|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:23 PM April 4th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
"A father brought before these courts (divorce) is likely to have only a few hours’ notice of a hearing that may last thirty minutes or less, during which he will lose all decisionmaking authority over his children, be told when and where he is authorized to see them, and ordered to begin paying child support. His name will be entered on a federal registry, his wages will immediately be garnished, and the government will have access to all his financial information.
No allegations of wrongdoing, either civil or criminal, are required. And no agreement to a divorce or separation is necessary. Yet from this point, if he tries to see his children outside the authorized times or fails to pay the child support (or courtordered attorneys’ fees), he will be subject to arrest."
The Women's movement is clearly destroying America on a number of fronts, but especially this one. The are turning all men into a slave class of citizens. American government is literally waging war against Fathers & men based on a corupt feminist model of what laws should be "ordering" our society. As a result, IMO, men are ordered into the "slave order," for the rest of their natural born lives, while more and more privileges are offered women. "Equal Justice," "Equal Protection" "Equal Rights" under law do not exist for any man in America today.
Ray
(click) Government's War on Fathers
(click) Sexist Justice
(click)
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked items. All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ray,
Email me at zenpriest@menforjustice.com - there are some things I would like to discuss with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion Baskerville gets to the heart of the matter.
No one can expect bureaucrats (or anyone else for that matter), whose livelihood and upward mobility depend on the continuation of marriage breakdown, to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. The systematic incentive to perpetuate the problem will prevail over any good intentions.
And the current path of least resistance is to worsen the problem by adopting feminist “solutions”.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:34 PM April 4th, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Definitely will share it with my girlfriend. Maybe it will help her understand more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, it will help her...
master the various legalistic avenues and conspiracies she has at her disposal to "dispose" of you... when she chooses.
Congratulations that she's only your girl "friend;" and not yet (or if sanity prevails...) ever your "wife."
You still have time to save yourself!
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:06 AM April 5th, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
And to my surprise some MEN where outraged and contacted the forum host to delete the posting. It was erased after only 1 hour. I have seen spammers put porn links up and they linger for days. Several men piped up about the legality of the posting. The forum is for people who own boats, mostly men use it, and I thought it was relevant for any single man who owns property to know about. I have seen a lot of usefull info about boats. How about protecting your boat from legalized theft?
Why would any man be outraged by a smart article about the abuses of their own basic constitutional rights and property in a forum where people come together to help out with property concerns?
Some people read it and where shocked. These are the people I wanted to reach...
opinions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is sad anon. That men have become so like automatons that they cannot see the truth when it is presented to them in a clear fashion. They are afraid. Perhaps afraid of offending their "masters". Truly bizarre.
Steven Baskerville is doing important work and writes with clarity and passion. Let those who have ears hear.
Mens Rights 2004 Congress
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:16 PM April 5th, 2004 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Good move to post it. Some men are sadly in denial and don't want to know the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why would any man be outraged by a smart article about the abuses of their own basic constitutional rights and property in a forum where people come together to help out with property concerns?
In a word – Chivalry
While several decades of work has been done to train women to be independent, the overwhelming majority of men still base their value on how well they serve women. There is some disagreement over traditional chivalry (the evil patriarchy) versus new age chivalry (modern feminism) but let there be no doubt, a premise of both is a man’s obligation to serve and protect women. It’s normal for people to become upset when their most basic prejudices are challenged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is not the fact of divorce per se that discriminates against fathers ... it is the laws governing custody and child access after divorce. It is possible to be a divorced parent and still be a good parent "there for" one's children. Baskerville takes pains to avoid admitting this.
If we had mandatory joint custody (the real thing, not just every other weekend type custody) divorce, while not the ideal, would be less of a problem.
Agreed that father absense is a bad thing for kids. Any parental absence in a kid's life (other than parental death or extreme disability) is not justifiable. In that case we should mandate or strongly coerce parents to stay involved in their children's lives, whether they are married or not
But you won't hear Baskerville call for this. If a father wasn't married to the child's mother, he basically believes it is justifiable for the fatherh to abandon the kid (statics on the harm to the child be damned).
You can't have it both ways. Either involved fathers are good for their kids or they aren't. Pick one.
I don't have respect for Baskerville because he refuses to carry his logic that fathers are good for their kids all the way through. And he is more interested in disallowing divorce than he is in child welfare .... or fathers' rights for that matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is not the fact of divorce per se that discriminates against fathers ... it is the laws governing custody and child access after divorce. It is possible to be a divorced parent and still be a good parent "there for" one's children. Baskerville takes pains to avoid admitting this.
