Gynocentrism Sucks
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Hi. I used to be a regular on here. Kinda miss it now. It's like going back to the old neighborhood. Anyway.Cool book, considering buying it. What topics does it cover? I like your other idea for a dystopian novel too.
There are lots of novels & movies for feminists, but few to none for MRA or Men's Movement readers. We should have our own literature. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B081N1X145
I want to target just readers interested in our topics, but I have lost touch with many people and many of the old forums no longer exist. If there were men's sites with lots of traffic, I would not mind paying a modest amount to advertise this book on those sites. Even if it did not sell well, at least the money would be going to male-positive sites.
Could you please help me? Thanks if you can. Are you around dr e?
Here's a strange one - readers here will very likely know who this is:Yes this is strange. Equally strange is that Roy Den Hollander, whom many of you probably recognize from the MRM, is assumed to be the killer who attempted to kill a Judge who is hearing a money laundering case regarding Jeffery Epstein. I for one, do not believe Roy committed this heinous act. Of course he was 'found dead' within 24 hours of the shooting. I do not believe he killed Marc either. I remember Roy from the old days he was a bit odd perhaps as are all people, but he never condoned violence or agitated for it. As a lawyer he had other legal ways to fight the system. Speaking of which, hello to anyone who is left here. This whole things reeks of a setup. Not much surprises me anymore, what with the on-going communist revolution being attempted in the USA and Coronavirus.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8518891/Mens-rights-activist-Marc-Angelucci-fatally-shot-California-home.html
"Marc Angelucci, 52, an attorney and board member of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Coalition for Men (NCFM) was shot on his property in Crestline on Saturday."
Motive and perpetrator are as yet unknown.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vicki-larson/preglimony_b_1554716.html
Vicki Larson
Journalist, mother, thinker
Maybe you've just moved in with your boyfriend. Maybe you've just started dating a guy who seems special. Maybe you've got a friends with benefits situation that seems to be working for now.
Then you miss your period, even though you're using birth control. An at-home pregnancy test proves what you suspected -- you're pregnant. You feel sick, and it's not just morning sickness.
Now what?
You're not sure if you want to keep the baby and you're not sure if you should even tell your lover.
If you did, what difference would it make, anyway? He has no say if you choose to have an abortion. But what if you want to have the baby -- either to raise or put up for adoption? Until the baby is born, the father-to-be has no responsibility to help you with any of the costs related to the pregnancy -- and there are plenty. Between maternity clothes, OB/GYN visits, ultrasounds, tests, nutritional supplements, birthing classes, perhaps even unpaid sick days from work or the loss of a prospective job because few employers want to hire an obviously pregnant woman -- it isn't cheap or easy to be knocked up.
That doesn't seem fair to Shari Motro, a professor of law at the University of Richmond, Virginia. That's why Motro has introduced the concept of preglimony.
"Why don't we recognize that when a woman gets pregnant with a man to whom she is not married, the pregnancy should be both parties' responsibility?" she writes in the Stanford Law Review. Not to say that some men don't help out; many do. But for those who don't "the law gives them a free pass. In short, until and unless paternity has been established, a pregnant woman and the man with whom she conceives are legal strangers."
Except they aren't really strangers; they've shared an intimate act. But they aren't spouses, either. They're something in between, either as tenuously connected as a no-strings-attached situation or a cohabiting couple. "When a man and a woman have nonreproductive sex, they knowingly engage in an act that has a reasonable possibility of radically interfering with the woman's life, and disproportionately so," she says. "Preglimony is a new word; it is not a new practice. It's time the law noticed."
Pregnancy is a big deal for a woman, no matter how it occurs, and according to the first state-level analysis of unintended pregnancies last year, at least 4 in 10 pregnancies were unwanted or mistimed. Given the many types of contraception available, there isn't much sympathy for whose who accidentally become pregnant. Still, she notes, no form of birth control is foolproof, and all types of contraception as well as abortion come at a great cost to women, especially women who are not financially independent. But the costs aren't just financial.
"Pregnancy changes everything from a woman's pulse to the chemicals that influence her thoughts and feelings. It can present her with unparalleled opportunities for personal growth, healing and joy and it can jeopardize her independence for years to come," Motro writes in "The Price of Pleasure." Women often make light of the burdens of pregnancy because "pregnancy-related impairments have and continue to deter employers from hiring women and focus on the risks of abortion may play into the hands of those who wish to re-criminalize it."
Acknowledging that, Motro would like to see some sort of relational default or what she calls preglimony, a "legal framework defining a man's duty to help support his pregnant lover," to address a growing issue -- some 41 percent of babies are born to unmarried women even though 40 percent of them are cohabiting.
Creating the structure for that is complicated, but in the meantime she believes we can support men who are willing to pay their fair share through tax laws, just like alimony. Currently, any financial help a man contributes toward his lover's pregnancy is considered a gift or child support, and thus offers him no tax benefits. Alimony payments do, however, and she argues preglimony should, too. Not only will it "reward and encourage men who are prepared to support their pregnant lovers," but it will lessen the need for shotgun marriages that often lead to divorce.
