Making little cards and handing them out is a good idea. I have handed out flyers. The Courthouse wouldn’t let me put it on their noticeboard so I passed them out. The lawyers wouldn’t accept them but everyone else did. The police force would accept them so I gave them individually to the police. Then I hit the streets. Everytime I see a male working, I say, “Hi there hard worker, we are after a men’s affairs.” They appreciate it. I want to do it this way because if I work in community, I get referrals and then I get stuck helping one male at a time. That is important of course, really important because it is lives of children at stake also (PAS) but I feel that we will end up with so many to help and provide no REAL help for the future.

Unlike the women’s groups who work to sustain their movement for a long time, I think the men’s movement wants to get in and empower the people. But don’t get me wrong. The women’s groups do alot of good work and do empower alot of women to better their own lives.

It is the LAW as amfortas says. But unfortuanately the law is more interested in keeping the courts going and has millions of lawyers coming through schools to proivide jobs for. It really is an industry and even though we are moving towards shared parenting, our FC has been given along side the Women’s refuge around $60,000,000 to promote more DV cases so that the FC survives. Whatever move is made from the right foot, the left foot counteracts.

This has to be a movement to encourage the world to stop in it’s tracks and take another direction. But maybe instead of a loaded gun pointed at these officails why not spit in their faces. lol

That would hurt their careers. A men’s group did this by protesting outside lawyers, judges and Psychologists homes and it has changed attitudes.

Well, I’ll be. I have just realised what i want. What my goal is. To change the course of time. Now to put that into 30 words. And make a plan to do it. I think you will get alot of people involved at the University and I think I will too. You are right in saying that it is the right time. I also believe that. The pain is great.

Yes, I understand that. But how does one “breach” a marriage contract? I know how to breach a business contract, but I’ve no idea how to breach a marriage one. You’ve never explained to anyone how this works.

After that, you have to explain how to calculate the penalty after the breach. Again, this is very easy with business contracts, where items have prices, and multiplication can determine penalties. But this doesn’t apply to marriage contracts.

“Your “wife” cannot be punished for cheating on you, having children by other men, disrespecting you, and a whole slew of other offenses.”

You’re right. The State doesn’t have the power to punish people for doing such things, because the State doesn’t have the ability (like you don’t have the ability) to show how this behavior is a breach of the marriage contract.

When a woman cheats, it’s tragic. But two things. (1) Without a clearly defined contract, you can’t ask the State to punish her. (2) A clearly defined contract must take into account his behavior as well as hers. If he gains 400 pounds and smells really bad, she can argue that this drove her to cheat. Is it a great argument? No. Does it cast reasonable doubt? Yes. Especially since the marriage contract isn’t clearly defined.

It’s like I said before. It’s not sensible to become angry over the impossible. I don’t have the power to pick up a semi-truck, whirl it around 70 times, and send it into the sun. Getting mad at me isn’t going to help me do it.

“Nothing like making an assertion, and a negative one at that, and then demanding to be proved wrong.

Like you did with Julie? Or is it different because you did it? YOU made the assetrion that marriage contracts “are just like business contracts”. When I’ve asked you to prove this, you’ve given me easy-defeatable vaguaries and insults. And I’m nice enough to, for the third time ask you to clearly delineate how “marriage contracts are just like business contracts”.

That’s YOUR assertion, not mine. So I’m not asking you to work for my behalf, but for YOURS. If you can’t do this, cede the point to me and move on.

“What do you know? What can you possibly tell me, you little turd? I own a business, 5 houses, 300 acres of land, two trucks, 4 vans, and three cars. I have two children – who bloody send me mother’s day cards! – I travel, am actively dating and sleeping with five women…”

While it’s not exactly fair to write my answer in list form…

(1) When a man speaks of his women and material possessions as if they were trophies to brag about, he’s not pretending.

(2) That a man often seeks an excess of material goods in order to compensate for a weakness in other areas.

(3) That five, five hundred, or five thousand women cannot give you what only one woman can.

(4) Quoth the esteemed philosopher Crow, “If it makes you happy, then it can’t be that bad. If it makes you happy, then why the hell are you so sad?” You can convince me of a lot of things, but you can’t convince me of your happiness.

