Can’t Find A Husband?
| February 26, 2007 at 06:24:47Can’t Find a Husband? |
I have bad news for the ladies out there looking for a husband. Today’s men are afraid of marriage and having kids. This is most likely because their male friends and relatives have told them what usually happens in the event of a divorce with children. In fact, some men are calling for a marriage strike.
I’m a liberal female father’s advocate, activist, writer and blogger. I’ve been studying the effect our current family law has on families, and why the laws are written the way they are. Unfortunately I have more bad news.We women have allowed radical feminists to take over the feminist movement, the one that used to stand for equality, and they’ve been negatively influencing family law. Now it’s all about domination; in the case of divorce it’s having complete control over the kids, house, money and dad’s visitation time.
Many fathers want equal physical custody of their children after a relationship break-up. If women deserve equality, men do too, right? Then why are feminists, who claim to be about equality, opposing us whenever we introduce equal-parenting laws? I’ve even seen them lying during their testimony to a legislative committee. They’re also changing domestic violence laws to make them even more anti-male, though the facts show males and females batter each other equally and mothers abuse children more than fathers.
Our country is in a fatherless crisis, yet men who are natural hands-on daddies are scoffed at. These men who embrace fatherhood are shown their time and influence isn’t important. Our government does this by enforcing child support orders while not enforcing visitation orders. Whether the father had due process in court or not, whether blatant errors were made, when the DNA test shows he’s not the father, and even when there is no child, our government punishes fathers, including throwing them in jail, for getting behind in child support.
The number one fear of children whose parents are divorcing is losing one parent. Yet millions of fathers, and some mothers are prevented from having natural, fully functioning, dedicated and loving relationships with their children after divorce. Unmarried fathers face the same problem. There are many men across the country, single and divorced, who want equal physical custody of their children, who want to help with home work, meet with teachers, take the kids to the dentist, all the normal things parents do.
Mothers and fathers tell me they don’t believe 4 days and 4 evenings a month is adequate time to develop the kind of relationship necessary for the healthy development of their children. In many cases the sole custodial parent even interferes with that limited time, and in some cases cuts the noncustodial parent completely off from their child even if they’ve done nothing wrong.
A vindictive parent can essentially steal the child by moving the child far away, encouraging negative feelings and thoughts the child has about the noncustodial parent, or filing a false domestic violence report. The way the laws are written today, a divorcing woman can report that her husband was throwing things, say she’s in fear, and with just her word she can get a temporary restraining order and emergency child custody order. One study showed half the temporary restraining orders granted were for cases where no physical harm was even claimed. Another showed the abuse claimed could not be verified fifty-nine percent of the time.
The father in a case like this doesn’t get a chance to face a judge or jury; he’s automatically considered guilty of abuse or potential abuse. This happens without proof of any wrongdoing, and can happen without his knowledge. Once she has the emergency custody order, he has very little, or in most cases no chance of getting equal custody. Every day innocent fathers visit their children in jail-like supervised visitation centers and take anger management classes, sometimes for years. Worse yet, some of these men not only are innocent of domestic violence, they’re the victims. Some children of these innocent men never see Daddy again.
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has encouraged programs that promote the idea that batterers are male, victims are female, and every child should be in the sole physical custody of it’s mother. In other words, our government supports programs that vilify men. The Violence Against Women Act needs to be reformed or eliminated, and I-VAWA, the international version, needs to be rejected.
If we want men to embrace the idea of family life, we need to ensure they have equality in family law. Equal parenting laws, favored by 85% of people polled, need to be passed nationwide and a Federal Family Rights Act needs to be established immediately to protect families dealing with Child Protective Services and parents in divorce and child custody cases. The time has come to restore human and civil rights to all fit parents.
Now, back to looking for your husband. I’ve been working with fathers in the equal parenting movement for a few years now. These guys are some of the smartest and kindest friends I’ve had, and some of the most loving and dedicated daddies I’ve ever met. They’ve experienced pain and injustice at the hands of women. When they meet women who respect them, who understand that most men make great parents, they return a special kind of respect and appreciation. Come join us; you can make new friends, and have the satisfaction of helping a very honorable cause. And who knows, maybe you’ll be at a rally one day and meet your future husband.
Take action — click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Reform Family Law So Fit Parents Of Both Genders Have Equal Rights
I'm a sun and nature loving, 50-something, laid back, forward thinking, liberal anti-feminist egalitarian, san francisco bay area native, single mom of 4 and yia yia to 2. I've been active in the equal parenting movement since 2002. Known as the purple Queen of Equality, I once blogged as the Feminist4Fathers. Find me now on sharedparentingworks.org and jugsforjustice.org. | More from Teri Stoddard
Stumble It!
February 26th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Great article, Teri!
February 26th, 2007 at 11:09 am
It’s just not worth it until the laws are changed. I stay very friendly with a few females,one with benefits but marriage is out of the question. Been there once already. Financial ruin, women seek men who can support them, harassment from an X who believes she is entitled to ruin anyone, Child support payments into retirement years.
FORGET IT !!! I also educate the young men whom I meet every chance I get.
Do the math. The F#@%ing your getting isn’t worth the F$%&ing your going to get.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:19 am
“radical feminists have taken over the movement;” ah, how bout the dykes run the show now just as many did early on. 50 extra pounds and a flannel shirt seems all that is necessary to lead this group.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Very nice, but please close the barn door since the horses have already run out.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
It’s very good to hear all this coming from a woman, but I wouldn’t marry an American woman no matter what she told me beforehand.
The woman we marry is never the woman we divorce. Even Dr. Phil, a woman kiss-ass says this. Women are real good at politically correct, especially when it serves their purpose.
Anyone who believes that women’s opinions won’t change when it becomes expedient for them to change them (like during a divorce and she has a boyfriend, making the presence of the ex an inconvenience), knowing that the government will stand four-square behind all her choices whether right or wrong, is largely responsible for the royal screwing he is going to get in most cases. This applies not only when women purposely screw their men in a divorce but also where the man’s lawyer rightly advises him that what he wants will be virtually impossible to attain because of the discriminatory attitudes of our family courts.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Very good article.
Now all you have to do is let these women know, “It ain’t you – it’s the system.”
You give me a system that will look at me after a divorce as a full human being, that will bother to look for the truth, that will undo errors it makes in the process of uncovering the truth, and will actually punish wrongdoings by a woman – I may reconsider my position on marriage.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
I agree with Gonzman. Thanks for the nice article, Teri. I’ve ben asked numerous times to remarry, but I chose not to, specifically because the system is too gender biased against men.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
The majority of American women lack the intelligence to make the connection between men’s loss of interest in marriage and women generally, to how men have been treated all these many years. They are sheeple who cannot get beyond their OprahWinfreyization. They are self-centered like they always have been. Such minds are capable of believing they are strong and independent and superior to men yet are also perpetual victims at the same time. Women in America have no understanding of men, never have, and are arrogant to believe they have had all the answers at an early age. Marketing and advertisement agencies know this market, what appeals to them, and how to communicate to them, on a mass scale. Women in America have not woken up to the groundswell of male rage that is building. Neither has the government. Women at men’s right’s rally’s are likely to know their audience and to know what to tell them. American women are by nature dishonest and mercenary. I say let the whole country collapse. Every cell of this country has been infected with the virus. Let the women worry about the aftermath and what is in store for them as a result. To those women who have woken up, you are 40 years too late. You have stood silent for too long to earn my respect. Some women only now stand up because the writing is on the wall and they can see a price to be paid for a huge bill going back decades. Women will swing in whatever direction that benefits them the most. They always want to be on the side of the winning team. It appears for some women that the feminist movement has gone from the Profit Side to the Loss Side of the ledger.
American women are like ill-trained doctors who have misdiagnosed the sexes condition from the beginning and have prescribed the wrong remedies for 40 years. Nothing during these 40 years had caused them to call into question their diagnosis. There were too many advantages. Their diagnosis has set many men and women seething at each other over a wide range of issues. Because of your persistence these “remedies” have been seized upon and promoted by every institution as if gospel. If women expect men to be reasonable afterall of this then you are only showing your lack of intelligence once again.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
To Teri,
The reason radical feminists have taken over is because the nature of the feminine principle is to do things in the extreme. Once outside imits are removed from her a woman will do all things in extreme. To speak of moderate feminism is like believing that you can be mostly a virgin or only a little bit pregnant.
I do believe you mean well, but unlike zed, I did not like the aritcle, I found it to be condescending–be nice to those men, they are really good little boys.
Real men don’t have the government run their homes.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Denis said: “The majority of American women lack the intelligence to…” “They are sheeple…” “They are self-centered…” “American women are by nature dishonest and mercenary.”
————————————
On behalf of America’s women, “We’re offended.”
Please refrain from this type of hate-filled ranting on my blog.
Until you see that individual women are not more responsible than individual men, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Teri, like the sentiment and the article a bit. Denis is a little on the harsh side, I will admit, but I think he has a good point. There are a few women like yourself who have started apologizing and trying to change things, for that I am appreciative. However, men have gotten royally screwed for a lot of this, and that means a lot of bad blood that needs to be reconciled.
If some big feminists could actually give a heartfelt apology for what they have screwed up, and fix the junk they have forced down our throats, then you would see some nice change. However, for a lot of guys, its too little too late.
I have read a lot of your articles on MND and you are one of the good women out there. However, this particular post seems off the mark to me. It kinda comes across that women need to start fixing things since men are not marrying them. Not so much that what they have done is wrong, but that we need to change it now since its starting to have consequences.
I know that is not what you probably meant by the article, its just kinda the way it comes across to me.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
“On behalf of America’s women, “We’re offended.—
Good. Many things offend me too. People usually hear from me when that happens, and that includes “America’s women”.
“Please refrain from this type of hate-filled ranting on my blog.”
and…
“Until you see that individual women are not more responsible than individual men, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.”
If you consider this hate-filled, then you really don’t know me. Read my post again. The majority of women have blindly gone along with what has seemed like a really really good deal with only upsides for them. They never considered the down sides for men and you are an example of one who took 40 years to get a clue. In my opinion whenever any group follows a script blindly for 40 years and only starts reconsidering the merits of the script when THEY start paying a price then that group shows a lack of intelligence. With any woman in America I simply have to wait long enough for a circumstance for her to show her true nature. If you find that as hatred then I proudly say “guilty”.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
A smidgen of truth in your blog but the rest !!!
Some MRA’s see the need to give to women what women have been giving to them.
It’s just us being nice,sharing and caring.
As much as women try, they will never help the Men’s Movement as it will mean they have to relinquish half their selfish, women only priviledges.
But nice try.
This comment …by Denis
“The majority of American women lack the intelligence to…†“They are sheeple…†“They are self-centered…†“American women are by nature dishonest and mercenary.â€
If your offended by this statement of fact then I wonder what your motives are.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Enforce the Peonage Law and solve the problem.
Why? Because a free society functions only when there is a Rule of Law. When some laws are ignored, particularly laws that protect freedom by putting the brakes on excess, then what we have is not Rule of Law. Just tyranny made to look like law.
That is what is destroying marriage as an institution, to the detriment of both men and women. Not two people of the same gender wanting to try it.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
She made poor choices, she believed in her entitlement, her empowerment, her feminism, her strength, her independence….it was all a lie. Feminism has made the majority of American women losers in life. This feminist thinking goes beyond a lack of causal logic, its a lack of thinking about the many consequences that have occurred when rights are bestowed upon them. This is the heart of the myth of social engineering: that you can change gender and responsibility roles in society and expect everything else to remain constant.
Most women have no interest in finding a good man, just a good retirement plan. A classic case of “what women say vs. what women actually do”, She could get knocked up by any thug and have a child. What she’s looking for is someone to foot the bill to raise the child. Oh they do love these men, those untamed BadBoys that only they can tame, but these men usually do not stick around and enjoy raising their bastard offspring.
Women seem to treat any form of responsibility as a burning coal that she must immediately throw to someone else. Thus its impossible in their eyes for them to be responsible for the predicament they find themselves in. This is why so many damn women deserve to be alone. Women do their best to destroy men’s life with constant lies, accusations, false criticisms, refuse to listen to him, divorce for any reason, steal his money and treat him like a resource or an emotional punchbag…
A man’s level of maturity is not based on whether or not he’s taking care of you. A man’s maturity is based on strength, honor, dignity, integrity, and honesty. Men aren’t emotionally immature or afraid of commitment, they are cautious in the face of divorce, and indifferent in the face of modern day skankitude. You ran into Mr. Right decades ago. Instead of being receptive to him, you ignored him and focused on the bad boys. You took every chance to manipulate, hurt and use Mr. Right, he’s now very gun shy after being constantly shot at.
What makes a woman think men want an equal? they want a “woman” – the very thing most women have forgotten how to be. The younger woman that is smart enough to embrace, cherish, become a wife, mother and homemaker are the true winners in this life. Can you imagine what it will feel like for these feminist women to one day realize they’ve wasted their entire life? No amount of Prozac will fix it and all the tears in the world won’t drown the emptiness…..and it will be their own damn fault. She will spend the rest of her life slowly stewing in a harsh reality.
~Niceguys
February 26th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
For what it’s worth, I think it’s important to restrict blame to those actually responsible. The whole group called “women” is not responsible for the damage. That is, those girls who are growing up today or had nothing to do with the assault on males need not get saddled with any blame. The notion of “group blame” is a bloodthirsty feminist emotional tactic of the worst kind, so a wise person would best avoid it.
When you read or write words like “woman” or “man”, it is a good idea to say which ones you mean! While I fully blame the women who are responsible, which consists of very many, I choose not to go beyond that. I thought the article was excellent and accurate. But maybe instead of *repairing* marriage, it should be promoting *replacement* of “state-based marriage” with private marriage contracts? Why repeat the same mistake by trusting government to stay away from the hate-filled NOW people?
February 26th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Teri,
Today’s topic – supportive and nonsupportive women from Teri S who supports fathers with logic, passion and care…to the letter to the editor from a woman who thanks actors with her vagina for bashing men. (True story, coming up)
It’s odd to me that with women lining up locally and across the country for many events bashing men, that when a woman speaks up for men, some men take it badly.
I have been protesting one sided gender issues/feminism(s) for decades and it’s not just rare to see a woman sticking up for men in the press, it’s rare to hear a man do so.
So why do people react a little negatively because you didn’t write the piece as they would? (Which is what it seems to me.) There are millions of women angry with men, taught to be so. There are many men who are angry in return. That “bitchiness” that is part of hurt and anger creeps in from both camps. So much defensiveness.
What is for sure is that someone new might be checking out mensnewsdaily – could be someone young, male of female, that is clueless and needs to be pointed in the right direction. Maybe some men think what you are writing is patronizing to men, I see that in a couple of comments, but I am always happy with any woman writing in a supportive way of men in – war, work, sexual issues, marriage, child care. What I contine to see from women is the example here from the last newspaper:
Fort Bragg Advocite News “Bravo for ‘Monologues’ EDITOR – Ronnie Gilbert brought down the house at the Saturday, Feb 10, performance of “The Vagina Monologues” …Women of every description and attitude were perfectly represented by the actors…The atrocities against women, particulary at wartime, were poignantly addressed as were the severe consequences of domestic violence.
‘The Vagina Monologues’ brilliantly addressed the strengths and vulnerabilities of woman all over the world. I can’t stop laughing over the duck lips and “c” word. I think I’ll go out and purchase my own short skirt. That should make someone moan. My vagina and I thank the actors for an exceptionally entertaining and thought provoking evening.”
I read that and thought, show me your talking vagina, that would be “exceptionally entertainning and thought provoking” even if the rest of what she thought was the same old stuff. (I saw Mr Ed the talking horse and I would love to see a talking vagina too … wouldn’t you?)
What I see in towns and cities are women from smart to totally exhibitionistic airheads, who come out in mass for programs for women. But when women come out for men, they are ignored by the media or criticized by women and men. Why would anyone bother to criticize you if they thought what you said was too obvious, or too late… it might be obvoious to us, but not to the new lurkers on mensnews. When feminist messaged get pounded into our heads “Four million women battered, one every 15 seconds” we need to be as repetitive in return, and not gentle about it, as in “You lying bitches are poisoninng our children’s minds, it’s child abuse”
Biden and others ignore the “mens movement” because we are timid, or too small in numbers. We need every man and women we can get to help change laws. I wish, Teri, you lived in my town because there is no one here, man or women, that would protest the male bashing. I would love to see your words in our paper. For most, they would be stunningly new concepts.
We have two women running the paper and feminists guiding our schools when it comes to gender and supporting male bashing programs. We have a woman’s choir and Soroptimists supporting DV propagand, there is not one women here speaking up for men. Many women come out to support male bashing programs. With only one person speaking up, I come across as some sort of redneck that “just doesn’t get it” … and as the only person in town who EVER writes a letter, or op ed piece, protesting, … just once I would like to have a woman writing in, as a “sister” supportive of men, over ANY issue in The Fort Bragg Advocate News
I see the “sisterhood” exclude men and women who don’t agree with them. I can’t see why men would want to marginalize any effort you make to help men, and I am sure many men have said the same (More succinctly too – smile)
SD
February 26th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
SD, thank you. The biggest problem on this site, it seems, is that if you don’t agree 100% with the poster, you are attacked and dismissed! The biggest difference in the MRM and the feminists, is that they have simple marching orders and follow them. Theyt don’t haggle over the small stuff, or even big PHILOSOPHICAL differences, but try to focus on OUTCOMES that they agree to.
For instance, I don’t agree with Elder George on some things, but we seem to want the same OUTCOME in many cases. So why argue verociuosly, and anger each other, and lose the things we have in common over some philosophical difference?
I’ve written this before: men need a unified message and talking points. Not continual philosophical debate ad nauseum or bitch sessions.
There are several key ones:
1) Suicide Rates (4 to 1) Why are men killing themselves? It’s an outrage!! (And finally, more importantly) LET’S FIX THE PROBLEM!
2)EQUAL PARENTING RIGHTS
3) Mothers kill more than fathers!!
etc.
I’m leaving work so I can’t go further. But you get my meaning. Until what I see as a continual bickering over details instead of focusing on agreeing and promoting a unified message, nothing will change.
February 26th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
mirwalk said,: “this particular post seems off the mark to me. It kinda comes across that women need to start fixing things since men are not marrying them. Not so much that what they have done is wrong, but that we need to change it now since its starting to have consequences.”
I have maintained all along that women would only step up to the bar and become involved when they began to be affected and suffer the consequences. And, that doesn’t particularly bother me – I long ago accepted the fact that people will usually act purely on their own self-interest much if not most of the time.
My position is this – “Can’t find a husband?”, good, the marriage strike is working. But, any strike is not an end itself, and is not a means to punish the “other side.” All it is, is a means to force the other party to come to the table and bargain in good faith. If a few women become willing to do that, then a few men will benefit from it.