Baskerville's point is that the laws governing custody and child access after divorce provide an incentive to divorce which makes it impossible to be "there for" one's children.
If we had mandatory joint custody (the real thing, not just every other weekend type custody) divorce, while not the ideal, would be less of a problem.
Baskerville's point is that we won't have this because then there wouldn't be nearly as much child support money to extort from divorced fathers. And Lorianne, you immediately contradict yourself...
Agreed that father absence is a bad thing for kids. Any parental absence in a kid's life (other than parental death or extreme disability) is not justifiable. In that case we should mandate or strongly coerce parents to stay involved in their children's lives, whether they are married or not.
And when the kid is with Mom, guess what? The father is absent, and you say any parental absence is not justifiable. We should, if we wish to "strongly coerce parents to stay involved" we must strongly coerce parents to get married and stay married.
But you won't hear Baskerville call for this. If a father wasn't married to the child's mother, he basically believes it is justifiable for the father to abandon the kid (statistics on the harm to the child be damned).
Where do you get this from? He doesn't say that anywhere in the article. Meanwhile, do you believe that in that case the father should marry the mother, whenever possible, so that the child won't be raised in a fatherless home, or are you going to ignore the impressive array of statistics he gives for children raised in fatherless households?
You can't have it both ways. Either involved fathers are good for their kids or they aren't. Pick one.
Nice try, using the politically-correct "involved fathers", instead of resident fathers, which is what the article was about, but no cigar.
I don't have respect for Baskerville because he refuses to carry his logic that fathers are good for their kids all the way through. And he is more interested in disallowing divorce than he is in child welfare .... or fathers' rights for that matter.
Wanting to disallow divorce is carrying the logic that fathers are good for their kids all the way through. It seems to be you who are more interested in finding an excuse for divorce than child welfare or fathers' rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baskerville's point is that the laws governing custody and child access after divorce provide an incentive to divorce which makes it impossible to be "there for" one's children.
So change the custody laws. Simple. If you read Baskerville often enough you would know that this is not his primary agenda. He doesn't want to discourage divorce, he wants to virtually outlaw it.
And when the kid is with Mom, guess what? The father is absent...
Not if you change the custody laws. Then the kid won't be just with mom. The custody laws, not divorce per se are the problem.
We should, if we wish to "strongly coerce parents to stay involved" we must strongly coerce parents to get married and stay married.
I don't agree. Forcing or coercing people to get/stay married is a losing proposition for the kids. Forcing/coercing parents to stay involved in the child's life is not.
Where do you get this from? He doesn't say that anywhere in the article. (about never married parents)
True. But in other articles he has. I have read many of his articles so I know where he is coming from. Also, he minimizes how many kids are born to never married parents. His flip ommission of all these kids and his statements in all his writings focussing on divorce tells me that he doesn't really care about kids. His main agenda is disallowing divorce.
Meanwhile, do you believe that in that case the father should marry the mother, whenever possible, so that the child won't be raised in a fatherless home ....
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I support and prefer marriage but I don't think a kid has necessarily has to be raised in a "fatherless" (or motherless) situation if his parents aren't married. That's a red herring. It is not marriage that determines whether the father is present or not ... it is the father's presence and involvement in his child's life alone which determines this. This is why the custody laws need to be changed to allow divorced fathers to stay present in the child's life .. and demand equal physical custody (residece with his child) too.
.... or are you going to ignore the impressive array of statistics he gives for children raised in fatherless households?
Just the opposite! I believe the statistics entirely! Kids without fathers directly and daily involved with their lives fare poorly. That is why I support father involvement, hand-on care and support of fathers regardless if they are married to the child's mother or not. It's the involvement and committment to be there for the kid which is important, not marriage per se. A father or mother can be married and completly ignore the child. The piece of paper marriage license itself does nothing for the child. The parent being there for the kid and committed to parenting is what is important not the piece of paper.
Nice try, using the politically-correct "involved fathers", instead of resident fathers, which is what the article was about, but no cigar.
I didn't mean it like that. If the two parents aren't married, then the child either has to live primarily in the residence of one parent OR the child has to reside in two households. I could go either way on this, not enough research has been done on which is better for the kid. Either way, whichever parent he lives with, the other parent can still be just as involved parenting as the resident parent. The same is true if the child lives with the father ... the mother should be just as involved with the child. Either two parents are best or not. Let's decide.
Again, it is the committed involvement and actual hands-on parenting and time spent with the child that is important.