(5) That there really are two groups of MRAs out there: the healthy and the unhealthy. Some MRAs are so hungry for male support that they’ll fire a neutral message which appeals to both crowds. And while this looks like strength in numbers, mixing two opposing groups together guarantees you won’t move.

(6) That all I really really want from you is to explain how this whole “marriage contracts are just like business contracts” thing. It soudns awesome. And I’ve never heard it from anyone else before. But your examples don’t lead to anything concrete, and your insults make it seem like you’re bluffing. So, please, really, just explain how this works.

(7) “You’re going to teach me what, puppy? How to tie myself down to one woman with some ridiculous state contract so I can worry about her and the government getting their grubby mitts on my property? Give me a break.” That I really don’t support the State. And that you only think I do because you’re oh so good at jumping to conclusions and then covering up the leap with insults.

(8) “And yet, I have all the so-called “Benefits” to marriage.” No, you don’t. You’re missing something. And I know you’re missing something by the fact that people who have everything always behave in the same way. You’re not behaving that way. It really is that simple.

(9) “Like Mr. Rudov, I get letters every week from men who put my advice to work and find it works, thanking me.”

An expert businesman would be just as concerned with why something works as with whether something works.

(10) “Who cares if I alienate you?” I could never understand how people could argue with one person, in front of many people, without realizing that an argument with one person is NEVER just with one person!

I merely pointed out that business contracts are simple to enforce because they deal with tangible things like money and washing machines. Marriage vows, however, deal with intangible things like love, honor, and cherishment.

Marriage contractys – marriage vows – which one is it, Captain Illogic?

Vow =! Contract. The vow is that spoken before God. The Contract is your piece of paper.

Asshats like you tend to conflate the two – they are not the same. While you may think the vows are contracted, in the eyes of the state your marriage license (License = Privilege, not right) is purely pcuniary. Your “wife” cannot be punished for cheating on you, having children by other men, disrespecting you, and a whole slew of other offenses.

You can, however, be forced to pay for a child which isn’t yours because you’re the “father.”

Then I submitted so graciously to yoru expertise and asked you how, as an expert of business contracts, you would use them to enforce marriage contracts.

As with any other contract – if the contract is breached, the one who breaches it pays a penalty.

If my Wiring contractor fails to show up, for instance, not only does he not get paid, he pays for the expense of me hiring another at the last minute.

For this, you’ve insulted me – not because I’m chivalrous, but because I revealed your anger to be over the impossible.

Quoth MMX “assuming something is impossible, and then insulting people before they can even explain themselves is a sign of closed-mindedness”

In fact, that’s why you’re really angry all the time. You want other people to give you the impossible, and then your try to angry-angry-angry at them until they give it to you.

Handbook of Male Shaming Tactics – I believe the accusation of “Angryu” is number 6. You learn from your feminist mistresses well.

Unless you can prove otherwise, the State cannot enforce marriage contracts,

Nothing like making an assertion, and a negative one at that, and then demanding to be proved wrong.

because they deal with the intangible. The State can only decide who gets the house, who kids the kids, and who pays what to whom. So your assertion that the State “can enforce marriage contracts just like they do business contracts” doesn’t make any sense. And thus, your anger is unjustified.

LOL!

That is the way the state enforces business contracts! IN THE BREACH!

(Roaring with laughter)

My God, you fool – I had a business partner back in the day who lost his share by not living up to “intangibles!” His bad behavior cost him.

Fault based divorce did just that.

Since your anger is based on the impossible,

Quoth MMX: “assuming something is impossible, and then insulting people before they can even explain themselves is a sign of closed-mindedness”

you would be better served to get rid of it. Insulting me doesn’t make your demands correct. It makes them impossible.

Insulting you makes my demands impossible. I see.

Refusing to see your flaws doesn’t make you strong. And insulting me doesn’t make you strong either.

“Platitudes, you sanctimonious F*cknozzle. All you are is full of platitudes.