That's not to say it should embrace pregnancies resulting from nonconsensual sex, including sex in which a woman knowingly and deceitfully gets pregnant. Nor should it be required; she believes couples should be able to opt out.
Of course, asking men to share in the costs means that they will have more say about how a pregnancy should be handled, perhaps leading some to pressure a woman to have -- or not have -- an abortion. Still, that will ultimately be the woman's decision. And, she notes, "increasing support for pregnant women regardless of the pregnancy's outcome will, over time, change abortion from a form of birth control that lets men off the hook into something both parties are invested in preventing."
As long as people continue to have sex outside of marriage, and as long as many see marriage as obsolete and increasingly live together, we need to be talking about the price we play for pleasure.
"In life there are no guarantees. Men and women who do not want children have sex anyway despite the wild roll-of-the-dice that it entails. This is the fundamental risk at the heart of making love. This is the true price of pleasure, a price no law can erase," Motro says. "But the law can -- indeed it inevitably does -- set the baseline. It is up to us to decide where."
A version of this article appeared on Vicki Larson's personal blog, the OMG Chronicles.
Question: How does this impact the political correctness these [expletive deleteds] have managed to hide behind thus far?
Are the gloves off?
Nobody Ever Said...
Filed under: Cops, John Q Public, Justice, Ontario; Author: Dennis; Posted: June 14, 2007 at 11:27 am;
...that doing the right thing would ever be easy. London top cop Murray Faulkner has likely had that on his mind quite a bit lately.
To the surprise of no one, the parents of David Lucio have begun demanding a full inquest into how the case was handled (not that I blame them -- if my son were killed, I'd want every damned detail gone over with an electron microscope) and Faulkner has likely spent some very self-critical time in front of the mirror lately. Now there's a guy that I don't envy...
The outraged parents of a former London police officer killed by another in a murder-suicide want an inquest into how police handled the case.
But while police Chief Murray Faulkner rejects that, yesterday -- for the first time -- he said he will ask an outside party to assess what happened and how police missed any signs of trouble brewing.
Just how formal such an outside examination would be, Faulkner couldn't say. "I am not sure of the process yet."
Now, before we all hop on the bullshit bandwagon and start pillorying Faulkner for "not knowing what to do," let's just pull the hell off the sanctimony superhighway, shall we? I don't think there is any police chief anywhere on this continent, let alone in Canada, with any experience in a matter like this. The most senior female officer on the entire force -- often referred to even now as a "rising star" -- murders a former police superintendent, in what is looking more and more like a fit of jealousy, and then takes her own life, eliminating the possibility of a trial.
Contrary to what some arseholes will tell you, there's one hell of a lot more to cops than going through life blindly following procedure and shining their badges in their off hours. These people have lives; wives, husbands, kids, bills, mortgages, hopes, dreams... you name it. Just like you. And when they lose one of their own, it's like a cold slap in the face that reminds them that every time they put on that uniform and walk out the door, they might not come back. Their wives or husbands might have to carry on alone. Their kids might have to grow up without a mom or dad. Their parents might be left to endure the frustrations that torment David Lucio's parents...
An angry Doug Lucio, father of the slain retired officer, contacted The Free Press to vent his frustrations. "She killed him. She murdered him -- premeditated. Nobody's saying that," the father, 80, said.
Angry about the handling of the case, including what the public was told and when, the father insists discussion about the tragedy has been stifled.
"Out of discussion comes action plans. And out of action plans comes results," he said.
"I will not tolerate this. (An inquest could) let people stop it from happening again."
No, Doug, it wouldn't. I don't blame you for being pissed; God knows you're entitled (never thought I'd use that phrase). But as much as we may wish otherwise, there are still some things in this life that we just can't see coming, no matter how hard we try. You're absolutely right about one thing, though. People aren't being direct about what happened, so here it is:
That bitch murdered your son in cold blood. Period. She wasn't any kind of a victim; she had no excuse. There was a victim here but it sure as hell wasn't her. She was just as bad as some asshole that kills his wife because she's leaving him. In fact, she was worse. Worse because she was in a position of authority and trust.
There you have it, for whatever it's worth. Getting back to Faulkner, though, the senior Lucio also has some other damned good questions that deserve to be answered:
Among other things, Lucio wants to know why Faulkner met with the family of Johnson -- the shooter -- but didn't call he and his wife, the parents of her victim and a fellow although retired officer.
He also wants to know why police didn't erase any public doubts about which of the two was the shooter -- thus clearing Lucio's name -- when the truth was clear long before autopsy results were released five days after the shootings.
"They knew. So how come it just came out the day of his funeral (June 11)?" he asked.
Lucio described a dramatic confrontation with Faulkner at his son's funeral Monday.
"I said to him, 'You got a hold of (Johnson's former) husband and you got a hold of her father.' Then I said to him, 'Why didn't you call his mother and I?"
Face it, Murray. No matter how you slice it, you owe that man some answers.
