Post Reply  Post Thread 
Q:Why Do Laws Screw over Men? A:Feminists run the Show
Author Message
Truthslayer
Legends of the Forum
*****


Gender:
Posts: 2,661
Group: Registered
Joined: Apr 28, 2006
Status: Offline
Reputation: 6
Post: #1
Q:Why Do Laws Screw over Men? A:Feminists run the Show

Why Do Divorce Laws Marginalize Men?
Post by outcastsuperstar

http://www.askmen.com/fashion/austin_60/...style.html

By Douglas Cooney

Ask a buddy at work.
Ask your neighbor.
Even a relative will probably have heard of one.

And the stories are always the same: she took his house, his car, and his kids. She made more money than him and he still had to pay alimony. She accused him of physical abuse and the courts didn't even ask for evidence.

It seems that no matter who you talk to these days, someone knows of a man who came out of a divorce robbed and humiliated. And there is no end to how harrowing such stories get.

In America, men are forced to pay around 40% of their income to ex-wives, regardless of wrongdoing on the woman's parts (often called "no-fault" alimony).

She could commit adultery and beat her husband or kids, and none of it will influence the court's decision.

More shockingly still, a woman can simply accuse her husband of sexual or physical abuse (or simply express a fear of it) and instantly win a restraining order forcing him away from his home and children, without so much as a hearing.

In fact, most divorce lawyers will advise a woman to do this, and those who do not can be sued for legal malpractice.

And once she has the kids, the family court will be loath to enforce visitation rights for the father. All the mother has to do is ask.

the war on men
With divorce on the rise -- today, more than 50% of all marriages in the U.S. result in divorce -- men's rights are being increasingly overlooked to the benefit of women.

Consider this: statistically, the first person to file for divorce usually wins.

While 70% of all divorces are initiated by women,

85 to 90% of custody awards go to the women.

The numbers alone reveal the ugly truth when it comes to men:

marriage has become a gamble in which the odds are heavily against us.

Family courts have become synonymous with tragedy and injustice.

Once made to protect women from deadbeat dads, these courts are making a mockery of fairness by being instruments of disgrace for men and families.

But this waking nightmare is simply part of a much larger current.

Even the most inattentive of men will notice that the media is saturated with negative images of themselves.

Pervasive in television and movies, the only acceptable representation of man is that of the irresponsible, beer-drinking dimwit.

We are living in the anti-male age, where men are the new scapegoats for all of society's evils. It was only a matter of time before this trend reached the courtrooms.

It's all because of those radical feminists

the tables have turned
There is little doubt over who is responsible for this.

Radical feminists, the same ones who dominate the media and schools with the message that men are by nature violent and abusive, have gained control of key parts of the law and legislature.

They have managed to convince lawmakers that men are dangerous and have no place in a child's life, and therefore should be controlled accordingly. And the result can be seen in the following rulings:

Courts consistently refuse to lower child support fees when the father's income drops. Known as the "Bradley Amendment," this law forbids any reduction in child support arrears, even if the father is disabled.

If a man remarries, his new wife's income can be used as proof that the man can pay alimony.

If the ex-wife (and mother) remarries, however, not a cent of her new husband's earnings goes to child support. The court's rationale? They are not his children, thus not his responsibility.

Current data indicates that

women

are becoming the biggest perpetrators of domestic abuse.

Furthermore, many

women brainwash children

into saying their fathers were abusers.

Courts will nonetheless believe a woman over a man, just because she is the mother.

In California, if the higher-earning spouse, who is typically the man, is hurt during marriage and gets a monetary settlement,

the court can award some of it to the wife even if he suffered all the pain and permanent loss of earning capacity.

The earning spouse will be ordered to pay the attorney's fees of the dependent spouse, which is usually between $5,000 and $20,000 US, even if the latter initiated it.

the delicate sex?
Conventional wisdom tells us that women are, by nature, nurturers.

For that reason they should naturally have custody of a child.

Far be it for anyone to question a mother's love, but turning a blind eye to the role that a father plays in a child's life is downright insensitive.

A good father keeps a family together, provides strength, and shows unconditional support.

These are not the musings of romantics.

U.S. data shows that fatherless children are five times more likely to commit suicide, nine times more likely to drop out of school, 10 times more likely to abuse drugs, and 20 times more likely to end up in prison.