That…and that fabulous list of traits to separate the healthy MRAs from the unhealthy ones. Keep in mind that, given you insult me so much, I don’t tell you everything I know. Why should I? You’re Angry-Divorced-Guy. Hell, with this anger….neevrmind. I don’t need to say what everyone else is already thinking.

What do you know? What can you possibly tell me, you little turd? I own a business, 5 houses, 300 acres of land, two trucks, 4 vans, and three cars. I have two children – who bloody send me mother’s day cards! – I travel, am actively dating and sleeping with five women, and I am free of worrying that one is going to take me for my property or children. In fact, I am not beholden to ANYONE. I’m not even a hundred thousand dollars in debt, and I just roll that over to keep my credit up; I can sell one property and pay that off

You’re going to teach me what, puppy? How to tie myself down to one woman with some ridiculous state contract so I can worry about her and the government getting their grubby mitts on my property? Give me a break.

All the Great State Marriage Sham does is entitle that woman to quiver her lip tearfully during an ex-parte proceeding and say “I am afwaid” and wham-bam, I am screwed. She can toss me out anytime, and keep my stuff. Accuse me of God know what, and half of what I have is hers – and all of what she has is hers, too.

Guess what, though – I sidestepped that error. I asked “What would enable me to be in a truly equal relationship where I could do that too?”

The answer? DON’T GET “MARRIED!”

My relationships are nopw equal. We both have the freedom to say “Later on!” We both walk ouit of it with what we brought into it. Either one of us acts the fool, and it’s “Adios!” No lawyers. No Judges. No government.

And yet, I have all the so-called “Benefits” to marriage.

My way works. You can argue with me, but you can’t argue with success.

Except I never said that!

Angry people always look for people to fight! They make enemies out of non-enemies, because they’re so full of bile and hurt! Seriously! None of my arguments insist that a man must go to the State! None of them! You’re too busy seeing red that you’re not reading me correctly! Angry-angry-angry! Not make Gonzman strong! Make Gonzman waste energy fighting! Gonzman alienate everyone, except the other Angrys!

Like Mr. Rudov, I get letters every week from men who put my advice to work and find it works, thanking me. They are getting their kids back, winning divorces, not entering into poisonous marriages, executing pre-nups, shielding their assets, and finding their lives all the better. I am helping my brothers.

Who cares if I alienate you?

One needs to reach people where there at with a simple but effective plan..

EVER WONDER WHY MEN IN
1920 DIED 1 YEAR EARLIER THAN
WOMEN AND MEN ARE NOW DYING
ON AVERAGE 6 YEARS EARLIER???
http://www.mens-links.net/home.asp
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/

I make little businees size cards using my printer…and approach people in our university town by saying…

“pardon me sir, I’m a mens health care activist..here’s some interesting information..check it out!!”

their wallet size, and people easilly put them right into their wallet, and thank me!!!

It isn’t women who wield it. Specialist ’shooters’ do that.

Women’s part is in instigating a “Let’s you and him fight” game.

We either don’t play – a marriage strike – or we fight the shooters.

That shotgun is the Law. The Judges and the Courts and the Legislators are the enemy. They are the shooters. They are the ones set up to fight men. Their intent, though they say otherwise, is to destroy men’s love for women by having women destroy men’s faith in women. It is they how bully and dispossess, who take our children and our lives. They care not for the pain they cause. They get paid by the corpse.

It would be nice to find the UberFeminazi in a lair somewhere and chuck a stick of dynamite in like Bruce, or even Ripley, but the reality is that she is spread out like a plague in the mind, mainly of women, but in planty of men too, and we see the stormtroopers in the Courts in their robes who do the damage. It is they we face before we can wipe out the plague.

The Darrens of the world are the Van of the fight back. A small point at the moment, but I predict he will grow.

The legislators will not change the Law for the better until they get hurt. The Judges will not stop enforcing the destruction of marriages and lives, until they get hurt.

Meanwhile we must resist hurting one another. Direct righteous anger at the Judges and Legislators. No change will occur until Darrens take up arms and find a car park near the court-house.

The shotgun is a shotgun. It has a shooter. The shooter is the enemy. Judges and Legislators.