This part is an entirely different issue –
men have gotten royally screwed for a lot of this, and that means a lot of bad blood that needs to be reconciled.
And that bad blood will have to get reconciled and worked out one couple at a time, the same way the gender war has gotten as bloody as it has one divorce at a time. Any woman who takes on the task of trying to make a connection with a man who has been badly burned in a divorce certainly has her work cut out for her. She is going to have to give up her bitching about the position of the toilet seat, and who does how much housework, and probably her right to throw hissy fits if he doesn’t make her VD “speshul enough.”
And, y’know, any woman willing to do that is so far head and shoulders above the rest of American womanhood, who are still arguing about how big an engagement ring they should demand, that I’d be willing to give her a bit of credit for that and cut her a bit of slack. If she’s willing to roll up her sleeves and do a little honest work to clean up the mess she has sat back and watched happen, there is a chance that she might actually be worth having as a wife for some man.
For those guys still willing to marry an American woman, that is not a bad thing.
February 26th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Men have been royally screwed all right and women in general are now feeling the pain as it spreads across society.
Teri does a service to all by telling the truth of the issue, just as many men do, in words which women will possibly listen to. There is no need or call to vent anger against Teri.
Feminism is not simply anti-male. It is anti humane. It is anti-life. It is a wicked, deliberate mind-heart-soul virus, and the responsibility for it is wholly owned by women. All women.
The sooner women wake up to the fact the better. Teri woke up many years ago and has been sounding the alarm loudly. Teri deserves praise, not anger.
It is women who need to get the antiseptic out and scrub out the filth that they have made. Until then, smart, intelligent men will refuse to believe that women have anything but their own self-interest at heart, even when, like Teri, they are good, wholesome and loving. It is the good women, like Teri who feel the pain ahead of the bimbos, the liars, the selfish, the theives.
NO woman can escape the lack of trust of men unfortunately. Women in general have destroyed that trust. They have smirked at every misandric joke, statement, sit-com and news article that villified men. They have inflicted pain on their own men and said ‘take it like a man’. They have added gratuitously to the hurt even when protesting that they love a man. It is a woman’s way to test a man’s resolve but unfortunately they have killed his love and trust.
Maybe some of the women who fight the MRA corner can put their minds to just how women will be able to win that trust back. Without it, even their good, kind words will not help them find a husband or a just society.
Good men have turned away and all that the women have left to play their games with are the blind, deaf and thick ones. Their constant complaint of ‘where are all the good men?’ is answered by ‘avoiding YOU’.
Currently society has all the image of a bombed city. Some, women, will have to do an awful lot of bulldozing just to clear the rubble of wrecked lives away before rebuilding can start. Dead men won’t be able to help.
But first they will have to go house to house with rifles in hand and clear out the femonazi snipers until they find the headquarters of feminism and turn the flamethrowers onto them.
Women will have to win a war against their own before men will trust them again.
February 26th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
amfortas, you are one eloquent sonofagun!
February 26th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
I have to take issue with the term ‘marriage strike’. Ladies, there isn’t any patriarchy, there isn’t any union, most men don’t get time to talk to each other because they’re too busy trying to feed you and yours. (And it is you and yours according to the courts. We have lots of dogs in the fight, but no rights any more.)
What you’re looking at is a genuine sea change, a tide that once started, isn’t going to be stopped any decade soon. You and your lawyers have turned the law and policy against people who loved you. How long did it take until they didn’t love you any more? So you think it will ever change again in your lifetime?
Anyone foolish enough to become associated with women deserves the punishment they get.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Teri, you said,
“Today’s men are afraid of marriage and having kids.”
Let’s set the record straight on this little misconception. Men are not afraid of marriage, men are not afraid of children, men are not afraid of hard work and men will die to protect their family. What men are afraid of is this monster called the American woman and the system that supports her. That is what scares the hell out of men these days.
N.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
I have to support the statement made by amfortas: Feminists made the bed where western womens are sleeping now. It is a single bed without much company.
Once upon a time, marriage was a goal for the man. Now, it is as alien than licking the poles of a 9-volt battery. We have learned that marriage was a finantial trap so we stay away from it.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Thank you to those who left kind words. They’re appreciated.
Again I’m saddened by seeing, “women do this” “women do that” “every woman on Earth is responsible for feminism and all the destruction it’s caused!” Give me a freaking break.
: )
I first heard about feminism when I was 18-years-old. To me it meant equality. I didn’t give it another thought for decades.
When I found myself in the fathers’ movement I saw lots of anti-feminism posts online and I didn’t understand. I didn’t believe them; I thought it couldn’t be true. In fact it took 1-2 years before I could believe what my mentors had been trying to drill into my head the entire time.
If it took someone smack dab in the middle of the fathers’ movement over a year to believe feminism was hijacked by radicals, how can you expect the average woman, to not only know about it, but to stop it?
More than one of you wrote something like, “I knew women wouldn’t care until it started affecting them.” Guys… What women? It’s an article.
I really don’t mind you bashing my article today because men weren’t my target audience; I wrote it for the ladies. My goal was to educate women on the facts. I used the title as a hook and the ending to portray you guys as stellar men.
Now, please be nice so I won’t have to be a liar.
: )
February 26th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Nice Try Teri, but the men have a point.
Women become selfish, destructive, and monetarily motivated when the divorce lawyer starts feeding them a story line to bring to the judge.
The men are right. The lawyers treat the women as children and the court caters because, well ntob ecause they are women, but because there is a monetary interest in plundering the man.
He is good for both support on the outside and prison labor on the inside. Either way the Judge gets paid and lawyers bring a case load and the Court gets matching federal grant money.
Women are occasionally plundered, but only when the monetary motivation is absolutely irresistible!
The point? The Problem is the System, the leeching Attorneys that form the women to their case structure that the judge has to know that there is no possiblity that they are all cookie cut like they are being presented, to lawyers who sell men the bill of goods that there is hope that they can get justice by spending money on the a lawyer.
Women are too maliable to being sold victimhood by monetarily motivated attorneys. As the process goes along they find that they have said such harsh things in their motions and briefs that they cannot withdraw them, so they become sociopaths believing the lies scripted for them, because they cannot face the truth of the monsters that they have become.
I am sorry Terri, the message to the ladies is A. Do not feed the Sharks; B. Do not listen to the victimhood peddlers sell you victimhood like they used to sell children hidden abuse stories; and C. Be busy building your home, not tearing it down…what you do to one man any man knows you can do to him, unless he is a fool and such a man has it coming.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
When I found myself in the fathers’ movement I saw lots of anti-feminism posts online and I didn’t understand. I didn’t believe them; I thought it couldn’t be true. In fact it took 1-2 years before I could believe what my mentors had been trying to drill into my head the entire time.
I really don’t mind you bashing my article today because men weren’t my target audience; I wrote it for the ladies. My goal was to educate women on the facts. I used the title as a hook and the ending to portray you guys as stellar men.
Now, please be nice so I won’t have to be a liar.
: )
Thanks, Teri, but we really don’t need you to pimp for us; at least some of us don’t.
Tasmaw hit the nail squarely on the head. The term “marriage strike” is nothing more than a catchy sound bite. There really has been a sea change in men’s attitudes toward women. One which will persist for decades to come.
What the men here have been trying to tell you is just how deeply, bitterly, and completely the public and private behavior of women toward men has alienated men from women in general. How many times have you been in a group and had some woman announce how “men think with their little heads, not their big ones” with smug looks of superiority on their faces? Men have been saying for years that all the man-bashing had to stop. Marc Rudov has written extensively about all the man-bashing in commercials.
Who is the target audience for this? Certainly not men. Within the past week I have gotten yet another of a constant stream of supposedly “joking” emails portraying men as stupid – “Collge courses for men – Filling ice trays 101.” Not long ago, I got one with such gems as “What do you call a man with half a brain? Answer “gifted.”
Oh, and of course there was the disclaimer to only forward it to men who could “stand a little heat.” When men have complained about this in the past, they are invariable either directly attacked with the intention of harassing them into silence, or told to “suck it up and take it like A MAN!”
It’s unfortunate for everyone that it took 2 years to “drill” (some would say “beat”) into your head what would seem to be obvious to anyone with even rudimentary social awareness. But, what you are seeing now is evidence of men getting completely fed up with women’s “It’s all about ME” attitude (and don’t feign innocence here, if you have not seen one of those T-shirts, posters, or coffee mugs, you have been living under a rock. One of the more popular magazines for women is simply titled “Self”)
A huge number of western men, or men in the “Anglosphere” as some are beginning to call it, are simply getting so sick of women that they are turning their backs on them completely. I’m sure this is great news to all those “strong, independent women who don’t NEEEYEEED no man”, but there also seem to be at least a few of them who are asking “where have all the good men gone” or “why are there no good men left?”
If you want a good reading on how an ever increasing number of men view women, you might take a look at “Diary of a Tired Black Man.” http://www.castlestudio.net/tbm/
The tag line pretty much says it all –
“Now It’s Black Men’s Turn to Exhale.”
Every day, fewer and fewer men are willing to expend the time and energy to try to “drill” into women’s heads what they can’t, or won’t, or whatever the reason, don’t believe. They are just saying “fine, now go away.” More and more men are seeking wives outside the Anglosphere, and no it isn’t because they are all “abusers” looking for some “submissive doormat” that they can “keep chained to the stove, barefoot and pregnant.” They are simply looking for women who have not forgotten what it is like to actually be feminine, and not compete with their supposed mates 24 hours per day. And, of course, American women, like American cars, do not stand up well under comparison to the other models, so they arrange to get IMBRA passed on the premise that all men are abusers and the only reason they could possibly not want a Western Entitlement “Princess” is because they just want to “abuse” her freely and have someone they can control.
It isn’t men who have been griping for the past 30 years that women were “afraid of committment.”
You don’t have to pimp for me, Teri. I really am not a nice man any more. The last time I dated an American woman was in 1995 and it turned out to be one of the most obnoxious experiences of my life. I’m quite happy to let all the single women of my generation go the way of Maureen Dowd, and reflect into their martini glasses “Are Men Necessary?”
Obviously, I’m not, and neither are they. I’m perfectly happy to them repeat their most fervent prayer “Give us this day our daily Oprah, and forgive us our gossip magazines, as we forgive Andrea Yates.”
February 26th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Not so fast Thurston. ; )
You wrote: “Women become selfish, destructive, and monetarily motivated when the divorce lawyer starts…” I’d agree with that, if you used the word ‘most,’ or ’some.’
You wrote that the other posters were correct about women. The problem I have, is the overuse of the word ‘women’ to describe bad women and radical feminists.
How would you guys like it if I was still bitter towards my exes and wrote things about all men like you write about all women?
An earlier poster made a valuable observation. People come to MND to see what the Men’s Movement is all about. They’ve already been told by radical feminists that you guys are woman-hating abusers. Do ya think they’ll agree with the rads when they read this thread?
February 26th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Guys, it does no good to shove friends away. You (and I) may well have removed ourselves from the grip of ‘relationship’ but there is still a battle to be fought, so our sons and daughters can have a future, and we need the Women’s Battalion out there in front. Teri is a battalion commander and has my respect. She is trying to get the numers up. Teri fights for truth. We do not ask Teri to ‘pimp’ for us and I find that a very disrespectful thing to say to a friend.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Great article, Teri, though as I post above, it’s been going on a long time.
And given some of the posts here, you have a very thick skin! As amfortas points out, some of the posters here are very disrespectful. We all have mothers and aunts, and some of us have sisters and daughters. “American women” are not all cut from the same cloth!
February 27th, 2007 at 1:04 am
I’ve seen this problem with missing qualifiers such as ’some’ or ‘many’ come up frequently in discussions of this sort. It’s a sex difference thing.
Men are much more prone to abstract thinking, and when you do it all the time, the qualifiers are simply a given and therefore not needed because they’re implied and assumed that it’s known they’re there, since one is typically dealing with other men in the abstraction biz. In other words, leaving them out is an efficiency measure because men know full well there’s a sense in which all generalizations are lies. (Ok, most men.) Only if one is writing a legal brief would one be careful to put in all the needed qualifiers which could prevent any possible misinterpretation.
On the other hand, I have noticed that when one uses the word ‘women’, any within earshot will think you’re talking about her, not distinguishing between the general and the particular. So if I say “well, women don’t do yardwork or clean leaves out of the gutters”, there’s always one who will read an implied ‘all’ and make a big deal about how she spends so much time at Home Despot, yada, yada, so I’m obviously wrong, all the while she’s totally missing the larger general (and rather obvious) truth. This is what MRA’s mean when they say women are self-centered. And it’s nothing new. I recently read a hundred year-old anti-suffrage book which went on at some length about women’s limited sphere of awareness (it was written by a man).
One especially sees this myopia in the (female) explanations for the man shortage. Whether it’s being commitment-phobic, a Peter Pan who ‘refuses to grow up’, being intimidated by yada yada, being a momma’s boy, or just being socially inept, all the explanations boil down to some individual male pathology. There is virtually no awareness of the abstraction known as the social fabric, which includes laws, ‘the system’, and all the rest of the things that men (especially around here) are acutely aware of.
Which is why it doesn’t matter that any one woman may not divorce a guy, steal his kids, hold them hostage for extortionary payments, etc. but that she could do so. The state will not enforce the marriage contract, but will assist her in unilaterally breaking its terms. The divorce rate for women who first marry at age 24 or above is about 25%, so the odds for disaster are worse than Russian Roulette with the standard six-shooter. As others have said, one would have to be a stupid fool to even show up at the game, much less get involved in any play. So it’s not just marriage and kids, because a guy can ‘get lucky’ on the first date and still end up paying out $100k over eighteen years because marriage is now legally little more than notorized dating, so dating is not much different than marriage.
All the disincentives work against the men who would otherwise be most attractive to women, i.e., men who have something to lose, and therefore something to offer were the circumstances different. Be sure to point that out. The poorly named ‘marriage strike’ — it’s not like we have marriages to go to and are refusing to do so — is irrelevant so far as the men women don’t want is concerned.
Good luck on getting the word out. I’m not sure women have the ears to hear correctly, even though the modern double standard has it that they’re the better listeners.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:02 am
If it is any consolation Teri, I was as clueless as you for over 3 decades. Not until my divorce did I realize the full implications of modern day feminism.
You couldn’t tell it from many posters here, but in my dealings with newly divorced Fathers reeling from what has happened to them and their children, the overwhelming sentiment is they can’t believe the system functions as it does. I certainly do not hold women to a higher standard of awareness than I hold myself and others.
Even with some awareness, the destruction wrought by feminism still can’t be fully grasped by those without personal experience. I was discussing paternity fraud with my brother a few weeks ago. During our conversation he said to me that if he didn’t know me better, he would think I was a radical nutcase. He simply couldn’t believe what I was telling him. In some ways, I think he couldn’t bear to hear the truth.
Naah, I don’t blame you or any other person who was at one time ignorant. I was a member of that club. I save my animus for those that are fully aware of the damage done to men and children and support the system anyway. Steveno comes to mind right about now.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:23 am
Terri,
After serious thought and consideration of my words and that of my brothers, I must remain resolute in my position and my words.
I cannot retract in any manner that which you object to me describing even in justifiably general terms.
I have heard such things and worse against men for decades now and see it on the TV I rarely watch.
Woman’s primary need is security.
This cannot be disputed.
Lawyer holds the promise of money, woman sees money as equaling security and then does everything he says because the lawyer said it is OK.
This is the evidence of a twisted character and Value System.
Materialistic society is playing out this to the maximum extent, just as it is the Masculine motivation to reproduce (i.e. the pleasure experienced in the act).
As I have learned from Elder George, even us men here are having to shift out of the feminist value system we were educated and born into. I know I have had to. And part of that is an understanding of not only where I was wrong, but the wrong motivations of the American Feminine Mind.
This means that both groups are going to have to change in order for family to thrive again.
Men are going to have to be men, lead, and exclude feminist ideals from the deliberative process. That means not excluding women from decisions, but feminist/materialistic ideas, to reach to the truly spiritual and righteous conclusion, avoiding the satiation of the temporal.
The only place where I could have been wrong in my prior message was in blaming the Divorce Attorneys for exploiting the woman’s primary need for security.
I was wrong.
For in order for a woman to be so exploited she must first have a character flaw of materialistic selfishness, a corrupt value system that makes her leave a man who she made vows to, because of poorer, or hard times.
That is a corrupt value system of the woman that is looking for the bigger better deal (materialism).
That is what my brothers, who are not as appreciative as you would like, are talking about.
I know Teri that you agree with me that there is no sense bringing the two major parties in this mess together until there is an alteration of the Value System of Both Parties.
The only woman I found who never went down the road of being seduced by the lawyers and the system was the one woman I met who did not go to any court regarding her child, to become its tool.
This is also the woman who said to me upon my report of my son telling me he does not want to talk to me responded, “No son of mine would ever be allowed to talk to his father that way, not in my presence, not in my house, not ever.†(Holy Value System at Work Batman!)
After writing and reading this message in prior forms I see the error of my way. The fact is that the system is not the cause of anything but the revelation of the TRUE character and nature of the women in this country and how they view and value men (or not).
The tragedy here is that as much as any of us tries to bring women to our cause by marketing us as “OK”, that reason is insufficient.
It will not work because we are not OK, we are in pain agony, incarcerated, driven from the most profound experience of belonging that we can have on earth, we are devastated.
The fact is that women in this country are too selfish to ever care. Like the Bible describing the wicked woman, in that she tears down her own house or the woman asking Solomon to slice the Baby in dispute in half, American women have done precisely that, and this is speaking for the men who loved and gave all only to be defeated by materialism and feminism being the value system of the women they fathered children with. (The others, the small percentage, the abusers and philanderers, they are not part of us here.)
What Feminist American women do not understand is that they destroyed the marital home, which was no consequence to them, and think they get a new home that is all their own.
Not so, because there are the children. And they know they cannot raise the children alone.
Even the research is coming out over and over again, and shouted down by the people who tout the value of scientific research.
Elder George is right. It is a complete shift of a Value System, away from materialism, and towards the sacrifices that real life requires that will bring thriving families back to the norm in America.
I challenge the Feminazi’s/Feministas, to show us truly how they value men if the media, and the results and stats from Family courts all over the country, do not represent the market value of a man in this society.
I do not think that they can show value to men while they espouse their rhetoric, not until as one poster here says, THEY HAVE EVERYTHING. Only then will they take the time to define what a man is and his value.
There is one way to women right now, and it is their children.
Continually press the stats on DV, Women killing their children, and the effects of fatherlessness has on children, because women are convinced that they do not need men. At least that is what their leadership has them saying all the time, yet buying magazines on how to get one.
See the dichotomy here?
The hypocrisy?
The denial?
The delusion?
