>
 |
| Bill O’Reilly secretly spreading Feminazi man-hate. |
The fellow behind the charmingly named Anglobitch blog — devoted to the notion that “Anglo-American Women Suck!” — has delivered up a rambling, loopy rant about hate crime legislation, which essentially suggests that the very existence of such legislation reflects an “inherent, all-pervasive hatred of men” in the “Anglosphere.”
For while Hate Crime is prohibited by each Anglo-American national state, pan-anglosphere misandry is actively promoted by each state against its male citizens.
His first example of this is … Rupert Murdoch’s media empire. I’m not sure exactly when Murdoch was promoted from media mogul to head of state, but never mind. Our Anglo-blogger is off and running:
The Murdochratic media ceaseless vilifies men as outcasts, misfits and sexual deviants while exalting women as paragons of virtue, beauty and intellect. This anti-male propaganda is at least as relentless as the Nazi media campaign against the Jews –– but even more insidious, since its agendas are covert and unstated. … And, as in the Third Reich, hatred of the outcast group (in this case, men) has been fully normalized since the rise of gender-feminism in the late sixties.
Uh, yeah, that agenda is pretty … covert. I don’t remember there being a lot of Jews at the top of the Nazi party. But it seems like every time I turn on Fox News I see someone from “the outcast group (in this case, men)” spewing what to the untrained ear sounds like reactionary nonsense. (I mean, there’s Gretchen Carlson, but she’s got to share the set with Steve Doocy and that other dude.) But apparently I can’t see Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck for what they are: footsoldiers of our feminazi overlords. Er, overladies? Overwomyn?
Our Anglobitcher then moves from the anti-male evils of Murdoch to the anti-male evils of the law. Apparently divorce law is so biased towards women that
many Anglo-American women consciously plan for a ‘starter marriage’ to fleece some unsuspecting male [which] proves that malicious misandry is rapidly becoming a female lifestyle-choice.
After a brief denunciation of the welfare state — men pay the taxes and women benefit! — Anglobitcher comes to the US military draft, for which only males have to register “despite them being tacitly viewed as Untermenschen by law, government and the media.” Hey, I didn’t like having to register, and I don’t think any one of either sex should have to, but, uh, no one has been drafted in the US since the Vietnam war.
So the first of his examples of state oppression is based on the idea that Rupert Murdoch is The State, not to mention some sort of feminazi. And his last is based on guys having to sign what is for all practical purposes a meaningless scrap of paper. The Anglobitcher nevertheless concludes “that males represent the primary victims of ‘hate crime’ across the Anglosphere.”
Oh, but he’s not quite done. For what angry denunciation of hate crime laws is complete without, you know, some good old-fashioned homophobia, served with a side order of transsexual-bashing:
It is also telling that the only male groups effectively protected by pan-Anglosphere hate-crime laws are gays and transsexuals. This is entirely to be expected: such males simulate the female role which, as we have endlessly observed, is routinely and blindly exalted by Anglo-Saxon culture. When the only way for men to achieve protection from ‘hate crime’ is to adopt homosexuality (or female genitalia) the true nature of Anglo ‘patriarchy’ reveals itself. Only women and their mincing mimics can enter that charmed circle; the healthy, potent male never can.
Dude, you’re an Anglodouche.
EDIT: Mr. Anglobitch has responded to this post. His response is actually a bit more coherent than the original post, though, admittedly, that’s not much of an accomplishment.
>DarksideCat:(Yohan: "A woman has the right to kick her husband out of his house ") So now the house is only HIS, even though most households in the US have two incomes?So now after divorce the house is only HERs, even though it was HIS before marriage?
>DarkSideCat: "alimony even for life" Applies to male spouses as well as female ones Is it so? Many divorce agreements provide for alimony or spouse-support payments, which is separate from child-support payments. Americans gave $9.4 billion to former spouses in 2007, up from $5.6 billion a decade earlier, according to the Internal Revenue Service. Men accounted for 97% of alimony-payers last year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, although the share of women supporting ex-husbands is on the rise. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505700448957522.htmlPaul and Theresa Taylor were married for 17 years. He was an engineer for Boston's public-works department, while she worked in accounting at a publishing company. They had three children, a weekend cottage on the bay and a house in the suburbs, on a leafy street called Cranberry Lane. In 1982, when they got divorced, the split was amicable. She got the family home; he got the second home. Both agreed "to waive any right to past, present or future alimony." But recently, more than two decades after the divorce, Ms. Taylor, 64, told a Massachusetts judge she had no job, retirement savings or health insurance. Earlier this year, the judge ordered Mr. Taylor, now 68 and remarried, to pay $400 per week to support his ex-wife."This is insane," Mr. Taylor says, adding that the payments cut his after-tax pension by more than one-third. "Someone can just come back 25 years later and say, 'My life went down the toilet, and you're doing good—so now I want some of your money'?" The problem about alimony is that the divorced ex-wife is coming back to the ex-husband even 25 years after divorce and she will get it…As I said MRAs want such laws to be changed and it seems there is now some support about this issue.
>@Yohan, from the exact same article you cite"Last month, Massachusetts representatives heard testimony from Brenda Caggiano, a 70-year-old retired first-grade teacher who supports her ex-husband, Robert, a certified public accountant. When the Caggianos divorced in 2003, they split their assets. He got their home on Cape Cod. She got their home in a Boston suburb, and paid him the $57,000 difference in the value of the homes. Ms. Caggiano earned more at the time, so the court ordered her to pay $125 in weekly alimony until her death or her former husband's remarriage. Since Massachusetts is a "no-fault" divorce state, it made no difference that it was, as both parties acknowledge, Mr. Caggiano who left home. Ms. Caggiano says she's living pension-check-to-pension-check and has had to tap a home-equity line of credit to fix her roof. "It's a disgrace that this man is taking my money when he's perfectly capable of supporting himself," she says. "The state you are decrying is applying the same law to women who make more money. The reason men are more likely to pay is that women are more likely to stay at home or work part time while raising the children and there is a significant wage gap amoung US workers. US alimony laws are required to be facially gender neutral.As to the DNA tests, who is going to pay for these? They are very expensive and not covered by medicaid or insurance. In a disputed paternity case the person who 'looses' (i.e. was proven wrong by the results) pays this cost. Not all out of marriage cases involve disputed paternity either. There is absolutely no law prohibiting a couple from paying for a DNA test at birth. Also, most states require the husband to have signed the birth certificate and 'acknowledged paternity' via doing so (or by other legal means of acknowledgement) or the law cannot be applied. And it is absolutely true that some men use the 'husband automatically is legal father' laws that exist in a minority of states to gain custody or visitation rights. Preserving the rights of these fathers is considered one of the main reasons for having these laws.@Eoghan, you are a fucking bigot and your last comment just further confirmed it.
>@DarksideCatWhile I understand what you want to say about alimony, gender-neutral laws etc., I think this is not really the reason why MRAs are complaining so much about this alimony-issue.Let me explain:My opinion is, that after divorce there should be a clear separation of these 2 persons. They should become independent again from each other – including their financial situation.It is just ridiculous, that a person has the legal option, after being 25 years divorced to show up again and to claim alimony from a former spouse.It is just ridiculous, that a healthy person in his/her 20s, who was earning less at that time than the other spouse and was married for a few years can claim alimony for life – basically that's a retirement allowance.I think, such laws have to be changed. they are outdated.Now in Central Europe (Germany etc.), since about 2008, the guideline for alimony is maximum 3 years. After that it's good-bye, also financially with no way to return.In USA and UK, considered by MRAs the 'divorce paradise for women', the trend is just to the opposite direction. Women (I do not know about a single case of a man) are showing up 30 and 40 years after divorce, claiming payments from their ex-husbands if they find out, he is in a better financial position than they are now – up to 40 years after divorce!Sometimes, not even divorced, it's about co-habitation for a few years, and in a single case in USA even about being only a girlfriend/mistress not sharing the same rooms.In the case I gave the link above, the person is claiming successfully alimony 25 years after divorce despite signing an agreement during the divorce procedure to waive any right to past, present or future alimony. What law is this, which has the power to nullify such an agreement?As I said, there is a strong movement within the MRM of those countries to change such laws, expecially to create a time-limit.—–Another angry issue with many MRAs is paternity fraud – to pay child-support to the ex-wife, but he is not the father of her child, he was cheated. Happens frequently.Interesting the fact, that the wife has the right to remain silent about the biological father. This guy is lucky NOT to pay child-support, and this is somewhat a legal loophole.The only solution MRAs see for cheated fathers is a regulation/law, which gives him the right to insist to DNA testing immediately after the birth before signing the birth certificate. I know a legal regulation about obligatory DNA testing is a complicated issue, but the present situation is really bad. The ex-husband pays child-support, but he is not the father, the ex-wife is living with her new boyfriend in co-habitation and he pays nothing but he might be the father.About the costs, while the fees for a legal procedure to force DNA testing by court order is very expensive, DNA testing fees in general are not high. Testing fees are around USD 500,- for father, mother and newborn totally. Much less than some fathers have to pay for child-support for one month.If it turns out, he is indeed the father, I think he should pay out of his wallet.But if it turns out, he is NOT the father, who will pay then? The man who is not the father, the mother, the biological father (if you can identify him), a feminist charity? Good question.
>@Yohan, only a few states make a proven non-biological husband potentially liable for child support. I agree that giving parental rights to a non-biological parent presents issues (including what happens if the biological father wants custody), but, the fact that states which require these responsibilities also give full legal rights cannot be overlooked. Are there men who do not want anything to do with the children they raised and want every avenue to get out of having to support them? Yes, but there are also many men who deeply love their children and would not want to loose custody in these cases. My professor had his infant daughter with him the other day, and it was very clear he loved her very much. I do not think that if he found out that she was not his biological child, his first thought would be how to make sure he did not have to ever provide her any financial support, but, rather, fear that he would no longer get to take care of her or be involved in her life. While you can argue that these laws hurt some men, ie men who do not want legal responsibilites, they also clearly help some men, those who want to maintain legal rights. The alternative system strips all legal rights from a person who has, quite possibly, loved and raised a child for over a decade, but it does not result in non-biological father paying support. Is that a better system? It still helps some men and hurts others, it just has different trade offs.On the alimony issue, In most states, duration of the marriage and the impact on earnings (such as being married for thirty years and raising four kids instead of collecting wages, gaining experience, accruing retirement benefits, etc) is a much greater determining factor. Most states allow temporary alimony and, if alimony is granted at all it is more often temporary. The issue with time limits is that they harm people who had longer marriages with greater wage impacts. There is no real way that someone can recoup the thirty years of lost wages and benefits that they spent as a stay at home parent within a three year span. However, only a very small percentage of divorced people actually get or pay alimony, and, it is most common amoung couples where one or both partner(s) is wealthy. Most of the US population has little interest in alimony law and little interest in any troubles it causes, because alimony is generally the province of the wealthy (the lesser earning partner makes $950,000? Well, we aren't really going to cry for either of them).
>Well, I cannot add very much to my comment and to your reply.About alimony, it should be made impossible, that a person can come back after 30 or even 40 years after divorce, claiming alimony from a former spouse.It's ridiculous to claim, my living standard is now different than yours after 3 decades, so give me money.There should be therefore a time-limit to make sure, that divorce means also to carry on your own life with your own responsibility – including managing your financial situation.—The DNA testing is a tricky issue, however while there is no doubt who is the mother in a birth certificate, the same should also apply to the father. As long as the marriage is working, and the husband does not know about his cheating wife, your scenario might work out, but for sure not after divorce. It should be clear from birth on, who is the biological father and who is not.About the rights, fathers do not have 'rights' regarding 'their' children, especially in case of divorce. This often includes the missing right of DNA testing in case of paternity fraud due to expired time-limits. They have obligations only, usually being an ATM. Maybe the right of DNA testing in case of divorce can be reconsidered and new time-limits should start with the date of divorce might solve this issue? Therefore MRAs think, men should have the right to DNA paternity testing even if the mother who is claiming he is the father, is against it.My concern is about why should the 'father' (who is NOT the father) pay for 'HIS' child, but the biological father is protected by anonymity by the cheating wife who remains silent – Somewhat strange to me that the real father cannot be kept responsible.It's somewhat about cheating again the cheated ex-husband after divorce.