Wanting to disallow divorce is carrying the logic that fathers are good for their kids all the way through. It seems to be you who are more interested in finding an excuse for divorce than child welfare or fathers' rights.
Wrong. For starters, focussing heavily divorce omits all the kids who's parents never married and won't marry. I'm also not convinced that it it is good for children to force people who can't get along to live together.
Look I support marriage and think it's the ideal. I'm married with kid and I highly recommend it. I support programs to encourage marriage. But I draw the line and forcing marriage.
But let's not miss the forest for the trees. Forcing people to marry (if it were even feasible) or disallowing divorce is not going to help children. What is going to help them is allowing/encouraging parents to be parents to their kids ... no matter what ... no matter their marital status.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:01 PM April 5th, 2004 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
The point is that women have EVERY incentive for divorce, including the criminization of a man based on words alone, wage garnishment, sole custody, separation of a man from his property and the governmental control of the family unit...
Fathers have NO rights, and are solely responsible for financially supporting the corrupt legal system that extorts money from them, if they are lucky enough to not go to jail.
There is no other argument.
What Baskerville forgot to mention is how the media stokes the fires of anger in the general public by depicting all fathers in arrears on child support as deadbeats. Most are deadbroke as the system has likely broken these men. Mainstream media is implicitly involved in keeping these corrupt laws in favor of women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The point is that women have EVERY incentive for divorce, including the criminization of a man based on words alone, wage garnishment, sole custody, separation of a man from his property and the governmental control of the family unit
What gets me is that so many men are still marrying and having children, through their own volition. If a lot of men made a practice of putting their hands into fires and then yelled and bitched, when they got burnt, how much sympathy would most people have for them? It's no longer a mystery, what is going on. The facts are clear for anyone to see.
Yes, many men would love to have a stable, committed, balanced, and fair relationship with a woman. Many of these men would love to have children. But such a relationship with a woman isn't possible, because women have all the power in a relationship by law. And it isn't possible for a man to be a father under the law; it is only possible for a man to be, under threat of literally being locked in a cage and tortured (imprisoned), financially responsible for a woman's children. Many men are figuring it out. It's an imperfect world. A legally fair relationship with a woman isn't possible, and it isn't possible for a man to legally be a true father.
Men need to stop getting involved in situations because of some fantasy that those situations will develop into something that is, by law, impossible. Fortunately, an increasing number of men are now refusing to play.
The solution to all this madness requires, in fact, no action by men. There are two simple steps of inaction that will solve and are solving this problem:
1. Don't ever marry.
2. To the extent that you can control the situation (for instance, avoiding being raped and being sure that the woman doesn't poke holes in your condom or collect sperm from it), don't ever allow a woman to become pregnant using your sperm.
Many men have already caught on to this in order to protect themselves. And it's a simple way to eliminate the evil called feminism. Our species won't disappear. People in the Orient, southwestern Asia, and Africa continue to reproduce beyond the replacement rate. Very soon, they will simply walk into the empty spaces to fill the void.
We are already seeing this happen on a massive scale. Because of the injustices of feminized society, all of the world's advanced societies (those with long life expectancies and high standards of living enjoyed by a high percentage of the population) are in a state of collapse. For better or for worse, because of what advanced societies are doing to themselves, the smart money is on India and Islam.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:08 PM April 5th, 2004 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed Thomas, you do understand... :-)
Enjoy the ride,
CJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To the extent that you can control the situation (for instance, avoiding being raped and being sure that the woman doesn't poke holes in your condom or collect sperm from it), don't ever allow a woman to become pregnant using your sperm.
This is one of the basics of Male Survival 101.
Is anyone familiar with services that will freeze (and keep secure) human semen for later use?
I think it would be prudent for men who may want to reproduce at some time to consider securing semen that way and then be sterilized. The risk of someone being able to steal the frozen semen will always exist so strict security measures would need to be practiced. But compared with the practical risks of running around fertile your whole life I think those risks are minor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then change the divorce laws! But don't outlaw divorce, which is basically what Baskerville advocates.
Changing the divorce and especially custody laws. In light of the statistics on child welfare (in having fathers) shouldn't be that hard to convince people that laws seperating children from their fathers are unjust not only to the father .... but especially to the child. The evidence is overwhelming on that score.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So change the custody laws. Simple.
Well, I've give you that point. This would also have the effect of discouraging divorce.
The custody laws, not divorce per se are the problem.
I don't agree entirely. Even with real joint residential custody the child will still be in a fatherless household half the time.