And people wonder why men rail against the sociopathic women of this nation?
When will they decide that men are of value, to have one you have to be honest, and you have to keep your word?
Women in the Feminist movement cannot, even be honset, because the above points show they cannot even be honest with themselves.
In the face of such denial and sociopathy women cannot see that they should be coming to our side because the pendulum of justice has swung so far to one side that people are victimized not for anything that they have done, but because of what they are. In fact, why would we want such insane people on our side.
Women are going to have two ways to on this problem:
1. Change the Value System rejecting the Family Courts, Lawyers, alimony, child support, not driving their children’s father away, Value Men and give headship and control; or;
2. Go for the terrorism of the courts in exchange for empty promises of support and accept the higher risks of raising a criminal and burying their babies or visiting them in prison.
Women should be rushing to this side with these men here because they want their children to not become more susceptible to crime and diseased bodies and minds because of the loss of fathers.
That statistic alone points out something about Father knowing best, how he helps a child integrate into her environment, nurturing Ability in the face of Challenge that is real life.
Only when Men are Valued for something beyond sex and money (something that is now impossible because we are facing the creation of the second generation of divorce in America who does not value fathers because so many do not know what one is), will there be any motivation for women to reject the stereotype that THEY are ALREADY and PRESENTLY projecting through the Family Court System at Fathers, an action that you condemn me for throwing back at women.
You are a Grandmother Teri, you know it takes two. And remember, we have only gotten to this conversation because of the growing Men’s Marriage Strike (as you penned). So, after over 30 years of war on Men, what does logic dictate will be found at a place such as this?
Elder George has me stuck on Values and Character, and the fact that the system which is on its second generation of training has hatched this mess. We men must lead, we must change BACK to what we were meant to be.
Strangely…chicks dig it!
February 27th, 2007 at 2:50 am
I have to add. I agree with Teri about the lack of qulaifiers. It is ’some’,'many’, most’ rather than the all-inclusive ‘women’. I won’t hubristically intellectualise it with ‘man’s conceptualisation skill’ as some, many, men couldn’t conceptualise their way out of a paper bag. But, Teri, I have had to put up with women – every woman I have ever met – using all-inclusives about men, most of the time, ignoring the reality of me, personally, as an individual. Yes, it hurts.
However that small pain is minor compared to when I lost my children, my home, my wealth and the woman I loved. These are real, not simply words.
It is also a wasted effort pointing out to ‘most’ women that their all-inclusiveness is hurtful, unfair and innacurate. They simply say ‘men deserve it’. (not even qualified with ’some’)
This too hurts. So when a man here says the same, in effect, that women deserve it, maybe it is unfair but the same sauce that we gooses have had spread on us for decades. Its the gander’s turn.
The betrayal by the woman you love, the one for whom all your efforts were directed, is the greatest hurt of all. The hurtful words of other women, in their eagerness to be part of the great sisterhood, may be individually less severe but the effect is so widespread and have sank into the pores of society.
The pain that men feel as they see their societies falter and fail is horrifying. It is excusable for men, in my opinion, to be sometimes forgetful to use the qualifyer when talking of women. It is a small matter.
If women who trawl their way onto MND see words they don’t like, all I can say is ‘tough’. ‘Most’ women hold the view that men do not express their emotions enough. Here we are, expressing away, and ’some’ women still complain. Tough. If they are put off that easily but such small points then they are hardly going to respond favourably to the harder ones.
You, Teri, as I have said, have my respect and that of many here. But even I don’t push my luck too far when I have a monk on.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:55 am
Thurston, I don’t have a problem with your comments.
I don’t mind anything written here, except the attacks on women in general.
You guys have very strong feelings about feminists and your exes. Sometimes the things you write sound like you’re describing them, not the average woman.
So far on the site where the article was first published, there haven’t been any negative comments. The people commenting are probably liberals, agreeing with my article. And I’ve been told for four years that liberals don’t care about fathers.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:13 am
Teri, my ex WAS an average woman. She was only extraordinary in my eyes. Most women are average women.
It is the average woman who has lost the trust of men.
The average woman who has done nothing to aid men but every small, additive, scornful, demeaning, disrespectful, gratuitously nasty thing to gleefully undermine them.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:48 am
Teri – I’m really curious in what way you consider yourself liberal? Do you, for example, support gay marriage? That’s an equality issue.
The reason I ask is because while you SAY you are liberal, you certainly do not act like one. I do not know of a single prominant liberal, or even a not-so-prominant liberal (except perhaps for you), who devotes their time and energy to defeating modern feminism. I mean, most liberals don’t consider feminism to be the root cause of problems in this world. Liberals tend to be far more concerned with the war in Iraq, with poverty, with intolerance, and with civil liberties, than they do “child custody battle madness.” In general, it’s conservatives who cite the perennial “decline in moral values” mantra everytime somebody sneazes. Liberals view the past, generally, as far more immoral than the present.
I’m concerned about our children too, but being married is not the solution to all the world’s problems. In India they have really low divorce rates, but their standard of living is quite low and children are far more likely to die of malnutrition than they are of doing poor in baseball cause daddy wasn’t around.
Frankly, I don’t really understand why you keep saying your liberal without expressing in what way your arguments represent liberal values. Perhaps that’s an idea for your next article.
February 27th, 2007 at 6:44 am
Looking for a date, Stephonie?
February 27th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Teri: I don’t mind anything written here, except the attacks on women in general.
You guys have very strong feelings about feminists and your exes. Sometimes the things you write sound like you’re describing them, not the average woman.
amfortas: Most women are average women.
It is the average woman who has lost the trust of men.
The average woman who has done nothing to aid men but every small, additive, scornful, demeaning, disrespectful, gratuitously nasty thing to gleefully undermine them.
On the one hand, there really is no such thing as “the average woman”, any more than there is such a thing as “the average man.” The “average American couple” of the 1960s or so had 2.2 children. Anyone ever met anyone who had exactly 2.2 children? Every individual person we deal with is just that – an individual.
But, every person also has characteristics which allow them to be grouped with other individuals with similar characteristics and certain generalizations made about them which have some degree of predictive value. For example, I could make the statement “People with red hair sunburn more easily than people with dark hair.” Now of course someone who wished to refute that statement could find a redhead with lots of melanin in their skin and someone with black hair and very white skin and throw that in my face as though it completely invalidates my previous statement. It does not, and in fact all it does is give the impression that the person is actively resisting the point I’m trying to make with the original statement. If I put 100 redheads chosen at random from the population as whole and 100 brunettes chosen at random from the population as whole in the sun for 8 hours, there are going to be more cases of severe sunburn among the redheads, due to the overall coloration pattern which goes with red hair, than there will be among the brunettes.
MOSTmen form their impressions about the “average” (generic) woman from the “average” of their interactions with women. A man whose interactions, on the average, are positive, will hold a generally positive view of women. A man whose interactions are, on the average, negative, will end up with a generally negative view toward women.
More and more men are forming increasingly negative opinions of women, because their interactions with them have been, on the average, more negative than positive.
There, is that “qualified” enough to suit everyone?
I have observed exactly the same thing which amfortas has – “The “average” (generic) woman who has done nothing to aid men but every small, additive, scornful, demeaning, disrespectful, gratuitously nasty thing to gleefully undermine them.”
When I take the “average” of all my interactions over the years with “average” (generic) women, they have a very shallow, contemptous, view of men; dismiss men’s needs and feelings as being totally insignificant; and are quite focussed on their own needs and feelings of the moment. And, when called on that by a man, the “average” (generic) woman has a ready excuse or rationalization.
Now, women (insert obligatory “on the average”) seem to have no problem with anyone who makes generalizations about their sex which are positive – “women are nurturers”, “women are better communicators”, “a woman would never lie about a thing like rape” and I have never seen a woman stepping up to challenge that. It is only when a man makes a statement to challenge that particular generalization that women (insert obligatory “on the average”) immediately rise up to defend generic womanhood and inform the man that “not all women are like that.” So their objections when men “genralize” come across as self-serving hypocrisy – “it’s great to make positive generalizations about women which benefit us (me) but it is an awful thing when you icky men do it! (so there!)”
And, it is that characteristic by itself which gives the impression that ALLwomen are in collusion to make sure his point does not get heard.
As more and more men have this experience, the “average” man begins to get the impression that the “average” (generic) woman cares only about herself and how things affect her. The more times he gets silenced trying to make his point, the stronger that impression gets.
The entire structure of this article, from the title onward, reinforces that impression – “Can’t find a husband, start having a little concern and care for men. Go to a convention of divorced dads and the pickings might be very good for you.” Whether it is conscious or unconcious, even this “average” (generic) woman author is appealing purely to women’s selfish interests – finding a husband – in order to get her point across.
Like I said, I have no problem with that. If “average” (generic) women were going to wake up to the severity and magnitude of the problems, they would have done it years ago and it would not take two years to “drill it into their heads.”
The “average” (generic) woman will wake up to how bad things have gotten when they start to directly affect her – when she can no longer get what she wants. Then and only then will the “average” (generic) woman see the situation as a problem which needs to be addressed.
Unfortunately for the “average” (generic) woman, the very conditons which will bring about her deprivation are a generalized alienation of men from her (the “average” generic woman). Few men who have reached this point of alienation are likely to be motivated to spend two years drilling into these women’s heads an understanding of how and why things have gotten so bad, and the “average” (generic) woman’s role in all this.
It will no doubt surprise the “average” (generic) woman that her recent (and labor intensive on the part of men) enlightenment or epiphany does not immediate produce a red carpet being rolled out on her behalf, and trophies and kudos passed out for finally wising up and becoming slightly less self-centered and toxic (as a result) than the rest of the “average” (generic) women out there.
There is a definite divergence among men who identify themselves as “MRAs” – between those who hold to the belief that they need “average” (generic) women to help them achieve their goals, and those who are tired of waiting for women to wake up and don’t have the patience to spend two more years drilling it into their heads.
The total disregard which “average” (generic) women have shown for men, their feelings, and their needs for past 30-40 years has destroyed a huge reserve of generalized goodwill toward the “average” (generic) woman which the “average” (generic) man used to have. Just as the “average” (generic) woman has tended to overspend her income and borrow on her (monetary) credit cards, the “average” (generic) woman has also emptied out her “emotional” bank account and maxed out her credit line. For a lot of “average” (generic) men, it has become a “pay as you go” situation.
Sorry, grrls, no you don’t get your credit line extended for suddenly waking up to the fact that 40% of the children in the culture are now fatherless. If you only figured out that your house was on fire when 40% of it had already burned down, all that indicates is that you were not very smart and weren’t paying attention.
So, as I said before “Can’t find a husband?” – good. When the number of “average” (generic) women who can’t reaches a certain critical mass, then perhaps the “average” (generic) woman will be motivated by self interest to try to figure out why that is the case, and actually start doing something about it – like speaking up against other “average” (generic) women when they bash men or act stupidly or selfishly in everday interactions and conversations.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:33 am
“Frankly, I don’t really understand why you keep saying your liberal without expressing in what way your arguments represent liberal values.”
Define “liberal values” femikook…Or do you mean YOUR liberal values…. uhuh, I thought so.
Isn’t it time for you to take your estrogen shots or something? You do realise that you can’t miss them less your transformation not work….
TMOTS
February 27th, 2007 at 10:41 am
From my experience it is the “average, generic” person whom does not care about the injustices heaped upon men. Men seem to be as disinterested as women when it comes to the destruction of the Father/child relationship; domestic violence, work place discrimination, etc. I wonder why so many here seem to hold women responsible for this mess, but not men?
Who knows for sure, but when I was divorcing if someone came up to me and offered me full custody and control of my children; a weekly unearned paycheck; and most of the marital assets, I probably would have taken the deal without blinking an eye. Perhaps I would have been better than that, but at such an emotionally charged time, I may have disregarded what I know to be the right decision and gone with the easy decision?
I think it is misguided to focus so much attention on the role of women in the current state of affairs. Yes, women have been complicit in the advancement of feminist doctrine, but who really has had the power and opened the doors? I believe that men are at least equally to blame and turning things around will require acknowledgement that men have acted and continue to act just as badly as women.
When I discuss the problems of a feminist dominated system, generally I get more empathy from women than men (when the cause gets empathy at all). I don’t understand why we are holding women to a higher degree of responsibility for this horror show than we hold men? Steveno is an extreme example, but I think his blase attitude about the pain and suffering of men is not so rare and is as likely to be held by men as it is by women.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:18 am
“…every woman on Earth is responsible for feminism and all the destruction it’s caused!†Give me a freaking break.”
Give me a freaking break. I did not say “every woman on Earth”….I said AMERICAN women.
If this bothers you too bad. Every freaking day I see misandry and double standards all around me. It’s all “men bad-women good”. And your offended by my generalization? I’m one guy that you don’t have to listen too. I HAVE to listen to the misandry and double standards because it’s everywhere AND put up with it while living my life in many institutionalized ways. You don’t. I agree that the men in power who helped bring this about are much to blame as well. Many are politicians. But they are doing what all politicians do: they respond to the most vocal and demanding. And women have been yelling and demanding non-stop for 40 years. And you’re offended on behalf of American women because of what I say? I’m one guy who is doing some yelling and demanding versus millions of women going back decades. Evertime a guy does that a woman has to come along and preach. After 40 years of this bs you expect me to play nice just because you or any other woman is “offended”? Get real.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Thank you Teri.
It is our duty here to keep our experiences alive for the sake of younger men who are just beginning their lives. Our Sons and little borthers.
To help them evade the traps of pedestalism, materialism (trophy wives and Playboy), and the lies of Feminism which have protracted the plight of families in this nation, not repaired nor solved them.
My Lady friend has raised 3 children, 2 alone with her family, one with the childs father who rejected the child through his gestation, all without seeing a single judge.
Her values? Work. Hard work and sacrifice.
Problem is I had to find a Black Woman to first ever see such attributes because of the materialistic society I grew up in. I had to turn off some of my programing to understand the solution that I needed. (And he problem was a woman I met in a “Spirit Filled” church)
Values and Character are the message. (Thank you Elder George)
Zed’s post sent my mind wanderng down the road that we men are victimized by looking for a good woman in the woman’s movement.
We have found here a great education on the fact that we were looking in the wrong place, because of the extreme that it actually is.
Since they have chewed a great portion of us up and spit us out, there are fewer men willing to take our place. The immediate market is beginning to dry up.
So the obvious solution will be women will find a good man in the men’s movement.
But they would first have to value Men, and believe in the horror of actual equality, whiuch will in reality be to the Right of the Center that will form in the next couple of years.
Then they will have to be understanding that the Man will not sign the Marriage License again. For that is surrendering of himself, his manhood, his control of his life to the State, the Courts, and the lawyers who plundered him easily in the past.
What woman with that power to destroy a man will not fall prey to the rule the “familiarity breeds contempt”?
My lady friend and I are hitting this hurdle now. The Female preacher (something that is a Biblical abomination which I will be springing on her shortly) telling her a man and a woman to be together MUST be Married. So, now we have to define marriage, and it will never have anything to do with the State in my life ever again.
Can she get over it? Perhaps she has seen enough of my pain to get over it, or get away from me. It would be insanity to go back under that system again.
Hell, it is insanity for any woman red, yellow, black, or white to love me with the swords of destruction over my head, not to mention that I can provide nothing materially.
The values obviously have to shift for there to be marriage. Love has to be a spiritual thing transcendent of things, character.
Marriage as an institution of State has failed. The State has been coopted to destroy it for the parties who sought its destruction. They have been well remunerated, some Judges in Off Shore Trusts.
The Liberal ideal of Separation of Church and State is about to become a reality.
All despite the great strides Feminism has made, women, any woman at all, persist in the antithetical desire to be one with a man!
That alone states that the ultimate and true purpose of the leadership of Feminism, which is the extreme, has failed, and thus the whole convoluted notion has failed.
It was a distraction, a folly, and millions have suffered for it.
Marriage will not cease to exist as the Right worries. It will just not be in a legal statist form.
As the MRM develops further we will be the party of control, who care the least (for the sake of our souls and lives), and we will redefne the patriarchy, and teach ourselves how to identify feminist thought and ideas, and root them out of our value system.
Women who seek the antural fulfillment of nurturing (not merely wanting) children will come to US, for our approval and protection, because we will offer sanity over the present system. (The reason White Females are flocking to islam in Europe.)
Meanwhile, these women looking for men to marry will have to redefine what marriage is to them.
If they are looking for a prisoner, as so many of us here have and continue to be even though divorced, we will be holding the line at this extreme end to warn the young men that THIS, US, OUR experience, can happen to any of them too.
On one extrme: Women looking for a whipping boy and prisoner deserve to not find one. Nor more than a man looking for property should find one of our daughters.
On the other extreme: Women looking for a real man and a real marriage are not going to find one from the decades of mangina crops raised by this infected society. Anymore than our Sons will find a real woman out of the narsicitic, materialistic, feminist culture our Daughters have been programed into.
It is wrong to send innocent people into known circumstances without proper skills and equipment. They will fail and lose heart, or at the worst die (4/1 sucide ratio divorced Men/Women). These are our Sons and little brothers.
We must hold the extreme on this side so that the center leans back to something actually closer to reality.
Women who want a real Man will in great numbers abandon feminism as I have already seen, and go to the center, as at least a modicum os self-interest will be maintained in them as individuals.
We will either shift this center more to our side and reality, or what was American Culture will be replaced by the illegal immigrants who do not fall prey to the Family Court System, for fear of deportation, and the Ranks of Islam which will soon be pressing for power and domination over this sick society.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Denis, you described SOME American women, not all American women. I’m an American woman. You’re sure as h*ll not describing me.
You guys are missing my point, or maybe (some of) you simply don’t care.
If you want or need MND to be your place to vent, fine, but it seems like you keep saying the same thing over and over. Some of you just degrade women. How is that helpful?
I have single moms in my Yahoo group who’ve really been scr*wed over by men. Some have been abandoned, others raped, and at least one has a child by rape. Some of those women are now men’s advocates. They got past the anger and rage. Is it too much to wish you could too?
Okay, now I’m going to pull a “chick thing;” I’m going to make this all about me. : )
I volunteer my time and skills almost every day to this cause. I’ve put much effort into getting the truth out there to counter what the rads say about you. It frustrates me to no end when I see you do something that makes my efforts less effective.
Please, always be aware of the eyes on your words. If I tell people that you guys are average guys who just happened to get scr*wed over, that you’re not woman-hating abusers, people believe me. If they then come to MND and see the things written here about women, they’ll think I lied and the rads were telling the truth.
Okay, it’s not really about me. It’s still all about you guys.
I give up.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Why should it matter who we are as individuals or what we say? Surely the women you speak with can recognize that there is something wrong with a culture that so obviously favors women to the detriment of men and children?
