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.
Messages - hurkle
What's interesting is that this follows right on the heels of the article about how women are divorcing and dumping their husbands right after the husbands retire (in Japan). The husbands sit around the house, lost, because they have been salaryment for 35 years, and have no idea what to do with themselves. So the women get "depressed" about having their husbands home for the first time ever, and dump them.
So, in Japan, you marry the devil woman, slave for her for 35 years, and then she divorces you when you retire and leaves you poor and alone and unhappy.
To think, I used to love Japanese culture.
Ah well, that was before feminism.
What gives the National Association of Women's Lawyers the audacity to "assume" that they speak for all women, or even the majority of women, when apparently their views represent only a fringe group of radical, gender feminists who are clearly out of the mainstream?
You know why...
Remember, all those women who do not support the feminist platform are either (a) uneducated, or (b) oppressed.
If (a), then they just need education, and for that the fems need more money for more brainwashing.
If (b), then they need rescuing, and for that the fems need more money for more brainwashing.
Remember, to the hardcore feminists, if a woman doesn't agree with them, it's because she doesn't know what's best for her. This is echoed to some degree in the liberal political viewpoint as well, but to a much lesser degree.
BQ, I always feel like I am recapping my divorce in every post I make here, so I try not to discuss it all the time, but in answer to your question (and no, I don't mind a bit):
* Divorced for 2+ years
* Full custody
* Ex is in jail awaiting sentencing for attempted armed robbery and aggravated assault with intent to injure
It was a bitter thing, and in addition to MRA stuff, I am also involved with Battered Men's groups for the obvious reason.
Hey, I was one of the lucky ones who wil be getting a copy from no2fembots.
But in return for his generosity, in addition to buying a couple copies in the coming year, I will be glad to ship to someone else who doesn't have the resources right now to purchase it.
Just PM me your address.
So this is what she does.....she becomes a nice, not arrogant, unslutish woman and by golly she lands my buddy. He cant believe his luck, in finding this beautiful woman who has only slept with about 3 guys (according to her, and Never on the first date!) Soon, he wants to marry this wolf in sheeps clothing, and nothing I or anyone can deter his determination. He doesnt even know that she has sold herself on at least a couple of occasions, because she is a liberated woman and has the right to some cash. God knows we only give women 75 per cent of what we make. Anyways, he is going to marry this girl...god help him.
Stallywood, did you like, watch me through spy video or something??
My ex, sheesh. According to her she had been with a few guys.
Three years in, during a heart-to-heart, I find out she has been with over 100 men, that she lived with a coke dealer for several months, and that she has slept with men for drugs and clothes and alcohol and presents (but never for cash).
Yea, I pity the fool. Because I was one.
One thing I have noticed since I re-entered the dating pool.
Well, okay, I reentered it, threw up a few times, and then left it, but since that is not germane to the subject...
There are many single women out there who proudly boast of being homeowners. They are independent women, with jobs and great kids, just looking for a best friend.
But ask them, "How did you get your house?"
They hate that question.
Because they took it from their ex-husband, and now they have the house and the vaginamony.
Hey, the article would have been pro-male, had they not spun it by including the line that blamed men for the problem. It didn't say fatherlessness, it said father's deserting. That's a huge difference in connotation.
I wrote a letter to the editor saying this same thing.
The problem here is that, as Gonzo pointed out in a recent post, most people read only the first two or three paragraphs of an article while skimming. And what does this article point out in the second paragraph? That fathers, men, are the root of the problem - they are deserting their families.
That was the anti-male spin that was placed onto an article that should have been extremely balanced.
What is a "clean house"? It seems a clean house is only a woman's standard, not a man's. How clean does it have to be before it's considered clean? Is there a mathematical formula that men aren't aware of?
You know, they did do that study. What was it - last year? It showed, that without any doubt, women overall had a much higher standard for cleanliness than men did. The kicker is that men's standard for cleanliness was good enough, i.e. safe in terms of germs and all that, it just wasn't good enough for the women.
My take on it is whomever gets the most freaked out by it, i.e. has the highest standards, has to clean to those standards. If I clean, I clean to my standards. If you want me to clean to your standards, too bad.
I think that men - on the whole - have been trained to act in a chivalric manner. However, this training seems to have gone down the tubes over the past several years for a number of reasons, including anti-feminism backlash and single parents (who - male or female - are not instructing their boys in the whole chivalric thing). In addition, the public school system reinforces the fact that everyone is equal, which equates to "no one needs special treatment".