It is ironic that they even want us to vote them in so that they can kill us.

Get in first and vote them out with a differently spelt ballot.

lol, my comments are nothing more than waffling on.

But you have asked me for an idea. Before I write something about this I just want to expalin that I have been doing alot of listening to alot of people (men mainly) in the community. Everything I thought might be worthwhile will not be. Infact, men do discuss these things all the time. Conventions at a National level make ideas but nothing comes from it. Smaller meetings happen in my area often and still nothing happens. It just gets discussed and discussed. Even politicians want to give support but something stops things from going ahead. Some of it may be that male groups work at a level of providing a service and intellects all fight one another.

DV research is apparently 20 years old and they say it is still at a begginning stage. It is becoming hard for them to get funding because other intellectuals challenge whether their research is of any value and then the women’s groups are struggling with funding themselves. But they get alot more than the men’s groups. So, I learn and I learn. And then I spoke with males that are Gay thinking they might be a way in but they already hahve a big movement Nationally. it seems, ooking from the outside that if the men really wanted to change things they could and would have. But they say it is not that simple because they themsleves don’t have an answer. Everytime someone puts a thought forward, someone else has facts of outliers that destroy the idea. So, I wonder whether or not there is an answer.

Anyhow, at present some males have given their support and I have to explain in 30 words or less what my goal is. What do I want? I thought maybe a men’s affairs like a women’s affairs.

And then someone else has instructed to me to make a plan.

I am full of creative ideas and I have no problem to put the work in.

I am not really excited by being here. I am just looking for ideas for what i want.

Shared parenting is a good thing but then still the females can use DV orders to stop the dads seeing their children unsupervised.

So, I am thinking more in line with making as many people aware that there is a movement. At present I am making a 2 page flyer and distributing it around the Universities. I don’t know whether I should challenge feminism or just put forward men’s rights as in Human rights. I have been told that I will not get far pulling feminism down. I have had a little communication with the Human Rights Commission and at the top level. They are aware of the issues and say that they are putting something into a plan. The only problem is that all the commissions are run by feminists whether men or women. It is like all the people on the ground are asleep. lol

Is there some point in the sequence of your posts when you might actually start to create some CONTENT?

i.e. –

write something like a paragraph with an actual idea?

An actual thought with a noun, verb, and perhaps a concept?

Why are you posting here, dear?

Your “enjoyment” no doubt excites you.

Please.

lol

I didn’t know there was a myth like that. It makes alot of sense to what is going on.

I am really enjoying this thread. Except for the ^%^$% words. lol

Oh, no. I did much more than that. You’ve declared yourself the expert on business contracts, and then accused the State of “not enforcing marriage contracts the way they enforce business contracts.”

I merely pointed out that business contracts are simple to enforce because they deal with tangible things like money and washing machines. Marriage vows, however, deal with intangible things like love, honor, and cherishment.

Then I submitted so graciously to yoru expertise and asked you how, as an expert of business contracts, you would use them to enforce marriage contracts.

For this, you’ve insulted me – not because I’m chivalrous, but because I revealed your anger to be over the impossible. In fact, that’s why you’re really angry all the time. You want other people to give you the impossible, and then your try to angry-angry-angry at them until they give it to you.

Unless you can prove otherwise, the State cannot enforce marriage contracts, because they deal with the intangible. The State can only decide who gets the house, who kids the kids, and who pays what to whom. So your assertion that the State “can enforce marriage contracts just like they do business contracts” doesn’t make any sense. And thus, your anger is unjustified.

“Since you’re “not a statist” MMX, I guess this shouldn’t bother you. State can’t “keep” your vows, can they? Can’t “sanctify” your marriage, can it? Since you claim not to worship the state, it shouldn’t matter a whit if you are married in any meanigful way and just don’t have the State’s (Holy, holy, holy!) blessing on your union? Right?

Right…and wrong.

Since your anger is based on the impossible, you would be better served to get rid of it. Insulting me doesn’t make your demands correct. It makes them impossible. Refusing to see your flaws doesn’t make you strong. And insulting me doesn’t make you strong either.

