer life than I do!

    But holy crap that life ain’t easy on the face or body. She looks terrible for 29. And she’s a complete nut case. The worst “dance mom” you can imagine. If the kids weren’t in the same troupe, I would have nothing at all to do with her. She’s a train wreck that has clearly crashed through a few men’s lives.

    Avoiding women like her probably accounts for my naivete. I just run from chicks like that. Too bad men don’t do the same.

    Like

  10. LF May 14, 2014 at 17:20 #

    I would also add that some states call it Shared Custody even though the mother gets the child the majority of the time.

    Like

  11. realityforever May 14, 2014 at 17:23 #

    Here in the U.S. judges use a tactic to get around the legal state guidelines of 20-25% of men’s income by using something called ‘imputed’ income- in other words, what the judge ‘feels’ you should be earning.

    Say if you had a really paying job at one time and now because of the economy or bad fortune you are making only a fraction of that pay, they feel you aren’t trying hard enough, so then force you to pay 100% or your income and even more and if you can’t pay it, go to jail. I worked with a guy who had his ENTIRE paycheck garnished each pay period.

    You do NOT want to even date nowadays, because she WILL dump you once she gets tired of you and have your baby whether you want her to or not and go to Hell for the next 20 years. And if you get behind, they will accrue interest it and you may end up paying it for the rest of your LIFE if you don’t have the funds to make a settlement.

    My advice is stay as far away as possible from any females in 1st world countries because nothing good is going to come from it and you WILL be forced into bankruptcy and ruin.

    Like

  12. realityforever May 14, 2014 at 17:40 #

    70% of the women I know and am related to that have children have all done the ‘mix and match’ family and the ones who aren’t doing it yet, they will be – give them another 10 years or so. The average marriage only last 8 years and 7 out of 10 times it is the female initiating it, so it all shouldn’t come as any surprise.

    And of course it is men who have to pay not just financially, but with their entire lives- crushed and shoved off into a corner and then forced to pay for a family that they were ejected from. Yet virtually no one is talking about this in MSM and everyone is SO naive about all of this and the nature of most women when you give them the freedom to do whatever they want.

    It’s just incredible how men are still living in this false belief that there is some kind of future with marriage – and women too- but odds are it is going to end miserably and you as the man will most likely not be the one initiating the breakup and the man has ZERO control. So all women have accomplished since Feminism is simply destroying society and family and call it ‘freedom.’

    Like

  13. Brandi May 14, 2014 at 17:49 #

    This is a HUGE men’s rights issue. We NEED family court law reform NOW for the men and children whose lives are ruined by vindictive, bitter, nasty women and women who use men and children as income sources. So sick and not in the least equal. Please look into it more, JudgyBitch, this is an arena where women trample all over men’s and children’s rights in the name of selfishness.

    Like

  14. Spaniard May 14, 2014 at 18:50 #

    In Ancient Rome, there was a sign at the door of every brothel (“lupanar” in latin)
    The sign was:

    HIC HABITAT FELICITAS

    Here lives happiness.

    In present day family homes, in Europe and North America, due to feminism, should be written this sign, at the door.

    HIC HABITAT CALAMITAS

    Here lives misfortune.

    So, let´s run to the brothel.

    Like

  15. realityforever May 14, 2014 at 20:11 #

    Well, that’s a little difficult when all you’re met with by anyone male or female is: “You hate women. You hate women. You hate women.” OR “You’re ‘just’ ‘bitter,'” which I assume they’re implying that you simply had a bad divorce and your experience was an isolated experience. And this is reaction from INTELLIGENT, COLLEGE EDUCATED people.

    What the MRA needs are snappy slogans like the Feminists use- but that is such a challenge because our issues are so complex, that even well educated people have difficulty comprehending and then there is the factor of the massive cover up of all of this information- never seeing the light of day in the mainstream media.

    Like

  16. realityforever May 14, 2014 at 22:10 #

    I had custody of my daughter when she was a teenager and still had to pay her mother child support – and that is very common. I know, I know, I know you’re going to say “they can’t do that, that isn’t right, you’re wrong, you’re dumb, etc.,” but that is how insane and corrupt the system is.

    And it is ALL set up to screw the cash cow: The father. Family Courts before the late 80’s were like any other civil court, but starting in the late 80s, a divorce court in Michigan experimented with a ‘for profit’ system and it worked and then they eventually went around the country to show all the other courts in the country how to do it.

    And much of it is based on completely hammering and extorting the father who is usually the greater earner. And the judges have God like power over you and there is nothing you can do about any of it. They are making horrific decisions against fathers right now who had no intention of ever leaving their family and children and were forced out and then may have lost their job and are now thrown in jail unable to pay child support and if they become enraged, which is natural, the judge might just order them to never see their children ever again.

    The whole reason we have metal detectors in all courts today started with divorce courts because of the horrific things they do to fathers everyday, all day long and have now for decades. Men were bringing guns into the court and shooting judges, etc. Remember Darren Mack? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_Mack

    He was told he would never see his children ever again by a judge just out of spite- Mack didn’t bring a gun to court, what he did was took a rifle up on a roof of a building adjacent to the courthouse and waited for the judge to come out. He also twisted his wife’s head off earlier that day, killing her because she was such a Hellish narcissistic monster like your typical U.S. female today.

    I’m surprised we don’t have scores of Darren Macks because of the hideous evil of divorce courts, U.S. women and the whole Hellish piece of shit system.

    Like

  17. Trent Max May 14, 2014 at 22:51 #

    Good article. The more I read about this, the more I realize that when I have kids, this is something that needs to be figured out beforehand. I still believe I can find a woman who won’t frivorce me but before kids enter the picture, I want a legal binding document stipulating that I get preferred custody in the event of a divorce. I love my m but I did not like seeing her dating after she divorced my dad (even though she did it for good reasons). My nephews are living with their dad and that is way better for them, as well.

    If a chick is going to dump me it will not be for good reasons and she will not get the kids. The kind of woman I have in mind would see that as a strong disincentive to not get divorced, as well.

    Like

  18. dolf (a.k.a. Anders Ericsson) May 14, 2014 at 23:29 #

    The sign post over men’s door at the divorce court: Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch’entrate.

    Like

  19. Paul Murray May 15, 2014 at 02:21 #

    Using these numbers, and an assumption that “partial custody” means one day a week (one weekend each fortnight), I have done up a graphic here: http://paulmurray.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/custody.png

    Like

  20. C May 15, 2014 at 06:47 #

    They did the same thing to my father. I was living with him for years and my mother was getting so much money (child support for 2 kids + alimony) that we were literally flat broke; I had to go to the food bank a number of times (she wouldn’t give me money to eat.)