It is not marriage that determines whether the father is present or not ... it is the father's presence and involvement in his child's life alone which determines this.
It's marriage that determines that the father will be present continuously and involved all the time, rather than just half the time.
It's the involvement and committment to be there for the kid which is important, not marriage per se. A father or mother can be married and completly ignore the child. The piece of paper marriage license itself does nothing for the child. The parent being there for the kid and committed to parenting is what is important not the piece of paper.
A classic straw man argument. Drivers still drive recklessly even with "piece of paper" driver's licenses. Driving carefully is what is important not the piece of paper. So should we say obtaining a driver's license is therefore not "really" so important and societally tolerate driving without a license?
If the two parents aren't married, then the child either has to live primarily in the residence of one parent OR the child has to reside in two households. I could go either way on this, not enough research has been done on which is better for the kid. Either way, whichever parent he lives with, the other parent can still be just as involved parenting as the resident parent.
You just contradicted yourself; earlier you were urging joint residential custody and now you are saying maybe "primary residence" is better (which is another term for "sole custody")? And just how can the other parent be "just as involved" when he probably doesn't even see the kid each day?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you're the one argueing a straw man. If we follow your logic, a man can't be a good parent if he is not a) married b) living with the child full time.
This is just not so. What of married fathers who are in the military, or who must travel a lot? Are they not good fathers?
Also, Joint Physical Custody doesn't require that parents live together in the same residence. If the kid has to live 1/2 of the time in each parent's residence, that's fine. What I said was, there hasn't been a lot of research into the benefits of doing that vs. having a primary residence with one parent. I'm not backing either way ... I'm saying it should be studied.
Also, one can see his/her child everyday .... If one is committed to it. It may take sacrifices. (Even among married couples there is no gaurantee that each parent is equally involved with the children).
Look, divorce is going to happen. If we basically outlaw it, people will stay married but live separately. The government is not going to force people to live together and no one wants the government to have that much enforcement capacity. So, children would be back in the same situation, living primarily with one parent.
Changing the custody laws to a default JPC situation is the best that can be made of a less than ideal situation.
Also JPC (true JPC) would be no picnic for either parent in practical terms. They'd have to deal with each other daily organizing travel back and forth ... and they would both lose the ability to move anytime they want, just to name a few. This would have the effect IMO of making parents wonder if it wouldn't be easier to just stay married (or get married) ... since they would be dealing with the other parent all the time anyway. This to me is the way to create disincintives to divorce.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baskerville's original points were that unjust divorce and custody laws a) encourage divorce and b) force fathers out of the home. So your point is that changing the custody laws will a) discourage divorce, admitted to be "less than an ideal situation" and b) ensure a father's continued relationship with his children.
What, exactly, are you disagreeing with Dr. Baskerville about then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree with his position on "no fault" divorce. I don't think the State has a right to force people to stay married. Even if they did, there is no way they could force people to live together.
I also disagree with Baskerville in his ommission of the situation of millions of children, who's parents were never married. His suggestions do nothing for these kids. In addition, if there were no-fault divorce, I predict even more kids would be created outside of marriage. He incentivizes in the wrong direction.
Yes, I agree with him that we should incentivize people to work together for the best interests of their children. But the way to do that is to REQUIRE people to care for and support their own kids. Once this is a requirement, many people might find it easier (in a practical day to day way) to just get married, or stay married.
Going to a default JPC system (whether married, divorced or never married) lets people know that KIDS come first. We don't give a damn if you're married, we just expect you, no, require you, to care for, raise and support your kids. And it would get away from the father only being required to contribute financial support. Under default JPC both parents would have to provide the financial support AND hands-on care/raising.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although Baskerville didn't state so explicitly, his comments were geared toward unilateral no-fault divorce. It's not about the State "forcing people to stay married", it's about the State enforcing the marriage contract by protecting the innocent spouse. Without such enforcement, marriage isn't worth the piece of paper it's written on.
But I certainly agree with you on the advisability of a default JPC system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think the State has a right to force people to stay married.
Removing incentives to divorce is not the same as forcing people to stay married.
JCP would be a major improvement over what we have now. But Baskerville addresses more fundamental issues as far as I’m concerned. The government does not care about what is fair or what is good for kids. They systematically don’t give a rat’s behind. Putting the state in charge of detailed family issues guarantees that the laws will reflect the views of whichever political interest has the upper hand. The deeper the state gets into the issue the more assured we can be that it will systematically favor some and throw others to the vultures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorainne, you once again are taking your old "well the law says...."