“Platitudes, you sanctimonious F*cknozzle. All you are is full of platitudes.

That…and that fabulous list of traits to separate the healthy MRAs from the unhealthy ones. Keep in mind that, given you insult me so much, I don’t tell you everything I know. Why should I? You’re Angry-Divorced-Guy. Hell, with this anger….neevrmind. I don’t need to say what everyone else is already thinking.

“Or is their a reason – besides your abject idiocy – that you keep pushing the whole “You’re marriage isn’t a real marriage without the Permission Slip from Mommy Government” meme?”

Except I never said that! Angry people always look for people to fight! They make enemies out of non-enemies, because they’re so full of bile and hurt! Seriously! None of my arguments insist that a man must go to the State! None of them! You’re too busy seeing red that you’re not reading me correctly! Angry-angry-angry! Not make Gonzman strong! Make Gonzman waste energy fighting! Gonzman alienate everyone, except the other Angrys!

I am so apologizing for my post #1 above.

All of this tangential blather and gossip and bad theory…. and a whole lotta great diversionary story-lines! (MND is a dangerous collective narrative…. Mike LaSalle clearly understands this …)

All I initially wanted to say was —

“vaginas are (theoretically) dangerous.”

This thread proves why feminists are totally correct in being afraid of the men’s rights’ movement.

Inherent male logic and its dangerous tendency to link concepts and arguments and satire and irony is always on display, even during the most vehement disagreements … the kind that end most female friendships and turn feminist blogs into hormonal conflagrations.

MND-MRA Fight Club?

Not really. Not ever.

Just a matter of afew decent blokes attempting to discern what is still true….

Good to see that the playful spirit of the “evil” patriarchy is still alive and well!

Your comment 57 was awesome.

What a joke you are.

So why haven’t you? Right. Cuz it’s impossible.

And then…

Your Tactic of assuming something is impossible, and then insulting people before they can even explain themselves is a sign of closed-mindedness. If God cannot fix that, why should I be expected to?

Your words, @$$tard – not mine.

So, you’re suggestion is… more of the same.

Well, hell – why didn’t *WE* think of that?

Platitudes, you sanctimonious F*cknozzle. All you are is full of platitudes. “Pick a woman who won’t do that to you.” No sh!t, Sherlock? Gosh, go ahead and hand that loaded gun to a woman – just pick one who won’t pull the trigger on you.

Well, hell. Our problems are all solved. Someone notify LaSalle, we can start pulling the plugs here and selling the furnishings on eBay

Or – and this is crazy enough to work – you can get married all you want. You can make those promises that only two people can make and keep anyway. You can execute legal documents such as wills, power of attorney, etc. Everything that is associated with marriage and makes it meaningful and sacred…

…Except for that piece of paper which allows the State to come in and hose you.

Since you’re “not a statist” MMX, I guess this shouldn’t bother you. State can’t “keep” your vows, can they? Can’t “sanctify” your marriage, can it? Since you claim not to worship the state, it shouldn’t matter a whit if you are married in any meanigful way and just don’t have the State’s (Holy, holy, holy!) blessing on your union? Right?

RIGHT?

Or is their a reason – besides your abject idiocy – that you keep pushing the whole “You’re marriage isn’t a real marriage without the Permission Slip from Mommy Government” meme?

And all a lot simpler than convoluted, Rube Goldberg sham marriages. Just say no to big brother.

Just declare your freedom to do as you will.

I know it’s scary with your snivelling, craven, slave mentality. And hey – rather than lie to the state and live your life in the shadows, being a man and openly saying “Screw You” is probably beyond you, you p*ssy-whipped, conformist bedwetter.

Pathetic.

Period? More like dot-dot-dot…

Yes, the marriage strike can be a weapon that good men can use to bring down “The System”. But it also can be a weapon by which lazy and unproductive men justify their inactivity and glorify the freedom that the feminist destruction of marriage has wrought.

How to tell the difference between the two.

A good man will openly state that the best chance a man has for developing spiritually is through getting married and having children, while a bad man will cheer about the fact that he can get “just as good” without getting married.