Also, 71% of teenage pregnancies happen to girls who reside in fatherless homes.

Now get this:

60% of all child abuse is committed by women with sole custody.

with liberty & justice for some
So why are fathers increasingly discouraged -- nay, maligned -- from being fathers?

When a pendulum stops swinging one way, it must necessarily come to the other extreme.

This is a fact too oft forgotten by the frontline fighters of feminism.

So influential are pressure groups run by seriously vindictive women, that preference in courts are given to women -- no matter what.

Family judges today automatically believe the woman over the man out of fear for being politically incorrect.

They know that if they examine the facts and find that the man is more capable of raising a child, the shrill alarms of sexism will ring loud and clear.

keep it in the middle
It is time to admit that the pendulum of political correctness has swung too far.

In an effort to force equality into society, all the power fell into the hands of feminists who seem too happy to ape the worst traits of their former oppressors.

But pointing fingers is what got us into this mess in the first place. It won't help anyone, and it will only prod us to the other extreme.

Of greater consequence is that marriage vows are now seven-year contracts that end in tears and anger.

It might be wise to examine where we went wrong.

And should we try to change the pendulum's course, let's hope we learn to keep it happily in the middle.

Post by systems1082
Don't marry,
Don't father,
Don't live with.

I hear women demanding equality, but not one of them mention men.

Look at the battered shelter for men in MA that was all but closed down because the media, radical feminists pracitically knocked the door down with violence.

But did the media mention this? Nope!

They use exactly what they claim a shelter for women & children is to protect from, violence. H Y P O C R I T E S!

Post by anarchiste
There is no way that radical feminists (a minority) could have gained such tremendous power by themselves.

They are pawns in the hands of something much more powerful than they are. I would point a finger at those who control the world economy. By introducing a wedge between men and women those powerful people are making sure than their stanglehold of all nations will endure.

Something BIG is about to happen. Let's say that, in order to gain total power, you had to destroy society, how would you proceed? Well, feminism is a mighty powerful weapon that has been in use for many decades now. Its constant progress is an strong indicator that there is a great power behind.

When things become unstable, the males are sacrificed first.

We are probably at the doorstep of a huge change in society. This change will be of seismic proportion. I have studied this phenomenon for years now, and gathered something like 30 gigabytes of text. It's like a giant puzzle, but I think I am beginning to see the light.

We are on the eve of a very important mutation. This mutation is already taking place, slowly but surely. Be prepared for the worst.

If you associate with a woman through marriage and if you contemplate reproducing yourselves, expect the direst consequences. I think the signs are all over now for all to see. Beware. This is, I'm afraid, only the tip of the iceberg.

Post by systems1082
I often wonder why women are desperately trying to get men to father children out of wedlock.

Perhaps it's because they want to have children whom the church, schools, tv etc. will groom into the perfect participant for what lies ahead?

Post by cassius
Very well said anarchista except Iam not a big fan of anarchy. But about your theory, divide to conquer make everyone only worry about himself, you are right.

But is serves also a different purpose, population control. By eitheir keeping the wife in a happy relationship busy through work, or making the stay at home wife unhappy through tv which she watches while at home, she eithier leads a marriage where she has to divide herself between work and children or years of doctor phil and Oprah will drive her against her husband, divorcing him after one or two children cashing out.

Thats why a major cultural change in the Arabic world is so important. 500.000.000 women anywhere between 4 and 9 children per woman, ill let you do the math.

Post by systems1082
Which is more alarming?

Post by anarchiste
I see your point, cassius. In the minds of most people, anarchy means destruction.

This is the wrong conception of anarchy. I would like to suggest you pay a visit to anarchy central, in Norway, where most anarchists reside. You can even become a member.

Anarchy is derived from a Greek word that means, literally, "without a king".

It means you respect others, but you don't follow the rules of any ruler.

I refuse authority, whatever clothes it is wrapped in. I do not go rioting in the streets and I don't condone violence under any guise.

I live my life as a very peaceful citizen, but I let no one, absolutely no one set the rules for me.

I am a partisan of individual freedom.

