|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:42 PM April 14th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I want to thank Ray for first distributing this article within the NCFM-LA email list. We really enjoyed this piece.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Indiana Jones on 09:02 PM April 14th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree with what the article has to say....first of all, i am a maculinist, and by boycotting marriage, don't you think we are admitting to defeat? That we are admitting defeat to feminists who have now have total control family courts and divorce laws.
What we need to do is to protest and CHANGE the situation, write to governors/senators, protests, and equal laws. NOt simply avoiding the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:36 PM April 14th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Couldn't agree more. OK, go ahead and get married. When the old lady leaves you, accusing you of molesting her kids (that's right, they're *her* kids in terms of where they live; they're *your* kids in terms of who pays for them), gets you tossed out of your own home, and has you paying $1300/mo. to her, then come back and talk about how you should stick with it and fight the good fight! Only, make sure you have your C/S paid up at all times, or you will likely find yorself in jail.
And another thing.. admitting defeat is not avoiding marriage. It is fighting by refusing to be victimized by The System. Getting married however is more like admitting defeat by implicitly acknowledging that there is no way to change the current state of it and buying into what it means to be married - for a man, it means getting shafted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Yanyan on 04:10 AM April 15th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
A clever general wouldn't dream of attacking the enemy at its strongest point. Government, the courts, even the church are almost impregnable bastions of feminism. The fortifications have been steadilly built up and strengthened for a generation. Marriage is about as sensible as the Charge of the Light Brigade - cannons to the right of them, cannons to the left of them. Opting out of marriage is not giving up. It is merely a tactical retreat in order to regroup, gather intelligence and find the weak points to attack later. The cause is growing and reinforcements are on the way. There is even a growing number of deserters from the other side.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I actually see it as picking your battle ground. Marriage is territory secured by the enemy. Defend your right not to marry... Lets see them come attack that one. Let them step onto our turf.
Sorry, I'm not sure how much I agree with what I just said, but I'm a sucker for amusing analogies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:53 PM April 15th, 2005 EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
"Marriage is territory secured by the enemy. Defend your right not to marry... Lets see them come attack that one. Let them step onto our turf."
Married men, whether they know it or not are in enemy territory. All the little lady has to do is get a little bored, recognize the profit motive set up for her by government, go to the powers that be with a false accusation, and the man is instantly criminalized by her mere words.
I like the analogy. It's very true.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:29 PM April 17th, 2005 EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
In part I look at it this way; Women say they; "don't like men", they "don't want men", they "don't need men". So I say; "fine, back atcha, Babycakes." I'll give you exactly what you want, because after all, they say; "Women should get exactly what they say they want". So I say screw 'em. Hithero, I do not talk to them, I don't accosiate with them, (unless it can't be helped) and God knows I don't date them, nor will I ever marry one as long as the set-up is as it is.
We men have been slaves to our harmones for TOO LONG. there fore we are slaves to women. I say we break the chains.
All one need do is LOOK at the situation between the genders. Men MUST do everything in their power to please a woman, but a woman is expected to do little or nothing to please a man. We men do all the dirty work like construction work, mortition, war, etc. We are expected to DIE for women, they are not expected to die for us.
Feminists want to say that it is THEY WOMEN who are oppressed and enslaved by men.
It is WE men who are oppressed, It is WE who are the slaves
Let us no longer toil in this cotton feild called America at the whim and benefit of our misteresses....!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:42 PM April 14th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Yep...I second the post upstream. Oh yea, don't forget to write to you Congres person...We all know how effective that is!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by canaryguy
(nospam.canaryguy@nospam.stealthfool.com)
on 05:51 AM April 15th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree with what the article has to say....first of all, i am a maculinist, and by boycotting marriage, don't you think we are admitting to defeat? That we are admitting defeat to feminists who have now have total control family courts and divorce laws.
It is perfectly acceptable to admit defeat when you have been defeated!