    I actually had a social worker at the time and he, and everyone else who could do it, refused to speak to the courts to get him off the hook for the child support for me. I’m in Canada btw.

    Like

  21. Goober May 15, 2014 at 16:14 #

    Trent – such a document would not be worth the paper it is printed on. Probably more useful to wipe with than accomplish anything in a court of law.

    Sort of like pre-nuptual agreements, it has been decided that a person cannot sign away their rights “under duress.” “Duress” in this case is “he won’t have kids with me unless I sign this, and I really want kids.”

    The judge in your court case will likely take offense to the fact thatyou didn’t trust him to make a good decision, and instead pre-empted his authority, and just make it go harder on you.

    The truth is, my wife, JudgyBitch, any woman, really, can take her husband’s kids any time she wants under our current court system.

    is it getting better? Yes, I believe it is, but “better” than “the most unfair system man has ever devised” is still pretty shitty.

    You take your chances, is what I’m saying, and the best you can do is test your prospective SO before you have kids with them. When she gets demanding, tell her to fuck off (literally. I mean, use those words. “FUCK OFF”). When you want to go hang out with the boys, tell her what you’re going to do, and if she says “NO” without giving a good reason (ie, “We already had plans, remember?”) then she’s just trying to control you – go anyway. If she leaves, it was for the best. If she figures it out, then she’s probably going to be okay.

    If she gets angry, tells you that she’s unhappy and wants you to change, starts withholding things to get her way, pouts, asks for and manipulates you (or attempts such) into buying her things that she wants, flirts with other guys (ever), treats you worse than she does her parents and friends (very common) etc, then she’s probably not a safe bet. I know that narrows down the pot a lot. Good luck.

    Like

  22. KB May 15, 2014 at 19:00 #

    “Avoiding women like her probably accounts for my naivete. I just run from chicks like that.”

    Me too Judgy and it is a contributing factor to being alone.

    I have read numerous posts from you and (I like your work) I fear I am a future MGTOW more by default than proactive choice as my cousin who is my age, 27, is having his daughter ripped from him by his narcissistic wife.

    It’s really sad for marriage-minded men because the alternatives are just not very enticing.

    Keep writing you are talented and have crafted a discernible voice.

    Like

  23. Spaniard May 15, 2014 at 19:52 #

    🙂

    In Ancient Rome, children were always property of the father. Does not matter the situation.
    So, hubby (pater familias) could repudiate wife in any moment when she starts bitching, just a little echonomic compensation to her (just the return of the dowry) and then marry an 18 year old hottie. And keeping the house, the children and all his goods and money.

    Good old times.

    Like

  24. SamIowa May 15, 2014 at 20:07 #

    It’s simpler than that. If feminists and courts acknowledge that fathers have any rights whatsoever, that opens up a big question into the abortion issue, the sacrament of the left.

    That’s all it is.

    Like

  25. realityforever May 15, 2014 at 20:36 #

    Here is an excellent article about it all- just pure, absolute, monstrous evil and is NEVER talked about in the MSM
    http://www.antifeministtech.info/the-truth-about-anti-family-courts/

    (1) Your spouse can clean out the bank accounts (and in many cases the movable assets) without any real accounting at the time of the finalization of the divorce, because you weren’t separated at the time of said cleaning out, and the cash, which was a marital asset at the time, has now simply been consumed, as in “poof, there it goes”. This is why so many people do it, by the way. Feel vindicated and that the judge will view this poorly? Guess again (unless you’re the guy, of course).

    (2) Once your spouse leaves with the kids, or you are removed by your spouse from the spouse and the kids, your likelihood of getting custody is quite small, because a temporary custody order will generally come into effect (if she is being advised properly), and the final custody determination, which typically comes quite some time later, gives heavy weight to this “de facto” custody situation — in effect, the way the system works is that in everything other than outlier cases, you lose custody almost immediately upon separation, and even though this is “temporary”, technically, de facto it generally becomes permanent.

    (3) If the situation described in (2) happens, you’re very unlikely to get the house, either. The house normally goes to the parent with the custody. In some states, the court will make that spouse “buy out” the other spouse’s portion of the equity value of the property by selling or refinancing, but in situations where there are significantly unequal incomes, the asset distribution can be quite unequal, too (in favor of the lower income spouse), resulting in this simply not being distributed, or being greatly reduced.

    (4) Your ability to enforce visitation “rights” is almost nil in most places. Technically, your spouse is violating the law by violating the court’s decree, but other than issuing a new decree reiterating , the visitation order, courts generally won’t do much else to enforce these. They almost never are willing to accept this as a basis to revise the custody order, either. In fact, custody orders are very hard to revise under almost any circumstances, barring a truly awful situation involving the custodial parent — it’s more likely that the kids get referred to CPS than that your custody order gets revised, to be honest. So, your ability to see your kids depends largely on the goodwill of the custodial parent. If you find yourself in this situation, and she is of relative goodwill, maintaining this is the best option, if you want to see your kids regularly. If you have a war-like relationship with your ex, your likelihood of having regular visitation decreases, as she has incentives to block and no real enforcement. Once a lover/boyfriend/second husband comes into the picture, it complicates things even further around visitation, because you start to have a step-Dad in the picture who spends more time with your kids than you do, and has more of an influence on them than you do, whether he actively does that or not. Also, keep in mind that quite a few states won’t prevent a custodial parent from moving very far away with your kids simply on the basis of a visitation order — in these states you’ll be expected to lump it and figure it out, or move yourself to where your kids now live if you want to see them more often (but don’t expect your support obligations to go down if your new job pays less).

    *****

    The system is not “wrong” or “in need of reform”. The system is simply evil. It’s evil to the core. It calls into question the legitimacy of our entire system of government, full stop, when home, assets, children can all be spirited away in a thoroughly unconstitutional way, just because. It’s a deeply evil system and a stain on the national character. Truly, the entire system needs a fundamental, systemic re-think, rather than a piecemeal reform. But, in the meantime, piecemeal is all that’s available, and it’s better than nothing.

    I added the bold. Some of you might be thinking that there’s a private solution with the right contracts or prenups where you can create something that avoids this, but you would be wrong:

    It’s worth a try. The main problem is that the family law courts in most states don’t take kindly to people trying to “privatize” family law, because in effect this divests (or is an attempt to divest) the family courts of their power to decide what is best under the circumstances. In the US, family courts are courts of equity and not courts of law, meaning that, unlike courts of law, they won’t enforce a contract just because it was validly entered into if they think the result of enforcing it would be inequitable. So any contractual attempt is worth a try — it isn’t per se invalid. But at the same time, the family law courts of equity won’t simply enforce it like they would any other validly contracted agreement – they look to the result, and work back from there, often, rather than a court of law, which starts from the premise of freedom of contract and the enforcement against you of a bad deal you may have freely made (absent fraud in the inducement, duress, unconscionability and so on) –> whereas an equity court looks to see whether that would be equitable as a result, even if there was no fraud or duress and so on. So, worth a try, but not ironclad.