Well, the law says lots of things, Lorainne, but it doesn't mean it enforces those things. The law may give weekends to dad but it certainly doesn't fine or arrest mom when she doesn't show up with the kids.
No fault divorce should be done away with. If you are the kind of person who will give up on a marraige for less than a major deal breaker (untreated addiction, continuous affairs, or abusive behavior) then you should not get married in the first place. The whole point of marraige is that it is supposed to be forever. Not forever until I get bored, or forever until we fight, or forever until i find someone else. Many even think major deal breakers shouldn't count, but I think that would be unreasonable, as deal breakers break the other vows.
Lorainne, all the laws are in place now, but once again they are not being enforced. There are even laws on the books in some states that say the children go to their fathers after divorce, everytime, yet these are not even known by most people.
No fault divorce has made it easier to get divorced than to get counceling and stay together. Marraige is not easy. It is a lot of work, and it is a pain in the ass. But it is the best way to raise children, and it is a lifelong commitment. If you are not ready to make that commitment, DON'T MAKE IT.
"Going to a default JPC system (whether married, divorced or never married) lets people know that KIDS come first. We don't give a damn if you're married, we just expect you, no, require you, to care for, raise and support your kids. And it would get away from the father only being required to contribute financial support. Under default JPC both parents would have to provide the financial support AND hands-on care/raising."
Sorry, you know damn well that women will be doing the hands on parenting and the men will be doing the supporting. Oh wait, that is what is happening now. SO women get the benifits that the men pay for. It is legal for women to pick up and move their kids thousands of miles away from their dads. How is that hands on parenting going to work then? It doesn't.
No fault divorce created this problem, and eliminating no-fault divorce will go a long way towards fixing it. You are not forcing people to stay married, you are asking them to have a real reason. You would be suprised how taking away an easy out changes the attitudes about marraige. Instead of being miserable and spending all the energy on how to leave, people will stay and spend energy onhow to make it work.
THAT is what is best for the children, and there are dozens of studies to prove it. There are no conclusive studies showing that in non-abusive cases that divorce benifits children.
No matter what the law says, Two married parents are best for the children.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Right on target Jen. It's really only feminist groups nowadays that wish to keep unilateral divorce-on-demand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorainne, you once again are taking your old "well the law says...."
I haven't said that at all. I'm advocating CHANGING the custody laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought this superb article pointed out how the corrupt judiciary is just making more business for itself at the expense of people's (mostly men's) lives. The judiciary has evolved under the proding of rad-fems into a vampire like entity. It has to have an ever increasing supply of blood to stay alive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:23 PM April 5th, 2004 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
Radical Feminist mentalities strive to provoke violence. It is the effect they seek from males so they can point and say, "See the animals who are lower than us."
In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. In that land violence begets violence, each individual exacting an eye for an eye, until the whole population is blind.
In that world of violence there still exists “the pen” conveying the thoughts of the higher evolved minds, and it is far “mightier than the sword.” The pen sows the seeds of enlightenment, that when proven true, allows humanity to progress to the next plateau of higher civilization.
In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king, and the two eyed man is hated, scorned, abused and yes, even killed. Can you think of any places like that on earth today? Yes, “Everywhere, but in differing degrees,” is the right answer.
If the madness, and the insanity of violence does not pull us all back into the chaos of barbarity, then the higher processes of the mind will eventually reveal our true brilliance as humans. Our hearts and souls will understand what is true and what is false. Our justice will honestly and fairly consider the best interests of everyone. Wisdom will be found in our species so that we are more humane to those animalistic drives in each person, which for centuries have caused so much chaos and grief. Will those most advanced of beasts on planet earth, know as Homo Sapiens, one day become the better angels of their natures? Will we one day understand and have compassion for our own limitations as we manage the shortcomings and failings of our own human nature? We dwell in this fish bowl of a world, and share it with so many others who are like, yet unlike, ourselves.
We may never have the power and control as a species that is necessary to empower every individual with the ability to control their own freedom, without infringing on the freedoms of others. Still, it begins with each individual, and it is only when each individual has transcended his own self that we will collectively as a species possess the magnanimity necessary to empower each individual with the freedom, power and control that creates the self-actualizing existence we all strive for.
The collective radical feminist mentality is de-evolved barbarism. Clearly the radical feminism of the past 30 years has been a de-evolutionary disaster born out of the shallowness, selfishness and stupidity of small thinking people. Those social engineering tyrants have clearly shown their collective intellects couldn't knock the corners off a square wheel, when it comes to promoting social justice. I guarantee we would all still be in caves if higher thinking were left up to those idiots. A few more decades of those femi-twits and all of us may well be back in the caves.