Unfortunately for women there are all sorts of blowback to their unjust victories! Can't find any decent men who want to marry? Difficult to find any decent men at all? Gee. Too bad ladies...
What we need to do is to protest and CHANGE the situation, write to governors/senators, protests, and equal laws. NOt simply avoiding the issue.
Policical activism == Good. Getting married to a woman and putting your life at risk in so many levels == BAD.
Perhaps it would be better to take political action to ABOLISH marriage rather than try reforming it. It might raise a few more eyebrows.
Marriage is a lost cause due to the power imbalances between men and women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dave K on 07:49 AM April 15th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you IJ, but at the same time I understand the overwhelming sentiment on this board. I don't want my boys being hung out to dry by the system and a vindictive women who's government derived power allows her to ride roughshot over his entire life. At the same time, the end of marriage is one of the things that the rad-fems want most of all... and I think we should continue pushing to end the power inbalance that may achieve their goal, even as we warn prospective husbands to think HARD before taking the plunge in the current environment.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Clancy
(long_ponytail@yahoo.com)
on 08:54 AM April 15th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
|
At the same time, the end of marriage is one of the things that the rad-fems want most of all... My take on that was more along the lines of: OK womyn, get married, have kids, blind side your hubby with a divorce, ruin ex husband's life in every way imaginable because we hold all the cards, thereby we make all men miserable. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think Feminuts had it in mind that men would simply say "screw you, I ain't stepping into your bear trap." Without first GETTING married and having children, women would have no control whatsoever. I am not sure that they forsaw a complete boycott of marriage. After all, without divorce, the legal system would come to a grinding halt. Comments, please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:39 AM April 15th, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
"Without first GETTING married and having children, women would have no control whatsoever. I am not sure that they forsaw a complete boycott of marriage. After all, without divorce, the legal system would come to a grinding halt."
The incentives to get married for men are less than ever. Some men may still get married out of a moral sense that it's the right thing to do. Still others do it to have a family. Still others marry, because they're in love.
Men marry a woman hoping she won't change and she does. Women marry hoping the man will change and he doesn't.
Law has become so invasive into family life, and so critical of all male behavior, that law now entertains in courtrooms across the land an epidemic of false accusations against men.
Women have power and control over men from the time the ring is slipped into the man's nose until the black robed tyrant destroys his life in the best interest of the gender feminists who trained him.
Let My Gender Go!
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:57 AM April 15th, 2005 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
"At the same time, the end of marriage is one of the things that the rad-fems want most of all..."
To me it appears radfems are more after the destruction of men than the destruction of marriage (aside from the issue of traditional versus expansion of the definition of marriage, which to me is a different issue, though I know some disagree). Many radfems falsely see marriage as a male institution (it's arguably just the opposite) and thus their rhetoric includes the destruction of marriage, but to me, it's the detriment of men that they're ultimately after, and marriage laws are their biggest stronghold for achieving that goal. I agree that changing the system is our first priority as masculists, but until it's changed enough for marriage to be safe for men, I fully agree with the male marriage strike and I don't see it as a surrender or admission of defeat, but as a survival-based imperative as well as a strategic message/boycott.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:12 PM April 15th, 2005 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
There a many positives for staying single in itself (independence, mobility,etc,etc)...it is not just about a reduction of negative risks. Marriage=Slavery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:38 PM April 15th, 2005 EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
I can't make sense (duh?) of the feminist line on marriage.
On the one hand, they endorse the late Andrea Dworkin's screed that marriage is legalized rape, servitude for women, the worst form of patriarchal oppression.
On the other hand, they endorse what N.O.W. eupehmistically calls "equal marriage," meaning marriage for gays, lesbians, transexual, and transgendered folks. (Hope I didn't leave out any new "genders" that may have been discovered in the past couple weeks....)
So what's the feminist position on marriage?