    The anti-family courts will not allow themselves to be divested of their power by prenups and other contracts. If you get married this is the system you are under. There is no going back to the old system (except by going expat) because the old system is dead and can’t be recreated by contractual means. If you think this is bad, it gets worse, much worse:

    Baskervile’s book describes cases of men being ordered by courts to avoid any writing anything about their opinions about their divorces under penalty of jail. No constitutional remedy, because our candy-ass federal courts refuse to enforce the constitution in state family courts.

    So has anyone tried to force the issue with constitutional challenges in federal courts? Yes, but it hasn’t worked because those courts always refuse to hear the case:

    Trouble is, it’s been tried (on other issues) — that is, to involve the federal courts in enforcing the constitution in state equity family courts. They don’t bite. The federal courts just won’t get involved in family law matters unless they are dealing with something like racial discrimination or, today, gay marriage. They take the view that the state law courts of equity dealing with “routine” family law disputes don’t rise to the level of having constitutional implications, more or less. It’s not like this hasn’t been tried, believe me.

    In fact family law judges are so brazen now, they openly talk about how they don’t need to worry about the consitution:

    Indeed, if you read Baskerville’s book (every man should read it really), you’ll see where family law judged have, in training seminars/meetings with new FLJs, explicitly stated that they do not need to worry about the constitution. It’s openly admitted.

    You have no constitutional rights w/r/t: your home, your kids, your assets, in the context of a divorce. The Constitution just does not apply, because these things “aren’t important enough”.

    Doesn’t this mean you should marry a traditional (Christian) woman who wants to be a stay at home mother? Not only is the divorce rate inside the church is as high as outside the church, but when such a woman divorces you, you will be worse off:

    The way that the system is set up currently actively punishes men who make this decision. As bad as it can be for other guys, the guys who get it the level absolute worst in divorces are the guys who have SAHMs for wives. If you have a SAHM and get divorced, you’re in for one hell of an ass-fucking by the courts financially. Asset division will be skewed in her favor (considered “equitable” because she has lower earning capacity to replace these in the future) and alimony will be high and long in many states — and don’t even think about fighting a SAHM to take away her sole custody unless she’s a drug addict. This is the hi/lo bet for guys who the have “traditional Chistian” marriages. If it doesn’t work, you’re fucked even worse than the guys who married the career feminists are, because if you have nearly equal incomes, things like asset division are more likely to be closer to equal, and alimony is in most states out of the picture.

    If you want to get married, you have to expat out of the West. There are no other options. The only way to opt out of (anti-)family courts is by never getting married. In the near future, this will likely also mean no cohabitation. When marriage rates drop enough, the (anti-)family courts will start going after unmarried couples who live together.

    We hear a lot about how the patriot act or the drug war, is an assault on our freedom. Even if we assume that’s the case with either of those things (and it’s not clear that they are), they are nothing compared to how (anti-)family courts have completely destroyed our freedom. They have created a feminist police state within the US and other Western countries, and those police states are expanding to the point where eventually the US and other Western countries will completely be feminist police states.

    After reading this you should be angry at a lot of people. One group you should be angry at are the marriage pushers in this part of the internet. Since they have come here, they should already know this. That means they’re pushing marriage knowing full well the evil they are promoting. You should treat those people as enemies of freedom and agents of the feminist police state because that is effectively what they are. Marriage pushers outside of this part of the internet should probably be treated in the exact same way.

    If you want to know more about the reality of (anti-)family courts, then Brendan recommends reading Stephen Baskerville’s book, “Taken Into Custody”.

    Please link to this page as much as possible in as many places as possible. Brendan’s comments succinctly get to just how bad (anti-)family courts have gotten. Men need to know this.

    Like

  26. realityforever May 15, 2014 at 20:40 #

    Here is one of the best articles I ever read about the monstrous family court system – I say the ‘best’ because it gets right to the point giving you the most vital information and concise.

    My advice for any male in North America is DON’T EVEN DATE. NOTHING. Just even hanging out with women you are running a very high risk of being false accused of rape or sexual assault, which is RAMPANT right now.

    http://www.antifeministtech.info/the-truth-about-anti-family-courts/

    (1) Your spouse can clean out the bank accounts (and in many cases the movable assets) without any real accounting at the time of the finalization of the divorce, because you weren’t separated at the time of said cleaning out, and the cash, which was a marital asset at the time, has now simply been consumed, as in “poof, there it goes”. This is why so many people do it, by the way. Feel vindicated and that the judge will view this poorly? Guess again (unless you’re the guy, of course).

    (2) Once your spouse leaves with the kids, or you are removed by your spouse from the spouse and the kids, your likelihood of getting custody is quite small, because a temporary custody order will generally come into effect (if she is being advised properly), and the final custody determination, which typically comes quite some time later, gives heavy weight to this “de facto” custody situation — in effect, the way the system works is that in everything other than outlier cases, you lose custody almost immediately upon separation, and even though this is “temporary”, technically, de facto it generally becomes permanent.

    (3) If the situation described in (2) happens, you’re very unlikely to get the house, either. The house normally goes to the parent with the custody. In some states, the court will make that spouse “buy out” the other spouse’s portion of the equity value of the property by selling or refinancing, but in situations where there are significantly unequal incomes, the asset distribution can be quite unequal, too (in favor of the lower income spouse), resulting in this simply not being distributed, or being greatly reduced.

    (4) Your ability to enforce visitation “rights” is almost nil in most places. Technically, your spouse is violating the law by violating the court’s decree, but other than issuing a new decree reiterating , the visitation order, courts generally won’t do much else to enforce these. They almost never are willing to accept this as a basis to revise the custody order, either. In fact, custody orders are very hard to revise under almost any circumstances, barring a truly awful situation involving the custodial parent — it’s more likely that the kids get referred to CPS than that your custody order gets revised, to be honest. So, your ability to see your kids depends largely on the goodwill of the custodial parent. If you find yourself in this situation, and she is of relative goodwill, maintaining this is the best option, if you want to see your kids regularly. If you have a war-like relationship with your ex, your likelihood of having regular visitation decreases, as she has incentives to block and no real enforcement. Once a lover/boyfriend/second husband comes into the picture, it complicates things even further around visitation, because you start to have a step-Dad in the picture who spends more time with your kids than you do, and has more of an influence on them than you do, whether he actively does that or not. Also, keep in mind that quite a few states won’t prevent a custodial parent from moving very far away with your kids simply on the basis of a visitation order — in these states you’ll be expected to lump it and figure it out, or move yourself to where your kids now live if you want to see them more often (but don’t expect your support obligations to go down if your new job pays less).