The United States was founded by anarchists. I have been visiting the U.S. a great number of times and I have seen that the American people are anarchists deep in their hearts. That's why I love them so much. I have always held that country in great admiration because it has been, from the very beginning, the Land of the Free.

It pisses me off to no end to see that freedom being taken away from the American people, mainly the men. You have no idea. My motto is Live free or die: you know where that comes from. I know you do.

Post by Lee
Let's do that Math.

-Western Women - ~675mln. Each has 1.5 kids. That's 1.0bln. Let's be generous and add one half of the Western Population of 1.3bln in. Thats 1.65 billion Westerners.

-Muslim, Islamic and Arabic Women - ~500mln. Each has 4 kids. That's 2bln. Let's be generous and not include any of the Muslim Population of 1.0bln. That's 2bln Muslims.

Worse case is 3-4 billion Muslims, 1.0 billion Westerners, with Al-Q'aeda like supporters numbering in the hundreds of thousands.

This demographic turnaround will happen within 10 or 15 years - the time it takes for those Muslim Youths to reach 18.

Post by anarchiste
"This demographic turnaround will happen within 15 years - the time it takes for those Muslim Youths to reach 18."

True, unless we give them the "kiss of death" by spreading feminism through their ranks.

Post by systems1082
"I live my life as a very peaceful citizen, but I let no one, absolutely no one set the rules for me. I am a partisan of individual freedom"

Anarchiste-I second this, and I sure respect anybody that stands up against being wronged.

Truthslayer


How to succeed with women-Succeed without them.

Start shoveling the gravel.

Woman slaying since day one

12-18-2006 05:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Truthslayer
Legends of the Forum
*****


Gender:
Posts: 2,661
Group: Registered
Joined: Apr 28, 2006
Status: Offline
Reputation: 6
Post: #2
 

Emily's List
Post by mamonaku

We all know that feminists have our political system in their collective purses... and that our "family" courts hand down injustice on a daily basis.

What I didn't know who the key players were, until today. I found this information on Men's News Daily.

Please see: http://tinyurl.com/9wwq4
or: http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/usher/2006...ystem.html

"6 Comments:
Denis said...
Excellent column. There is a lot to chew on here.

David, what about the influence of Emily's List. I believe this is the largest PAC and is a radical feminist organization. I have heard that they watch every judge in Family Court throughout the U.S., and if a judge does not display the proper respect for womens issues that he/she will then be targeted for removal.

Judges are aware of the threat posed by Emily's List. It influences their decision-making.

It seems to me that Emily's List is corrupting the judiciary by giving judges incentives (self-survival) to decide cases a certain way.

Do you have any commentary regarding Emily's List influence?

4:35 PM
Eric said...
Good points, David and Denis.

For those that do not know what Emily's list is all about, I took a listing from a different forum and put it here:

With due credit this is from KAL147 for his knowledge and proper credit is due to him.

Here is the thread (condensed)

I'm sure you all are aware of the recall election in California that ousted Gray Davis as the Governor.

Last year he vetoed legislation that would have curtailed rampant paternity fraud in California.

The reason that Davis vetoed the paternity law bill, and the reason that so much else of this kind happens is not because men are too lazy to do anything about it, and not because all social workers are lesbians, but because of raw political clout.

I know that some of you have heard of Emily's List, but there may be a lot of others who still haven't, even though it's far and away the most powerful political action committee in the country, with tentacles controlling politics at the national, state and local levels.

Have you ever been in court and seen a woman sitting in the front row taking notes on what's going on?

That's a court watcher, sent by an organization indirectly funded by Emily's List, who makes sure that the judge rules the right way -- whatever way will bring more money
into Emily's List and the organizations it controls.

Even if someone in this group hasn't heard of Emily's List, you can be sure that all elected officials have.

Emily's List affects almost every election, one way or another.

If you're willing to submit to Emily's List's control, and say only what they want you to say, then you get their help at reelection time; otherwise your opponent does.

If you get elected, you're expected to favor legislation that will pour even more
money into Emily's List's coffers.

This is corruption and machine politics at its worst. You should see for yourself just how wealthy and powerful Emily's List is.

Go to the Federal Election Commission at the URL
http://www.fecinfo.com/cgi-win/indexhtml...BF=PACLEAD and click on
2001-2002 Election cycle, Total Receipts, then click on "List Them."

