>
 |
| Charles Atlas is sick of this shit. |
It seems I have been suffering from a misapprehension. I have been assuming that pretty much every single last guy in the Men Going Their Own Way crowd just hates, hates HATES feminism. But apparently I am wrong, and some of them — well, at least one of them — really loves, loves LOVES it. That guy calls himself womanhater, and he recently posted about his deep appreciation for feminism on the MGTOW proboards forum.
Brace yourself, because there are a few gigantic logical zigs and zags coming here.
Womanhater starts off his post with a bold, contrarian statement:
We ghosters have been falsely accused of hating feminism. Nothing could be further from the truth! In fact, feminism has been the greatest liberation of men since the end of feudalism.
Whaaaaaa!? How so, womanhater?
In the past, men obtained employment and pursued a career. This involved soul crushing conformity, precious hours of our lives spent in inhuman working conditions supporting unconscionable corporate interests while paying confiscatory taxes. We were denied sex by fat shrews who had duped us into marrying them with no hope of escape, and we were nagged incessantly by those same diabolical beasts with whom we had to share living quarters.
Soul-crushing conformity! No-sex-having shrews! Sounds like this situation was truly teh suck. So what changed?
Then, it all began to change. The women who had dominated our deeply empty consumerist lives declared us to be the enemy, abandoned their traditional domain of the home, outsourced the raising of children, and began to compete with us for jobs thereby lowering our economic value.
That also sounds like teh suck. But no! in fact, womanhater explains,
The man-haters like Steinem and Friedan and Dworkin had in fact done us an enormous favor!
We were freed from OUR bondage to the home. We no longer had to work for money solely to provide a home. We no longer had to tolerate nagging cunts who extorted us by manipulating our sexual desire. We were FREE!
Sounds great! Let’s round up some hot chicks and have a party!
Oh, wait.
Womanhater continues:
Women have criminalized our showing interest in them and in attempting to engage them sexually. Good! Now we are free to avoid them. They have repeatedly told us how useless we are, and how we are wrong. Fine. They can have the university educations and get the bullshit managerial jobs where they oppress the men who actually do the work. So much the better! They can live in their little townhomes and tend their cats all alone freed from men. And we are now free from having to work in soul crushing corporate environments in order to placate the bitch at home.
All us dudes need to do to take advantage of our new freedom is to deliberately take shit jobs and completely ignore all women.
We can now live off the grid – intentionally avoiding working with or for women. We can make enough money to live frugally and happily on our own, while intentionally earning too little to pay taxes.
Aw yeah! And don’t assume just because we take shit jobs that we aren’t really the bestest guys in the fucking universe, much better than mere women.
Among our ranks you will find men with the intellect to be engineers and physicians who instead flip burgers and park cars. You will find men with the physical strength and courage and wits to be military leaders and ferocious warriors – who instead of risking their lives for the benefit of a state that hates them, now paint houses or mow lawns. We men have found that we are infinitely more happy alone in a studio apartment or living communally with other men for very little money, than we were killing ourselves to provide a bullshit Brady Bunch lifestyle in the suburbs for the greedy twat.
But, gosh, what will happen to society once all these magnificent dudes take their marbles and go home?
Women and their conspirators in the halls of power will soon find out … When men are no longer willing to work at the level needed to finance the social programs that favor women, what will happen? When men are no longer willing to enlist in the military to become amputees for the benefit of a state that despises them and to make the world safe for corporate looting, what will happen? When men simply fade away, own nothing, contribute nothing, and merely watch smiling as the world burns, what will happen?My brothers, we are soon to find out!
OMFG! It’s almost as though — bear with me for a moment here while I work out this metaphor. It’s almost as though these dudes are like Atlas — not Charles Atlas, silly, you know, that Greek dude — holding up the world, and then all of a sudden they say “screw you guys, I’m going home.” And then everyone is like, oh noe! What’s going to happen to the world! And then the dudes are all like, *shrug.* Not my problem! C-ya, suckers!
