The Courts were created by the Founding Fathers for the purpose of acting as the pressure relief valve for conflict as well as for interpreting the laws from the legislative branch.

Today, the courts, and especially Family Court, is not a pressure relief valve for addressing conflict. It is the enforcer of tyranny and promotes conflict. The problem is broad and deep. Too broad and too deep for Congress to fix in a meaningful way. And since the courts have no mechaism for self-correction that means there is little that men can do to change a court system that discriminates against them.

Such factors produce men like Darren Mack.

There will be more like him I believe.

Take a look at our rap culture. Many young males-white & black-have taken on a rap group cultural mentality. Women in their eyes are “hoes” and “biatches”. On an on. Either “leaders” in the MRM show balls and aggressiveness or they will not lead change. Instead all these teenage boys, who become troublemakers, and some who go on to college, and elsewhere, will by default create a cultural shift that will end up “being the change”. Women in this country are well on the way to be destined for a much more violent and sexist country DIRECTED AT THEM. Boys and men are pissed. Big time.

America is politically divided. This cuts across the culture as a whole and affects values, beliefs, priorities. Both sides hold their positions strongly. Any amount of reaching out for political civility on one side will be taken as a sign of weakness on the other side. Case in point: Bush wanted to bring civility to Washington DC after the Clinton years. No Child Left Behind with Ted Kennedy, the massive drug benefit that Bush got through with the Democrats. There are other examples. You get my point. Bush showed a willingness to work with thee Democrats and where did that get him? He got no political capital from the Democrats. Instead, he has been attacked relentlessly by Democrats the entire time he has been in office. Bush also weakened his own poition in the process with his own constituents. They then abandoned him. Ronald Reagon would have gone on the attack against the Democrats.

The in-your-face approach, IMO, does not only apply to Bella AssBug and other aggressively militant (and obviously notn-feminine) feminist women but applies ESPECIALLY to the male chivalrist, manginas, and evey other male feminist enabler.

the MRM needs some individuals with dark charisma that will get in the face of the enemies of true equality and not shut up until they get what they want.

If a man tried this he would be perceived as dangerously misogynistic. The “harridan” approach works for women because women are perceived as being inherently less responsible for their behaviors than are men. Try this tactic in family court and see how far you get.

This may seem like cognizant dissonance since men in this society are held in relatively low esteem, but men need to come to terms with the fact that — for good or ill — we are held to a higher level of social responsibility than the “weaker” sex. This is universal across all human cultures and no amount of politicking will change the basic dynamic.

The gentlemanly approach used by people like Glenn Sacks is admirable and effective to some degree but, in my opinion, the MRM needs some individuals with dark charisma that will get in the face of the enemies of true equality and not shut up until they get what they want.

Despite her obvious failings and stupidity, women still fell under the Abzug spell and followed her like sheep, even it seems, when she was violent to them. Now, what does this tell us about feminists?

hehehehehehehehehe

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!