Statistically, we know that women are more likely to abuse, neglect, and murder children, yet women can be virtually assured of child custody in a divorce/separation. Statistically, we know that female violence approximates male violence in domestic relationships yet billions are spent “protecting” women and next to nothing is spent protecting men. Statistically, we know that men die younger, die more often at work, kill themselves more often, die more often in wars, and on and on.
As you know, most men do not lead patriarchal lives of privilege, and I would hope that your efforts to convince other women that things need to change are not dependent on the rantings of a few angry men? Surely the preponderance of evidence should be enough to make the case that feminism has been and is harmful to men, women and children?
If any “eyes” are reading this…look at the facts and see the results of feminism. If that is not enough for you, then you’re hopeless. Go put on Oprah.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Teri Stoddard wrote, “Not so fast Thurston. ; )
You wrote: “Women become selfish, destructive, and monetarily motivated when the divorce lawyer starts…†I’d agree with that, if you used the word ‘most,’ or ’some.’ ”
Ok, I see your point about using all inclusive terms. I do believe it is ’some’ or ‘most’ women when it comes to some of the many points listed above. BUT, it is ALL females in America that are bombarded with anti-male b.s. throughout their lives. That is of course unless they’ve been living under a rock.
“Most” (read: all)of the women with whom I have been in a relationship have a sense of entitlement, with a man as the giver. “Most” women with whom I have become aquainted think it’s okay that men are marginalized in “all” aspect of life these days. In education, the military, career opportunities, medine, etc., men are second class citizens and that is okey dokey with them.
Men and women are NOT equal. Men do some things better than women and women do some things better than men. But, I’ve yet to see an all-women firehouse or an all-female deck crew working on a flat-top (aircraft carrier). Why is that? You and I both know why but we’re not allowed to say it out loud.
The bottom line as far as a woman finding a suitable husband these days is this: Until the anti-male family court laws, DV laws, hiring and promotional practices, title IX, and all the other discriminatory practices, rules, laws, and quotas are abolished and the playing field made level, men are better off on their own.
“Most” women had nothing to do with the current policies that discriminate against “all” men, but what man (in the know) would take a chance at fatherhood or marriage?
February 27th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Teri, no Woamn hating abusers here. They are out on the prowl somewhere else looking for the next victim.
We are here trying to save ourselves, other men, and maybe society. It does not mean that it is gong to happen, or even be by our means of understanding. We are trying.
You can agree, that what is the American Female Culture sold to all is not the solution here.
Teach your lady victims about Values and Character. They obviously bought the wrong product just like us.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
So now I’m a woman hating abuser? Or I am representative of a woman hating abuser? I cannot own my anger Teri without also carrying that? Heck, I thought my post was mild in tone. Everything I said in my first post is true. Women have gone on a selfish binge of self-indulgence for privilege at the expense of men for decades and some of you are only now, after all this time, starting to wake up. If you are offended that I doubt the intelligence the mass of American women for doing this then you are not looking at my reasons for saying what I said. I want to keep those facts alive in the minds of the men viewing here. You are simply offended that I call American women stupid. Does calling the mass of American women selfish fit better for you? Would that not be “degrading to women” if that sounds closer to the truth for you? Or is that also offensive? If all you ever see in my posts is emotion then you are missing something. I do repeat certain themes but that is intentional. Older posts or older ideas are useful to new people showing up. My tone is done intentionally. My posts are not about me; my audience is the men. Posting on MND is largely not about my own journey, it is about keeping certain facts and ways of seeing things alive. I’m grateful for your own volunteer efforts and am surprised that one guy (me) can cause you to re-think why you are here.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
we men are victimized by looking for a good woman in the woman’s movement.
As tasmaw takes exception to the use of the term “marriage strike”, I’m going to take exception to the use of the word “victimized.” I believe there is a subtle , but critical, distinction to be made here.
I have been “burned” many times, but I am not a “victim” because I refuse to accept that role and make that part of my identity. When something bad happens to me, the first thing I do is start looking for causes and seek power and control over my own life so that I can prevent it from happening again. Cause and effect – I cannot dictate the effects, but I can affect the causes.
I believe that no one can “make you a victim” – that taking on that belief about oneself requires a person’s own complicity in it.
If someone punches me in the face, or knocks me down, I am only a “victim” if I lie there and don’t get up. If I come up swinging and break that person’s nose, then I am not a “victim”, I am “pissed off.”
Let me illustrate what I mean with an example from my personal experience.
Years ago, I was having dinner with a good buddy of mine and his ex-wife with whom he had started having an affair about 7 years into her 2nd marriage and about 10 years after their divorce. (follow all that?) He wanted to “win her back” and she was stringing him along hinting that might be possible, while she used him as a “Captain Free-Therapist” to listen to her constant whining about how her current husband didn’t want her sexually. (still with me?) I found it very annoying that she would focus so much on the man who didn’t want her in the presence of a man who so obviously did (not me, fergawd’s sake, my buddy), but I have generally found that few people are very appreciative of someone else’s efforts to prevent them from screwing up their own lives.
The topic turned to certain “political differences” this woman had with her current husband. I asked her for an example and she responded with “If a woman goes into a bar, wearing sexy clothes and no panties, and later gets raped – did she ask for it?” It was truly enjoyable to be in a position where I could not care less what this woman thought of me, so I decided to have some fun and force her to admit that her position was idiotic.
I started out with “Are you really going to sit there and take the position that the woman’s choice of behavior and where she chose to behave that way had absolutely nothing to do with the consequences she later encountered? If a man would go into a poor section of town, and make a big display of waving around a wad of $100 bills, simply to lord over people the fact that he had something they wanted and didn’t have, and someone decided to take them from him, are you really going to claim that his actions had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what happened to him afterward? Would you at least agree that she engaged in behavior that a person of average intelligence would regard as ‘high risk’ and if she had not taken that risk, her experiences would likely have been different?”
Evetually, I was able to force her to admit that yes, if the woman had chosen to act differently, then she most likely would have gotten different results.
However, she finished up lamely by saying “I still believe that a woman SHOULD be able to go anywhere she wants, wear anything she wants, do anything she wants, and not have anything bad happen to her!!” My buddy, of course, was sitting on the other side of the table agreeing with every word out of her mouth like a complete bobblehead. (and yes, I agree that most men are dumber than a sack full of hammers when it comes to dealing with women.)
Yes, this woman was a complete “victim” because she had the victim mentality which makes someone else responsible for every bad thing which happens to a woman. And, was actually offended by the non-PC suggestion that those who do not engage in high-risk behavior on a regular basis, on the average have fewer bad things happen to them than those who do.
If someone goes into a store leaving their car running and the keys in the ignition, and it gets stolen, they are not “a victim”, they are an idiot. I have never had that happen to me because I recogized that as “unwise, high-risk behavior” and have always taken reasonable measures to minimize my risks wherever possible.
I believe that the reason women tend to show more empathy toward men who are “victimized” is because the victim mentality is more ingrained in them. I often feel very sorry for guys who have been burned by family courts, but my empathy is tempered by the fact that they lived in the same culture I did, had the chance to see the same things I have seen, and still chose to engage in behavior which I consider “high risk” – ie. marriage and fatherhood in today’s culture.
I’m going to leave it up to god, and those who have eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil to deal with how things “should” be, but aren’t. I live in a world where those who do the best job of assessing how things ARE and who take reasonable measures to protect themselves and do not choose to engage in unwise high-risk behavior generally have fewer bad things happen to them than those who don’t.
I have a pretty simple choice – I can do whatever I want to do, and wait around for the entire culture (and in fact, the entire nature of reality) to change so that I can do that and never have anything bad happen to me, and in the meantime be “victimized” by the fact that bad things do happen to me, or I can analyze my environment as objectively as possible, and take whatever measures are in my power to minimize my risks.
I know which one I choose, and that is why I have never been “victimized.” “Burned”, yes, but “victimized”, never!
February 27th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Jeez, all this argument over a pro-male article. I’m sorry, I can’t be bothered to read it all, but it does seem to me that many of these issues can be resolved by recognizing that
1) divorce is a conflict, a war of sorts,
2) when at war, it is a characteristic of the human animal, male or female, to use whatever advantage they might have and
3) women have the advantage in the family courts.
Result: women preferentially beat up on men in family courts.
There is no need to condemn women, only to recognize that they have an overriding advantage and some/many (but not all) will know no restraint when it comes to using it. There is nothing in the female psyche which makes them any more dangerous in this sense than there is in the male. (Cue the arguments about men being more honorable than women. Rot. Good behavior is a matter of education. Women can be educated into it just as well as men can.)
February 27th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Teri, You said,
You guys are missing my point, or maybe (some of) you simply don’t care. – BINGO! We can be prosecuted for caring! Not one of us can afford to care.
If you want or need MND to be your place to vent, fine, but it seems like you keep saying the same thing over and over. Some of you just degrade women. How is that helpful? – WE don’t denigrate women. WE have stories that WE can’t even believe. Every nasty, cruel, vicious thing I’ve ever seen done, was done by a woman. Sometimes just for her amusement.
I have single moms in my Yahoo group who’ve really been scr*wed over by men. Some have been abandoned, others raped, and at least one has a child by rape. Some of those women are now men’s advocates. They got past the anger and rage. Is it too much to wish you could too? – I don’t think you understand. We, (yes, the royal WE) don’t get the liberty to be angry for long. Most of us still love women, even though we’re not willing to put any tender bits into that bear trap. I’m not willing to make any more truce overtures, because I’ve regretted every single time I’ve been involved with a woman, (wife, boss, renter, roomie, whatever)
Okay, now I’m going to pull a “chick thing;†I’m going to make this all about me. : ) – THAT is exactly what I’ve been expecting. Though it took longer than most.
I volunteer my time and skills almost every day to this cause. I’ve put much effort into getting the truth out there to counter what the rads say about you. It frustrates me to no end when I see you do something that makes my efforts less effective. – I can’t say your efforts have had any effect. It’s literally shoveling sand against the tide. Putting it poetically, “The avalanche has started. It’s too late for the pebbles to vote.”
Please, always be aware of the eyes on your words. If I tell people that you guys are average guys who just happened to get scr*wed over, that you’re not woman-hating abusers, people believe me. If they then come to MND and see the things written here about women, they’ll think I lied and the rads were telling the truth. – YOU don’t have to be ’screwed’ to see the carnage. Are you telling me that you don’t know half (50-65%)of the marriages around you are crashed by 80% of the wives? Are you trying to tell us that you haven’t seen the man-bashing in every single media this world has? Are you trying to tell us that the divorce courts are fair? Are you trying to tell us that the ‘must arrest’, restraining orders and ‘dead beat dad’ and alimony rules are fair? If you are then you should really give up, because you would be honest.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Ahhh! Wouldn’t be honest… Sorry.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Oh, hey Teri. You might want to look at the ads that get run beside your articles. I didn’t notice until I got spun up about you ‘not noticing’ the the constant misandry in the media. The ads next to this article are:
Sex Offender Registry Info
Background Checks
Another Sex Offender Registry
Web Detective
Not exactly mainstream advertising ‘eh? Hope they didn’t tailor them for you.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
I’m sorry, but I have to take a break from responding. I’m dealing with a broken heart today and I doubt my comments would be impartial.
Feeling what I do right now makes me believe the cold-hearted women you talk about were once in these shoes. Because of who I am, I deal with it with tears. Some women choose revenge, even if the guy didn’t do anything wrong.
Carry on Guys, just know women hurt too.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Sorry to hear that, Teri. Yes, by all means take a break. Take a long one. Ending the Gender War does not rest on your back alone.
SOMEOFUSmen do know that women hurt, too. Maybe on day, everyone will get so sick of the bloodletting that they will decide to lay down their arms and live in peace.
Find some peace for yourself, ok?
February 27th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Maybe one day…
(damn, I wish this thing had an edit feature!)
February 27th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
(Cue the arguments about men being more honorable than women. Rot. Good behavior is a matter of education. Women can be educated into it just as well as men can.)
Train people that they have an advantage because it is right, just, fair, and legal to have and use that advantage…
February 27th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Some women choose revenge, even if the guy didn’t do anything wrong.
Nothing WRONG?!? My ex wouldn’t speak to me for a week once for something she DREAMED I did. (True Story)
February 27th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Hahahahaha. – Nothing WRONG?!? My ex wouldn’t speak to me for a week once for something she DREAMED I did. (True Story) –
Been there, had that. Dreamed, dreamed up, invented, imagined, you name it. I have had more affairs than hot dinners. Women all over have fallen all over me in droves. I have said things even when I wasn’t there. I have an identical twin it seems who lives in a nearby sewer pipe and takes my place at crucial moments. Some of the things I an supposed to have done, I wish I had! At least it would have been some compensation for the punishments after.
February 27th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
I knew I was in trouble any time I came home and my wife began a conversation with “I was watching Oprah today…”.
When my son was born, I was walking out the door to go see the two of them at the hospital when my brother showed up. He asked to use my phone and I said, “Go ahead. Lock up when you leave.”
Fast forward a month or so, and I was screamed at, hit, and she called my Mom claiming that while she was in the hospital I had called my girlfriend. I had completely forgotten about letting my brother use the phone (can you blame me, I was on the way to the hospital to see my kid).
My ex fruitcase actually called the number and ranting and raged at the poor women who answered. After about a month I was telling my brother about my ex’s latest fury when he remembered his phone call. When she found out the truth…no apology…to me or anyone else. I still cringe thinking about it (13 years ago).
I know not all women are like this, but if you make a poor choice and get stuck with one of the loonies, God help you.
February 27th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
You got me going now…
When I was young and first married, my ex and I would go out to disco clubs from time to time (her choice, not mine!). I got into the habit of always sitting in a chair facing the wall. If I didn’t, she would accuse me of looking at other women.
The strategy worked most of the time, but being that discos were loaded with mirror, sometimes even facing the walls wouldn’t calm her down. She would claim I was looking at other women in the mirror! Funny now…but it wasn’t funny then.
February 27th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Last one…I promise.
When we bought a house I began refereeing volleyball to bring in some extra money. Standing on a ladder in a hot gym for three hours can wreak havoc with your appearance. My ex started to question whether I was actually refereeing. I guess I got the cash from robbing a bank while I was out cavorting?
One time I came out of the gym and spotted her car at the far end of the parking lot. I decided to see how far she would take her paranoia…I must have drove 50 miles that night down dark back roads as my ex followed me at a distance. I can only wonder what she was thinking. The saddest part was that she had my 1 year old son in tow.
As I finally headed in the direction of home, she took another route and beat me home. I never said a word about it, and neither did she. Of course, in the world of feminism, she wasn’t stalking me…only men stalk.
February 27th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Teri,
You must know this isn’t real. How many of the women having problems getting a husband do you work with? Are they alcoholics or do they have mental issues? This marriage strike isn’t even hiiting the surface to most women.
Let’s look at the Italians. Is it the marriage strike that is making their birth rate low? No, it is not. The problem is that mothers are spoiling their boys. They are ironing thier clothes, doing thier washing, doting on them and making wonderful dinners. The males love their mamas. That is the problem. How can women be number one when the mother in laws are interfering? I have been through this myself. I was just a young girl when I married (now that I look back) and my mother in law who had boys handed me a pudding recipe and a steam pot saying, “This is my sons favorite pudding.”
So basically, I was to forget about a tight budget to save for a house. Oh, no. I was to spoil my man.
Their girls they are losing. So they work on the boys to benefit their own needs. They are mothers for life you know. They were suppose to gain from their girls yet things have change so they gain from their sons. But they do not gain. They were never mean’t to gain from their sons. Sons are mean’t to follow their women and as the saying goes. You lose a son but you gain a son through a daughter.
As for elder george. Well he is nuts. Infact I am spam for him yet I was never anti men but I didn’t go with what he wants to hear. Forget about his logic. It is never going to win over women. Men by themselves in power make wars, they don’t nurture the individuals where we lose our boys. Women in power go to the other extreme. They nurture yet they can’t nurture all for life.
We need to negotiate. There has to be balance. There has to be equality. There are less elders out there than there are young and middle aged. 30-40. There is no going back. You should never go back. You should always look forward. IMO it is not that the majority of women want men to suffer no more than the majoity of men want women to suffer. There has to be a balance between the patrairchy and the matriarchy.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
GladMad+, that 50 mile drive – clearly, to ANYONE with even a tiny male brain, you were out looking for a hooker to spend all that vollyball referee money on. I bet you passed 50 at least, you picky bastard!
February 27th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
The volleyball money came back to haunt me. During our divorce proceedings my ex claimed that I was earning an extra $75/week, 52 weeks per year. The truth was that I refereed volleyball about 20 times a year and was only paid $50 each time. I even had a sworn affidavit from the volleyball league president. My ex had nothing but her bogus claim. Predictably, the feminist indoctrinated judge believed her.
February 28th, 2007 at 12:49 am
We do appreciate you Teri.
Just appears you have taken on a gargatuan task, as women who have been hurt badly by men are polar opposite from men who have been hurt by women and denied justice by the courts.
These are just cases of extremes.
We do not expect you to talk these women from their extreme and pain over to our position to be compasionate, and vica versa.
That would be outrageous to expect of ANYONE.
The challenge will remain.
Certainly we men who hurt so much made some terrible choices, just like the ladies you mention. Mine was wrong despite being in the Church and listening to all of the Marriage Ministries.
Clearly, people who hurt like us are going to need to examine the value system that lead us into misery. The expectations that were unrealistic.
The men here are of the opinion that the lies would have been nothing, but it is the compounded damage of the FC System that is utterly devistating.
All you can do Teri is help them adopt a new value system, realistic expectatons and understanding of men, rejection of the present day institution of marriage and the FC System, and the final piece take them down the road to giving and being able to recognize mutual respect and appreciation.
That is a lot isn’t it?!
But those are the building blocks, and not all of us damaged souls are going to make that journey.
You may try, you may pray, you may cry, but you cannot take away our pain.
Don’t let your compassion dry up for us injured animals. But do understand when you are trying to carry too much.
There is a vast chasm of distance between the hurting women and hurting men, and not enough of you to fill it as much as you may want to.
So acknowledge the pain of each, and figure out how to shorten the distance between.
Blessed are the Peace Makers, for they will never be without work.
February 28th, 2007 at 1:44 am
GladMadSadDad, I had a stalker too. Back when I was young, foolish, and dating. Besides driving by my house to check for ‘unauthorized’ cars parked there, she showed up at a first date I had and made a big scene, totally freaking out the other woman and causing her to leave (can’t blame her). My stalker was even in ‘counseling’ at the time.
Brittany, the recent nutty astronaut, and all the rest are only the tip of a huge female crazy iceberg out there. With the feminist program largely having been about removing all social constraints on women and giving them permission to do just about anything they feel like, we can expect hours of entertainment with many more unthinkably bizarre episodes well into the future.