That is such a perfect metaphor. Much better than anything some dumb bitch could come up with. You guys are totally free to use it if you like.
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>David, you wouldn't be pulling a weasel feminist diversionary tactic now, would you?
>@David Futrelle:If you don't take my arguments seriously, then it's probably because you disagree with them."I especially like the increasingly loaded language you're using. Someone reading this blog is in your mind 'lurking' here. (Meanwhile, you 'lurk' here every day and sometimes recruit 'your kind' to come and post here.)"You like that, eh? Well you should, because the person who perfected the art of packing a paragraph with loaded accusations is Amanda Marcotte. However, in my use of loaded language I endeavor to remain intellectually honest, unlike her."When I asked you about some of your beliefs last night, because I honestly don't fucking understand them (I still don't), this became in your mind me 'lying about your views' and 'assassinating your character,' and using some sort of dastardly techniques out of the 'Futrelle playbook.'"There's nothing wrong with seeking clarity, but there is something wrong with being clear in one's understanding while pretending not to understand, and worse, intentionally misstating the views of your opponent in order to create straw-man arguments against them. That is intellectual dishonesty, and it's what I'm referring to when I attack the methods of the "Futrelle playbook." This whole blog is a straw-man argument against the legitimate views of the men's rights movement, trying to impede its political progress by associating it with misogyny. THAT'S the Futrelle playbook, namely the use of straw-man arguments. It's fallacious.
>John, I'm not pretending to not understand your views. I don't understand them. As for this blog being a "straw man" argument against the MRM, I am very clear about not attributing views to people who don't hold them. I prefer to quote rather than to paraphrase. When I quote one MRA I am careful not to suggest that his views reflect all MRAs. I've made that point again and again. I put a fucking disclaimer to that effect in the sidebar. But what I gather you are bothered by is the implication that misogyny is widespread in the MRM. If my blog gives that impression, well, no apology from me there; that's because misogyny IS widespread in the MRM, and even more so in the overlapping-but-not-identical MGTOW community. I am not associating the MRM with misogyny. The MRM *associates itself* with misogyny. You know that as well as I do. Are the sites I quote from not mainstream MRA/MGTOW sites? Are the comments I quote from the spearhead or a voice for men or reddit (all sites that allow up and downvoting of comments) not upvoted on the sites in question? Again, if I am looking at the "wrong" sites, I will ask you again what sites I should be looking. When I've asked that before you've assumed the question is some sort of devious trap, and that I'll immediately rush to malign those sites through the devious strategy of … quoting people there. If there are MRM sites that honestly are not overwhelmed by misogyny, where outbursts of misogyny are criticized by the regulars there, why would you not mention them to me? And speaking of straw men… virtually every argument made by antifeminists in the comments on this blog about feminism is based on a straw man. Virtually every statement I've seen in the "manosophere" about this blog has been wildly misleading or flat out wrong (often deliberately so). Also, if you're going to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, of me "intentionally misstating the views of your opponent in order to create straw-man arguments against them," then give me a an example. And no, the questions I asked you about your views last night don't count, because they were QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR VIEWS, which I asked because I actually do not understand them.
>Can everyone see that David made no argument what so ever against John's post dated January 20, 2011 5:26 PM.It just totally knocked his socks off and now he is trying to change the topic.His post totally owned feminists big time
>David seems angry
>@ DavidThe problem David is that you define almost any dissent against your version of feminism as misogyny. For Christ's sake you've got Warren Farrell on your boob list. Have you ever listened to Mr. Farrell speak? Mr. Farrell is damn near neutered, so if Mr. Farrell is too pro male for you than there is no hope. Your personal pendulum is pushed so far into womyn are goddesses land that almost anything a man says other that "yes mistress" to you equals misogyny.Random Brother
>DarkSideCat said… @Yohan, ….. I also yo pity your wife (as if I didn't already) as you think all of her work put into raising your kids and housework is worthless.The usual feminist shaming language from Mrs. Anonymous.How our family is arranging OUR way of life since more than 35 years as a married couple with children and parents under the same roof, DarkSideCat, is for sure not your business and not the business of any other feminist.Your comment sounds rather desperate, bitter and lonely.