    *****

    The system is not “wrong” or “in need of reform”. The system is simply evil. It’s evil to the core. It calls into question the legitimacy of our entire system of government, full stop, when home, assets, children can all be spirited away in a thoroughly unconstitutional way, just because. It’s a deeply evil system and a stain on the national character. Truly, the entire system needs a fundamental, systemic re-think, rather than a piecemeal reform. But, in the meantime, piecemeal is all that’s available, and it’s better than nothing.

    I added the bold. Some of you might be thinking that there’s a private solution with the right contracts or prenups where you can create something that avoids this, but you would be wrong:

    It’s worth a try. The main problem is that the family law courts in most states don’t take kindly to people trying to “privatize” family law, because in effect this divests (or is an attempt to divest) the family courts of their power to decide what is best under the circumstances. In the US, family courts are courts of equity and not courts of law, meaning that, unlike courts of law, they won’t enforce a contract just because it was validly entered into if they think the result of enforcing it would be inequitable. So any contractual attempt is worth a try — it isn’t per se invalid. But at the same time, the family law courts of equity won’t simply enforce it like they would any other validly contracted agreement – they look to the result, and work back from there, often, rather than a court of law, which starts from the premise of freedom of contract and the enforcement against you of a bad deal you may have freely made (absent fraud in the inducement, duress, unconscionability and so on) –> whereas an equity court looks to see whether that would be equitable as a result, even if there was no fraud or duress and so on. So, worth a try, but not ironclad.

    The anti-family courts will not allow themselves to be divested of their power by prenups and other contracts. If you get married this is the system you are under. There is no going back to the old system (except by going expat) because the old system is dead and can’t be recreated by contractual means. If you think this is bad, it gets worse, much worse:

    Baskervile’s book describes cases of men being ordered by courts to avoid any writing anything about their opinions about their divorces under penalty of jail. No constitutional remedy, because our candy-ass federal courts refuse to enforce the constitution in state family courts.

    So has anyone tried to force the issue with constitutional challenges in federal courts? Yes, but it hasn’t worked because those courts always refuse to hear the case:

    Trouble is, it’s been tried (on other issues) — that is, to involve the federal courts in enforcing the constitution in state equity family courts. They don’t bite. The federal courts just won’t get involved in family law matters unless they are dealing with something like racial discrimination or, today, gay marriage. They take the view that the state law courts of equity dealing with “routine” family law disputes don’t rise to the level of having constitutional implications, more or less. It’s not like this hasn’t been tried, believe me.

    In fact family law judges are so brazen now, they openly talk about how they don’t need to worry about the consitution:

    Indeed, if you read Baskerville’s book (every man should read it really), you’ll see where family law judged have, in training seminars/meetings with new FLJs, explicitly stated that they do not need to worry about the constitution. It’s openly admitted.

    You have no constitutional rights w/r/t: your home, your kids, your assets, in the context of a divorce. The Constitution just does not apply, because these things “aren’t important enough”.

    Doesn’t this mean you should marry a traditional (Christian) woman who wants to be a stay at home mother? Not only is the divorce rate inside the church is as high as outside the church, but when such a woman divorces you, you will be worse off:

    The way that the system is set up currently actively punishes men who make this decision. As bad as it can be for other guys, the guys who get it the level absolute worst in divorces are the guys who have SAHMs for wives. If you have a SAHM and get divorced, you’re in for one hell of an ass-fucking by the courts financially. Asset division will be skewed in her favor (considered “equitable” because she has lower earning capacity to replace these in the future) and alimony will be high and long in many states — and don’t even think about fighting a SAHM to take away her sole custody unless she’s a drug addict. This is the hi/lo bet for guys who the have “traditional Chistian” marriages. If it doesn’t work, you’re fucked even worse than the guys who married the career feminists are, because if you have nearly equal incomes, things like asset division are more likely to be closer to equal, and alimony is in most states out of the picture.

    If you want to get married, you have to expat out of the West. There are no other options. The only way to opt out of (anti-)family courts is by never getting married. In the near future, this will likely also mean no cohabitation. When marriage rates drop enough, the (anti-)family courts will start going after unmarried couples who live together.

    We hear a lot about how the patriot act or the drug war, is an assault on our freedom. Even if we assume that’s the case with either of those things (and it’s not clear that they are), they are nothing compared to how (anti-)family courts have completely destroyed our freedom. They have created a feminist police state within the US and other Western countries, and those police states are expanding to the point where eventually the US and other Western countries will completely be feminist police states.

    After reading this you should be angry at a lot of people. One group you should be angry at are the marriage pushers in this part of the internet. Since they have come here, they should already know this. That means they’re pushing marriage knowing full well the evil they are promoting. You should treat those people as enemies of freedom and agents of the feminist police state because that is effectively what they are. Marriage pushers outside of this part of the internet should probably be treated in the exact same way.

    If you want to know more about the reality of (anti-)family courts, then Brendan recommends reading Stephen Baskerville’s book, “Taken Into Custody”.

    Please link to this page as much as possible in as many places as possible. Brendan’s comments succinctly get to just how bad (anti-)family courts have gotten. Men need to know this.

    Like

  27. realityforever May 15, 2014 at 20:44 #

    Here is one of the best articles on the monstrous family court:
    http://www.antifeministtech.info/the-truth-about-anti-family-courts/

    I’ve worked in the legal system and I’ve also been through it personally and my advice to any male in the U.S. is DON’T EVEN DATE women at all. Even just hanging out with women puts you in danger of a false accusation of rape or sexual assault (no one even knows what that even is) and a man would have to be suicidal to even contemplate marriage.

    Like

  28. bonkti May 16, 2014 at 03:37 #

    I think I can make that out: “Abandon all hope, ye who enter her.”

    Like

  29. kukuduxu May 16, 2014 at 04:02 #

    >> “The formula is simple: If you as a man do not make significantly more than the State can pay her to live without you, you’re OUT. Period. Most women are that cold, cruel and cut and dried and we all know it. ”

    Indeed, this is one of the KEY problems in modern societies. In poor comunities (as black people in US, for example) the husband doesn’t make enough money to compete with the State, and he’s kicked away. That leads to single motherhood, no father, issued kids, more social problems, more poverty and so on. It’s interesting up to what point liberal policies are really enforcing what they’re supposed to fix.