Apparently it's really bad for heterosexual women, but really good for gays, lesbians, and all the in-betweeners/undecideds?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:22 PM April 15th, 2005 EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
The Family Lay Racket wants to make "long" term relationships equal to de facto marriages. This is their number one goal. They need same sex marriage to pass first so that their plans can't be derailed by the equal protection clause.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:41 AM April 15th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
"I disagree with what the article has to say....first of all, i am a maculinist, and by boycotting marriage, don't you think we are admitting to defeat?"
I want an invitation to your wedding IJ. Since you don't know me I'll be wearing this T-shirt so you know who I am.
Get Married
Ray
Please do not scroll up the page of the linked item. All the info I'm trying to convey is as the page initially comes up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:44 AM April 15th, 2005 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
I see refusing to marry as a war strategy, not an admission of defeat. It's a boycott, not a surrender. And the major media has noted it. If it increases, and the media continues to note it, the state will have to recognize the damage it's causing by blindly accepting the feminist anti-male agenda, since the state benefits from marriage in many ways even apart from revenue.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Clancy
(long_ponytail@yahoo.com)
on 11:52 AM April 15th, 2005 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Depending on how long this continues to pop up in the backs of "certain" people's heads, sooner or later, this will have to be reckoned with. Of course, just how far men are willing to go with this boycott is the deciding factor. When more and more women pass their child bearing years without bearing children, because no man would commit to a marriage of inconvenience, will the NOW agenda come under scrutiny from it's own defenders/members? I don't care what they "say", women will ALWAYS have a maternal instinct. Just listen to the lament of all the degreed professional women who chose career over children. "Why didn't they warn us about the consequences?" as if they were duped or too stupid to forsee the future. If we could only get ALL men to stop donating their sperm to fertility clinics so that unmarried and lesbian women will NEVER be able to conceive, except for the sperm thieves. I'm still waiting for the day when the male contraceptive hits the market. I've read op-eds that claim men will not bother to take them because we don't care about contraception. We are constantly hit with "Men always say It's the woman's responsibility" they bleat. I say BS. Think about it. A male contraceptive - now THAT'S real power. And, in the hands of MEN! If men want children, adopt an orphan, especially a male child. The ones that are typically passed up are those near or at their teen years. What better way to educate and warn the men of the future. But, can single men adopt children or is that still only a FEMALE priviledge? Women formed a organization over 500,00 strong with chapters in all 50 states. They changed laws, dictated politics and changed the face of everything in favor of women. Men, on the other hand, have no such organization with such a large membership. I think that the best strategy for men to combat this plague in society is to hit them above the belt. And, we can do it silently, without firing a shot, metaphorically speaking. You want to screw us? Well, we ain't screwing back. If a woman gets desperate and asks YOU to marry her, present her with a extremely large dildo complete with marriage license and the admonishment to "Go F*CK youself".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:16 PM April 15th, 2005 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
"When more and more women pass their child bearing years without bearing children, because no man would commit to a marriage of inconvenience, will..."
"If we could only get ALL men to stop donating their sperm to fertility clinics..."
"We are constantly hit with "Men always say It's the woman's responsibility" they bleat. I say BS."
=================================================
I too wish men would stop donating to fertility clinics. Even if all women decide to get artificially insemenated, in the short term I would say, "Good, it finally teaches women to accept responsibility for their behavior if they want a child.
However, we can only wonder how long it would be before all men, exclusively, were hit with enormous child support taxes from government. The taxes would help support women who have children who belong to no man in particular. We've already seen how the government works the paternity fraud scam, robbing men in the best interest of a child that a man has never seen and that DNA shows is not his.
We see from that case in California against the domestic violence shelters, that the state says one of the reasons it can deny domestic violence shelter services to a man is just because those services are supposed to benefit women, and programs benefiting women can't be challenged. What a pack of man-hating sexist bigots.