A good man will state that the ideal of a happy marriage never changes, regardless of how much the outside world deteriorates. While an unproductive and lazy man will taunt anyone who declares that excellent marriage is the ideal. His entire message reduces itself to, “Neeener, neener! You can’t make me get married!”

A good man will take it upon himself to actively petition for a change in laws so that all men can respectfully and reasonably be married. While an unproductive and lazy man revels in each divorce, and reads every “horrible divorce” story as a chance to brag about how smart he is to bever get married.

A good man knows that marriage is good for both men and women, so he wants women to make the right choices – to marry upstanding, respectable, and successful men. While an unproductive and lazy man will collect stories of women who make horrible choices, and revel in the pain that they create. (If they’re really hardcore about this, they’ll make a signature like, “Suck it up bitches!” and make a name for themselves solely by commenting on these “Woman ruins her life with her stupidity” stories.)

A good man knows that marriage is a good thing for men, so he’s always urging them to learn how to do it well, to become successful and responsible, and to learn how to evaluate women. While an unproductive and lazy man encourages men to enjoy their freedom, not worry about their own development, and watch the destruction of society.

“Already, you can see politicians passing more laws to restrict men’s choices by expanding co-habitation law to become de facto marriage, by limiting men’s ability to marry foreign women. All passed by the usual mob of hypocrites and felons in government.”

And, yet, no one has suggested how to use the laws against them.

1. If gay marriage becomes a reality, every MRA can marry another MRA. (After all, the State can’t define whether a person is “really gay” or “really married”). After that, if the State declares an MRA to be married to a woman through co-habitation, then the State has deliberately made him guilty of bigamy.

2. Even without gay marriage, a man can live in two places: the house with his “wife” (no State marriage needed), and the house with his “cover woman”. The “cover woman” is a trusted friend whom he is not in love with. Since, he’s splitting time between two dwellings, then the State will also make him guilty of bigamy if it declares him married to either woman. (Because if the standard works for Woman A, then it must also work for Woman B.)

3. Even with a “cover woman”, a man can live with another couple. John is in love with Jane, and David is in love with Diane. If the State declares John married to Jane, then it must also declare him married to Diane. If it makes this move, it makes the man guilty of bigamy.

It should require no explanation that men who wish only to revel in their single status will never devote their creativity to ensuring that other men can get married, or to use the State against itself.

Again, this kind of name-calling doesn’t suit you well. How much do you know about my methods? ZERO. So, why do you have an opinion of them ahead of time? Gonzman, not even God tries to teach a man who has closed his heart and mind. And since my creatvie powers are far short of Divine, you’ll understand why I cannot answer your question until your attitude is fixed.

You have yet to demonstrate any such thing, sirrah.

To you? No, I haven’t. Columbus couldn’t convince the majority of his contemporaries that the world was round, because they were too devoted to their own belief systems to consider his words. Even today people insist that the moon landing is fake, because they first began with the notion that it was impossible to reach the moon, and then they never left it.

Your Tactic of assuming something is impossible, and then insulting people before they can even explain themselves is a sign of closed-mindedness. If God cannot fix that, why should I be expected to?

Maybe EG should keep his ‘nebulae are life-forms’ folly in his own articles/threads. If he brings up his religion here, I can refute it here so people on this thread can also see what a fool he is.

Right. Business contracts involving the selling of tangible things like washing machines. Those are easy to enforce! “Your Honor, John said he would sell me 650 rollers at $45 by June 2nd 2007, but he only delivered 620 rollers!” The judge can clearly order John to either (a) produce 30 more rollers or (b) give John $1350. Any additional fines and punishments will be meted out at the judge’s disrection according to business law.

But tell me, Gonzman, how does a judge make one man cherish a woman? How does it make one woman honor a man? Can a judge order your ex-wife to love you? And can she make her love you extra in order to make up for her lack of love from earlier in the relationship?

Seriously, if you could tell me how to do this, you’d be unfathomably wealthy. If you could patent a pink liquid called Love, Honor, and Cherish juice, and sell it to newlyweds, you’d own America.

So why haven’t you? Right. Cuz it’s impossible.