You get a huge list of PACs. You'll see that the hard-core feminist
Emily's List is on top -- waaaaaaaaay ahead of everyone else in money
and power.

Here are the first few, as of a couple of months ago based upon the 2001-2002 election cycle:

1. $20,921,055 EMILY'S LIST
2. $9,929,641 NRA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND
3. $8,159,142 DEMOCRAT REPUBLICAN INDEPENDENT VOTER EDUCATION
4. $7,958,809 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES - P E O P L E, QUALIFIED
5. $7,861,324 INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION
6. $7,636,940 UAW - V - CAP (UAW VOLUNTARY COMMUNITY ACTION
PROGRAM)
7. $6,904,651 SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION POLITICAL
CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
8. $6,749,254 ASSOCIATION OF TRIAL LAWYERS OF AMERICA POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
9. $6,413,897 VOICE OF TEACHERS FOR EDUC/CMTE ON POL EDUC OF NY STATE UNTD TEACHERS (VOTE/COPE) OF NYSUT
10. $6,031,024 NEA FUND FOR CHILDREN AND PUBLIC EDUCATION; THE
(FKA NEAPAC)"

Considering if this is the straight dope... this organization has been one of the primary architects of our misery.

Now I can understand why all of my elected representitives vote against my best interests again and again; and why President Bush signed VAWA into law once again.

What are your thoughts? Can anything be done to challenge this group? Or is pressing on with the Marriage Strike and going our own way the only means of survival?

Post by antiriad
Looking at the bigger picture, the only possible solution to the problem is greatly reducing the size and influence (i.e. ability to tax people) of government.

This is simply what is bound to happen in a system that taxes people: special interest groups form to divert the taxes. Even if you manage to create an opposing interest group and perhaps even obtain as much funding, you have now merely increased taxation, expanded government, and made it even less efficient by creating two intra-governmental factions with mutually exclusive interests.

In the limit, the number of such factions grows without bounds until government controls all aspects of our lives in the least efficient manner possible and tons of money is spent to accomplish comparatively little.

To put it another way: if it weren't EMILY, it would be PETA, Greenpeace, etc. There would always be someone there with another idea of how to spend your money.

The only solution is greatly limited taxation.

Post by vphoenix
Wow, this is both scary and impressive: a group with more power than the NRA,

whose sole focus is getting pro-choice, female Democrats (feminists, in other words) elected into power.

I wonder how many people are even aware this group exists?

As an aside, this is the sort of thing that really gets me riled up.

Women my age hew and cry about how they have no advantages, no one to speak up for them; how men get all the breaks...

and yet here's a powerful organization that's ready to bankroll the campaign of any woman who expresses the right beliefs.

I mean, what organization is going to give me (a young man) $20 million so *I* can get into office?

No wonder I have no sympathy for women.

They get everything handed to them, and they still want more.

Post by thegrandcurmudgeon
The pursuit of "having it all" has turned into a sort of cancer.

Women are stuck like broken records on "we still have a long way to go" when they have advantages handed to them in every area of western culture.

Western women are addicted to consuming, and throwing away. They were programmed to be like that to feed the inflation economy.

The media completely controls the brains of most women, and they mindlessly go forth and consume just like Oprah, the magazines, and her friends tell her to do.

Women in general do not contribute anything to marriage any more other than sex, and they are damn poor at that.

Thus, women are reduced to acting ever more overtly sexual and sluttish to attract men's attention at all.

Men are caught between insane social policies which deny the reality of female behavior, and frequently insane, vindicitive, and violent behavior on the part of women.

So far, women have been coasting on the golden image most men had of their mothers and grandmothers.

Today, few men have such rosy memories and as such men trickle into positions of influence, women will not have nearly as many friends in high places as they have in the past.

Post by disconnect
I can't even imagine how this kind of spending is justified.

Since a femnag machine yields no profit, what do people think when they agree to blow 20 mil to support it?

From the point of view of economy, that's a bunch of money flushed down the drain.

Whoever it is that's in charge of making this decision should pull his head out of his ass.

"Early money is like yeast" is Emily's motto. Yeesh!

On a side note, I made a choice to visit a court in the near future. I want to see how this is done, and if there really is a woman with a notepad in the front rows.