On the other hand, we have the media - all of it, telling women that they still deserve to be treated as females were in the old days, up on the pedastal, etc. Hell, I was raised that way, to open doors, give flowers, buy a diamond, excuse her bad behaviour, make life as easy as possible for the tender creature that is woman...
And then, as Al points out, I began to challenge my assumptions. I hold the door for anyone, but take notice that while every male says "Thank you," only one out of ten women will, and they are usually at least forty. It's as though they take it for granted.
The thing is, there is a new generation of men arising. They are not being trained to think in a woman-first manner. They will not have the values that we as older men were brought up with. This is a shame, because part of that chivalric tradition contributes to strengthening the altruistic, protective instincts of the male. Not only that, many of them are undereducated, medicated, and utterly uninterested in even dealing with women for anything but sex.
Now, if feminists were attempting to get rid of the sense of female privilege that is the converse to male chivalric thinking, there would be no problem. Well, other than the fact that feminism is destroying everything around us, but leaving that aside, the problem is that feminists are still working on the old double standard that I and many other males see so often in unenlightened females. One rule for men, another for women.
No, it includes some changes to the telecommunications act of whenever. Basically, the annoy stuff was already there, i.e. you can't annoy someone over the phone without giving your real name.
Some tech-legal experts have already weighed in, and they so far seem to conclude that it is a "doom-and-gloom" reading of the changes, but that even if someone tries to push that part of the bill, it would be met with legal challenges.
No links, sorry.
Note that she dated many women as well.
I have to agree with the comment about the "my ex beat me" and "my baby daddy don't want nothing to do with the kidz" red flags.
As a totally naive (wrt relationships) mid-twenties guy, when I met my ex-wife she gave me both of those lines, and I fell for them hook line and sinker.
As it turned out in the long wrong, just as she was physically and verbally abusive to me, so had she been to her first husband. However, unlike me, he did not hold back, and would fight with her. So, when she attacked him, he would attack her back. Thus, "he abused her".
In addition, he was interested in seeing his kids. But my ex was the total gatekeeper. I didn't understand until years later what she was doing until I became interested in men's rights and female abusers, and then my eyes were opened.
Of course I saw it again when she got her no-fault divorce.
I no longer believe a woman when she says her boyfriend/husband/life partner/baby daddy is abusive. Unless I judge by her demeanor and attitude that she actually is abused - which has happened maybe twice in the last few years.
It's just like rape. Telling a woman that if she decides the next day that she didn't want to have that sex last night, then she was raped is as damn-fool stupid as telling a woman that if she is punching and kicking and biting and scratching a man, and he tries to leave and she blocks the door and he moves her aside, that she is being abused.
You know, during my divorce, what I found EXTREMELY interesting - in much the same way as one might find a centipede or a rotting piece of meat interesting - was that the state of Arizona had a figure that it used for the average monthly cost to raise a child. It was on the order of $500-$600, though I don't remember exactly.
This amount was to cover basically everything - amortized over 18 years: clothes, food, schooling, etc. The basic needs.
However, when the child - er, I mean MOMMY - support was calculated, as my ex had custody for a little while before she self-destructed even further...
Anyway, instead of using that cost as a basis for child support (i.e. dividing say 600 into two parts based on income and saying this is *your* part and this is *your* part) they used that as the amount she would need to get every month as a base. Then all sorts of complicated calculations went on that I will not get into here, though I knew them very well back then, and finally, out popped a number that had the potential to be almost infinitely greater than the amount the state itself had determined was necessary to raise a child.
It sickened me.
Because basically the state says, "even though it only costs X to raise a child, because you are a man, you must pay Y, where Y is (usually) greater than X". There's no reason for that, unless you assume that (a) the mother is actively seeking to have the father out of the picture, in which case she won't have as much money, and then the taxpayers will have to pay, so we better make the father pay (true) (b) men won't purchase clothes/toys/food for their children post-divorce (false), and (c) by binding mothers to the state in a harem/sugar daddy situation, it is even easier to enforce social programs as long as the teat of ex-daddy's money is kept flowing...
Child support is a crock, a farce, and should be abolished.
If a person wants a no-fault divorce, they can have one, but they give up all rights to community property and custody and visitation of the children forever. But they don't have to pay child support.
Of course the above is modifiable with PROVEN abuse/alcoholism/addication behavior, not just allegations.
Anyway, there's my $0.10.