    Like

  30. kukuduxu May 16, 2014 at 04:10 #

    >> “Avoiding women like her probably accounts for my naivete. I just run from chicks like that. Too bad men don’t do the same.”

    They’re starting to do so.

    Men were traditionally raised to be compasionate with women with problems, and to help them. Feminism feeds on it. Times are changing. Men are becoming more selfish, more cautious, more suspicious. Probably not for the best when it comes to stable relationships and family, but it is what it is.

    Like

  31. Rick Bridges May 16, 2014 at 04:45 #

    My ex took off over two hours away to live with her parents and abducted my son in the process. I appealed the courts to relocate him back and was denied. We went to trial and she was awarded domicile custody. I appealed again and was once again denied. I was told as the Father I had NO RIGHT to contest his being relocated. NONE! I’m not petitioning the Supreme Court to review this case. The prescident they are setting is something every scum bag attorney can use in their future cases to rob good, loving fathers of their children. It’s disgusting how Judges ABUSE the laws set in place.

    http://www.change.org/petitions/louisiana-3rd-circuit-courts-obey-the-laws-set-in-place-by-your-predecessors

    Like

  32. Rick Bridges May 16, 2014 at 04:47 #

    That should read “I am now petitioning” but I typed in a rush. Plus that wenchs article got my blood boiling.

    Like

  33. realityforever May 16, 2014 at 14:49 #

    The quickest way to tell if any man in the U.S is a complete loser and an idiot is to ask him if he’s married. If he says ‘yes’ then it’s prob best you distance yourself from him.

    To be fair, if he married say 10 years ago before it became completely obvious common knowledge of how horrendous and insane the divorce laws are for men, then I give him a pass.

    But with the advent of the internet and the mountains of information available for anyone to read along with the millions of personal horror stories as told told by fathers, you would have to be the most idiotic loser on Earth to even contemplate it in the U.S. today. They’re in the same league of moron as drug dealers and drunk drivers because the legal penalties are just as severe and even worse for marriage for men.

    Like

  34. Spaniard May 16, 2014 at 14:52 #

    Roman way of marriage and divorce.

    Pater Familias is total owner of all the goods, the money and the house. And, of course, the children.
    Only men can divorce (repudiate).
    In case that, he keeps EVERYTHING. And the children, of course.
    He only has to give back dowry to wife.
    Enough reason to divorce can be that he does not find attractive wife no longer. Or she starts bitching.
    Then he can marry again with an 18 year old hottie.

    Good old times.

    Like

  35. Spaniard May 16, 2014 at 15:21 #

    Sorry, reapeted post.
    I did not see it on the screen some hours after posted. Thought it was lost on the cyber space.

    Like

  36. realityforever May 16, 2014 at 15:46 #

    Here is one of the best videos there is that explains it all and within 30 minutes

    Like

  37. blerg May 16, 2014 at 17:02 #

    i found this by accident. i’m a guy, no kids, no wife or whatever, but just wow. i’ve read a few red pill articles here and there and just wow. your husband is really lucky to have a loyal companion as a wife, as opposed to a “i’ll kill you in your sleep when i’m bored of you” wife. the thought running through my head when i was reading this was “i am 12 and what is this?”, because it’s so refreshing to see a lady championing equal rights (as the bare minimum). keep it up jb, imma stay for a while.

    Like

  38. Jim May 16, 2014 at 20:29 #

    Trent. DON’T have kids. There is no legally binding paper that will allow you to do what you’re suggesting. If you don’t have a vagina you have NO rights.

    Like

  39. Jim May 16, 2014 at 20:37 #

    “…Hanna Rosin – surely you remember her – the lady sitting in her comfortable home designed, built, sourced, maintained, heated and powered by men – wondering if men have become obsolete.”

    Yup. Does that bitch really think she’d even have the PRIVILEGE to type away on a keyboard without the ingenuity of men? Hanna, Men GAVE you that privilege sweetheart. She’d still be living in a grass hut without us. And what does she do? Instead of thanking us for LIBERATED her (yes, that’s right. MEN “liberated” her, not feminists and certainly mot herself) she spits in our face. It’s like a spoiled brat child who is completely unthankful for the father that clothed her, fed her, and put a roof over her head.

    I would to see her thrown naked onto a deserted island and see if she can start creating a civilization on her own. You know, that “strong and independent” thing they always proudly brag about. She’d be crying for daddy in a day or two. Guaranteed. 🙂

    Like

  40. mistuhgee May 17, 2014 at 04:20 #

    I was very lucky. All I had to do to get my kids was pick them up when my ex was too tired to have them. This was almost all the time. Eventually it was all the time. This was the only good part of having been married to a genuine psychopath. I also eventually got all the friends, as well. She destroyed my finances beyond repair, but the kids are young adults now and thriving.

    Like

  41. comslave May 17, 2014 at 09:03 #

    I, for one, am interested in the experiment of the 100% fatherless society. A society where fatherhood is defined by a series of payments directly from the state or through the state from the father, but with no contact with the father. As the definition of men-as-threat solidifies, this becomes the natural goal. I wonder if such a nation can survive.

    Like

  42. comslave May 17, 2014 at 11:47 #

    I knew such a mother when I was in high school. 3 kids by 3 different fathers. The optimum for welfare support at the time. Her teenaged daughter started the same cycle of dependence by getting pregnant before graduated high school.

    I’d find another dance troupe if you can. You don’t want her kids influencing yours.

    Like

  43. judgybitch May 17, 2014 at 12:01 #

    I’d have to lock my kids in the house and never let them do any activities at all if I wanted to avoid those women. They’re everywhere, unfortunately.

    Like

  44. Spaniard May 17, 2014 at 13:06 #

    Paul, how are things in Australia?

    I have a date at 3PM with a model type, 25 year old Russian hottie. 5 minutes by feet from my place.
    She only ask me for 200 euros for a long afternoon at her place, in this gorgeous springtime saturday.

    Just 200 euros for now and EVER.

    Is not it romantic?

    Still WOMEN in this world.

    And I do not face any penalty or jail for going to her place, like in Sweden.

    Viva España!

    Like

  45. Spaniard May 17, 2014 at 13:07 #

    By FOOT.

    Like

  46. dolf May 17, 2014 at 13:27 #

    And I do not face any penalty or jail for going to her place, like in Sweden.

    Well, I ain’t got 200 Euro to spend on a woman for one afternoon, so I guess the point is moot. Circumstances keep me not only out of pussy, they keep me out of jail as well.