February 28th, 2007 at 1:59 am
Given such license we will see more and more self-destruction on the TV.
Entertainment Tonight is almost Self-Destruction Tonight.
In time it will reach a peak and you can watch it 24/7/365 on a cable channel. Like ESPN!
What shall we call it? hmmmmmmm…..
Jerry Springer TV!
February 28th, 2007 at 2:11 am
Martian…I too dated a stalker. This time, after divorcing my first psycho, I ended the relationship quickly.
Of course, she would have none of that and actually chased me down while I was on a date! No lie…this nut did a Starsky & Hutch with her car and I had to stop or run into her in the road. As she went for the passenger door and accosted the young lady…first date mind you…the victim screamed, “You were my cheerleading coach!!” Yep…as the stalker grabbed my date, she was recognized. I think she was so shocked that she couldn’t do anything but run away in embarassment.
In Steveno’s world, I know I did something patriarchal to create this mess, but I still haven’t figured out what it was…
February 28th, 2007 at 3:14 am
GladMadSadDad, oh dear oh dear. You dated a cheerleader AND a cheerleader coach !! That’s NASTy. Narcissicm Attraction Syndrome, Twice.
February 28th, 2007 at 7:07 am
on the subject of stalkers – concrete block through a 5 ft square picture window, here.
February 28th, 2007 at 9:46 am
I only got to date the cheerleader once…the cheerleading coach scared her away!
Zed, some woman you dated there…being able to throw concrete blocks around is physically impressive. They might not have to modify the fireman’s test for that one!
February 28th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
I just have to pop in to tell you guys that I meant what I wrote about you in the article. You have no idea how much I appreciate your friendships. I love you guys.
February 28th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Teri, I’m sorry you were feeling pain yesterday. I hope it passes soon. I have felt the pain of several relationships ended. But they all pale in comparison to the pain inflicted by the government interference in my parental relationships. Our government has enacted laws in flagrant violation of the constitutions they are sworn to protect.
Every problem you’ve identified is just another anti-constitutional law or rule. Our due process is sinking faster than the Titanic, and the rate will only increase. We need educators like you; it’s our only salvation.
Beyond the peonage law, I know that every one of us has a right to be raised by both our own parents. Marriage or not, our kids are born with this right. It comes to them because they are here, that’s all. They are here on this planet, born into American citizenship with protections endowed them as in no other nation on earth.
It’s discouraging to realize that so few people have recognized that this destruction is caused by elected lawmakers that are purely ignorant of the law.
Thanks for all you do, you are loved by many more folks than you know.
Richard Eichinger
Eaton, OH
March 1st, 2007 at 5:07 am
Awwwhhh Ssschhhhukkkks…..
March 1st, 2007 at 9:54 am
I so wish that I had NOT read all the comments section before I wrote my post. I have been reading Teri Stoddard’s articles and posts for as long as she has been involved in the campaigning, I believe. Sometimes I think she hits the nail on the head, but I have also been right beside myself after reading other articles she has written. However, that is not the case for her alone. Other equal rights advocates share in that ability to make me feel confident or lose me, with their writings too.
With that said, I hope we don’t lose Teri without good reason and I don’t believe we will because I think she has a strong will and can see right through the ‘posters’ well-built, defensive fortresses that will not allow them, in this lifetime, to let anyone know how they truly feel.
All about me and my perception of the article:
To me the last paragraph of article is the only one that needs to be addressed. I do deserve respect and appreciation. I have experienced pain and injustice from women. (your words Teri, not mine). I will not say that I could never meet my future wife at a rally but I have told several of my closest lifelong friends that I will never marry. Things may change before I die but nothing short of a miracle will make me want to marry under the unsafe/unleveled playing field we now have. That is a very sad mantra, don’t you think?
Why do I feel this way? I am forty-five years old and living with my parents. I do not earn a lot of money and cannot pay them rent. My child support of $436.00/month is ALWAYS paid in full. I see my son occasionally. I was thirty-four when he was born and thirty-eight when I had to move out of her house. With nothing to show for myself after two failed relationships, and losing everything I worked for in the past taken when the relationships ended, I just do not have time enough before I am supposed to be retired to recoup all the damage. I am afraid of what my elderly life will bring me. I do not think I am alone in this fear. What government agency will help me when Social Security is not enough and I have not been able to keep all my assets I have worked for in my lifetime? Where will I live? How will I eat, heat my living arrangement and be able to take care of a failing body in the years to come. There certainly is not any government agency that is looking out for me right now, who is to say there will be one created before I get old. I hope that something will come along as I cannot even stand on my own two feet after eight years of being a single dad and for another six years at least, the future does not look any brighter. So at fifty-two, when I stop paying that $436/month (which could be a nice house mortgage payment in Maine) I can start my life again, I hope.
So now, you know the plight and fears of one more subject of Family Law. Not just women are causing these problems. Many men have been involved with the destruction of the family in the last forty years. We need everyone to realize this, not just the women who have sat on their respective duffs over the last half century and rode the free ride. Male judges, male lawyers, male DHS employees, male psychologists and other males directly and indirectly involved need to wake up and smell the coffee. It is brewing.
I had so much more to say at first, but then I read all of the previous posts.
March 1st, 2007 at 10:07 am
jeffdu-
I was having a rare good morning then I got depressed. You story makes me sad. I wish you well and much luck in the future.
“Not just women are causing these problems. Many men have been involved with the destruction of the family in the last forty years. We need everyone to realize this, not just the women who have sat on their respective duffs over the last half century and rode the free ride. Male judges, male lawyers, male DHS employees, male psychologists and other males directly and indirectly involved need to wake up and smell the coffee.”
You are correct here my brother but I have some bad news to report. These people, the judges, lawyers, DHS, psychologists, etc., whether male or female DO NOT WANT to wake up and smell the coffee. They have a vested interest in family destruction. It is a business for them. It’s how they make their respective livings. Divorce and family breakdown is BIG BUSINESS and they are more interested in growing their respective business interests then in making themselves irrelevant.
March 1st, 2007 at 11:15 am
jeffdu_04976,
My concern is not (as much) the monetary amount our government is extorting from us today, but how much more they will demand of our sons tomorrow, in cash and mental anguish.
Sure, we can teach them the perils of fatherhood and marriage, but like you and I, they will take the information (warnings) and still do their own thing. “That could never happen to me” is ingrained in the American psyche.
March 1st, 2007 at 11:59 am
I find it rather amusing that you write a ‘pro-male’ article, yet, when men express valid viewpoints, you summarily dismiss them as anti-woman, hate-filled, or by declaring that they missed your point.
This attitude embodies everything men dislike about women. They want to know how we feel, when we tell them, they don’t like the answers and dismiss our opinions. All this does is make men refuse to say what they feel.
There’s a lot of men here that stand up, refuse to be badgered and bullied into toeing your party line. They’re going to say what they say regardless of whether you think it’s hate-filled or dismissed. Those men’s courage should be admired by others.
The rest of men, they’re going to look at you, think you’re just another one of them, and summarily ignore you as they move to something they consider a more productive use of their time.
We’ve seen your kind of lip-service before. We’ll see it again. Just like crocodile tears, after the ‘pigeon’ realizes the con, he refuses to participate anymore.
Maybe it’s time you start leading by example instead of by fiat.
March 1st, 2007 at 12:21 pm
voodoo, you make yourself look ignorant when you make false claims. You think I just write, but don’t follow up with action? You obviously don’t know much about me.
I’ve planned rallies, created a website with free parenting plans and a blog on the worldwide family rights movement. I’ve taken other women and lobbied in the State Capital for equal parenting, written several articles and been interviewed on the radio. I’ve been the PR person for a guy who didn’t eat for four months, including getting him on the radio and TV. I sit on the boards of the Family Alliance Council and True-Equality and on the steering committee of MediaRADAR. I’m an active member of the National Coalition of Free Men – Los Angeles. I’ve educated single moms and gotten them to change the way they see men, including getting them to allow their child’s father to be a dad to his child. I may even end up in Rome for Daddy’s Pride, where they want me to go on TV and radio. There’s more. Do I have to go on?
March 1st, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Teri, that was a perfect and meritorious response.
Some might say you gave him one hell of a ‘bitchslap’ And I do eman that with all due respect!
I will work on reading all of your future work from that angle.
Your activism has great merit, so in this case we see the need for getting men past the pain, and distrust in the marriage game where there are far too few male winners in the face of the forces and powers that be.
Perhaps the message to the ladies is one of hopelessnes to see uf reverse psychology brings the two parties together: “Sorry girls, the really nice guys who gave there all to women who took advantage of them, who got destroyed bythe courts, who allowed themselves to be everything the media said a man should be to his woman, got a raw deal just like you, and will never marry again, despite how much they want to deep down.
“Even if you were able to find one and struggle to your feet together, he can give you his heart, but he will never invite the State into his life again with a Marriage License.
To get one of these guys, you will have to redefine what a marriage is, materialism and carefree is not a monetary possibility for themm so otherwise they are not available.
“That hurts them, and makes them say rough things about women, and I (Teri) am one of a handful of women who appears to be willing to try and prove their justifiable revulsion to be wrong.”
Maybe some will understand that, but I am wasting your time as you are a much more effective communicator than I am.
March 1st, 2007 at 3:53 pm
“Brittany, the recent nutty astronaut, and all the rest are only the tip of a huge female crazy iceberg out there. With the feminist program largely having been about removing all social constraints on women and giving them permission to do just about anything they feel like, we can expect hours of entertainment with many more unthinkably bizarre episodes well into the future.”
That’s the biggest hurdle for me ever even wanting to move in with a woman ever again- the zero accountability women have nowadays, and of course women’s unaccountability always leads to the breakup & breakdown of any relationship with a woman. I would ask my last live-in girlfriend when I would catch her lying, “why are you lying to me?” And she would just respond with, “Fuck you.” Or the really popular, “You don’t tell me what to do!” I hear women telling their husbands that all the time like impestuous children & you know the relationship is doomed from then on.
Women have NO respect for men anymore and TV is half to blame, culture and the court system the other half and without respect, there can BE no relationship. When are women EVER held accountable anymore? By men in a relationship? Of course not. At work? No, if caught doing something wrong they turn the fake, nauseating tears. In court? No, they only get a slap on the wrist and play victim. Because of this complete unaccountability, women are now imploding and are worthless to men, society and even themselves. I haven’t met a woman I would call ‘marriage material’ in at least 15 years.
March 1st, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Holding a woman accountable would be, like, oppressing her or something. I mean, why do you have to be so controlling?
Actually, I wouldn’t care too much if the trend of removing all social constraints on women hadn’t been accompanied by a similar drive to *increase* social constraints on men. Call it the applied side of the woman=good/man=bad paradigm. It’s this one-two-punch aspect that has everything seeming so topsy-urvy, especially because the truly bad men don’t respect the social contraints to begin with and the truly good women don’t benefit from being ‘freed’.
—-
> “Not just women are causing these problems.
> Many men have been involved with the
> destruction of the family…
These would be the judges, legislators, lawyers, and all the rest who make up Stevie’s “patriarchy”, which feminists then beat us over the head with because they happen to be chivalrous males serving women’s interests (or so they think).
March 1st, 2007 at 6:33 pm
“Holding a woman accountable would be, like, oppressing her or something. I mean, why do you have to be so controlling?”
What does ‘controlling’ have to do with it? That sounds femarroid speak/’logic.’ Accountability for one’s own actions is at the very foundation of building character and all your telling us that you have none.
March 1st, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Teri says:
I’ve planned rallies,
created a website with free parenting plans
and a blog on the worldwide family rights movement.
I’ve taken other women and lobbied in the State Capital for equal parenting,
written several articles
and been interviewed on the radio.
I’ve been the PR person for a guy who didn’t eat for four months,
including getting him on the radio and TV.
I sit on the boards of the Family Alliance Council and True-Equality
and on the steering committee of MediaRADAR.
I’m an active member of the National Coalition of Free Men – Los Angeles.
I’ve educated single moms and gotten them to change the way they see men, including getting them to allow their child’s father to be a dad to his child.
I may even end up in Rome for Daddy’s Pride, where they want me to go on TV and radio.
There’s more. Do I have to go on?
_____________________
OK, sit up, hands up, step up, the guys here who have done HALF of this. (I know there are some)
I know Teri beats me hands down for activism for men and families. Hers is bigger than mine – her list, that is
She has earned the right to express opinions which do not exactly match the opinions of the most deeply hurt amongst us. She has earned the right to hold the reins.
March 2nd, 2007 at 12:25 am
nobody earns the right to express their opinions. Rights are inherent, free speech is not given its internalized through a social contract, wherein we are endowed by our Creator with “inalienable rights.”
That is the main reason why you fail to respect your opponents amfortas, you think you have to “earn” the right to think.
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:00 am
For future reference, I don’t bitch-slap. I just tell the truth.
I’ve been told I come across as a hard-ass. I have never seen myself that way. I’m a sweetie. Can’t you tell? I’m more like Suzy Homemaker than Laila Ali.
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:10 am
So, where does Teri seek to defeat modern feminism? You’ve told us previously that family courts are not feminist and the sins of the family court system cannot be laid at the feet of feminism (using classic frontman phallacy arguments), so in what way is Terri’s crusade against the destruction wreaked upon non custodial parents by the family court system a crusade against feminism?
Even a cursory examination of Teri’s writing reveals that her feelings are as much for noncustodial mothers as they are for noncustodial fathers. Going through Teris recent posts shows that her blog concentrates almost exclusively on noncustodial parents and their treatment in the family courts; the sole exception being an article which describes the efforts of ex servicemen to bring an end the the US occupation of Iraq (SOUNDS AWFULLY ILLIBERAL TO ME! not)
So how exactly does defeating the maltreatment of non custodial parents defeat modern feminism?
1. Teri has published an article on her blog concerned with the war in Iraq.
2. When the family courts create poverty with child support orders which exceed the parents ability to pay, why do liberals (besides Teri) not cry foul, if this is a liberal issue?
3. When the family courts strip men of rights and property without due process, why do those defendenders of our civil liberties, liberals, not cry foul?
If you can turn a blind eye to the fact that men are forced into poverty, that men are stripped of rights and property without due process, can you really say that you are any more liberal than you claim Teri is? Teri has shown more concern for these things than you have after all.
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:56 am
Dr Damage – not to parse words with you, but I did not say that Teri was not liberal, simply that she doesn’t act like any one I’ve ever met – and believe me I’ve met a lot. I’m skeptical of her claim of liberalism simply because she’s thrown herself into a cause where 99% of her copatriots sit on the front page of Vox Populii denegrading her ideological view, saying that as a liberal she is destroying the country, and all she does is sit here and say its all good. It seems to me that this website, and many others, is part of an ideological culture war, and her ideology is being attacked as much as anything else, but it means nothing to her. As a liberal, she’s little more than a “revisionist” in the eyes of many people here at this website. I could point to the COUNTLESS attacks on liberals published here, and from here, not a peep.
“If you can turn a blind eye to the fact that men are forced into poverty, that men are stripped of rights and property without due process, can you really say that you are any more liberal than you claim Teri is?”
That’s a great point. Now show me ANYTHING I’ve said that amounts to that argument. Simply because I’m not a Men’s Rights Activists doesn’t mean I approve of anyone being denied due process, or equal rights under the law. And hey, I don’t see you joining any anti-Darfur Genocide rallies, does that mean you “approve” of the Genocide in Darfur? Does that make you a racist? No it means you got other stuff to worry about. Like most people, you prioritize your outrages. I have never once been oppressed for being a man, NOT ONCE, so I’m not going to run around screaming bloody murder over it. You are entitled to your cause, and Terri is to hers.
But what the MRA’s are not entitled to, including Terri, is to distort and attack feminism based on their own personal beliefs about what they think its about. I DARE you to back up your claim that feminism has caused men to be unduly poor, other than theoretical arguments and weak causal links. I could should you tons of data i looked at in college which suggests in the wake of the sexual revolution and the integration of women into the workforce, the per capita income as part of the resulting increase in Productivity has grown enormously. That’s because society is utilizing the other 50% of its productive capacity, at least those willing and interested in working. Feminism has contributed far more to the health, safety, and welfare of women – indeed the country, than any alleged harm it has done. If you and Terri had your way, ever battered women’s shelter in the country would be shut down as some kind of scam. I’m sorry, but I don’t consider women’s reproductive health and safety to amount to an Indian Casino Scam.
But what’s most interesting is that if your RIGHT about what causes make up a liberal, that would make every Mens Rights Activists a liberal, and given many of their irrational attacks on liberalism, makes them at the least ignorant of their own views.
March 2nd, 2007 at 4:19 am
SG: you think you have to “earn†the right to think.
Really? I haven’t noticed much thinking from you, Steffie. I see a great deal of rote repetition from Feminism 101. You do not see what I think. Oh, sorry. You are using female mind-reading skills! I, in fact, recommend that you think. I applaud thinking. I don’t see thinking as a ‘right’ anymore than I see the workings of an opposable thumb to be a right. It is natural. Its a built-in.
SG: That is the main reason why you fail to respect your opponents amfortas,
Hmmmm. Stephony dear girl, I have been posting for an eon, and people know me quite well. I give respect where it is due. Respect is earned. It isn’t due to you. You have not earned it. I have crossed swords with far, far better than you and generally maintained respect while they deserved it.
SG: nobody earns the right to express their opinions. Rights are inherent, free speech is not given its internalized through a social contract, wherein we are endowed by our Creator with “inalienable rights.â€
Oh yes they do. Until you have earned it through demonstrating truthfulness, skill, knowledge, and respect for the opinions of others, your opinions are just noises. That is the social contract. God allows you to make noises, but doesn’t guarantee that they make any sense or that they should be listened to.
You may have the right to HOLD any opinion you want but you do not have the right to FORM that opinion in any way you want. If you ignore the evidence; ignore the discussions and interpretations of evidence by others; ignore the work of finding the truth; ignore the direct experience of others who have solid appreciation of the evil caused by feminism, then all you have is a PREJUDICE. Don’t try to call it an opinion. You haven’t expressed any opinion for me to object to yet.
There is a moral issue, Steffie. Intellectual honesty. You fail consistently to demonstrate that intellectual honesty.
You do not show respect for others’ opinions. You do not speak truth. You ignore the truth that others speak. You show the skills of a mendacious politician. You lack knowlege of the situation regarding feminism, families, fatherhood and the falsity of the family court.
One has to put up with people talking nonsense of course. As you say, they have a right to their opinion, but to express it is not a right. It is a privilege given by peers. Frankly you are a child who should be seen – watched – but not heard.
Rabbit away by all means, but don’t expect respect until you say or do something that earns it. Try an opinion once in a while and see how I respond. Do the intellectually honest work. So far all you have given is prejudice dressed in first-year academic clothes.
March 2nd, 2007 at 4:26 am
Steven, I apologize for neglecting to answer these questions.
“I’m really curious in what way you consider yourself liberal?”
I was born and raised in the liberal San Francisco Bay Area by liberal parents. I’m an egalitarian who believes in equality for everyone, including gays, lesbians, and noncustodial parents. I believe in the right to choose, but as a parent I now support parental notification. I believe in the legalization of medical marijuana, in fact, complete legalization. I hate war and I love Mother Nature. That’s all I can think of at this late hour.
Ut oh… I need to get up in 3 1/2 hours and I haven’t gone to bed yet. Crap. lol
“Do you, for example, support gay marriage?”
I haven’t decided on this. As the mother of a lovely lesbian daughter it may hit home one day. When I think about the emotional side of it, and as far as equality, then yes, I think they should be able to marry. But in all honesty, I don’t have near enough knowledge of the repercussions it would cause.
I hope this has helped.
Good night,
Teri
March 2nd, 2007 at 4:41 am
Yet you have license to do the same to the mens rights movement? Do I really need to go into your screed in post 89 pretty much stating that the mens rights movement wants to roll back feminism in its entirety?
Your own words are proof enough. Terri has never attacked feminism except inasmuch as she opposes the manner in which the family courts treat non custodial parents. I have been unable to detect any explicit attack on feminism by Terri. Your accusation that she therefore attacks feminism is the only connection that we really need here since you present yourself as the only person on this site who actually understands what feminism is. If we can’t trust you about what constitutes feminism, who can we trust?
You clearly associate the treatment of non custodial parents which Terri opposes with feminism. Plainly, defeating this equates in your mind to defeating feminism.
Liar. substantiate or retract. Or, to put it less bluntly, I have never said anything of the sort. To my knowledge, neither has Terri.
I now expect you to substantiate your remark (a quote with link to the original article will do nicely). Or are you the only one here who is exempt from any obligation to make ones support for peripheral issues plain?
The simple act of opposing the manner in which men are treated by the family court, in a manner which you define as illiberal, is enough for you to express skepticism about Terris liberal credentials. You plainly oppose her work and have openly stated that “custody battle madness” is not an issue with which liberals concern themselves.
I, for one, am skeptical that your comments were prompted by some tinfoil hat conspiracy theory regarding “Ideological culture wars”. Particularly when you reject (for yourself) any obligation to comment on peripheral issues. You tell us that liberals concern themselves with things other than “child custody battle madness” then expect us to believe that you agreed that the treatment of non custodial parents is a liberal issue all along? ridiculous.
You compound this absurdity by asserting that you needn’t openly state your support for due process or equal rights for non custodial parents while simultaneously stating that Terri’s failure to openly state her support for other liberal issues is reason to suspect her liberal credentials.
It seems more likely to me that Terri “has other stuff to worry about. Like most people, [she] prioritize[s her] outrages” paraphrase from SGs post
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:08 am
what are you talking about? I have never written a single post on custody baddles, or divorce court. NOT ONE. I have only ever written about feminism, and about how MRA have manipulated and in many cases, inaccurate perceptions of feminism and its literature. Your entire movement is based in reaction to, and in an effort to discredit, feminism. Don’t complain when people fight back.
“The simple act of opposing the manner in which men are treated by the family court, in a manner which you define as illiberal, is enough for you to express skepticism about Terris liberal credentials.”
Really. I’m pretty sure what I said was that she spends the bulk of her time defending people who attack liberals for sport and suggest they are what is wrong with America. In your words, “liar. substantiate or retract.”
But on to this beauty:
“Liar. substantiate or retract. Or, to put it less bluntly, I have never said anything of the sort. To my knowledge, neither has Terri.”
ACTUALLY, a key component of the MRA platform is questioning Domestic Violence statistics and the repeal of VAWA. MRA believe that WOMEN are actually the abusers, primarily, and that these shelters should really be there for abused women. Of course, I know of no men who look behind their shoulders because a woman is walking behind them late at night, but MRA really think it is women who are the greater domestic danger.
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:21 am
Teri – I appreciate your comments, but I really just don’t understand how you got caught up with this crowd. I get your position – the importance of children having both parents involved in their development, and encouraging laws which promote better co-equal parenting. I completely support what you are doing, at least from what I’ve read and seen.
What I don’t understand is your position on things like the Violence Against Women Act. You say that it promotes the idea that men hurt women? How so? Its a law designed to protect women who are abused, but it doesn’t say that all men abuse all women. I don’t know of any normal male, who has never laid a hand on a woman, who views the VAWA as a threat to them.
And this idea that it affects child custody battles. To my understanding of family law, men often DO get custody of their children when their mothers are deemed unfit. I know of one personal example of this in one of my neighbors, but we also heard about it with K-fed and Britney – we saw where a judge said if Britney didn’t get her act together she could even lose her half of the custody. I don’t think the laws necessarily are as tilted as some people suggest they are. And in the places they are, I don’t see how that impunes the VAWA. It seems to me that you don’t have a problem against VAWA, or its funding, but you simply want a VAMA to go with it. And why is it that MRA don’t push for a VAMA instead of trying to get rid of the VAWA?
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:51 am
Wow, for disingenuousness, that one really takes the cake. In post 37 of this very thread, you question Terri’s liberal credentials on the basis of her opposition to the treatment of non custodial parents. I could quote you here, but you’re plainly to dishonest to be worth the trouble and I’ve been over that already in any case.
I’m pretty sure you said nothing of the sort. The proof is right there in post 37. Even if you had, you would be wrong. She spends the bulk of her blogging time defending non custodial parents. Non custodial parents do not, by and large, attack liberals for sport.
Neither DV statistics nor VAWA are feminism. DV statistics peddled by feminism are inaccurate and it is perfectly reasonable to point this out without wishing to roll back feminism in its entirety. VAWA violates equal protection.
What this MRA wants is equality: for male victims of domestic violence to be treated equally with female victims of domestic violence. Feminists consistently reject this notion.
I know of no man or woman who equates the danger of a stranger in the street with the danger of a partner in the home. OK, that’s not true. I now know of one man who does. Here’s a tip: the guy behind you late at night? He’s not going to wait until you’re asleep then set your genitals ablaze
this MRA believes that domestic violence is an equal opportunity activity carried out in more or less equal proportions by both men and women. The data gathered in various studies, individually and in cooperation by Suzanne Steinmetz, Murray Strauss and Richard Gelles bear out this belief.
The mens rights movement is not nearly so monolithic as to have a platform, never mind key components. And it certainly isn’t one defined by you for the purpose of wriggling out of a corner you painted yourself into.
March 2nd, 2007 at 11:23 am
Steven, you lied about me. Please refrain from that. You wrote “If you and Terri had your way, ever battered women’s shelter in the country would be shut down as some kind of scam.” Not true.
What I DO want is for every truly abused person, male and female, to have equal services available to them. What I DO want is to see only the truth about domestic violence in all aspects of the media. What I DO want is repeal of the mandatory arrest and primary aggressor laws. What I DO want is the reform or elimination of VAWA and the flat-out rejection of I-VAWA.
The reason I, a liberal female, reject the feminism we have today, is because I’ve seen their lies, propaganda, corruption and blatant lack of respect for equality for myself. Talk about ironic.
Those women lied to my legislators in Sacramento. I watched helplessly as one after another gave false statistics and degraded and slandered fathers to keep their funding flowing. Where’s the integrity? Do they not have sons?
I believe as do Libertarians in government staying out of our lives as much as possible. I see conservatives saying the same thing, but it’s a lie. They want government to control our sex partners and women’s uteruses. How in your face can you get?
I guess the bottom line for me, is I decide each issue separately. I don’t blindly follow any party line. I do this with many things in life, including the Men’s and Fathers’ Movements.
Yes, there are men who are radical in their beliefs about women, and they do speak up in the movement from time-to-time. Just as there are women who are radical in their beliefs about men, and they not only speak up from time-to-time, they recruit others and work very hard to affect family law. (Think Breaking The Silence.)
Steven, you’ve been brainwashed, just like most people. You were fed false statistics and debunked “studies.” Size doesn’t matter in domestic violence. Don’t you read the news? I do. And I’ve seen many a case of a woman using weapons, poison, an accomplice, etc.
I’ll be the first to admit it; not all of us women are angels. I am, of course, but not all of us are. I just want the truth to shine above the propaganda, so children can have relationships with their fathers as freely as they do their mothers.
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Teri,
I had hoped my preamble would have been sufficient to represtent your position.
The following paragraph was the play by play for the man on the street.
As for SG, you factually and intellectually crushed him like the worm he is…but I have yet to see failure of facts or intelligence on his part slow his genderbaiting drivel.
SG has to attack you Teri, because a father’s has to be confronted with an excuse. The excuse is all of the misrepresentaions of studies and statistics.
This all hides the money angle of corruption of the system that will victimize a woman with more money who will not pay a lawyer or bribe the judge.
Therein is a thesis that the legal profession is using feminism for their sybiotic purpose of the legal plunder of families by the corrupted courts.
Once the men and women movements see a common enemy, look out!
March 2nd, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Wow, we seem to have detracted from an article about “women (not) finding husbands”.
It’s not that I don’t care about the biases men face today in America. And I do care that my son will face an even bleaker future in which those biases don’t only include and are not limited to anti-male policies regarding marriage, parenthood, medicine, education, domestic violence, criminal sentences, job placement and advancement, sexual harassment, the draft, welfare, housing, small business loans, and many, many more. Sure I care about all those important items. But I thought this was an article about why women can’t find husbands.
I even agreed that it is wrong to say “all” or “most” women created this mess. I don’t want to place blame (in THIS article I won’t) for the cause of too few marriage-minded men. I just wanted to share my feelings as a guy as to what may be the reason so many men (but not enough) avoid marriage or fatherhood.
But after reading through all the above posts, I forgot what the hell I was going to say.
But, thanks Teri S. for writing such a thought-provoking piece.
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Teri–
Welcome to the other side. Now, I want you to read that sentence again and understand the impact.
Judging from your reaction to some of the comments here, you still at some level, align yourself with the sistahood. Let me use a sports analogy here. You either play for Michigan or Ohio State. You either play for the Red Sox or the Yankees.
It appears that you want to address one side and, at some level, defend the other. It doesn’t work that way. We men have been sold the bill of goods known as “equality” for 40 years. The last thing it is is “equal”.
Zenpriest often states that there is no neutral ground in this war of the sexes. By the way, I refuse to use the word gender when describing males and females. I am a human being, not part of a sentence. Make no mistake about it. This is a war. Look at some of the responses here. These are real men, in real pain, with their lives blown apart. Just because it isn’t on the evening news doesn’t make it any less real.
Stop taking their comments personally. If the men here want to paint women with a broad brush SO WHAT? Why should you care? At least you are getting a dialogue. If you go grammar nazi over generalizations men will tire of it and dismiss you. Yours is a burden that you and other women that get involved with this movement will have to carry. Would you rather we bobblehead the situation?
That won’t get the gravel shoveled.
One thing the feminists accepted when they started this crap was that they might not even live to see it come to fruition. They forged ahead anyway. The same goes for MRAs, MGTOWs, and women who join the cause. We might not live to see its conclusion. Hell, we might not even get any pats on the back along the way. Are you doing this for a greater good or for pats on the back?
We are not here to rip you, but you make it difficult for us to applaud you when we vent and you go into “defense mode”. As for what I am doing to help the cause, its simple. I am doing absolutely nothing. Which is the most damaging thing that I can do to the feminists and the government. I won’t marry, date, or put myself in a position to deal with women. I live a modest lifestyle and I don’t pay massive taxes. In short, I am doing the very best I can to starve the beast. Once that bad boy starves to death we can roll in the new model.
I am the very person that your article is referencing. I have never been married AND I WILL NOT MARRY OR INTERACT WITH WOMEN UNTIL ALL OF THE SCREWED UP LAWS ARE WIPED CLEAN OFF THE BOOKS. This is not a negotiation process. We view women and the government as an 800 pound gorilla that is attacking us. We really don’t care what women think/feel or their issues are.
We don’t care if the 800 pound gorilla has hemmorhoids. We really don’t.
March 4th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
A 800 pound gorilla tried to make me his husband the last time the feminazi cops locked me in maximum security !!!
I am thankful for devine intervention . Great article Teri and lots of interesting comments .
” It’s better to be defeated on principle than to win on lies ” – Arthur Calwell
March 5th, 2007 at 1:10 am
“Welcome to the other side”
—Thank you. I’m truly honored.
“you still at some level, align yourself with the sistahood.”
—Depends what you mean by sisterhood. as a female, yes, by all means. There is one area in which I often lament I’m not male; but besides that, menses, and childbirth, I’m pretty happy being female. In fact, in at least one area I’m thrilled to be female.
“Let me use a sports analogy here. You either play for Michigan or Ohio State. You either play for the Red Sox or the Yankees.”
—I understand that’s how it is for you . I even understand that you might believe it has to be that way for me, for everyone. I believe this is going to be one of those things that we’ll never agree on. I’m OK with that. I hope you are. I hate that people pick sides. Think how efficient the govt, including family law and domestic violence law reform, would be if everyone decided each issue independently.
“We men have been sold the bill of goods known as “equality†for 40 years.”
—The thing you speak of is radical feminism. Maybe we should call it Victim Feminism. Average women are learning what these rads have done, and I have faith with their help we’ll turn this back around and settle smack down in the middle. Anything else is unacceptable. I have some experience taking the message to average women, and from what I’ve seen, they’re appalled and supportive. You see, many average women know a male who sees the gorilla’s shadow.
“This is a war. ”
—I fear you see it as men against all women in general and all feminism. I see it as a war of individuals and families against the govt. and radical feminists.
“Look at some of the responses here. These are real men, in real pain, with their lives blown apart. Just because it isn’t on the evening news doesn’t make it any less real.”
—I know. I have many friends and a son who have, or who are now experiencing, all or some of the things in my article. I’m blessed that some of them share their thoughts with me.
Plus, I went through a similar thing involving the govt trying to use me for income when I had a failed adoption. I was shocked at the injustice and lack of assistance. I tried every normal option to solve the multiple govt-caused problems, and some off-the-wall things, all to no avail. This happened simultaneously with my marriage ending, a 20-year friendship ending suddenly and my home loan foreclosing. It was an awful time.
Medically this threw me into severe, chronic depression and stress-induced allergies that until I self-diagnosed, caused severe headaches lasting 7 days, 24 hours a day, even on medication. It took me several years to heal emotionally and physiologically and and get off medication. I even heard my voice, in my head, say the word suicide once. I’ve been to despair and desperation. I realized the other night that I purposely keep myself emotionally detached from the pain of all but a select few; that because I’m such a feeling and empathetic person I can’t handle feeling their pain. It can trigger my depression, and I can’t have that.
“Stop taking their comments personally. If the men here want to paint women with a broad brush SO WHAT? Why should you care?”
—It’s not that I’m taking them personally. I know how you guys write. It’s not about me.
One of my goals is to reverse the extremely negative reputation the Fathers’ Movement has. Like it or not, you, it, are judged by the tone of your comments. What else do they have to go by unless they dig deeper? And the radicals eat it up. They quote you in their communications to legislators.
‘At least you are getting a dialogue.’
—And I hope each of you know how much I appreciate it. I love learning about men. I’ve been blessed. And I can’t help feeling special; there aren’t many women like me.
‘If you go grammar nazi over generalizations men will tire of it and dismiss you.’
—I totally get this in normal everyday conversation! I was doing that in an attempt to protect the fathers’ movement’s reputation.
‘Yours is a burden that you and other women that get involved with this movement will have to carry.’
—I wouldn’t change a thi… I wouldn’t change too many things.
Would you rather we bobblehead the situation?
–what does that mean?
“That won’t get the gravel shoveled.”
—now that’s a sexy line right there.
“Are you doing this for a greater good or for pats on the back?’
—I’m driven by a passionate need to right this wrong that harms children, fathers and mothers. I do feel very proud when I do a good job. Being self-employed, I don’t get a lot of praise from people over 4. I’m very pleased with my progress as a writer. advocate and activist. Other than righting these wrongs, I suppose the only other thing I want, would be a new job, writing, doing PR, activism, something like that. I do child care for the good vibes, not because it pays well. Like a lot of you, I struggle at times, and just make it most of the time.
“you make it difficult for us to applaud you when we vent and you go into “defense modeâ€
–thank you for telling me this. I’ll try to watch my wording.
“We really don’t care what women think/feel or their issues are.”
—I understand that as far as the things feminists say are women’s feelings and issues. I hope that you, like the friends I have around the world, in your shoes, care about average, innocent women, women like me. I’m only here because my early mentors, *ssholes that a few of them were, put up with my ignorance for a very long time. I want you to win-over the average woman. To do that you should offer her a hand in patience…
I’d like to hit that animal with a very strong knock-out drug and send him back to where he came from. Since I can’t, I’ll keep kicking at his heels and warning others to beware.
By the way…If any of you are 40-60, single, dating and looking for a long-term, monogamous relationship…you can find my profile on several sites. I’m looking for a good man. You know, an average guy. If you’re interested, I’m OneOfAKindInCali.
: )
Teri
March 5th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
What a lot of the fellows here have been trying to do is to pound (not “drill”, but literally beat) through your denial system (and showing far more patience about it than you realize, not the least bit surprising to most men) is that –
1) more and more men do see women as the enemy, and
2) an ever growing number of men really don’t care about “average, innocent women, women like” you. These are precisely the women who have ruined the lives of countless men, mostly by using men’s caring about them as a weapon to use against men.
It is, in fact, these alleged “average, innocent women” who are the ones who have done most of the work to alienate average men from average women. As they have lapped up their daily dosages of Oprah, LifetimeTV, and all the other forms of emotional road-kill which seem to be the favorite diet of Western Woman, they have slowly drifted into isolated self-centered worlds and ceased to care about anything other than what gratifies them right now.
Recently, a former feminist reflected on the “scorched social landscape” which she and her sistahood had left in their rush to self-gratification. These average women you mention are anything but innocent, and the attempts to blame the destruction which has come from their actions on outside agents like “family courts” strangely echoes the absolute refusal of these average women to take any responsibility whatsoever for their actions or the consequences.
And, why not? It has worked so well for so long, that it isn’t surprising that slow learners would take a very long time to figure out that it has slowly begun to fail to work.
The father’s rights guys you are attempting to “sell” to these “average innocent women” are only a small subset of men fed up with feminism. The message which the rest of them keep trying to push past your denial system is that most of them see nothing at all to gain from “winning over the average woman”. In fact, it is the average woman who has a lot more to gain by abandoning her feminist ideas. Forget finding a “husband” in today’s climate – more and more women my age are having enough trouble finding a man who will even date them. I work with a woman about my age who has not had a man ask her out since 1999.