Government Is Sexist & Hostile Against Men
Sincerely, Ray
Please do not scroll up the page of the linked item(s). All the info I'm trying to convey is as the page initially comes up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Clancy
(long_ponytail@yahoo.com)
on 02:29 PM April 15th, 2005 EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, you had to go and pop my bubble. You are right. We would end up paying for the care of children of single mothers through ungodly taxation. Is there no win-win scenario?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by zenpriest on 08:58 PM April 15th, 2005 EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
I see refusing to marry as a war strategy, not an admission of defeat. It's a boycott, not a surrender. And the major media has noted it. If it increases, and the media continues to note it, the state will have to recognize the damage it's causing by blindly accepting the feminist anti-male agenda, since the state benefits from marriage in many ways even apart from revenue.
Marc
I absolutely agree, Marc. It is both a boycott and a strike. The strike part is against the parts of traditional male roles that the culture really needs, but has been spitting on for the past 45 years.
The whole "but then the feminists would win" argument has always struck me as strange. If someone avoids tobacco because it kills him, is that "letting the tobacco win." If I don't gamble and don't lose money, is that "admitting defeat" to the casinos?
It's funny how both sides are excoriating men to live up to their traditional roles, both by shame and by law, all the while ignoring the fact that they have criminalized so much male behavior, that men are simply becoming law abiding citizens. Marriage, in particular, has been criminalized, and that war on marriage is having the effect on the behavior that they hoped the war on drugs would.
The entire mythology is predicated on the belief that men want marriage more than women do, which is strange given how much women obsess about it. In all of my life I have never met that many men who were all that gung-ho about marriage - it was a burdensome social necessity.
Where feminists have really screwed women over is by convincing them that they wanted the opposite of what what they really wanted - and after years of having men take them at their word they seriously distrust men. I think men in general are going to be a lot happier outside of marriage than they were trapped inside it. Marriage used to be the way in which a man was bound to provide for his wife and children, and they in turn provided certain courtesies toward him.
What has happened is what used to be mostly enforced by social pressure and custom, is now enforced by law with only men held to their half of the bargain. More law breeds more lawyers and police, and the intrusion into every father's or married man's life is just one phone call from his wife or girlfriend away. You can't be a father and not run afoul of the law - the question is when, not if.
Avoiding marriage and fatherhood is the only chance a male has these days of remaining even remotely free. Even if the government totally takes over the provide role and starts paying mom and child support using taxes, my tax bill is far less likely to be as expensive as a mom and kids bill. Women embracing single motherhood has left men with no reason and no way to bond with them. Kids used to be glue, not war zones and POWs.
If women don't want to save marriage enough to do something to save it, I see no reason to "save it" for them, all the while having to struggle against them. It rather smacks of "this is for your own good." The radfems would have gone nowhere without the enthusiastic reception of their message with millions of women - "blame the man, you did absolutely nothing in all this."
All women are complicit in this cultural trainwreck we have been going through for the last half century. They could have spoken out at any time, but they didn't.
If "they" want marriage back, let them work for it - it's their battle to "save" it, not mine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 04:20 PM April 16th, 2005 EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
Zenpriest -- "If 'they' want marriage back, let them work for it - it's their battle to 'save' it, not mine."
Feminists have always insisted that women are as "battle-ready" as men.
Now that their self-inflicted gender wars are starting to cause real collateral damage (female non-combatants who sat on the sidelines and enjoyed the benefits of feminist injustice), the feminist cause is starting to unravel.
Despite the growing pain of being denied the family and children they want, feminist-schooled women will be reluctant to concede that it was their own gender that betrayed them.
But if men remove themselves from being targets by voluntarily avoiding marriage, by being "good, law-abiding citizens," even by refusing any intimate relationships with women, then it will be impossible for women to avoid the logical conclusion that feminism sold them out.
Of course, "logically impossible" pretty much describes the average woman in America today.
"It's a terrible thing ... to be living in fear."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by AngryMan
(end_misandryNOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk)
on 12:31 PM April 15th, 2005 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
I want to tell you a story about my brother. He was married for 24 years and has 4 children. He worked long hours in a management job to provide for his family. It seemed from the outside like a model lower middle-class family.