    Like

  47. TheSharpeful May 17, 2014 at 23:40 #

    Except that’s a pretty shitty deal for the modern woman. And I’m glad times have changed… except we’ve let the scale swing WAAAY to the other side…
    We’re after equality, not supremacy.

    Like

  48. comslave May 18, 2014 at 09:19 #

    A point: One of the justifications of no-fault divorce is to save children from families where mother and father are constantly fighting. It was reasoned a child raised by a single parent would ultimately be better of that one raised by dysfunctional set of parents. But what do we know of the facts? How many of these families are broken up by a combination of simple boredom of the mother empowered by state incentives to divorce? How many children are left fatherless by whim rather than necessity?

    Like

  49. Paul Murray May 18, 2014 at 14:33 #

    Prostitution is legal in the state where I am. $250 will get you about an hour at the brothel or with someone advertising privately. 200 euro for a long afternoon is definitely a bargain if that’s all you have to pay.

    Like

  50. Paul Murray May 18, 2014 at 14:37 #

    Naah – not really. If people want to argue that “fathers rights” is a thing regarding abortion, the simple answer is “Fine: does the father agree to carry the child to term?”
    In the bible and in ancient cultures generally, a child is not a living soul until it takes its first breath independent of the mother. It’s a fair place to draw the line, I think.

    Like

  51. theasdgamer May 18, 2014 at 19:53 #

    Paul Murray wrote: “In the bible and in ancient cultures generally, a child is not a living soul until it takes its first breath independent of the mother.”

    Luke 1

    39 Now at this time Mary arose and went in a hurry to the hill country, to a city of Judah, 40 and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me? 44 For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.

    If a baby is not a living soul, then how did John the Baptist leap for joy before he was born?

    Like

  52. Black Poison Soul May 19, 2014 at 01:10 #

    Rock -> men <- Hard place

    Pressure is going on and men are slowly turning into dynamite. JB you have little idea of the hate that is building up.

    Don't be around when that dynamite goes off. Explosions do not discriminate. Neither do mobs, as anyone who has been in one can assure you.

    Like

  53. Spaniard May 19, 2014 at 13:34 #

    It is. Definetely. For a goddess.

    Like

  54. Spaniard May 19, 2014 at 13:35 #

    A very hot hooker, always cheaper than a plain wife.

    Like

  55. Spaniard May 19, 2014 at 13:46 #

    There is something really interesting in what is happening in Spain about men and women.
    I have to say that traditional women are more feminazi than the progressive feminists.
    In Spain we live in a state of conservafeminism since ages. Country full of happy “baby stroller pushers”.
    That is what really amaze me about my countryfellows: how happy of being such a slaves they are. Because they think the more money, time and energy they spent in their ugly fat bitches the more MEN they are.
    Actually they cannot conceive a life out of that Matrix.
    It is really very funny watching the phenomena from outside. And it is indeed very funny how they think that single and childfree middle aged men are “losers” who have not “a life”.
    Bloody hell, what a concept of “a life” they have!

    Like

  56. realityforever May 19, 2014 at 15:11 #

    In the video I posted above, Dr. Baskerville states that in Europe the way the nightmare works is that men are in fact simply removed from their children’s lives entirely and permanently barred from ever seeing their children again on the mother’s whim whenever she feels like it (because after all, ‘she’s moving on,’ and doesn’t want to be ‘burdened’ by past men in her life- it’s all about her after all) but then not forced to pay child support. He says that the U.S. leads the rest of the world by far in imprisonment for non payment of child support.

    Speaking of that, N.O.W. along with several other Feminists organizations have been quietly (because they know they are pure evil) trying to petition state governments to pass laws for years that would in fact do just that; allow a woman to legally cut a father completely out his child’s life permanently, yo never see them ever again- zero contact whatsoever by phone, email, nothing. BUT also force fathers to pay child support at the same time. They haven’t gotten any of these passed… yet. But that is their goal- you nailed it. Pure, cut throat evil.

    The way N.O.W. pushes this is through creepy half lies and deception and fraud (the way all Feminists organizations operate) by framing the goal as attempting to ‘stop’ ‘abusive’ fathers who want to gain custody of their children or be awarded visitation rights. And that the State is simply insane for allowing such ‘monsters’ to be able to see their children, risking abuse. (When in reality women abuse children far more than men).

    See, from a female perspective, if there is a divorce, it is automatically the man’s fault, because the woman is always above reproach and can do no wrong. So therefore the only reason two parents would be divorced in the first place is if the man is ‘abusive,’ which is always claimed anyway in false accusations systematically today in divorce courts. I know you think exaggerating, I’m not.

    Like

  57. realityforever May 19, 2014 at 15:40 #

    There is a huge tsunami of resentment and hatred that Western women are been building against themselves for decades now, but the first thing that needs to go are the Baby Boomers- either retire and drop out of the world or die. THEY were the ones who created this nightmare and these monsters and legal system and continue to lick women’s feet and hold them completely unaccountable for anything.

    The generation of men especially under 30 right now have no such idiotic slave-ish attitude towards women OR they simply are unable to sustain any kind of livelihood or lifestyle to support these diseased whores today one way or another through marriage or child support and don’t want to and know that if they even try, that statistically the female is just going to blow it up and leave in 8 years- the average length of a marriage today.

    So what is probably going to happen first is the entire wretched, nightmare system is going to collapse in on itself. The money will simply run out- no more tax money to prop up single mothers (it also takes a billion dollars a year of your tax money to operate the vast network of bureaus needed to extract the money forcibly from fathers as well, and to also chase them down and throw them in jail when they become unemployed. Some fathers have been in jail as long as 10 years for non payment of child support).

    People wail and cry about “Oh my God, what if the economy collapses and our whole way of life and society is destroyed?!?”

    Save THIS? This piece of shit, in your face ripoff, laughing in your face, fucking you to your face in every conceivable way, wealth transfer to women from men while the government gets a percentage? With women and the state just throwing fathers off to the side like garbage and then successfully having deceived the public that actually it’s the fault of the fathers? I say I CAN’T WAIT TILL IT ALL COMES CRASHING DOWN. I hope the dollar collapses and the government goes bankrupt TODAY. This whole system is PURE EVIL and needs to die.

    Like

  58. realityforever May 19, 2014 at 16:10 #

    Your state’s supreme court or the federal supreme court? Federal courts unfortunately will not even look at family court cases- you can read about that here:
    http://www.antifeministtech.info/the-truth-about-anti-family-courts/

    “So has anyone tried to force the issue with constitutional challenges in federal courts? Yes, but it hasn’t worked because those courts always refuse to hear the case:

    Trouble is, it’s been tried (on other issues) — that is, to involve the federal courts in enforcing the constitution in state equity family courts. They don’t bite. The federal courts just won’t get involved in family law matters unless they are dealing with something like racial discrimination or, today, gay marriage. They take the view that the state law courts of equity dealing with “routine” family law disputes don’t rise to the level of having constitutional implications, more or less. It’s not like this hasn’t been tried, believe me.