Post by bartsimpson
They make it sound like an outside woman is sitting in the Court Room, but the fact is the male Judge is outnumbered.

The Court Clerk is a woman
The Stenographer is a woman
The Bilingual Translator is a woman
The Family Social Worker is a woman
The Victim-Witness Advocate is a woman

Good chance one of the attorney's is a woman
Good chance the Bailiff and the Jailer is a woman
And it's a good chance the Judge is a woman, too

Post by systems1082
"No wonder I have no sympathy for women. They get everything handed to them, and they still want more"

You said it, Brother!

Post by systems1082
"Western women are addicted to consuming, and throwing away. They were programmed to be like that to feed the inflation economy. The media completely controls the brains of most women, and they mindlessly go forth and consume just like Oprah, the magazines, and her friends tell her to do. Women in general do not contribute anything to marriage any more other than sex, and they are damn poor at that. Thus, women are reduced to acting ever more overtly sexual and sluttish to attract men's attention at all.

Men are caught between insane social policies which deny the reality of female behavior, and frequently insane, vindicitive, and violent behavior on the part of women. So far, women have been coasting on the golden image most men had of their mothers and grandmothers. Today, few men have such rosy memories and as such men trickle into positions of influence, women will not have nearly as many friends in high places as they have in the past"


This is on the mark. I've been saying this for years!

Post by gpanella
Bartsimpson is absolutely on the mark,

But look at the women at the courts left hand, I have noticed that on the average 20% are wearing a ring,

Be a proponent to change and if you meet a woman that works for the court system and she is single, walk away, do not date or provide any attention to women that have a career in the legal system .

This would be a good first step toward affecting change.

We must remember...women want relationship and the "No 1" need of a woman is affection and admiration.

Dont acknowledge them, as women evaluate thier attractiveness by the number of men that gauk at them,

Stop giving them the power by letting them see you admiring thier beauty.

Force yourself to look at the new sports car driving by instead of the set of silicon implants she just bought to get your attention.

Post by jimp
This is an awesome post.

Just look at the list.

OK, you've got the NRA,

but other than that, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 ar ALL UNIONS supporting the same feminist left wing agenda, and then you've got #8 which is a bunch of parasites (the trial lawyers).

This is what drives politics in this country.

And who was it that was complaining when I said that men should not enlist in the army thereby supporting these scumbags?

Post by toadman
The US Armed Forces support freedom for much more than just the scumbag agenda.

Post by jimp
Sounds good, but would you care to elaborate, exactly what the hell are you free to do in the U.S. that you can't do in Mexico for instance?

Post by Lee
Emily's List started in the early 1990's after Clinton won.

95% of their funding comes from donations under $200, which means that the source of funds does not have to be disclosed.

So if you research their source of funding, you can't get any names or answers.

No accountability, a female trait.

MoveOn.org was started by the couple who owned Berkeley Systems, the software firm that created the After Dark series of screen savers.

Ostensibly bipartisan, they began with a call to Congress to censure Clinton and 'Move On'.

They quickly dropped any pretense of centrism and veered hard left.

They have an offshoot MomsRising.org.

An org that wants to make it illegal to ask during interviews if you have kids, how many you have, and if you are married.

Post by anarchiste
I side with antiriad: the government has to be made small, very small indeed. There are many ways to do it, one of them is to avoid paying taxes, so that the government's revenue stagnates or better, decreases dramatically. We must hit where it hurts.

Decrease your spendings, so that you can live on less income.

Work less or work "under the table", therefore avoiding taxes.

The revenue stream that the government gets has to crash down. Money is like blood to the government: if we bleed it to death, the beast will die.

Post by systems1082
"So if you research their source of funding, you can't get any names or answers. No accountability, a female trait.
"

Thus the name EMILY

Post by Lee
EMILY is an acronym for Early Money Is Like Yeast.

Post by systems1082
I know the acronym for EMILY, I was being sarcastic!

Truthslayer


How to succeed with women-Succeed without them.

Start shoveling the gravel.

Woman slaying since day one

12-18-2006 06:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply  Post Thread 

View a Printable Version
Send this Thread to a Friend
Subscribe to this Thread | Add Thread to Favorites
Rate This Thread:

Forum Jump: