Shameless fools of men

[poiuyt]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8342546.stm

One of US President Barack Obama's half-brothers has spoken about their "abusive" father at the launch of his semi-autobiographical first novel.

Mark Ndesandjo told reporters: "My father beat me. He beat my mother."

The author is the son of Mr Obama's late father and his third wife. Barack Obama Sr split from Mr Obama's mother when the future president was aged two.

Mr Ndesandjo, who lives in China, had previously shunned the media since his link to Mr Obama emerged in 2008.

But in a news conference to promote the novel Nairobi to Shenzhen, he said a string of extraordinary events - including his brother being elected president - made him come to terms with his past.

'I want to tell my story'

"I remember in my house I would hear the screams. I would hear my mum's pain. As a child, I could not protect her," he said.

"I could not remember any good things about my father. My skin had turned hard emotionally for so many years."

Mr Ndesandjo said his novel was about a man who was forced to confront his early experiences in Kenya and the United States after arriving in China in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

He said he would publish his second book, an autobiography, in the next few months.

"I want to tell my story, not have others tell it for me," he added.

For the past seven years, Mr Ndesandjo has been living in the city of Shenzhen, near Hong Kong, and has until now refused all interview requests.

He said he planned to meet his half-brother in Beijing when the US president visits later in November.

Barack Obama Sr divorced the president's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, in 1964 and had at least six other children in his native Kenya. He died in a road accident in 1982.

President Obama hardly knew his father, but wrote of the impressions he formed of him in his 1995 book Dreams From My Father.

Its quite clear how far the male gender-class has irremedyably demeaned themselves and collapsed as a distinct group. That is, collapsed to nothingness have men, where you hear the cynical touchstones, devious mantras and gynocentric totems they tout, to justify their chauvenism, to sell books or aspire to higher office? Males ought to know better and ought to show better to each other and up and coming young boys.

1.
Do these men not understand that they do irreparable damage to themselves, their genders' standing and to their own names, when they come out with all manner of misandrous allegation and justification for wickedness supposedly founded in the actions of other men ? Whom are you to ever dare to judge your father, as this damned society goads you to do for bribes? You dont know that you are opening the door to greater enemies to yourself and existing sons, than your father in your imagination ever was ?

2.
Even micheal jackson and his childish supporters... Do they not realise that it is in themselves and not in their fathers actions that blame is to be found, for their wayward lives leading to drug abuse, homosexuality, incarceration and or eventual death from misadventure ? And if such recovering addicts of cultural-misandry and cynicism ever woke up, they would quickly realise that it is they and not fathers, that serve as the foundation mass on which hatred for men is built in this society.

3.
Then elsewhere, you have those men whom tout this or that type of marriage as a good thing to have and do. The answere to them is: No mister, you are wrong ! All marriages in amoral societies such as this one, founded on cynicism, hypocracy and mendacity are decidedly bad, even if they yeild the incidental good of children. How can such a societies marriages of whatever model ever be good, when the resulting children cannot even trust their own mothers ? And you cannot trust your own mother if your society grants her alone, yourself and your father as chattel, for her sole sexual, economic or other purposes !

4.
And if you please; ... acknowledging the above facts is not an expression of misogyny, but an expression of truth. A truth, some men are too opposed to, in veiw of their economic intrest in untruth, to acknowledge. Right now in these rotting societies, females alone have been opportuned the license to kill males, if after the fact, they claim to have experienced domestic violence. But an ordinary teenager of average sense could immediately tell you that such a measure is a counterfeit ruse. And of course manslaughter of males alone, is a counterfeit ruse, where only females but not males, are aknowledged to experience the domestic violence on which murder is to be excused as manslaughter !

5.
But if any man is too stubborn to see what is happening to males in these wretched lands, he is invited to read this peice. A peice on the amounts that his fellow man is compelled at the point of a gun to produce, in alimoney and child support payments, purely on account of his gender and nothing more. ... After reading, can anyone say whom the fuck on earth is as important, so much more than than their fellow human, as to merit such enslavement of another ?

http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/10315260/Sportscaster-Nantz-to-pay-ex-wife-$916K-a-year

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - CBS sportscaster Jim Nantz must pay $916,000 yearly in alimony and child support to his ex-wife and give up their Connecticut home under terms of a newly issued divorce decree.
...
Under the ruling, Nantz must pay $72,000 in alimony monthly until he dies or his ex-wife remarries, and another $1,000 weekly in child support for the next two years.

Nantz's attorney, Gaetano Ferro of New Canaan, said Tuesday that the famed sportscaster only wants what's best for his daughter and will not fight the terms of the divorce decree.

"He always wanted a peaceful resolution of an unfortunate situation," Ferro said. "He never wanted a trial, never wanted it to come out this way, never wanted a public spectacle. He wants to put it behind him."

Lorrie Nantz will get their home and a separate condominium in Westport, while Jim Nantz will get their home in Houston and a luxury condominium in the Deer Valley ski resort in Park City, Utah. They were awarded joint custody of Caroline, 15.

He also must pay Caroline's college expenses until she reaches 23 years old and has to split various joint accounts with Lorrie Nantz, including the current value of his pension through the Screen Actors Guild.

He also must keep his ex-wife listed as beneficiary of a $3 million life insurance policy while he's still paying alimony and/or child support, and pay $70,000 so she can join any country club of her choice.

She had been seeking more than $1.5 million in yearly alimony and child support.

[poiuyt]

Everyone seems to be fooled by the endless total outrage and endless hysterical outpouring of grief over, quote-unquote "feminism" and equality/political issues of concern to quote-unquote "women". That is giving females an importance to the question they really do not have at all at all at all at all.

Even going further... females and feminists attitudes towards men is absolutely irrelevant and of no consequence to the status of men. WHAT COUNTS IS THE ATTITUDE OF MEN TOWARDS MEN here and everywhere.

"Feminism" and "womens political/equality" is an elaborate distraction conveiniently used by men whom dont want to face the real questions and actual reasons why man has fallen so low and has such a degraded and diminished status in society.

Even so called activists for men either through ignorance, delusion, femaleist sentiment or a secret malice for their own genderclass engage in this pretend game of shadow boxing with the phantom of feminism instead of facing reality. That is facing themselves.

Unless males, voluntarily or forced at state gunpoint, respect males and male intrests as they respect females and female interests voluntarily or at state gunpoint, every political thing they do and say is 100% suspect. The relevant and only key thing is male attitudes as individuals, and as a genderclass towards themselves.

This fight has absolutely nothing to do with females or feminism, whom should not be brought into it a second time to further the deceit, but mens attitude towards men. Until every concerned man admits this to himmself and personally changes accordingly we are wasting our time ...  forever.

1.
If you are amongst those men whom try to bring for a second time, womens interests and womens pressure groups or feminism into questions concerning men, you are wrong. You are just as wrong as those men who brought womens intersets into the equation in the first place to diminish in status and fleece your fellow man by stealth.

2.
Every genuinely concerned person, especially so called mens activists must first abandon treachery to themselves. That is by personally abandoning every question to do with women and facing up to every single question to do with men, of men, for men by the representatives of men whom are themselves MEN.

3.
All else is ever in vain and ever worth nothing to do with men.

[no2fembots]

I am not a part of a gender class, but I am a man.

[poiuyt]

I know exactly why the majority of do-or-say-nothing-bad-to-males from within the genderclass are supportive of pro-female double standard sentiments by ommission, and vehemently disagree with considering themselves as but one, amongst others of their own kind :

... It is for these same reasons of ommission to unite, why males are universally and monolithically cast and portrayed badly, as an existential evil to others in all societies.

... It is for these same reasons of ommission to unite, that the very social contract that has served all well since antiquity between the sexes, is nowadays falsely described and treated as an evil originating with and perpetuated by males. 

... It is for these same reasons of ommission to unite, a perniciously themed and deliberately manufactured imbalance has arisen surrounding reproductive, sexual, economic and even engineered relations between males and female others.

... It is for these same reasons of ommission to unite, tens of millions of men are coerced into blindly and obediently fighting wars for a fatherland, which has not the slightest lingering regard or respect for their person, property or progeny.

... It is for these same reasons of ommission to unite, theives, prostitutes, harlots, illegal migrants and bastardising aliens of the appropriate gender, chasing the coveted green-card or residence permit, are considered better citizens and of a footing ten steps ahead of husbands and fathers. Even where these men are the historically indigenous subjects of the land !!!

... It is for these same reasons of ommission to unite, why every overwhelming and negative experience of males in and out of marriage or the workplace, does not even exist, let alone come to institutional attention, as deserving of treatment or address.

... It is for these same reasons of ommission to unite, that the very concept of a constitutional republic of equal citizens, of an equal footing in law and procedure, is falsely held aloft, to be an evil manufactured by men. That is, as a means to oppress and disadvantage women whom by gender alone, are allegedly more worthy and deserving of absolute freedom to do as they please were it not for us males.

... It is for these very same reasons of ommission to unite, that successive and perpetual amendments to law and procedure are arbitrarily enacted on a daily basis to mens disadvantege and violation. That is to a point where it is safe now to say as far as males are concerned, there is no fixed law but merely an institutional caprice and a dynamic tyranny which changes by the moment to thwart, inhibit and usurp us. 

... It is for these same reasons of ommission to unite, we are encouraged as fools to belive that those very things that are most damaging to us, sexually, economically and socially are good things, if such nonsenses lead to a chance liasoin with societies more designated worthies. But who the goddamned hell made these chosen designates any more worthy in the first place, if not our own fellow mankind, eh?

... It is for these same reasons of ommission to unite, we males for many future generations are set to experience the most eggregious, heartless and barbaric of personal violations and usurpations this world has ever seen. All because the most rotten of a political lie is oft repeated in high places and elswhere: That is, "that the physical, economic, social, moral, ethical and personal emancipation of females, nescesarily leads to a hell on earth for our own group that are males". What a deep, dyed fib and a dastardly falsehood !

... It is for these same reasons of ommission to unite, that we are bound by mutual enforcement and policing, to an excessive observance of an obsolete, outdated, outmoded and counter-productive subsevience and servility to those deemed more worthy. That is, when just about every substantive reason and material return for such conduct, has been outlawed, deemed mendacious or determined to be a sexual harrasment.

... It is for these same reasons of ommission to unite, that Conservative, Socialist, Liberal, Religious, Libertarian, Agnostic, Aetheist, Black, White, Hispanic, Jew, upper-class, middle-class, working-class, Mangina, MRA, FRA and every other single male representative of you, I and others of mankind forming the majority, stand aloof and in mindless self-destructive conspiracy against our own selves.

That is all by ommission to team up, to unite, to unionise the male gender !!!

1.
If all these fellows of our own kind stand alone, in conceit of nothing really worthy, but exceedingly pridefull and full of joy for our individuality as  men, better than thou, and more self-aware of our singular personhood than those others of our kind around us ...

2.
If all those fellows of our own kind individualistically, purposefully and deliberately omit to reccognise and work with each other on a mutual task of such proportion to ourselves for many generations, as to be insurmountable alone as individuals ...

3.
If all fellows of our own kind go it alone, because we are  men, not  members of a genderclass and not on the one side, but stand in contemptuous isolation from those whom appeal to collectivism from within ...

... Then we are doomed in splendid aloofness and are justifyably so doomed in carefree isolation from each other, in a world and society where others unite against our common genderclass interests. And these enemies of men and maleness never work alone or as individuals my friend !!!

We have no choice but to root-out from within ourselves by ourselves traitors and or personal atttitudes inimical to the collective interests of males, inorder to survive this misandrous age intact !!!

[davis2ab]

For every story of an abused woman, there is at least one of an abused male. It is just that the stories of abused males are not told.

How does a young child know what is going on anyway.  It could easily be rough sex not violence. It could also be an argument with hysterical screaming by the female as opposed to violence against the female.

Even assuming there was "violence," was she actually hurt? It is seems to me that minor incidents are commonly way exaggerated. This is the only way domestic violence numbers are any where near what they supposedly are.  Real violence my experience says is very rare.  I am nearly 50 years old, and I have never seen a truly beat woman. I have seen some barely discernible bruises a few times. I am not saying that true beatings of women never occur, I am just saying that I have not seen a truly beaten woman in my entire life. I am saying that it is rare.

There is going to be a certain amount of conflict between people. As long as no one is actually hurt, things should be left alone.  The government getting involved does not make things better and often makes things much worse. What was a minor incident (a push, a shove, or a shout) all of a sudden because a relationship or even a marriage killer once the the cops get involved.

If someone is actually hurt (more than trivial), the law should get involved in an impartial manner (which is almost never the case). If someone is really hurt, the law should be strictly enforced. This is true whether it is the man or the woman.

Of course, the woman should always have the option of leaving (not necessarily with all the money and the children).  If she doesn't leave, well, she chose to stay. I just don't buy the position that women somehow are not rsponsible for what they do.