    In fact family law judges are so brazen now, they openly talk about how they don’t need to worry about the consitution:

    Indeed, if you read Baskerville’s book (every man should read it really), you’ll see where family law judged have, in training seminars/meetings with new FLJs, explicitly stated that they do not need to worry about the constitution. It’s openly admitted.

    You have no constitutional rights w/r/t: your home, your kids, your assets, in the context of a divorce. The Constitution just does not apply, because these things “aren’t important enough”.”

    Like

  59. realityforever May 19, 2014 at 16:47 #

    That’s due to women’s sexual power. But that is beginning to wane her in the U.S. There are all the horrendous, nightmarish divorce laws and phony VAWA laws that have you arrested FOR BEING assaulted keeping men away, but then compound that with U.S. women’s slowly degrading value overall- they’ve become really sick and disgusting when stop and think about it.

    I was looking at a rather ‘hot’ 22-ish girl with shorts on at the grocery store yesterday with the classic tanning salon tan and bleach blonde bimbo hair and I would be lying if she didn’t look good.. but then it slowly occurred to me.. “now just how many men do think have fucked her since she was prob 12 years old? 25? 50? 75?” Those numbers are NOT exaggerated statistically today in the U.S. It’s nauseating when you think about it. We had a name for women like that in the 80s- they were called ‘Road Whores.’ Now, that is the average U.S. female. THAT’S what a Feminist ‘looks like.’ ‘Empowered’- yea, yea, yea, yea, right- you’re a WHORE.

    And I have no doubt she is venerally diseased as now the U.S. female population is now reaching half of them with incurable STDs (the reason the rates are higher in women is complicated and requires a lengthy explanation and no it is not because of biological reasons- social reasons). Then even as feminine as her body was, she still acted and walked more like a DUDE. That’s yet another problem is that U.S. women are losing all of their femininity and attraction completely. You would have to be a closet homosexual to be attracted to something that is as masculine as a transgender like that and that is the average U.S. female now.

    Once upon a time my problem was whether or not if I could ‘get’ women, now my problem like millions of U.S. men is that I do NOT WANT women- not these women. And of course U.S. women are WAY, wildly way behind the times, still operating on the premise that all men are just dying to drag themselves over broken glass for them, when the complete opposite is true. They would have to drag themselves over broken glass for ME. So then nothing happens, thus why over half of the adult population is now single/unmarried/not living to together and with no plans to.

    Like

  60. theasdgamer May 19, 2014 at 17:49 #

    I understand your pain. The whole mess started long before the Baby Boomers were born, however. The Socialists have been plotting attacks on the family for centuries. The early Feminists were all Socialists. Socialists believe that evil resides in the institutions of family, church, and non-socialist govts. (e.g., monarchy, democracy, oligarchy, etc.). They believe that those institutions must be destroyed and have been working for centuries to bring them down. Feminism is the point of their current attacks on the family.

    Like

  61. theasdgamer May 19, 2014 at 18:00 #

    Check out Eagle Forum’s attacks on VAWA.

    Like

  62. dolf May 19, 2014 at 18:51 #

    got no wife either (even though it’s still legal in sweden).

    Like

  63. Spaniard May 20, 2014 at 08:03 #

    You talk about the 80s…
    So probably we are the same generation.

    I have no problem at all with sluts, nimphomaniacs, whores, mesalines, etc. In fact I love them
    The more promiscuous a woman is the more I feel attracted to her.

    To me the problem is to be traped by a traditional women or a reformed slut..
    Sluts are no problem. Reformed ones are.
    And prude classic women are, too.

    My opinion.

    Like

  64. Spaniard May 20, 2014 at 09:37 #

    Not a good idea marrying in Sweden.
    I saw “Trolosa”.

    Like

  65. Master Beta May 20, 2014 at 14:05 #

    Then what about babies born prematurely who need a respirator to breathe? Is it fair game to “abort” them?

    My respirator, my choice.

    Like

  66. Heresolong May 21, 2014 at 03:35 #

    Wait. What?

    “Ken Cuccinelli was tied to a men’s rights group advocating for divorced fathers”

    Tied to? Like it was a problem for him to be advocating for divorced fathers?

    Like

  67. Luke May 21, 2014 at 23:06 #

    Absolutely true on all accounts, BPS. Already, I won’t stop if I see a woman is broken down by the side of the road. (If I saw a NOW, NARAL, NEA, etc., bumper sticker on her vehicle I’d be tempted to slow down, open the window, and laugh out loud at her how screwed she was, though.)

    Apt poem by Rudyard Kipling:

    THE WRATH OF THE AWAKENED SAXON
    by Rudyard Kipling

    It was not part of their blood,
    It came to them very late,
    With long arrears to make good,
    When the Saxon began to hate.

    They were not easily moved,
    They were icy — willing to wait
    Till every count should be proved,
    Ere the Saxon began to hate.

    Their voices were even and low.
    Their eyes were level and straight.
    There was neither sign nor show
    When the Saxon began to hate.

    It was not preached to the crowd.
    It was not taught by the state.
    No man spoke it aloud
    When the Saxon began to hate.

    It was not suddently bred.
    It will not swiftly abate.
    Through the chilled years ahead,
    When Time shall count from the date
    That the Saxon began to hate.

    Like

  68. Rachel August 9, 2014 at 12:08 #

    Love, love, love this.

    Women need to stop shouting for equality when they don’t really mean it. Equal rights is a movement for ALL forms.

    Janet, are you apart of a Father’s Rights group? I would love to be involved with one that is heavily active in creating change.

    Like

  69. bebe Laney October 17, 2014 at 22:41 #

    I never knew how much the courts sided with women, until my son went through a nasty divorce. He has lost everything that he has worked for because of his ex. The house he built himself on land that his father and I gave him, which my father gave me. He went four long months without seeing his kids because his ex is so spiteful. His kids love him. On many visit they have told me how much they miss their father and how much they want to live with him. Why? Because he gives them the attention they need. My grandson told me once that all his mother did was text or talk on the phone. I am aware that some fathers don’t want to be a part of their children’s lives. But don’t punish the ones that do.