The American family disaster of today is what has come of the unscholarly research and irresponsible curriculum of the gender feminist movement. Tragically it is still being taught in women’s studies courses on college campuses today.
In a nut shell, "gender feminism and women’s studies - stupid is as stupid does." Let us not be parties in anyway to the Neanderthal processes that have brought us to the deplorable state we find ourselves in today. Our very survival, and the survival of future generations, depends on the best efforts our minds can bring to bear on the crisis of males living under the oppression of a radically feminized america.
Sincerely, Ray
(click) Radical Feminist Influence in Law
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked items. All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:54 PM April 4th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Violent reaction is the losers way. Obviously you are a misandric feminist who has come on this site to bait good men into saying things they should not say as you have clearly said illegal things that should not be said.
As outraged as we are, and as unfair as the laws are, no one here will ever advocate, or engage in, such insanity as you have described in your post. To do so would just give misandric feminist more fuel to use against all men. We are smarter than that.
Non violent activism such as Gandhi and MLK used will always be the maximum dissent which men of good will (like all those here) employ to change corrupt governments.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Gandhi
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:15 PM April 4th, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Well... you can't say violence dosen't work tho. Wars usually have an effect. It would be evil to murder as said, the fight for minds is lost tho, the modern world will never get back to men ruling. If I was cornered I would respond with violence and at the end of the day either be gone or take my wife home to some other country, assuming I was dumb enough to take a wife.
But no I not a feminist as you claim, I just shared a let it loose last case senario with you all. Also if what was said was done feminist would no longer exist except in a morgue. There is no hope for the societies that have fallen, not for a long time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The use of violence to effect social change is doomed to failure, we're not talking about ejecting an abusive dictator here.
Palestinians have been using violence to gain social change for over 50 years... how far has it gotten them?
Ghandi achieved far more change in Indian society in a decade than the Palestinians will in a Century. If you seek to change a society then the best way to do it is to hold a nonviolent mirror up for it's people to see the barbarism in themselves, not give them a reason to justify it.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The use of violence to effect social change is doomed to failure, we're not talking about ejecting an abusive dictator here.
Really? That's not what my history book says. It says that violence to effect social change is very successful and has been that way since the beginning of time.
If you seek to change a society then the best way to do it is to hold a nonviolent mirror up for it's people to see the barbarism in themselves, not give them a reason to justify it.
Why would barbarians care that you show them the barbarism in themselves? They dont need reasons by the opposing factions to justify it. They justify it themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, I think Dave is right (and not just because he is sitting right here). Look at the civil war; while legal change was made, it took many, many years for the social change to catch up-war changed nothing of people's attitudes. And now, look at feminism-violence will only reinforce what they are saying about men and the men's movement. As for your last statement, feminism rests on it's psuedo-laurels of being the kinder, gentler sex. Showing the mirror of barbarism is EXACTLY what is needed, and what is most effective.
And as for your scenario, statements like those do far more harm than you realize. I face feminists on a weekly basis who quote crap like that to justify their dismissal of the men's movement. If you are for the men's movement, do us all a favor and keep those fantasies to yourself. We don't want to hear them.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Today, before driving to the university, I gently picked up caterpillars that had fallen onto my car from overhead branches of a tree. Then I put them back on the bark of the tree. During the whole ordeal, I was thinking to myself, “why I am wasting time with a few caterpillars?” As soon as I drive off a bird might have swooped down and ate them, or they could have died off from something else. But I had to do it; I saw them and I knew that they would probably be killed if I left them on my car. They wouldn’t be able to hang on at 70mph and would be thrown to the wind and probably crushed on the highway, At least that is what I thought.
As I was driving I contemplated this, and thought how strange and sentimental I am for those little bugs. If a couple of caterpillars dies, really, its meaningless because there is a lot more and they are not going extinct. Saving those caterpillars I did for my own conscience, to make me feel better. Perhaps, I subconsciously did it to save my karma. Who knows exactly why. When I got to school and looked, there was another caterpillar that I missed on my car. I gently picked him off and put him on a nearby tree. Caterpillars are stronger then I thought.
A lot people think that saying anything against someone who is wholly against violence in any form is de facto endorsing it. I disagree. I think the problem here is that you think that I am the anonymous “streetsweeper tactics” poster, which I am not.
No, I think Dave is right (and not just because he is sitting right here).
Hey, perhaps he is.