For her, expecting to be “won over” amounts to pricing herself completely out of the market.
March 5th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
For my experiences, it’s clearly the lack of reality testing that gals have with men, and lack of reality training that they get now. I for one advocate a marriage strike out of concern for being victimized yet again by someone who agrees to a set of rules then wants to renegotiate. Fine. I’m out of that deal altogether as Uncle suborns that game and clearly profits by it. I marvel at the gals I deal with, who claim they agree with my views on marriage as a legal institutions, who subsequently tire of only the lack of a piece of paper and upon finding only that I hold my priniciples steadfast, choose to walk away mad from substantial emotional and financial security because they thought I could be induced to gift them de jur with my worldly goods in exchange for emotional and physical vaporware and no guarantee whatsoever. My willingness to stick to what I had vowed and they had agreed to at the outset in the absense of anything else was what did it. Things will only get worse til reality is taught again in this land, and that responsibility by all parties be required, where those that fail to adhere to their utterings as a matter of routine be held at fault and assessed blame, male or female, by resonable evaluation of their conduct against their promises.
Never happen, of course, marriage was once all about survival at one point, not pleasure, so seeking happiness as an evaluator of marital success is a highway to dissatisfaction because continued happines is statisticall unlikely regardless the relationship type or components…
March 5th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
I have some sympathy for the plight of the ‘average’ women, as I will continue to refer to the bulk of women, but that sympathy is limited.
My father’s generation fought a bloody war against Fascism and I fought against communism. I now get along fine with Germans and Japanese and Italians and the rest, largely because they recanted their fascism and paid reparations for their damage. They ‘made good’. That is, the average person in the street in those countries paid via their taxes, their public utterances, their acceptance of responsibility for their complicity in the cause of the carnage. Even if in part. Some still rankle, like the Japanese who seem obliviously ignorant about the horrors that their country imposed on others. Generally though, I live in peace and harmony with them and even like many.
Women are in the same boat. ALL women. The femi-war is still being fought. Just wait till it hots up. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Women show complete contempt for men most of the time. Very rarely do I hear a woman defending men. Frankly when the occasional woman does defend men, defend truth, defend fairness, – as Teri does – and condemns the rabid hatred of men displayed by other women, and by other men in their thrall, I say ‘Thank you’. I recognise the ‘Good German’ in them. But they are rare. Most women rip off men horrendously and blame the men for it. Its like Germans blaming Jews for everything.
When women (that’s the bulk, the average en masse) start to actively counter the hatred-spewing women (and men) and actively fight against them, then, and only then, will I see them as anything but an implacable enemy to be fought. As with the German in the home, working to put bread on the table, do the washing, clean the house, raise a family, they get the bombs raining down on them and I have some sympathy. Limited. Some, many, sent their children into the Hitler Youth to be indoctrinated. It was they who started it, supported it, encouraged it, and they reap what they sow.
Men haven’t even started ‘raining bombs’ on women. That’s only because of mens’ incredible patience and tolerance, frankly. But that’s running out and the bomb-factories are gearing up. If women do not want that to happen, then now is the time to start aplogising and making restitution.
When the women gather together to plot the destruction of the leaderships of Feminism, as some Germans tried to assassinate Hitler, then I will see some hope. Until then women can hardly expect men to want to be in their lives. It is of no use at all for the average woman to complain that she cannot find a husband when for most of her life she has been encouraging a war against men.
Women will have to recant their Feminism and pay reparations. They will have to DESTROY feminism, not defend it. Not make excuses for this part or that. Hitler built autobahns and got the trains running on time but that is hardly a balance for the destruction caused. The average German felt pretty good about themselves, just as Womyn do, until the price had to be paid. Their arrogance soaked into the ground with their blood.
The average woman needs to put things right with men. Pay the cost. Themselves. Not from taxes levied on their husbands. Before it is too late and a more bloody cost is levied.
For those women who ply themselves on ‘Singles’ boards, I say ‘Tough’. What on earth do you expect?
Women, the average woman, has been saying that there are no good men out there. So what do you expect to find? Bad ones? “All men are Rapists’ has been the gleeful catchcry of feminists, supported by Ms Average for so long now. Do you really seek happiness from a rapist? Women seem all too happy to call men Jerks, then whine when men say ‘well, f*ck off then’. For the woman who fights men’s corner -like Teri – who uses a singles bord, Teri, you are not going to find anything there. Your friends have peed on the carpet. There are only pee-sniffers there.
Real Men don’t like the smell.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:34 am
Actually, from what I’ve seen, the internet sites carry an average cross-section of American men. Sure, there are guys I wouldn’t meet unless I had a drink at a biker bar, attended a Star Trek gathering or taught sky diving. We pass people by all the time; what’s different? You just have to be selective. …and it would be really good to have self-control… I hear… lol
March 6th, 2007 at 12:49 am
Teri,
I applaud your ability to advocate on behalf of men’s rights. I have to say that what I like about your posts is a focus on equality which, in my opinion, is what feminism was supposed to be about. Men and women are hurt by gender constructs that suggest women are always the better parent… my father, who died almost 2 years ago, was the most important person in my life. He was central in shaping many of my feminist ideals and my life would have been destroyed if he had ever been taken away becuase of a court system. He always told me that if I was going to be a feminist I needed to make sure that I fully understood all of the issues and that I never had a knee-jerk response to feminist issues. He introduced me to the works of more conservative feminists and reminded me that men could be hurt by women too. He worked hard in the 70s to make sure women were advanced to positions of responsibility where he worked. He also taught me to take care of myself and to make sure I got an education and an advanced degree so that I never had to rely on a man for financial support (well to be fair I relied on him a lot while I was pursuing my graduate degree—- but the goal was not to get married so I could be supported) That said, the vitriol against woman on this site is just as bad as the male bashing I see from radical feminists. I have been the one responsible for providing for the men in my life… and it has never bothered me. I mind the suggestion that all women are looking for a man so that they can ride him all the way to the bank. That such things happen to men is terrible and I do agree the court system (at least the family court system) is stacked against men. If my parents had divorced I would have hated to have to live with my mother… I would much rather have lived with my dad. There are bad men out there and there are bad women out there—- gender does not discriminate against bad behavior. I have been hurt by men, abused by men. lied to by men—– and I do think that men have a certain amount of privilege in our society and that has resulted in a backlash against men. I study domestic violence, in fact teach courses on it, and I am unusual in teaching about violence against men. Many people would like to take away my right to call myself a liberal feminist because I teach such things… I had an argument with another professor recently because I suggested that we are doing everyone a disservice when we fail to address the use of violence by women in intimate relationships. The mainstream position is that if women are using violence it is in reponse to male violence and when men are violent they cause more physical harm to the woman (because they are stronger physically) and therefore it is more of a problem. Many academics dismiss the studies that show women endorse the use of violent tactics in their relationships to the same extent as men… but when we do recognize it we must also remember that these same studies show that men are committing the more violent acts that result in serious harm. This does not mean that it is not just as crucial that we provide services for men that have been abused but we need to fully address the problem of violence in relationships. The problem with the current perspective is that it completely shuts down dialogue between men and women about the problems of violence and how to address them. Instead we have one size fits all approaches and stop gap measures to dealing with it. If women want equality in relationships and the workplace then we must also recognize that they are just as capable of violent acts as men. They are just as capable of being dispicable at the end of a relationship as a man and to manipulate the system more out of revenge than anything else. If I had a child, I would never want to stop that child from having a loving, healthy relationship with their father. But I guess my question is why hate women? As I said, I have been hurt by men, one damn near destroyed me, and I do not hate men nor think that every man in the world is responsible for the bad behavior of some. Radical feminist positions have failed both men and women because they paint both genders with such broad strokes— as if all women and all men fell into some predicatable categorical construct. The only way change will happen is through meaningful dialogue between genders as opposed to one side hating the other.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:40 am
> I do think that men have a certain amount of privilege in our society…
I hear this claim made rather frequently, and whenever I do I’m compelled to ask: what privilege(s), exactly?
A lot of us have cards in our wallets saying “Male – Member of the Patriarchy”, and we never seem to have any occasion to whip them out and make them work their alleged magic.
> If women want equality in relationships and the workplace…
If I read this correctly, you seem to be saying you think women are disadvantaged in both circumstances. I’m hoping you know most men feel at a distinct disadvantage in ‘relationships’, that women hold all the cards, and that most women seem to know this intuitively when they go around with t-shirts of the sort which proclaim their unequivocal superiority (”It’s All About Me”, “Spoiled Princess”, “I Have the Pussy – I Make the Rules”, “I Make Boys Cry”, etc).
> The only way change will happen is through meaningful dialogue…
And what so many men are saying is that women being in the ‘one-up’ position means they don’t have to listen, and indeed the perception is they don’t — all the while proclaiming “men don’t listen” and that it’s women who are inherently and naturally better listeners.
There’s no dialogue without listening. And what lots of men have been trying to say against much refusal to hear is that almost all of this so-called dialogue has for decades been little more than women dictating to men how it is and how it’s going to be, and then calling men insulting names when they/we do try to speak up and present their/our point of view. This is an extremely common experience, and it makes us skeptical when we hear the “it’s all really about equality” propaganda reiterated cause that’s never been true so there’s little reason to think it will be so in the future.
March 6th, 2007 at 6:18 am
I don’t think that men are ever going to “rain bombs” on women, amfortas. At least, I hope they don’t because that will be playing right into the stereotypes of men which the feminasties set up like pit-traps for us to fall into.
As I keep saying over and over – “men” are not some monolithic bloc or amorphous mass like “jello.” One very real difference I keep observing between the sexes is that women tend to have much more of a hive mind, where men tend to be far more individualistic.
Guys who have been badly burned by the court system do tend to be very angry about being burned. It is one of those traps I just mentioned which tries to make their anger the issue itself and divert attention from what it is that they are angry about. And, once they are caught in that trap they are stuck in the circumstances which cause that anger with no way out of it.
Forty years ago, when this whole idiotic mess got started, marriage was the norm. Almost everyone got married and had kids. That was just what people did. The pressure to do so was equally strongly applied to both sexes. But, the men who went along with those social values and pressures found that the rules got changed on them after the fact – fatherhood and marriage were criminalized after they had already committed (to) it.
It’s fairly typical for women to cast men’s actions and experience in terms of their own female experience. Thus, women say that men are “afraid” of marriage and fatherhood. However, that is mostly projection. I’m not the least bit “afraid” of rolling around naked in a patch of poison ivy – I just see it as something with lots of very negative consequences and absolutely nothing to recommend it. That is basically how I view marriage – lots of risks and downsides, no rewards. Why do it?
Lots of feministS have come out very strongly against marriage – painting it as basically “slavery” for women. When I look at it as an outsider, it looks to more to me like “slavery” for men, and divorce certainly is. As it stands today, “marriage” amounts to little more than temporary cohabitation and fornication with a temporary certificate issued by the state which can be revoked at any time by either party. That is nothing like the concept of marriage which I grew up with.
What makes this dialogue so complex and difficult is that feminism literally is FEMININE-ism, and its central energy is the elevation of the feminine and the tearing down of the masculine. Teri admitted it – FEMININE-ism represents women’s feelings and issues. Starting from the orientation of the victim – women are so “oppressed” – FEMININE-ism has pushed for the purely female perspective, which is identical to the experience which many men have with women in their own relationships. Add to this the almost universal tendency of women to stand up for each other, and rise huffily to the defense of womanhood any time any man makes an insufficiently qualified statement which contains the word “women”, and it does begin to appear to men that women are the ones who are an amorphous mass – all dedicated to promoting the interests of women (the feminine) over the interests of men.
The whole concept of “patriarchy” is nothing but projection – women accusing men of what they themselves would do. The reality is that men are far more independent and individualistic.
Many times I have used the analogy that what has been happening over the past 40 years is like a group of women living on one side of a lake, with a different group of women (feminists) living on the other side pouring garbage and raw sewage into it. The women on the one side are not going to be able to continue to drink pure, sweet, untainted water forever. Sooner or later the sewage and garbage is going to build up to the point where their own water supply becomes poisoned. Women have relentlessly kept telling lies about us, and there is no need for a qualifier here, not all women did it, but most of the ones who did were, in fact, women. If I were to say something like “Egyptians built the pyramids”, few people would be idiotic enough to jump in with “But, NOT ALL Egyptians!” Saying that a group of people which did something had certain common characteristics is NOT saying that every person who has that characteristic participated equally.
However, because virtually all women share the characteristic of FEMININE-ism with feminists, the distinctions they try to draw between themselves and those “bad” feminists are laughable to most men. I have certainly seen plenty of the alleged “nice, normal, women” pissing in the lake from their side.
The cruel paradox for women is that this movement which purports to represent them and their interests is actually the one which hates them the most, holds them in utter contempt, and has sought to destroy everything they value most – mates, marriage, and children. All of the laws which affect the “Rights” part of the term “MRA” have to do with men having relationships with women. It is a woman, and a feminist, not a man – Linda Hirshman – who is ripping on women making the choice to stay at home and raise their children. It was a woman, and a feminist, not a man – Simone DeBeauvior – who said that no woman “should” be allowed to stay at home and raise her children, supported by a man.
Women are going to pay a price for the denial of female evil that they have, as a group, been egaged in and supporting for the past 40 years. I don’t believe that men will ‘rain bombs” on women – they will simply turn their backs on women and leave them alone (as women have been demanding that men do for the past 4 decades) and go their own way.
The people that women will eventually come to have the most legitimate reason to fear are other women – who have been totally freed of all restraints on dangerous, destructive, and even psychotic behavior. Lisa Marie Nowak set out to do serious damage to, if not kill, another woman. The dirtiest little secret of feminism and the whole DV industry is that lesbian relationships are among the most violent of all relationships. Forty three years down the line from Friedan’s book which supposedly ignited this whole “2nd wave” of feminism, women are still ducking behind the “feminine mystique” with statments like “women never lie” and “women are never violent unless a man abuses them into becoming so.”
It is not possible to completely change one set of characteristics of a system and not change the system as whole. It is not possible to “liberate” women from the social pressures to marry and live up to their traditional roles, while at the same time keeping men locked into their traditional roles using nothing but the legal system.
The cruel paradox for women is that the laws we are talking about punish and criminalize men for trying to have relationships with them. I have made the comment many times, and it always gets misintepreted, is that as long as I treat women like they could either have or be carrying the plague, then I have most ofl the rights I need. If women want to make it illegal to show “unwanted attention” toward them, then all I have to do is never show a woman any attention because I can never be sure it is “wanted.” If they want to push for laws that make it a crime to have a drink with a woman and then have sex with her, then that is something else I can very easily not do, as well.
While I understand those guys who are very grateful toward women like Teri who are speaking up, I’m not among the group for whom that translates into doing us any sort of favors. I think that going to the legislatures and begging for them to give us our rights back is exactly the wrong way to go about it.
By that very act, they accept the legitimacy of having those rights “taken” away from them. Those rights were not legitimately taken away – they were usurped, stolen. Men’s lives got invaded by undercover agents, by the very people they trusted most – their wives and lovers.
From my perspective, women like Teri who are finally speaking up are doing me no favors at all, and thus are going to be sorely disappointed if they do it only because they expect gratitude and effusive praise from me for doing it. I view the situation as her fighting for the rights of men to have relationships with women, which is at least as much to the benefit of women as it is to the benefit of men, if not moreso.
I have reached the point where the “prove to us that you are not bad guys” stance is nothing except profoundly annoying. If a woman wants to believe that I am a “bad guy”, then it is no more in my own interests than in hers to question that belief. In fact, since I have reached the stage of life where I am far less motivated than the average woman is to seek a relationship, the shoe is actually on the other foot and I consider it incumbent on the woman to prove to me that she really isn’t one of those “bad FEMININE-ists.”
I have a relationship of absolute perfect “equality” with every single woman out there – she lives in her house, I live in mine; she pays 100% of her own bills, I pay 100% of mine; she does 100% of the work it takes to keep her house up, I do 100% of the work it takes to keep mine up; she makes 100% of her own decisions, I make 100% of my own decisions. 100%/2 households = exactly, precisely, 50% to as many decimal places as you want to carry it.
I don’t have to listen to endless bitching, whining, complaining, pissing and moaning. I don’t have to keep score down to the fraction of a minute over who does more “housework”. I never have to worry about what position I left the toilet seat.
I have peace and quiet, serenity, and freedom. Anyone who thinks I’m going to twist myself in knots, or expend a lot of effort, to give that away is a complete fool.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
marriage has become a contract wherby the provisions of the contract have nothing to do with determining whos at fault and assessing punishment when the relationship fails ir vcomes otherwise inconvenient. There’s no point whatsoever of legally entering into a contract where the behaviour of those engaged in it is immaterial and the language is not interpreted the same way for all parties.
It has become a sham document.
In a relationship of earnest intent, there is no more and no less implicit slavery and stereotyped behaviour for either participant, simply the grass being greener elsewhere. All I want out of life is a partner who pulls their weight in a relationship knowing what the various strengths and weaknesses are of each party and not changing the rules once it is perceived that the other is ’stuck’ with them. People are too varied to allow making strict absolute rules about what they want or should have. The gov’t cannot get involved without stereotyping everyones roles and expectations. Best be it for copuples wanting marital status to responsiobly write a contract to each other so that when judgment comes down it will be based on evaluation of each members responsibility and behaviour and not some judge with a redistribution agenda. It wont happen of coures. I’ve been told by a variety of gals, if someone really loves you and youre a decent guy the paperwork doesnt matter. The fact that it does most definately matter regardless speaks volumes and reaffirms that marriage, like all relationships revolves around cost-benefit analysis made by the individuals involved. My experience is such that once the paperworks signed things change in how I’m treated and I for one am sick of it. Depending on the charactor of those involved being married is nothing but a game of “GOTCHA!, bad enough even without the present bias…
March 6th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Zed, will you tell Angry Harry that his cognitive cluster bombs are outlawed by the Zed Convention, or shall I?
March 6th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
bellak wrote:
Teri,
I applaud your ability to advocate on behalf of men’s rights. I have to say that what I like about your posts is a focus on equality which, in my opinion, is what feminism was supposed to be about.
On another discussion (Spain’s Feminist Platform For Shared Parenting) about “promoting equality” Teri wrote:
“I decide each issue independently. I can agree with either side if they’re promoting equality.â€
Denis says:
Except that perfect equality is impossible to attain. However when “promoting†equality, the rules are always set up to move in that direction by whatever definition the feminists decide (today) is the meaning of “equality†(without ever getting to the end zone because as I said it is impossible). And who always ends up paying the price for “promoting†equality? Answer: the men. As ONE example:
Moronic Statement Alert
“Equality of opportunity is easy to attain.â€
Try saying that to young black men living in ghettos and also see how ‘equal’ are their ‘opportunities’ when compared to those living in rich neighbourhoods and who have been educated in the most expensive of schools.