>Richard: Being deliberately patronizing and then explaining how "adults" handle disagreement renders your comments quite ironic. But don't waste your breath: I am impervious to insults by people whose opinion simply doesn't matter to me. The insults do demonstrate, however, that you could not address my comments on the merits.As for whether housewives are valued: at the very least, men of your ilk talk out of both sides of your mouths. On the one hand, "stay-at-home moms" are awesome, on the other, they are overpriced maids-with-benefits. As I've said numerous times: if a particular woman chooses to spend her life with a man who regards her, at best, with a mixture of condescension and laid-back contempt, that is her business. That's what feminism is about: choices. But the fact that something is freely chosen does not alter the fundamental nature of the subject matter of that choice.And sure, what one's husband wants is very important — but it's not dispositive. If a woman's husband wants her to jump off a cliff, I don't think she should do it — but hey, that's just the crazy radical feminist in me talking. Similarly, if a woman's husband wants her to adopt a lifestyle which he will then use as a basis to devalue and infantilize her, it would be very unwise on her part to accede to those wishes. But as I've said many times, and will say yet again: she should be free to make a dumb and self-destructive choice, if that's what she wants.
>@ Amused:Amused said: "Being deliberately patronizing and then explaining how "adults" handle disagreement renders your comments quite ironic. But don't waste your breath: I am impervious to insults by people whose opinion simply doesn't matter to me."I responded in the same smug assholish tone that you always post in, skirt. If you had any class, which is a trait that seems to elude feminsts, you could post without being such an ass.Amused said: "The insults do demonstrate, however, that you could not address my comments on the merits."If being insulting in post equals incapable of addressing a comment on the merits, then you've never ever answered a post on this site. Amused shat on: "As for whether housewives are valued: at the very least, men of your ilk talk out of both sides of your mouths. On the one hand, "stay-at-home moms" are awesome, on the other, they are overpriced maids-with-benefits."Wow, its almost like some MRA's think stay at home moms are great, and OTHER MRA's think they're worthless, because different men think differently! But that can't be right because all non feminised men must think exactly alike. You are a clever, clever girl.Amused: "As I've said numerous times: if a particular woman chooses to spend her life with a man who regards her, at best, with a mixture of condescension and laid-back contempt, that is her business. That's what feminism is about: choices."You mean choices for women.Amused said: " But the fact that something is freely chosen does not alter the fundamental nature of the subject matter of that choice."In other words you've decided that being a stay at home mom is bad and while you'll graciously allow other women to have their choice, it's still bad, not matter the dynamic of the individual relationship, because you, a smug feminist says so. Oh, your wisdom, kindness and tolerance is a sight to behold!Amused: "If a woman's husband wants her to jump off a cliff, I don't think she should do it — but hey, that's just the crazy radical feminist in me talking."Yes, stay at home mom = jumping off a cliff.Amused: "Similarly, if a woman's husband wants her to adopt a lifestyle which he will then use as a basis to devalue and infantilize her, it would be very unwise on her part to accede to those wishes. But as I've said many times, and will say yet again: she should be free to make a dumb and self-destructive choice, if that's what she wants."Yep, all men who want a stay at home wife are destined to use it to devalue her. All. Every last one as proven by your fucking say so. Never in the history of mankind has there been a stay at home wife valued by her husband. Feminut 101.And you femicows say MRA's have issues with the opposite gender. Random Brother
>Amused: On the one hand, "stay-at-home moms" are awesome, on the other, they are overpriced maids-with-benefits Yes, with alimony for life after divorce…interesting to compare a labour contract of a maid with a marriage certificate.And you femicows say MRA's have issues with the opposite gender. Random Brother Hahahahaha…
>There is a potentially fascinating dialog occuring here about gender,resposibility and communication. With so many widely divergent opinions available this is one of the more useful disscussions of this topic I have seen. Except all of y'all talk like asshats. The interesting conversation is buried under a thick layer of defenisveness and ad hominum attacks on both sides. If every one could stop showing off their dissing skills some progress towards understanding each other could occur here. Its so close to happening it is frustrating to watch eveery one create obstacles to their own success. Keep on trying to be heard y'all, but try to drop the posturing.
>John Dias: That's not the only way these roles break down. But let me play along for a minute. What kind of divorce law do you believe would be fair? The kind where each partner gets to keep only what he or she has earned on the job market? I sense that is your idea, so let's imagine that's what the law is like. And then look at how much "financial support" is really "empowering" a woman to exercise a choice.In a patriarchal household, all income is the husband's and all property is in his name. By contrast, his wife has only limited use of his assets (and he completely controls the extent of that use), but no income or property of her own. If at any point in the marriage, there is a divorce, he walks away with all the money and property, she walks away with nothing. As he gains prestige and expertise in his professional field, he becomes more highly paid, more professionally flexible and more employable. By contrast, the longer his wife stays out of the job market (and off the marriage market), the less employable and less marriageable she becomes, so her "professional" value decreases over time. Sure, eventually, the husband's age begins to work against him out in the "real world" — but that is offset by retirement benefits and social security benefits, as well as the appreciation of his assets. His wife, however, has no retirement benefits, social security benefits, or assets of her own. Besides, the "financial support" that the employer provides to her husband includes discretionary income that he may invest or put into a savings account; the wife gets only what she absolutely needs, and what she needs is determined by the husband.With every passing year, the wife in a patriarchal family depends more and more and more on her husband's continued willingness to support her — and human nature being what it is, that is quite likely to lead to increasingly outrageous demands being placed on her. In fact, historically, before divorcing housewives were entitled to anything other than clothes on their backs, they were expected to provide "nurturing" to their husbands' illegitimate children and even their mistresses. And even then, a housewife would be left with nothing if, 40 years after the marriage, the husband decided he wanted him some "nurturing" from a younger woman.All this tells me that housewifery is, in fact, a terrible deal for women — an equivalent of subsistence wages, really. Again, if some woman wants to do it — that's her business. But in no way is this "empowerment" or "freedom".As for men who want to get married, but are afraid of alimony, the solution is simple — marry someone who is self-supporting. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you marry someone to do nothing except wait on you hand and foot, then there is a good chance that after a decade or so, you might have to finance a retirement plan.
>Richard: Calling me "skirt", "clever girl", "nut" and "cow" is really convincing! Wow, name calling really, really gets your point across and makes me take you seriously! You win: every woman should drop everything, forego education and dedicate her life to shoring up someone whose manhood is so fragile, he needs a lackey to feel like a man. Because there is a slight chance he might view her as better than a household appliance. Thanks for clearing it up. Now I know why women abandon highly paid professions and lucrative businesses in droves. Oh, wait …
>@ AmusedAmused said: "Richard: Calling me "skirt", "clever girl", "nut" and "cow" is really convincing!"Thanks!Amused: "Wow, name calling really, really gets your point across and makes me take you seriously!"Awesome! I was hoping it would!Amused: "You win: every woman should drop everything, forego education and dedicate her life to shoring up someone whose manhood is so fragile, he needs a lackey to feel like a man"Oooh, no you still didn't get it. I never said any of that, once again a feminist projects her fucked up views on others. And as for needing a lackey, um which group of women is constantly demanding the government give women money via taxes that they didn't earn? Oh that's right it's feminists. So, if men need a lackey, then feminists believe that women need millions of lackeys forced to aid her by government command. Feminists seem to need big daddy gubmint becasue feminists believe women are so weak and