Look at the civil war; while legal change was made, it took many, many years for the social change to catch up-war changed nothing of people's attitudes.
The civil war had social changes for America almost immediately, if not immediately. Of course this argument will just go into an argument of what consists social change.
My point before was specifically that “violence to effect social change is very successful” I didn’t say that it was positive or good, just that it does. Dropping an A bomb on a city has direct and immediate social change for those people in that city.
And now, look at feminism-violence will only reinforce what they are saying about men and the men's movement.
Personally, I’m one of those mavericks that doesn’t care what “they” are saying about men and the men’s movement. People said crap about Gandhi and they still do. Opposing Political groups do that; they attempt to smear each other.
As for your last statement, feminism rests on it's psuedo-laurels of being the kinder, gentler sex. Showing the mirror of barbarism is EXACTLY what is needed, and what is most effective.
I am unconvinced that showing bad people that they are bad will convince them to stop being bad. These people are adults, and they believe in what they believe.
And as for your scenario, statements like those do far more harm than you realize. I face feminists on a weekly basis who quote crap like that to justify their dismissal of the men's movement. If you are for the men's movement, do us all a favor and keep those fantasies to yourself. We don't want to hear them.
What scenario? What Fantasies? You have me confused with someone else. If anyone wants any advice DON’T bring a shotgun to your court date. I repeat DON’T do that. Bring a good lawyer that will scare the hell of your wife worse. Can’t get a good lawyer? Then pray.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are right. I was thinking you were the person who wrote the shotgun post.
Scratch that last part then, I apologize.
Dave was sitting here, he is my husband.
I care about what feminists think because attitude is how this war will be fought. Women will not get into violent conflict with men. Feminism has already paved decades of legal roadways to assure that men cannot rise up in force against them. Violence will not work. What does work is logic, patience, and talking to people one at a time. It will exponentially increase the men's supporters until we are the majority, and we can start effecting social change through the government, as it was set up to do. I am idealistic in this, I know, but I see what impact I have had just speaking to people, and I see how many people are just waiting for the movement to become visable. Many do not even know it is there.
I look at social change as attitude and social ideals. I think you are looking at social change as changes in the structure of society. In your definition, yes, violence can effect social change. Your view is changing the structure forcibly will change the attitude? I think change the attitude and it will cause structural changes. I think that the latter is a more thorough way, as the willing changes are more acceptable than forced changes to the common person. The civil war stopped slavery, but it did nothing to change the attitude of whites against blacks. Martin Luther King Jr however united people in a way that had not been accomplished by force. While he certainly did not irradicate predudice, he made far more progress with concern to people's attitudes than the war which preceded him.
Putting up a mirror works because most men and women are not bad people. They are just people who have believed what they were taught. When you hold up a mirror many see exactly why what they were taught makes no logical sense. I think it works.
Anyways, welcome to the board and sorry for the misunderstanding.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps if we were truly dealing with barbarians you'd be right... after a point violence becomes the only way to respond to violence. But we've not exhausted all peaceful avenues yet (we've barely started down the road), avenues that cause those who ignorantly oppress (simply because they're used to it working that way) to "rethink" their positions. We're talking about half the population of this country, we're also talking about our own government. Our government is a reflection of what they PERCIEVE we as a population want (whatever will get them re-elected), and there's a large majority of the population with their collective heads up their arses when it comes to how men are treated. These aren't uncaring barbarians, they're people just like us who haven't been confronted yet with the damage their callous disregard causes. It's up to us to SHOW them the damage. These are women with male children who simply have not yet REALLY thought about how their actions today are going to effect the lives of their kids... we need to MAKE them think about it.
I'd like to see examples of violence causing a change in society without utterly destroying it, and I can't imagine you're proposing revolution over social policy (that would be insane). Violence is ineffective at causing change within a society, unless the intent is to overthrow. Violence has been used in the past to CHANGE govermentments, revolution, but not to change the policy of a government.
Violent revolution is a dangerous things, they tend to cause a lot of damage, even if they end up successful, and more often they end up in disaster.
The one that deposed the Shaw in Iran... pretty easy to tell that the Iranians are just overjoyed with the result.
Then there's Afghanistan, the Taliban were DEFINITELY a step up from the monarch... at least in the eyes of the few that were in control.
Then there's the two that brought about communism in China and Russia... smashing success those.
We could keep going back further and look at the slaughter that followed the French Revolution. How long did that mess take to sort out?
The American Revolution could be thought of as a success, but even so that doesn't leave good odds.
However, peaceful means can be very successful at changing policy (they're basically the only way to do it), and are far less dangerous to all parties involved. Even when it comes to the point of revolution, peaceful ones have a much better track record of yielding the desireable outcome... of course they don't get the press. If all the palestinians put down their guns, sat down and demanded their rights, if they marched peacefully and made it known that they weren't going to condone violence but they were going to get their own country... they'd get their own country (and in a LOT less time than they've already invested). That's the lesson that people bent on violence should understand... it won't achieve the kinds of goals we're looking to achieve. It's INCAPABLE of achieving the balanced society we want because the basis of war is imbalance.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, peaceful means can be very successful at changing policy (they're basically the only way to do it), and are far less dangerous to all parties involved.
Let me know about some peaceful means, and then explain how it is peaceful.
My father works in construction. I remember one time that they had to level a huge section of trees to build a hospital. In order to build something, other things must be destroyed first, then you create, then you can change.
Pisacco said, "In order to create, you must destroy." (not exact quote)
Violence, perhaps, is just part of the cycle of life. This is not an endorsement of violence, just a statement of its unavoidable inclusion in the mechanics of life.
Needless to say, but just to impress on the impressionable and make sure, DON’T bring a shotgun to your court date.
Oh, and for any feminist that wants to say that I'm brutish and filled with violence, go ask the caterpillars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Destruction is not the same as violence... when change occurs it could be argued that the "old order" was destroyed, but violence is not a prerequisite to change.
"Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man." Ghandi
There have been many effective applications of Ghandi's ideas, from India to the Dr. King in the south... to South Africa
The fall of the USSR was as peaceful as its rise was violent. The fall of the Berlin wall and reunification of Germany is another example. Those peoples were held enslaved by the threat of violence, but their violent governments could not overcome their peaceful but insistant rejection of the failed socialist experiment.
Hell, the feminists have reengineered our entire social order without firing a shot, and we won't need a shot to undo the damage... just time, will, and KNOWLEDGE.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please post some effective non-violent or peaceful methods we should emply.
I'm not saying that there is not any or that they are not effective. I am just want to make clear what we are talking about here.
By the way, time is very important because I live my life through time, as we all do. If for some reason we had this peaceful method to change society into a more friendly place for males that would take like twenty years, then that is too long. I will be an old man by then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I provided ample examples... each employed effective non-violent methods that were applied differently, situation dependant. I don't have the time or inclination to enumerate them. I should add Poland to that list... another outstanding case study. Since you're interested I suggest you research a couple and come to your own conclusions... I don't have the time to do justince to such a study at this point. Another possibility would be to search the internet for sites that may already have done just what you're looking for. Good Luck.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:35 PM April 6th, 2004 EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
"Please post some effective non-violent or peaceful methods we should emply.
I'm not saying that there is not any or that they are not effective. I am just want to make clear what we are talking about here."
Well, this may not be to you taste, but I went into a packed coffee shop in Los Angeles on a Saturday morning, fully expecting to be ask to leave before I even sit down, but had the best breakfast service I can ever recall. I was wearing this T-shirt, (click)Feminist Crime Pays
I wore this shirt around L.A. all day as I did my shopping, and had many interesting conversations, surprisingly none angry. The most interesting people I met were a criminal defense attorney, and a bailbondsman. Each had an interesting story they told me.
I have to admit that I have a personal goal of getting 100 people in protest T-shirts at one time, and that goal is borne out of a frustrating experience I had, where I made 80 picket signs for a protest and only 12 people (men) showed up.
I had a friend in San Diego call me last Saturday morning to tell me he was in a mall and wearing this T-shirt, (click)Women's Studies "You wouldn't believe the looks I've been getting," he said. He went on, "I'm having a ball. Nobody ever notices me. I forget I'm wearing this thing, then I catch people staring at me." "Yup," I replied, "I know what you mean."
Ray
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked items. All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please post some effective non-violent or peaceful methods we should employ.
methods to use, not examples of a peaceful-like resolutions. But anyway nevermind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous user,
Your attempt to discredit this board is transparent and childish.
Trolls are not welcome here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:15 PM April 4th, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
ignore the "What to do when you're in divorce court" post as it is intends to subvert the power of this article.
send this article to everyone. Anybody that you know who sympathetic to modern man's slavery and works for a media outlet, the government, anyone. The media keeps american men in the dark on these issues so feminism can grow in power.
STAY OUTRAGED AND DO NOT LET TROLL POSTERS RUIN THIS BOARD>
CJ
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