    Like

  70. CASSIE October 18, 2014 at 22:13 #

    Hi Bebe, I just want to thank you for sharing your son’s story. There are so many lies out there now about how the family court system is evolving to treat men more equally in court, NOT TRUE AT ALL….Your son’s situation is VERY much like my husbands….and my 3 amazing little step babies are begging to come and live with my husband and myself because of their mothers lack of attention to them and they too complain constantly that all their mother does is text and talk on the phone, and telling them to play in their room so she can have privacy for these calls/texts…..Our oldest, she’s 10, demanded that we answer some questions she’s had about why we won’t “talk to the judge” for them and explain that they do not want to live with their mother….of course EVERYONE, including the judge will claim that we are putting it in their heads, but in truth we have always tried to change the subject or skirt the issue, and if pressed I tell them we will see what we can do…Well, they are sick of excuses and want us to tell the judge to talk to them and let them tell “the judge” (so cute I know) that they want to be with us much more than her because she doesn’t want them…..I didn’t know what to say, my husband just got teary eyed and stepped outside….I had the awful task of explaining the the 1 bedroom she keeps 2 girls and 1 boy in, the 5 boyfriends she has moved them in with for a short time in the past 6 years, the constant bashing and lies about their father and I, denying their fathers visitation repeatedly and never being punished for it, never allowing the kids to call their dad, etc….are all things that we cannot change…they wanted to know why, I had to tell them THE TRUTH because in this house NO LIES because lies hurt all of us…so I told them, the judge in family court does NOT want to hear about your unhappiness with your mom because family court only cares about mom getting whatever she wants……When 3 kids under 10 know that the way family court is handled is punishing them, it is hard to help them understand that while we understand their pain, all we can do is give them the best parents they can have when they’re here…..We live in FLORIDA BY THE WAY…so many saying its a 50/50 state BULL!! The wife got everything, moved the kids in with a drug abusing boyfriend and across county lines…and she got awarded EVERYTHING…NOW, everyone thinks we want the kids because of “not wanting to pay child support”…well we pay her almost $20K a year but even if the kids live with us, we will STILL have to pay her $700 per the child support calculator…..Our kids are WAY behind in school and their mother has them in daycare ALL the time(we pay for it, why not)….I wish I could help them but I am just one BROKE woman so how can I make a difference with family court judges??? I CAN’T.

    Like

  71. CASSIE October 18, 2014 at 22:37 #

    …Florida is a 50/50 state BUT the judges are NOT ordering 50/50…….”IF” by some miracle we could have the kids 50% of the time, we would STILL HAVE TO PAY HER $850 PER MONTH….If the by an even LARGER miracle the kids were allowed to live with us, we would STILL HAVE TO PAY HER $700(not included is the insurance that we pay 100% of on the kids…..SO, Florida is NOT allowing dads 50/50…my husband is a model citizen, father, husband..he works all of the overtime he can get when the kids are at their mothers so we can have some money to spend on them in our house hold…They tell us their mom NEVER buys them things and their clothes come from the second hand thrift…but their mother makes almost as much as my husband BUT her money is TAX FREE, so at the end of the year her 40 hour week total year is MORE than my husbands ( i can no longer work-autoimmune disease’s) 80 hr weeks at the end of the year!!!

    She gets her car paid for by her brothers church (judge doesn’t know this), she lives in her moms rundown old trailer house FOR FREE……We have sacrificed for years to get a 4 bedroom 2400 sq ft home so the kids can have their own space….the trailer they lived in FOR 5 YEARS BEFORE we took her back to court in June ’14, for visitation enforcement, was A ONE BEDROOM 200 sq ft trailer!!!! The kids grandma moved an old 3 bedroom trailer on the lot after we took her to court for visitation enforcement last June.

    Family court DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THE KIDS “BEST INTERESTS” AT ALL!!!

    If we add up ALL of the money we spend on the kids each month, in our travel to the town the ex was allowed to move the kids to, we would be out around $28K PER YEAR, out of our $65K per year…and she has NO expenses for the kids…she gets the child tax credits…she pays NO TAXES ON THE almost $20K child support…BUT WE SURE DO!!!!

    My brother and sister say if it took over a thousand dollars per month to raise a kid, they would not have even 1 !!

    Like

  72. CASSIE October 18, 2014 at 23:09 #

    THANK YOU REALITYFOREVER!!! …I have been saying this for years but NO ONE can believe the “Family courts” are PROFITING from ordering the HIGHER earning (dad) spouse to pay HUGE child support AND ABOVE ALL ELSE…MAKING SURE DAD HAS AS LITTLE CONTACT AS POSSIBLE WITH HIS OWN CHILDREN !!!

    I am a woman BTW..and I am ashamed for it….I do not have my own children BY CHOICE, but I feel like ALL divorced mothers are ALL ABOUT THE CASH! My husbands ex even told him that he’s not the father of his oldest BUT SAID she stayed with him long enough to have a couple more so she could not LOSE the child support!!

    I don’t know how to spread the word because NO ONE will read it!!! (except those of us who live it!!)

    We live in FLORIDA….and NO THEY DO NOT order 50/50!!…BUT that is what EVERYONE hears through MAINSTREAM MEDIA !!

    We have gone back for “visitation enforcement” but all that happened for us was LESS visitation!!!! Now ALL WE HAVE IS every other weekend !!

    Like

  73. CASSIE October 18, 2014 at 23:11 #

    SHOOT, I wish their was an edit on theses…LOL…I wanted to clear up the LESS visitation…my husbands job is now all weekends off, where before it was rotating, so when we went back to court June ’14 the judge DID NOT hear us out, he let the kids mom do her typical lying and then said every other weekend, we make the 2 hour round trip twice per month….!!!!!

    Like

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Men’s Activists Say Divorce Courts Are Biased Against Fathers. They’re wrong? No, Hanna Rosin. They’re right. Let’s do the math. | Manosphere.com - May 14, 2014

    […] Men’s Activists Say Divorce Courts Are Biased Against Fathers. They’re wrong? No, Hanna Rosin. T… […]

    Like

  2. Divorce is bad. Do not subsidize it. [quotage] | Dark Brightness - May 25, 2014

    […] Most of the population is still under this horribly outdated notion that men just ‘abandon’ wome…. […]

    Like

  3. the Revision Division - May 25, 2014

    […] BLOOMFIELD: Men’s Activists Say Divorce Courts Are Biased Against Fathers. They’re wrong? No, Hanna Rosin. T… “Here comes the math, from the actual study [PDF].” See Table 2a on page 10 (PDF p.11), […]

    Like

  4. Ten things #feminists really don’t care about | franktopia - February 4, 2015

    […]  He gets 20 thousand dollars a month in child support from Britney.) most men are still treated as evil and vile when it comes to divorce, child support and access to their own children and property after […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: