|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Indiana Jones on 11:30 PM April 22nd, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Although thats a british article, i think it will soon be true in the states.
We have affirmative action, more girls do better than guys in school, gets into better universites, blind family courts that awards women with all the assests.........not to mention all the senseless gender-discrimination law-suts (walmart, boeing, ..etc etc)
This is especially terrible in Britain, where men pays thounsands more in Car Insurance and life insurance. Furthermore, the lack of funding for men's health will only make it worse.
It won't be until men are dying on the streets that people will stop blieveing the "men are richer than women myth"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Konovan on 11:45 PM April 22nd, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
It won't be until men are dying on the streets that people will stop blieveing the "men are richer than women myth"
...but, really, women will be the true victims because they'll have to live on while the men get the sweet embrace of death.
Women should be so lucky. At least they'll have their money to comfort them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:14 AM April 23rd, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Guys,
The facts are that in the US women right *now* control more wealth and control the decision making on spending money. Don’t believe the bulls**t about “women buy the day to day stuff, men make the large purchases.” Bulls**t! Here are some quotable quotes I found in just a few minutes of surfing:
Today in the US:
More women enrolled in college
56% of all students earning bachelor's degrees are women.
Women own more than a third of the country's businesses and are launching new business ventures at three times the rate of men.
Women outlive men by an average of 7 years. An estimated 85-90% of women are left in charge of family financial affairs.
Women control 83% of household spending. (The Trendsight Group)
Visit any mall in the US and you will see that well over 90% of the stores cater to women only! This is a fact. Open your eyes.
Another title of an article while surfing for quotable quotes was as follows:
“Why women turn to eating and spending when they're unhappy”
Just a GuyOutHere
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:33 AM April 23rd, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Furthermore just look at all the TV commercials. Most are directed at women, many times I ask myself do these marketers know we men exist and buy stuff too. I really believe it's a girls world.
Pete in Nebraska
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marketers have a grasp of the real world:
Somehow it is always overlooked that in this fairer society women demand . . . they spend most available money on themselves . . . whereas men tend to spend most of their available money on women !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Konovan on 11:21 AM April 23rd, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
I've heard that some of those "woman owned businesses" may actually only be woman-owned in name only. I think women-owned businesses get tax breaks in some (or all?) areas, so some husbands have their businesses put in their wive's names.
It's funny that feminists complain about a wage gap when income does not necessarily indicate wealth. You could be a billionaire with an income of zero dollars, but you'd still be wealthy (I'm ignoring any taxable interest made from their wealth).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 05:51 PM April 23rd, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
"I think women-owned businesses get tax breaks in some (or all?) areas, so some husbands have their businesses put in their wive's names."
Many states have a state women's ventures center, the SBA has a Women's Business Center, White House Office of Women's Initiatives and Outreach, there are female-only entreprenuer clubs all over, both men and women will tend to give female-owned businesses preference over others, and there are tons of grants available only to female owned companies. I don't know for sure about the tax breaks though, I kind of doubt they have that in the US.
"I've heard that some of those "woman owned businesses" may actually only be woman-owned in name only."
Perhaps, but that just means she legally owns it while he does all the work. That isn't so great in a country with a 70% divorce rate that isn't friendly to men when assets are divided in family courts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 06:45 PM April 24th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
"Any man who is smart enough to put a business into his wife's name to get all the "female-only" benefits is more than likely also smart enough to ensure that everything is set up so that he will not lose everything in a divorce."
I don't know about that. There are a lot of otherwise very smart guys who are completely naive when it comes to women. Also, I don't know if it's possible for a man to set things up so he doesn't get screwed in a divorce. I mean when signed contracts from the wife agreeing not to take his stuff are typically thrown out of court, what can he actually do to secure his stuff? Especially a business that is legally in her name which has been recieving benefits by being a female-owned company?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dittohd on 08:02 PM April 25th, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
|
> I don't know about that. There are a lot of otherwise very smart guys who are completely naive when it comes to women.
I just read a book entitled "Goals" by Brian Tracy wherein he stated that you are intelligent when you do intelligent things. You are not intelligent when you do unintelligent things. I like that observation. The bottom line is if a man is naive with women, then he's naive.... not smart.
> Also, I don't know if it's possible for a man to set things up so he doesn't get screwed in a divorce.
I'm not a lawyer and I haven't yet been through a divorce, but I've probably read all (or most of) the horror stories you have.
I've been to asset protection seminars where family limited partnerships are described as one way of doing this. Everything is, of course, dependent upon how the structure and agreement is set up, but basically it's possible to set up the man as the general partner (manager) and he and wife and children and preferably other relatives outside the immediate family as limited (non-managerial) partners with varying percentages of ownership. (The more people involved, the stronger it is against a judge unraveling it because anything he does affects other parties outside the marital relationship).
The general partner is given total control of any and all payouts including the decision to make no payouts each year as he deems it beneficial for the good of the partnership. The way it was explained, if the woman is given more than a 50% share, or at least more than the husband, it is highly unlikely that a judge would unravel the partnership, especially if other family members outside the immediate family or even totally outside the family are included as part owners (non-managerial limited partners) in the partnership.
It's not mandatory to have others outside the immediate family in the partnership as limited partners, but it's an option that makes the thing stronger. In many legal instances, it's better to control the money than to "own" it. As far as the benefits of "only" controlling the money, use your imagination.
I'm sure there are other ways to do this, but this is one example that I found appealing. If this sounds interesting to you, information can be found in any number of books and legal seminars on asset protection.
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 09:39 AM April 28th, 2005 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
"I just read a book entitled "Goals" by Brian Tracy wherein he stated that you are intelligent when you do intelligent things. You are not intelligent when you do unintelligent things."
Smart people sometimes do dumb things. The difference is they don't always have to.
"I like that observation. The bottom line is if a man is naive with women, then he's naive.... not smart."
A man can be "not smart" with women, and "smart enough to put his business in a woman's name to get the perks of a female owned business".
"The way it was explained, if the woman is given more than a 50% share, or at least more than the husband"
Wait a second, this plan for the man not getting screwed out of ownership of his business in court is for him to willingly screw himself out of ownership beforehand? I If she has more than 50% of the stock than she can elect herself chairman of the board and then redefine herself to be the one who controls the payouts. Or she can have her ex-husband fired as an employee so that any money he makes from the company is through dividend payments only and she's getting more than him out of it, again for free because he just gave her all that stock in exchange for a few woman-owned perks for the business.
Assuming she gets less than half but still has more than the husband, now you've got someone constantly competing for control over this company with you, who will try to either buy the stocks off the other partners or convince them to vote for her as the one controlling the payouts. Shouldn't be too tough if you're not giving out any to the stockholders.
This sounds like a crazy scam that I would never try to pull off. Better to just own the business yourself and miss those female-owned perks than to risk losing the company or giving away the lion's share just to get them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dittohd on 07:58 PM April 28th, 2005 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
|
> If she has more than 50% of the stock than she can elect herself chairman of the board and then redefine herself to be the one who controls the payouts. Or she can have her ex-husband fired as an employee so that any money he makes from the company is through dividend payments only and she's getting more than him out of it, again for free because he just gave her all that stock in exchange for a few woman-owned perks for the business.
Everything you're saying here applies to a corporation, not a limited partnership. Limited partners have no voting or management rights. There's no board of directors. There is no competing for control because everything is done based on the original partnership agreement and the general partner (husband only if set up that way) has total managerial control. Limited partners have none. There is no stock in a limited partnership, only percentages of ownership.
> Better to just own the business yourself
When you own the business yourself (such as a corporation), all the problems you talk about are there, including a judge ordering the transfer of ownership or a large percentage of the profits or adding more to the alimony and child support to "make things fair". If the woman already owns more than half or even almost all the limited partnership ownership percentage in a limited partnership, what judge will change the partnership so that she gets less. And if the wife owns most of the limited partnership percentage but can't touch the money unless the husband makes a distribution of profits... Besides spending the profits on things that benefit himself while at the same time benefiting the partnership, he can collect a salary for managing the limited partnership, the amount being also totally at his discretion.
Everything is, of course, based on the limited partnership structure, by law, and the wording of the agreement that is originally drawn up, all done legally.
The information I'm telling you about limited partnerships is certainly not a scam, it's business law which can be easily checked out. As far as the agreement particulars, I've been to a couple of seminars given by the National Foundation for Tax Planning and Asset Protection and purchased some of their stuff so that I could do most or all of the legal work myself (I'm a do-it-yourselfer wherever possible).
As far as asset protection in particular, the limited partnership has advantages that all the other business entity forms don't.
If you think it's a scam, I invite you to check it out, especially if you think what I said sounds like it might help you if it's not a scam. There are other reasons to create a limited partnership besides divorce as it has many asset protection advantages. Divorce is only one of several.
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 12:23 AM May 3rd, 2005 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for sharing that information Dittohd. You're absolutely right, I was thinking of this in terms of a corporation instead of a partnership. As it turns out, I've recently gone into business for myself and my partner and I had to deal with a woman making a rather ridiculous attempt to take control of it, so I was thinking of it from that point of view.
"If you think it's a scam, I invite you to check it out, especially if you think what I said sounds like it might help you if it's not a scam."
I don't think it's a scam but I think I'll research it anyway, when I get a chance. This looks like very valuable and not well-known information and I thank you again for sharing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Graboid on 06:44 PM April 24th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm feeling a bit lazy at the mo, so i'll just paste what I wrote in another forum about this article:
I wouldn't be too concerned - the report sounds like a load of bollocks to me. In a free society/market, men are the wealth generators. Women inherit money from men or get it through divorce. I think marriage is in its death-throws as an institution, so in the future, this way of women obtaining money will largely be ruled out. The only way left is inheritance.
If marriage dies (and sadly, I think it will, for the most part, be replaced by co-habitation) then women are fucked, financially speaking (as long as new laws are not passed that would mean men have to give money to a long-term girlfriend when they split up - and belive me, they're in the pipeline).
As long as there is no massive political shift towards socialism in the future (that would mean 'redistributing' the money men have earned into women's pockets - but I can't see this happening on a large scale), then the proportion of the world's wealth in men's hands will increase in the future to an even greater level than it is today.
Feminists wanted to destroy marriage and they will certainly get their wish - it's just a matter of time. Then they will have to lie in the bed they've made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:03 PM April 24th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I guess this would explain why there are VASTLY more homeless MEN than homeless women.
Fact of the matter is I have never even SEEN a homeless woman. Where I live I see plenty of homeless people, but they are ALL MEN...!
My family has given money to the homeless in my area (Indianapolis) We have given a fair amount to many men, but not to women. Why? Oh, that's right, because THERE AREN'T ANY!!!!
The only time I have seen homeless women is on Television. And they try to give the illusion that MOST homeless people ARE women.
My expirience just DOESN'T back that claim, at all.
ARE there homeless women? Of course there are. But VASTLY FEWER than MEN.
B.T.W. and F.Y.I. The largest number of homeless men are Black and American-Indian.
'don't hear about THAT in the media, either.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 03:40 PM April 24th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Thundercloud once again smacks us in the face with real experience as opposed to feminist's fantasies.
Of course most of the homeless are men. (The women all have shelters to go to. And, the shelters distort the numbers of women and children they "serve," by counting every phone call as a "client" helped.)
There is also no question that most homeless men are men of color.... though in Chicago I see a lot of anglo street vagabonds. (During the Great Depression, that was an honorable term for a man looking for work...)
It's very interesting that N.O.W. and the feminist movement have always made a lot of noise about their "solidarity" with women of color and (most recently) Third World women and children.
One might argue that by intentionally dismissing the plight of MEN in poverty, that "Feminism INC." is very deliberately continuing its strategy of destroying families.
N.O.W. alleges that the majority of people in poverty are women.
N.O.W. refuses to acknowledge that feminism in its efforts to destroy the Evil Patriarchal family has been a major contributor to this plight.
I would love to see Kim Gandy (N.O.W.'s esteemed lesbian feminist President) spend one week with a Haitian woman's family, a Nigerian woman's family, a Brazilian woman's family, a Hopi woman's family....)
in the favelas, the shanty towns, the reservations, and the other frontiers of desperation.
Lecture them all about the glories of feminism.
With your full belly, and empty mind.
"It's a terrible thing ... to be living in fear."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:26 PM April 24th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
it is pretty common knowledge that most of the homeless are men. read that everywhere. have also seen that with my own eyes. women may also receive emergency welfare payments in order to pay rent, utilites etc.
I can tell you gentlemen that I am not homeless but I am alone in the world, just me and my two dogs. we have a lovely home too. Point here is this pro female society has affected me in certain ways. I know I have to swin or sink, there is no life guard watching over me. As a result I am not the nice person I used to be. For me now it's the law of the jungle. Anything goes to survive, I do not care if it's legal or illegal, moral or immoral, if anyone screw's with me you may get sued, shot in the back or if you are close I may sic my Presa Canario on you. If I were female there would be a host of programs and a myrid of other resources available to me if I needed help.
As another poster pointed out, it's the women who are the ultimate victims here. Women are not gutsy enought to end their lives so they will have to endure with fewer and fewer good men around. For me if I fall and cannot get up again, no problem, the dogs go to the Vet to be put to sleep and for me one shot in the head with the .38 Special and I am out of here.
Pete in Nebraska
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 06:31 PM April 24th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Pete,
The quality of your writing suggests that would be a poor way to expend a bullet.
Better to "lock 'n load" your keyboard....
And point it at feminist tyranny, with extreme prejudice.
"It's a terrible thing ... to be living in fear."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:43 PM April 25th, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Live, Pete.
Live.
I know it can be hard, too. If not for visiting my parents, I would have no social interaction, myself. I have 2 cats. But that's about it.
Don't let the feminists push you to suicide. That's what they WANT. Another DEAD MALE.
I hope I'm not being preachy, here, but consider getting envolved with your local church, even if you're not religious. There are phonies there but there are real, good, kind and sincier people as well to be met at church. Even the women tend to be (at least a bit) more honorable.
A few years ago, I too considered suicide. I mean I was RIGHT on the EDGE. I was alone, I was (still am) a cripple, as a result of a violent attack 14 years ago, There just seemed to be nothing to live for. I went into prayer and asked the Creator to give me one good reason to not do myself in. No sooner had I asked that then two geese flew over me at the pond I was sitting at. I knew imeadiately what this meant.
You see in the Cherokee spirituality a Goose is the symbol of home and family. The geese were a male and female. I knew right away that they were the symbol for my Mom and Dad. My death would have destroyed them. I also knew that it meant that one of my greatest purpouses in life was to take care of my elderly parents. I have done so ever since and it has given my life great meaning and importance.
I know that this may come off as being "romantic" and even simplistic, but it is the truth. I also went into counciling after that, to see if I could quell the depression I was suffering from. I am now on medication. Prozac, for one. But it turned the tide in the "battle with myself". Now I am my own best friend.
I can't promise that if you go out and pray, as I did, some symbol will appear to you to give you guideance, but something else may come to you, in a different way. A thought, a feeling, I don't know. Maybe it will seem that NOTHING comes to you. But I believe the prayer will be ansewered in some way. I believe that the Creator, God, ansewers all prayers. Some times the ansewer is "No". But other times it is yes, either way I believe it is ansewered.
I also found meaning in my life as an M.R.A. and an American Indian activist. I have found that doing things for others is a WONDERFUL way to live my life. Be it fighting for Indian rights and recognition or hasseling feminists on their blogs. It is very rewarding.
Maybe you don't go to every men's rights march, so what. Do what you CAN the best way you can and that is enoughe.
Please don't let the feminists drive you to an early grave. They're NOT worth it, I tell you.
Your life is worth more than a hundred of theirs.
They WANT you to feel bad. They WANT you to die. They want me to die, they want most men dead. Don't give them what they want.
I have read alot of your posts. You have alot to contribute to this movement.
I would miss that.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Clancy
(long_ponytail@yahoo.com)
on 11:03 AM April 26th, 2005 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
If Sitting Bull could forsee the demise of the 7th Cavalry, I believe that you also had a true revelation when the geese flew overhead. That was a great tale. And women think they have cornered the market on intuition, visions, and dreams. Native Americans have been having visions for centuries. Visions with real meaning. I've only had one dream in my life that when I awoke, I could remember every detail and I knew that it was no ordinary dream. I "knew" it held a great significance and the message it delivered did indeed come to pass. It was a life changing moment. It came in a time during which I was under constant worry and anxiety. President Lincoln, near the end of his days, dreamed on more than one occasion of his own death. Every single detail. My feeling is that because of the constant 24 hour pressure over the span of 4 years during the civil war, his awareness became very heightened. He knew it was coming and he let it happen. Not a subject on topic but Thundercloud struck a chord. By the way, Thundercloud, how is your mother faring? I hope she is fully recovered.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