fragile that they constantly need gubmint help. To feminuts, leaching from millions of other people via gubmint programs is okay, but *gasp* staying home and marrying a man! Heaven forbid! A woman can only be strong, proud and independant with a gubmint check in hand! Amazing, cash sucking feminist parasites firmly attached to the host of big daddy gubmint (and therefore men's wallets) insulting THE institution that every modern society needs for raising healthy moral children. Amused: "Because there is a slight chance he might view her as better than a household appliance."Some angry feminist is engaging in a little projection!Amused: "Thanks for clearing it up. Now I know why women abandon highly paid professions and lucrative businesses in droves. Oh, wait … "Actually, hun, many women after being in the dog eat dog business world DO abandon it to get married and have kids. So sorry you don't agree. So sorry dear.Oh, and lastly you are an arrogant poster. You, like most feminists, want to have your cake and eat it as well. You want to be a snide and assholish, but bristle when you get treated in the same fashion. I know you femikooks have problems with this, but if you want to get respect you might want to try and give a little. Lets be honest though, a femiclown like you. . .no chance of that.Random Brother
>Richard: Being married and having kids is not the equivalent of being a housewife, but nice try changing the terms. Nor does being married and having kids require one to abandon her career. That's because, as a man-hating "feminut", I have this outrageous idea that men aren't helpless infants who constantly need someone to feed them and wipe their butts. So sorry you don't agree. So sorry dear.As for the whole "gubmint" thing — until I see MRA's actively lobbying for deunionizing "dangerous professions" (so that those working them are paid market wages), removing security for state-employed laborers and repealing social security, I will dismiss all that screeching for what it really is: a big red herring. Dollars to donuts my taxes support your sorry ass, not the other way around.Lastly, given your general attitude and tone towards not only people who disagree with you, but even those who dare assume a position less extreme than yours, you are simply being disingenuous when you complain about my supposed "arrogance". Oh, right, a woman is "arrogant", while a man is "outspoken". And no, I don't bristle at your petty nastiness any more than I would bristle at a clump of mud or a common cold. Irritating? Sure. Something to think about for more than 10 seconds? If I'm really bored.
>Amused asked me this question:"What kind of divorce law do you believe would be fair?"The question itself assumes the premise that a law should determine the outcome of a divorce. In my opinion, marriages should not be licensed; we should do away with marriage licensing. If you want the government to be involved, say for example to designate control of assets, then contract law suffices for that. I just oppose the idea of the State parsing out the rights and obligations of divorcing spouses, and that includes alimony and also any division of assets. In my opinion, the government should get out of the divorce business, and for that matter the marriage licensing business.
>"And you femicows say MRA's have issues with the opposite gender."Hmm, it's a bit long, but that might work on a t-shirt. John: This last answer of yours is why I am confused about how your views on patriarchy relate to the real world. Amused asks what kind of divorce law you would support, and you respond with a fantasy of the state not being involved at all. Which is not going to happen. That's why I was pressing you on what the proper role for the state is in DV as well. You were suggesting, or at least it seemed to me, that state intervention in the family was illegitimate and that in a proper patriarchal system wouldn't be necessary. (If I am not accurately representing your views, please correct me.)Frankly, your answers are a bit like those of some Trotskyists I've known: "What do you think of [political issue X]?" "After the worldwide Trotskyist revolution [X] will no longer be an issue."So here are the 2 questions again, rephrased: IN THE REAL WORLD, what kind of divorce law do you support? IN THE REAL WORLD, what kind of DV law do you support?
>@David Futrelle:The MRM exists in part as a political movement whose goal it is to reduce the reach of government into the private sphere. This goal has broad appeal outside of the MRM, and so it's not as "unreal" as you might suggest. If the reach of government can extend over time, then it can also be made to halt or even retract. Practically, in small ways this is already happening. Father's rights groups that employ full time lobbyists succeed every year in blocking legislation before it even becomes law, which eliminates the much more burdensome task of subsequently challenging unjust laws through the electoral process or via the courts. Killing a bill is not as dramatic as overturning a law, but it's common and it's effective. So you can see that my philosophy (of being politically active solely to diminish State power, and not to augment it) is actually quite realistic.As far as my ultimate goal of getting the State out of the marriage licensing business, whether statutory repeal happens now, much later, or never, there is a way to circumvent it. Just don't get married legally, and while you're at it, don't live in a state that imputes marriage (i.e. a common law marriage state). Have a wedding if you like. Socially you can refer to your partner as your spouse. Culturally or religiously, your church or your community can recognize the validity of your marriage, whereas the State can think of you only as boyfriend/girlfriend who happen to cohabit (provided that no government statute gives the State the power to impute marriage obligations to either party).That still leaves at least three areas where the State will intrude regardless of whether it recognizes the existence of a particular marriage:1. Court-ordered child support obligations2. Court-ordered child custody designations3. Court-ordered bogus restraining orders issued without trialCultural reinforcement — through religious institutions, through private or home schools, through one's network of friends, and through the extended family itself — can minimize the chances that one party or both parties (but more likely the woman, as the current system gives them nearly unchecked advantages in these areas) will invoke one of the above "nuclear options." In addition, exercising personal discretion in selecting a mate can also minimize the excesses of State intrusion; patriarchal values and expectations can thus be a voluntarily-accepted condition of marriage. All of these are at least some tactics that can marginalize and mitigate the excessive and unjust intrusions of the State into private family matters. But yes, political engagement is absolutely necessary in order to reduce State excesses, and this requires a robust movement of supporters that are not only willing to coalesce around a set of ideals, but are also serious about raising and donating money to a professional lobbying organization. In no way is any of this pie-in-the-sky thinking, David. As the MRM (or at least the father's fights movement or FRM) matures you'll increasingly see these things happening.Meanwhile, the rates of legal marriage are steadily declining year-over-year, which indicates that such cultural trends are already underway.
>As far as what DV laws I would support, I wouldn't be opposed to sensible laws that ensure the constitutional rights of the accused. For those who believe that constitutional rights are insufficient to protect potential victims of domestic violence, there should be options for such people to leave an abusive environment safely if they so choose, such as a network of shelters for abuse victims. Men's advocates, including myself, are engaged in the effort to expand access to such shelters — and to improve outreach efforts — to victims of both sexes.
>John, well, that answers a lot of questions. I don't agree, obviously, but most of that makes sense.One part that doesn't make a lot of sense, though: your support of patriarchal marriage seems to contradict your opposition to female "advantage" in child support/custody, etc. In a patriarchal marriage, as Amused has suggested above, women are giving up a lot and could easily be screwed over completely in the event of a divorce; if they haven't been in the job market for decades, they will NEED some sort of support. If you want to have the right to be the head of the family, it seems to me you need to be willing to shoulder the responsibilties as well, like providing some support for someone who has been out of the job market for decades in the case of a divorce. And if women are the primary caretakers of children on a day to day basic, as they are in patriarchal marriage, doesn't it make more sense for them to be given custody? As for the comment about shelters, I think you are literally the only MRA I've run across in the manosphere who is actually trying to do something about male access to shelters, instead of simply complaining about how unfair it is that feminists didn't build shelters for men as well as women. (Well, Glenn Sacks had his supporters bombard donors to a woman's shelter with phone calls in order to get them to stop donating; I suppose that counts as activism, but it's not exactly positive activism, nor is is a good way to build bridges with those who have the most experience with DV shelters.)
>John Dias: Your believe that marriage should no longer be a public institution recognized by the State doesn't address the issues I've raised — which is whether you also believe that in the event a marriage breaks up, the housewife is to walk away with nothing because she "earned" nothing. It seems, my point stands: making marriage one's "job" and staying home makes a woman increasingly vulnerable and dependent on her husband's willingness to support her, while depriving her of the opportunity to build her own financial security, to fall back on in case there is a divorce.And like David, I also don't quite understand why, if the mother in a particular family is the primary care-taker of children, she shouldn't automatically get physical custody of those children. Someone needs to feed them, bathe them, take them to school, help them do homework, etc. If all this is the mother's "job" during the marriage, then who is going to do all this if the father (whose only "job" is to earn the money and to lay down the law on weekends) gets custody?