Try saying that to short dumpy women who wish to become ballet dancers.
Try saying that to the boys whose education is being biased in favor of the girls.
We are 40 years into “promoting†equality for women and with many feminists we are not even close. The rules are always changing based on new statistics that are generated to show more disadvantage to women so that more disadvantage can be heaped on men. IT IS NEVER-ENDING. And average women who disagree have been silent for 40 years. There are too many women everywhere benfitting from the status quo to call for a change-UNLESS they pay a bigger price in some other way, e.g., not being able to find a man stupid enough to marry them. Making generalizations about women bothers some people. Even when it is true. Good! It is enraging to be unfairly treated isn’t it? There is a lesson to be learned there.
My point is that the search for ‘equality’ is never-ending, and that in the process of searching for this impossible goal, the stirring up of male hatred is a major consequence – and, indeed, in the case of feminists, it is a purposeful aim.
And seasoned men’s activists will know that whatever statistical differences are found between men and women, the feminists will always manage to stir up hatred towards men on the basis of them.
As ONE example, Affirmative Action will never end until America has an equal number of accountants, engineers, doctors, bricklayers, and an equal distribution of managers, CFOs, CEOs, directors,…etc. between men and women. Until that point, the rules of “promoting equality†will benefit women and hurt men.
Now I ask the clear thinking people here: If you are a member of the group that most benefits by the rules “promoting equality†and you are in a position to “reform†a system that the other group is objecting about-well just how far will the privileged group go to look out for the equality of the side that has always been on the losing team? My guess is that they will always look for ways where they keep their advantages.
Okay. Okay. I’m mixing posts. And I’m repeating myself. Go ahead, sue me. But this whole idea of “promoting equality” is important to discuss. It gets at the core of motivation.
For me, the motivation is JUSTICE.
March 7th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Precisely correct.
Women will never, in any way shape or form give up their privileges.
No way, there is also no possibility of being a “part-time” feminist as any association makes you one. There is no fence sitting on that hypocritical, lying, man-hate doctrine.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
There is no equality as there is no universal method of assigning the same degree of emphasis to the mu;titude of variable factors that make up a persons various perception. You cnat make everyone want and define things the same way. it is a functional Tower of babel.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
I like Terri because she at least tries to see it another way than the socially-prescribed, reactionary Feminist doctrines we all know & despise. Unfortunately, there will always be an amount of non-empathy in anything written about the opposite gender because, well there is so much BS in gender politics. Women are less qualified to speak about men than they were 30 years ago because Feminism has selfishly sought to redefine us for that long. These days I spend more time wondering what goes on in womens’ heads when they think about men, than I do think about women themselves.
After all, women are pretty simple. They want it all for free & will use either their vaginas or what is born of them, to get it.
Nothing new.
Nothings changed, except we started believing the bull about inequality.
Men meanwhile have the brains, the inventiveness, the courage, the creativity & the preparedness to sacrifice themselves that saw us get here from the trees. And it is time they realised we are in a gender war that has been waged against us for decades. Getting caught up in BS debates about equality, paternity rights, earning capacities & so on is just buying the propaganda & wasting time that future generations will pay for.
On the other hand, women should realise that as a gender, they have depended upon us since time began. There has never been a matriarchial society nor will there ever be; the term is an oxymoron. Men do not need the approval of women any more than we need that of children & certainly have no reason to obey the less intelligent half of the species.
(Btw if you don’t realise men have higher IQs, you need to catch-up on the facts. Its plain science, not politics.)
The biggest joke for me is this shared parenting stuff & the reactionary denial of DNA testing etc. We are living in a dream where women think they have a function beyond being mothers. They are mistaken as every right enjoyed by them was gifted by men. Biting the hand that feeds is never self-serving in the end & as they discover their new-found irrelevancy, they will complain about non-marriage as if it only existed for their own financial security. They will wonder why – as the self-absorbed assholes they have become – no bloke is willing to make them his everything. They will work long hours in crap jobs, their kids will hate them & in general, they will discover the uneviable other side of their so-called oppression.
Leave them to their fate. Hire hookers, enjoy your freedom & never, ever become a father.
March 7th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
OMG! I’m one of those HORRIBLE AMERICAN WOMEN – I’d like to post, but I’m too busy wounding every male in the Delaware Valley. Once I find a better paying job – one that I don’t have to put in an average of 68 hours per week – I’ll have even more time to be the MOST VILE SPECIMEN on the PLANET! It’s not easy, what with being a vacuous bimbo with zero creativity, no courage and zero inventiveness, BUT THANK GOD FOR MY VAGINA! Because you know every man on the planet is aching to f*ck this hot little Italian Nana. When they do, I’ll be sure to cry rape, because that’s what we VILE AMERICAN WOMEN DO BEST.
YIPPEE!!! I do have something to live for after all!!!!!!!!
March 7th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
PS Thank you for alerting me to the fact my children despise me, my cuddly grandson will probably stone me in the street when he’s 18, and my loving man actually thinks hates my self-entitled, greedy, materialistic a$$. I’d have never known. I’m just thankful I have all you rational, caring, NON BITTER men of superior intelligence to show me what a sorry specimen I really am.
Teri, you’re a better woman than I. Despite the fact that I care deeply about father’s rights, and am living with a man accused of the most heinous crimes, and am prepared to write a book about same, I could not bear the put downs, the insults, the downright hatred of some men toward me – toward all American women – on these MRA sites. I’ve cried enough tears and for what? For men who hate me, sight unseen? Please. They’re not worth it.
Anyway, kKeep up the good work.
When is the article on false accusations going to be published?
March 7th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Rosemarie, nice to see you on here.
March 8th, 2007 at 7:53 am
bellak,
You seem to read (or respond to) only the posts where there may be some harsh words written against “all” women. I’ll go out on a limb here and say that “most” men posting here and otherwise do not hate women. But we (I) lack the trust in them or our rules of law to enter and remain in a relationship whereby we (I) have a great chance to be hurt.
Just as the feminazi view that “all men are rapists” and “all men are bad” has infected the minds of women over last past few decades, the notion that men have a tremendous chance to get the injured emotionally, financially and perhaps even physically should they marry or father a child, well that message has started to be heard and heeded. Younger men should not be brainwashed into hating women by us older fellows who have had some difficulties, but they should be educated as to the grave risks posed.
contrarymary, speak to me.
I don’t hate you or anybody else. What do you say to me (or perhaps your grandson in a few years) when asked: Should I take a chance at marriage, where I could lose all I have worked for all my life to a woman who has a change of mind or to a lawyer who won’t have my interests at heart. Should I father another child who can be taken away from me for no legitimate reason other than I am the father?
March 8th, 2007 at 9:23 am
Any criticism of the behavior of women (any or all women) is inevitably going to be characterized as “hating women” – just as feminists have been shrieking “misogyny” and “sexism” for the past 4 decades. It is a very effective manipulative tool to force a change of subject away from the specific behaviors being criticized and put men on the defensive – having to prove that they don’t hate women. Virtually every woman I have ever dealt with on these subjects uses this form of manipulation, therefore they do all come off looking like feminists.
Here is a head’s up for all those “nice normal average innocent” women out there – the effectiveness of this tactic is wearing out from over use. What makes it so foul is that it is only effective when it is not true. It is spoken as a known lie with some awareness that the power of it depends entirely on how false it is – the more a man really likes women, the more effective it will be at silencing him. A man who truly did not like women would not be the slightest bit daunted by such an accusation – it would simply be a statement of truth.
FEMININE-ism has become a caricature of femininity, and turned most women into caricatures. As a result, this accusation of “hating women” has been so overused that it has become meaningless. Once a man stops caring what the woman making the accusation thinks of him, he starts ignoring the accusations and sticking with the original subject.
There have been many substantive issues which men here have raised that the female contingent continues to refuse to address, and continues to fall back on the worn out “you all just hate women.” Misogynists are not born, they are made, and this continued denial and refusal to dialogue on the issues fairly makes more every day. There is 1000x the true misogyny in this culture as a result of 4 decades of feminism than existed before that twisted ideology raised its ugly head.
Women have painted men into a corner when it comes to dealing with them – men can either capitulate to their every demand, or be called “woman haters.” It is reaching the point in the culture where the 2nd option is preferable to the first.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:11 am
The following was on AOLs website today:
The Secret’s Out: Some Women Fear Commitment, Too
By INGRID STURGIS, AOL COACHES
You know her.
She is the queen of first dates. She has a coterie of close girlfriends with whom she dissects in detail every humiliating date with the bad boys she adores. She’s the one who has been happily engaged for half-a-decade or more with no wedding in sight. Or she rebounds from one long-term relationship to another without ever stopping to reflect. She tells you that all the good men are taken. You tell her she’s too picky. She replies, “Why do I have to settle?”
(Translation: Good Guys who treat her right are door mats to her. Bad Boys that treat her like a door mat are exciting….until she finds a rich one to cash in on. Equality is only good when it works in her favor.)
Some might call her an independent woman. But Elina Furman, author of ‘Kiss and Run: The Single, Picky, and Indecisive Girl’s Guide to Overcoming Her Fear of Commitment,’ calls her commitment phobic. Apparently women are not only bringing home the bacon and frying it up in a pan, but they’ve adopted the same bad behaviors that women have long attributed to men.
(Here’s that Strong Independent Label again. Except this whole column is about yet another female issue that needs to be addressed. Poor things.)
“There are a lot of woman in their mid-20s and -30s doing everything to sabotage their relationships,” Furman says, from dismissing men before getting to know them better to playing the field. Even women in their 40s and older — who have been married, divorced and have raised their children — are reveling in their newfound freedom.
(Translation: Sure you are. Seeing how marriage rates have dropped and the single population is at an all time high do to the fact that men are refusing to sign a sham contract you NEED to put a happy face on it. Of course, if you are in your 40s and older having been married, divorced, my bet is that you want to spend all that divorce money on yourself until you find another sucker to keep you into a lifestyle you’ve become accustomed to. It’s so tough being a woman these days!)
In the past 30 years, society has changed, giving women more options for work, family and relationships. As a result, women are more independent than ever. At 47 million strong, according to the U.S. Census, single women are the fastest-growing segment of the American population. And with society more accepting of their single status, women are free to pursue whatever choices they want to make. However, conflicts can arise from all this newfound freedom: More women are living life on their own terms but finding it harder to compromise.
(Translation: Well that’s good news! Single women are the fastest growing segment of the population. That must mean that men aren’t marrying them. It’s been 40 years plus with this whole feminist thing girl, it is way past time to stop using phrases like “and with society more acceptingâ€. Talk about a crucifixion complex, geez get over it.)
Furman says she knows these commitment-phobic women well because she used to be one of them. “I was in a long-term relationship. We never even talked about marriage, or moving in together. It never came up once in all the time we were together. What’s wrong with me that I would be someone for that long and not think about it as a possibility?”
When that relationship ended, Furman says she became a serial dater. Eventually, she was dissatisfied with her relationships with men. “Every day I would struggle with wanting to stay and wanting to leave. Is this person right for me?” Furman says she started to wonder what was at the root of her behavior. Like any good researcher, the author, (who previously homed into another lifestyle trend with her book ‘Boomerang Nation’) began to ask questions, eventually interviewing 100 women about their views on relationships. “I needed answers,” she says. “I started interviewing women. I talked to psychologists.”
(Yep. Go talk to the psychologists you Strong Independent Woman you!)
The work eventually helped her to get at the root of her issues. It was, she says, a cathartic experience and fodder for the book. “Other women needed the help as well. It validates our fears. So many women wrote in who had the same issues.”
(Big surprise there.)
One of those issues is the strength of female bonding. “Girlfriends travel together,” the author says. “And women are single for so much longer. I believe in the bonds that women share, but women have become so close knit that there is no room for a man to come in anymore. All emotional needs are taken care of by a small group of women who have a stake in keeping each other single.”
(“women have become so close knit that there is no room for a man to come in anymore.†So then what is your point here? You are trying to cure a phobia that really is not a phobia? You are happy without a man? Fine. Then shut up and get on with living. You don’t need to write a book then either. )
Another is the pickiness. “We always see the stereotype of the men who want to date a supermodel. Now we see this happening with women,” Furman says. “Expectations are skyrocketing out of control. Women have economic power and now they are acting like men. Pickiness is a luxury that women can now afford.”
(Oh come on! You women have been ALWAYS looking for Mr. Rich and Good Looking. Geez, you can’t even be honest with yourselves. Maybe you do need those psychologists.)
One prime example is Jennifer Aniston’s dashed relationship with Brad Pitt, who tabloids say only wanted to settle down and have children, which he has done with Angelina Jolie. She, ironically, is yet another independent woman who tabloids often point out is ambivalent about marriage but not children. Another example is the runaway bride who skipped out on her groom and her wedding and fled to Mexico.
(Women Strong-Men Weak. Women Good-Men Bad. This has gotten so old.
I thought the runaway bride ran away because she was a nutcase. Turns out she was a Strong-Independent woman who did not want children with a weak man. Go figure.)
Commitment phobia is not just an American trend but also a global phenomenon, Furman says, with women in Japan, Australia and Britain adopting the same behaviors. These women, she says, are not settling down. They want to experience life, shop, travel, work, count their money, and play. “They fear having a husband is going to compromise their lifestyle,” she says. “They fear of giving up freedom.” In addition, she says, relationships get a bad rap today with all the negative messages in the media about relationships. “Growing up in this day and age, you’d be freaked out, too,” Furman says.
(And I thought it had to do with men having no stake or rights whatsoever in marriage and family and deciding relationships with women offer men NOTHING. Did’nt know it had to do with wanting Louis Vuiton and Gucci.)
This trend is especially unsettling for men, the author says. “Men don’t understand why women are roaring so much. A lot of men are much more relationship- and family-oriented than women.” She says women often feel that men have more to gain in a marriage and many feel as if men always win and women always lose in a relationship. In addition, when men play the nice guy, they may not get the girl. The author says, often it’s not his issues but hers that interfere in a relationship. She says many women are saying to men, “It’s your fault,” rather than admit that they are scared of commitment.
(Here we go again. Woman-Strong, Man-Weak. And you women are wondering why so many of us men do not discriminate the feminists from “regular†women anymore?)
Furman says for years, everyone quoted erroneous statistics that said there were not enough men for all the single women. She says even though those stats have been debunked, women still rely on flawed probabilities, often blaming men for their predicament. However, says Furman, this defeatism masks their underlying fear of commitment. The ones who say there aren’t enough men are blaming things outside themselves. The author says women should stop looking outside themselves and look inside to figure out why they are afraid of intimacy. Intimacy, she says, can be scary.
(“women still rely on flawed probabilities, often blaming men for their predicament.†Ah Hah!! RELYING ON FLAWED PROBABILITIES AND OFTEN BLAMING MEN. . And you women are wondering why so many of us men do not discriminate the feminists from “regular†women anymore?)
So what’s a woman to do? Furman says the first step is to admit you have a problem. In ‘Kiss and Run,’ she details seven types of commitment phobes: The Nit-Picker, The Serial Dater, The Long-Distance Runner, The Tinker Belle, The Free Spirit, Damsel in Distress and The Player. In addition, her book offers steps on how to stop derailing relationships with quizzes, first-person accounts and expert advice to help these women to change their ways. Eventually, Furman says, commitment phobic women can get over themselves and move on to a healthy, satisfying and emotionally committed relationship. She ought to know; she did.
(Step 1.-Admit you have a problem (here’s that ‘problem†excuse again. Wouldn’t have anything to do with personal responsibility now would it?)
(Step 2.-Buy her book.)
Elina Furman offers single women tips and advice on how to conquer their commitment anxiety and curb overanalysis.
(”CURB OVERANALYSIS”???!!!!!! GIVE ME A BREAK!!)
March 8th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Maybe I missed something? When did marriage actually become a particularly special commitment for women? I mean other than the dudes being kicked out and forced to send money I don’t see any other obvious or implicit commintments engineered into the system…
March 8th, 2007 at 11:12 am
and Which Hunter, you got it goin on dude…
March 8th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Red Pill, she considers commitment to be of the VERY GREATEST importance. It has to be TOTAL and for ALL TIME.
She is always willing and eager to commit and ‘intuitively’ ‘knows’ that it takes practice. Lots of practice. It has to be done over and over. She thinks about it every day. He has to reaffirm his commitment every day.
It is he who has ‘difficulty’ committing.
To him it’s a one- off thing. He thinks about it deeply, for some time, usually too long, not understanding it’s importance to her that he does it right NOW. He commits his future, his earnings, his labour, his freedoms. It is important to him. He only need do it once.
She initiates 80% of divorces.
Then she wants his future commitment to continue support her so she hires lawyers and takes him to Court to make him remain committed to paying for the rest of his life. If she can do this several times, it confirms her commitment to commitment.
The more men fight this, the more she ‘understands’ that men are the ones who are reluctant to commit.
March 9th, 2007 at 10:21 am
> according to the U.S. Census, single women are the
> fastest-growing segment of the American population.
This is mathematically impossible. For every single woman there’s a man who’s not married to her, and vice versa, just as for every single mom there’s a family-less father (or two or three). The various paired populations grow at the same rate, to a first approximation. If one wanted to get precise, you could take into account the fact that more boys than girls are born, and that males have a higher mortality rate than women. But doing so is only going to show that any difference in the rates of growth of the various populations is of the order of a few percent. So the quoted statement is little more than headline type bombast signalling a new bogus trend.
> …for years, everyone quoted erroneous statistics that
> said there were not enough men for all the single women.
So where was this previously unknown population of single men discovered by the census takers? There was never a ‘man shortage’ to begin with. Quite the contrary. Among never-married 34-39 year-olds, men outnumbered women four to three in the 2000 census. The only place where the ratio was reversed was in the media capitol of NYC…
—–
I’ve always found the whole biz about ‘committment-phobia’ interesting. It’s always been about what the woman wants. I.e., if you go out on a first date, and, as the male, answer the inevitable questions about what you want and what you’re looking for with something to the effect that you want to settle down, have kids, and live happily ever after behind a white picket fence, then many a ‘modern’ woman will take you for a retro knuckledragger who wants to keep women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, as the cliche goes. No good. On the other hand, if you’re non-commital and end up ‘hooking-up’ in some manner or another, then after 15 or 18 months she’s likely to start talking about moving in together and/or other signs of bonding and long-term commitment. Now, when the male balks, he’s branded as being commitment-phobic and all the rest. So the thing about commitment is it has to be something she thinks up. It has to coincide with her timing. It has to be about him conforming to her wishes and expectations, rather than the other way around.
March 9th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Hey, I love white picket fences! : )
March 9th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Teri, I actually built a white picket fence once. What a pain. Ok, it wasn’t white. It was Jarra wood so I stained it. The ex has it around my ex house.