His wife (OK I admit to a certain level of bias) did nothing - no work, no housework, no study, nothing. The kids often had stomach problems caused by eating off dirty plates.
Three or four years ago, he began to suspect that she was having an affair when he was out at work. Tiny things were always out of place. He challenged her about this and she denied it. He continued to suspect. There were strange emails and text messages, nothing decisive at first, but things were not right. He continued to challenge her about it and she told him he was mentally ill, told him he had a dirty mind. He began to doubt his own sanity.
In fact his instincts were correct, as instincts usually are. She was having an affair. She had also acquired a feminist 'friend' who was doing her best to undermine the marriage. She gave my brother's wife the use of her apartment to have sex with her new man during the weekend when my brother was home. One day my brother came home an hour later than planned, as he was shopping for the kids. The feminist friend was there. She turned to his wife and said "Look at this. Coming home at all hours. When are you going to end this relationship?" All because he was an hour late. This is an established feminist tactic.It's called 'couple-busting'. You can read about it in Valerie Solanas' 'Scum Manifesto'.
Then one day she finally left him and took the kids. She had spent months carefully setting up and furnishing a new apartment, and she moved into it with her new man. She had funded this by running up debts that my brother is left with, and by embezzling money from various family members. The grandparents had set up trust funds for the children's future, and she even took those. Her new man would approach my brother in the street and threaten him. My brother was still giving his wife money every week to support his children.
Of course as soon as she left he sued for divorce. His lawyer advised him to stop paying her, and let her apply to the Child Support Agency for money. As soon as he switched off the money, she switched off the access. That was nearly two years ago. He hasn't seen his 3 youngest children since. The oldest boy lives with him (in fact his mother made it clear to him he wasn't welcome to come).
Shortly after he stopped paying the money, my brother received letters from his wife's lawyer accusing him of Domestic Violence, which is ridiculous. He has also been receiving abusive letters both at home and at work, which the police are looking at. My brother knows that they are being written by the feminist 'friend', but can't prove it.
My brother gave up his management career due to stress, and is now driving a bus. He gets up at 4:30 AM. He is trying to support his son, pay his mortgage, pay off his wife's debts and pay his lawyer. He sometimes sees his wife in court, but won't look at her or speak to her. He has sworn never to marry again. He has a new girlfriend, another divorcee, who seems nice. They don't live together and have no plans to do so.
Meanwhile his soon-to-be-ex-wife has had another baby by her new man. The man, however, has long gone, back to his wife now that the money is spent.
My brother's one compensation is that his wife, whom he worked to support for all those years, and who betrayed him, is now alone and friendless with 3 kids and a baby in some scummy apartment. She has alienated her own family, as she embezzled money from all of them. Except it is no compensation at all, because it is the children who are suffering. My brother applied through the court for access to the children's school reports, and not surprisingly, found that they are worse than they used to be. The kids' education is suffering.
My brother's plan is to keep his apartment and take responsibility for the debts, and his wife will walk away with nothing. She wants him to sell the apartment so that she can get half of the profits. She is trying to make him and her oldest child homeless. The abusive letters to his workplace are intended to get him fired from his job so that he will have to sell the apartment.
She is doing everything to delay the court case. Every time a date is set, she pleads illness, and has it set back another few months. This adds to the financial pressure. She is not ill at all, except maybe mentally.
The final court hearing is in July, the judge is getting impatient, and won't delay again. I hope my brother will get to see his children again and finally be free of the fucking psychotic parasite.
Marriage? No thanks.
"Never tolerate psychotic behaviour no matter how good she is in bed." Thomas Ellis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Clancy
(long_ponytail@yahoo.com)
on 01:34 PM April 15th, 2005 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
And feminists bleat that we are just being whiners and complainers and still enjoy our "male priviledge". I feel for your brother and hope justice will prevail, especially "For the good of the children". If your brother's soon to be ex lives the rest of her life in squalor and misery, it'll be too good for her. Have divorce proceedings changed for the better in GB? Are men finally getting a square deal in court instead of a railroad job?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by AngryMan
(end_misandryNOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk)
on 02:03 PM April 15th, 2005 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the kind words. Things are generally bad for men in GB as regards family law, but there are some positive signs. F4J has made some impact, and the Blair government is making some positive noises. It will take many years to achieve equality though.
"Never tolerate psychotic behaviour no matter how good she is in bed." Thomas Ellis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 04:10 PM April 15th, 2005 EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
The article suggested that Christian men must submit to marriage if they choose to have a mate and/or a family.
The author further suggested that such Christian men should go fishing for their wives (1 only, please) exclusively in the pond of "good Christian women."
I'm puzzled as to his logic.
It's a fact that approximately 75% of all divorces are initiated by women. The most frequently reported reason is that they "feel unappreciated and unfulfilled..."
Now in our society, one might reasonably assume that of these 75% divorce instigators, approximately 90% would describe themselves as Christian women.
So, did I fail to connect some theological dots here that provide men with some actual "safety net" in the perilous marriage adventure?
The Phillipines nonwithstanding, ( a Catholic country where divorce is illegal), does a Christian woman offer any greater assurances than your average female atheist?
"It's a terrible thing ... to be living in fear."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:43 PM April 14th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
First, does anyone have a legal opinion as to whether the tactic mentioned will work - that of recording a marriage in the family bible and not obtaining a civil license. You could begin with the concept of common law marriage.
Second, it is not just marriage but procreation you must avoid in order to avoid child support. If
the real men refuse to marry or procreate then who will be left having children? Do Italian or Spanish men avoid marriage? Or do they fight back on a personal level with their women?
"Taking a wife? You used to sane enough - what Fury's got into you, what snake has stung you up? Why endure such bitch-tyranny when rope's availble by the fathom, when all those dizzying top-floor windows are open for you, when there are bridges handy to jump from?"
Juvenal, Satire VI
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Hunchback on 12:34 PM April 15th, 2005 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
The second point is probably the most important. While moralistic administrations will decry the fall in marriages, it is really the decline in procreation that would catch everyone's eyes. As long as unwed mothers can get as much out of CS as they would out of divorces, there will be no hue and cry from women; they'll simply make the adjustment to single motherhood, something divorced women do anyway.
Short of a male pill or widespread celibacy, the marriage strike can be only so effective. At best, the powers that be may start asking long overdue questions about the present system. At worst, we'll see the Murphy-Browning of America, complete with a dysfunctional generation of women-firsters and manginas raised by resentful single moms.
Culturally men need to stop seeing their semen as toxic waste and realize that we possess the true diamonds. That male contraceptive can't come soon enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:19 PM April 17th, 2005 EST (#43)
|
|
|
|
|
Common sense says the first point is nearly irrelevant. Assuming that it is a valid tactic at the moment, if any meaningful number of men were to do this the feminists would simply alter the laws so it would no longer work.
I've been going down to Mexico on the weekends (from L.A.) and there is a guy there who said he could fix me up with a nice Mexican girl that I could keep down there. Sounds good, but he did it for two other guys and they married and took their wives back to the States. You fall in love (or even if you don't) and you end up giving the girl anything she wants. If you can't stand up to a woman on a personal level then you had better stay away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 04:27 AM April 15th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Being in a marriage with a woman who is socially conscious about the situation that men are in and supports reform and men's rights would be a very powerful tool in attaining progress against the rad-feminist elite.
There are intelligent independent women out there who fit this image. Trudy Schuett, perhaps Wendy McElroy, Thea if anyone knows what happened to her etc.
But marrying without being sure of your wife's
views on this subject would be playing with poisonous cobras and rattlesnakes. Just don't do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Kyo on 06:02 AM April 15th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Luek, while such a person would indeed be an ideal partner, remember that she still has the right to at some point betray you totally. And history has shown that when people have power, they eventually get around to using it whether they deserve to have it or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:09 AM April 15th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
"...while such a person would indeed be an ideal partner, remember that she still has the right to at some point betray you totally. And history has shown that when people have power, they eventually get around to using it whether they deserve to have it or not."
As false accusations of domestic violence have taught many men in spades, "a man's home is not his castle, it is the end of his freedom - his prison." A married man has no power or control. As his wife will teach him, the home the family, the children are the wife's territory and the husband is just a guest, or visitor, and those at the wife's discretion. It is the wife who has ultimate power and control, and men are just needed sperm donors waiting to be shuffled along to life in the family court gulags, or debtors prisons if at the whim of the wife they fall from her fickle definition of acceptability. Besides, thanks to family law, men are not cost effective so there's money to be made by dumping the chump.
Oh, you wanted to have kids. That's nice, but now you've been falsely accused and don't see them ever, but still pay and pay. Your ex has a nice new car and you drive a junker. Then there's the depression you're battling, or is it just exhaustion from working the extra jobs to keep the blood suckers all bloated.
You remember when you used to be so happy, but it's 3 a.m. in the morning, the TV screen has gone to snow, you're tired as hell, can't sleep and the alarm clock will be going off in another hour or two to call you back to the salt mines.
Marriage could be empowering for men, but the truth is the vast majority of times it isn't - just the beginning of the tortuous hell feminists have been planning for all men for the past 30+ years.
Declaring an end to "not just" marriage, but all intimate involvement with all females is not defeat, it's victory, unless of course you somehow enjoy the abuse of wading in snake and tick infested swamps.
Just don't go there. The dangers are way too great, the benefits way too few.
R.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 03:57 PM April 15th, 2005 EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
Kyo and R. above stated the true facts.
Marriage to a sympathetic-to-men's rights female does absolutely nothing to protect a man from being legally raped when the progressively-inclined cupcake decides to harvest her prey.
The argument depends upon the fallacy of a virtuous woman with permanent integrity.
They don't exist.
And even if they did, the feminist legal apparatus is always there to make sure that the power and control is exclusively the wife's.
Men cannot be advantaged by marrying the enemy.
And while men did nothing to create the gender wars, the success of feminism in our time has made the terms of engagement very clear.
The "Marriage Stike" is an intelligent form of insurgency and resistance, lacking other more immediate legal and political reforms and, ultimately, the demise of feminism.
"It's a terrible thing ... to be living in fear."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Indiana Jones on 07:19 AM April 15th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
This is a question that i have been dying to find out the answer to:
There are discrimnation against men in family, divorce, and dometic violence courts. BUT, the judges and prosecutors MOST of the times in those courts unfairly sentencing/prosecuting men are MEN THEMSELVES! So..are they just totally oblivious to the fact of men's movement?!?!?!?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:20 AM April 15th, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dave K on 09:50 AM April 15th, 2005 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Well I'm sure you'll get the cynical point of view in spades... so I'll give you my slightly different point of view.
I think most judges try to make good decisions based on the law, the current culture, and the data available.
The problem is that currently only one side of the story (when it comes to gender issues) is being herd. The overwhelming volume of advocacy research from the one side simply swamps objective data. The vocal and visceral appeals to emotional response test the ability of the judge to maintain objectivity. Finally the current culture in the legal system tempts the judge towards advocacy him(or her)self. Just look at recent headlines, the many areas that the judiciary have dictated law instead of applying it. The Terry Shiavo case is unique (and quite remarkable) because it's one of the only instances in recent memory where the judiciary has actually done their job... which should very often be to STAY OUT of areas they have no business involving themselves in.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:15 PM April 15th, 2005 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, most men accept the concept that women should have total liberation from traditional gender inequality. Extraordinarily, however, they reject the concept that men should be similarily liberated. That so many men have this attitude is a tribute to the success of feminazi indoctrination. When a man complains about discrimination (such as in the family court , the criminal court, in health spending, media portrayal etc), he is exhorted to "Be a Man!"
and accept it. Such a slave like mentality is even found in some men in the mens movement.
Feminism always had a twin strategy (see "The Fraud of Feminism", published in 1913 and available on the net). The preservation (and accentuation) of gender inequalities borne by men was just as important as the liberation of women from THEIR inequalities. Many men who support male inequalities think they are supporting "traditional" decent values. In actual fact many of these inequalities were the product of feminist activism over the past century.
By the way, we shouldn't let our grief over the demise of Dworkin cause us to overlook Glenn Sacks latest campaign, which may be his most important.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:29 PM April 15th, 2005 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
I think most judges try to make good decisions based on the law, the current culture, and the data available.
Sorry, but I came to the men's movement when my ex used false dv charges to speed up our breakup. The judge WAS the problem. I had no say at all about the truth; he denied setting my bail for over a week. I got my name in the paper, had dv training classes and probation for nothing.
You see, DV proceedings are handled with a O% tolerance factor (like drunk driving) and advocates corrupt the process. The difference between drunk driving and dv is that the laws punish a drunk driver need some evidence to be in place for a judge to punish.
For DV punishment an accusation alone merits full punishment alone. I always understood that these laws are somewhat protective of women, but the laws now disregard the fact that no actual (read: real and able to proven) needs to be in place is scary. The courts should not punish the innocent to get at a real abuser who is likely criminal anyway… not a proud patriarchal member like the rad-fems state in their fallacious studies.
This is what happened to me. Removed from my property, long restraining orders, training, and incarceration before any trial (denied bail) all from a conflicted statement given to the police.
I had no record, am not known as a violent person let alone even a temperamental person, yet "the system" (as I now call it) said I fit the profile of an abuser perfectly...? Everyone who knows me was in shock as it didn't make any sense.
The cops, the judge, the DA and the advocates were all stacked against me. You can never be innocent was accused. Victim rights are out of control in this country (more so in MA) as I was the true victim here.
Make sure your love interest is grounded in reality despite how attractive she is. This is my advice for people looking to marry. If she has any anti-male sentiments, lose here...
The system is corrupt. We need to restore evidentiary based court proceedings…
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:44 PM April 15th, 2005 EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
"The cops, the judge, the DA and the advocates were all stacked against me. You can never be innocent was accused."
Yes, and those "Cops, Judges, and DA's" all do it, knowingly and with premeditation. They all know (or should) how corrupt and unconstitutional those gender feminist laws against men are. Yet, the misandirst cowards harm more and more men everyday, just because their men.
If most other persons drawing a paycheck cheat and are dishonest in the performance of their duties we say it is criminal, but if these persons do it, it is worse. They are supposed to be high examples of ethics, yet they knowingly and intentionally prostitute ethics every day for a paycheck, for the status of their jobs, and worst of all for the furtherance of the gender feminist agenda.
Those "Cops, Judges, and DA's" are despicable misandrist parasites sucking the integrity and life from a legal system that was supposed to be an example of integrity for all Americans - for the world. Now it's primarily just an example of how evil a legal system can become under the influence of gender feminist laws.
Law Has No Integrity (2nd image)
Imprison Outlaw Judges
Sincerely, Ray
Please do not scroll up the page of the linked item(s). All the info I'm trying to convey is as the page initially comes up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:38 PM April 15th, 2005 EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
LOL Ray that is an excellent t-shirt, the "imprison judges who don't respect fathers' and men's rights" one. I'm gonna buy it right now.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:10 AM April 16th, 2005 EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
Marc:
I was thinking just today about hopping on the Metro link in Universal Studios, and going downtown and having a long lunch in that big subterainian food court just to the North East of the old Music Triforium - and wearing one of those special T-shirts.
In fact, I was thinking of doing it more than once. It's going to be a very fun Summer.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Marc Angelucci of