>And if women are the primary caretakers of children on a day to day basic, as they are in patriarchal marriage, doesn't it make more sense for them to be given custody?LOL!! Don't even GO there!! It seems to me that I said something quite similar in the comments at another discussion on this very blog, and was accused of insinuating things that I absolutely didn't allude to.
>@David:Re: safety net for divorcing wives:What recourse is there currently for divorcing husbands? During a marriage, a wife gets the benefit of her husband's protection and financial provision. After a divorce, the wife still receives the financial provision of the husband under the current system, but the husband no longer receives the nurturing benefits that his wife once provided. This is an injustice. Obligations should be tied to the fulfillment of one's responsibilities, and so if one spouse files to divorce the other, then in my opinion the one who files for divorce should not expect to receive anything from their former partner, because they have violated their marriage vows.Prenuptual agreements are another way for people to marginalize the reach of the State into their marriages, but these are just defensive measures. In my opinion, the default (i.e. the absence of a prenup) should not be that the State has unchecked authority in a divorce, but today that is not the case.Re: women getting default child custodyI simply disagree with your view. Not only is it unjust to fathers to wisk their kids even further away from them than was the case during the marriage, and not only is it unjust for a family court not to order the divorcing stay-at-home mother to seek full-time employment in order to pay her share of child support costs, but it's also an injustice to the children to remove them even further away from the providing parent. I simply disagree with the "it's only right for mom to get this entitlement" viewpoint, because I think it's self-absorbed and irresponsible. Children need both parents, and so long as neither parent is demonstrated through credible evidence to be unfit, the children should not be impeded to have access to either parent, period. A divorce is happening, and that should not exempt the mother from adapting by fulfilling her obligation not to somehow treat the children as assets or as pawns in a chess game.Re: DV shelters:"I think you are literally the only MRA I've run across in the manosphere who is actually trying to do something about male access to shelters…"The National Coalition For Men is the organization that is leading this charge, and they're the oldest men's and father's rights organization in the United States. They're the ones that successfully argued the Woods vs. Shewry case before California's 3rd district appellate court in 2007, which struck down language in the state's Health and Safety Code that permitted discrimination against male victims of domestic violence in the use of taxpayer-funded matching funds for DV shelters. So it's not just ol' John Dias waging a solitary battle. And let me clarify that I don't support the practice of most shelters to encourage women to file for move-out restraining orders without a formal criminal indictment or a jury trial. Most shelters employ staff that provide so-called "victim's advocacy services" which include filling out paperwork that does attempt one such end-run around the constitutional rights of the accused. I support a legal and/or legislative challenge to the legitimacy of the current incarnation of restraining order laws, and if I achieved my goal then the power of such shelters to obtain bogus restraining orders would be moot. A shelter should provide options for someone to flee an abusive environment, but in my opinion a shelter should not empower one partner to chase the other allegedly abusive partner out of their own home. My position on restraining orders is summed up in this statement: If you're genuinely in fear for your life, then *you* be the one to leave. So shelters could be a legitimate option in my view, so long as the taxpayer-funded ones didn't discriminate against male victims and so long as they made good-faith efforts to reach out to male victims.
>@ AmusedAmused said: "Richard: Being married and having kids is not the equivalent of being a housewife, but nice try changing the terms. Nor does being married and having kids require one to abandon her career."I didn't say she had to. Also many women WANT to abandon their careers as they do not find them as fulfilling as raising their child. An obvious marriage and man hater such as yourself probably can't see that, but it's true.Amused said: "That's because, as a man-hating "feminut", I have this outrageous idea that men aren't helpless infants who constantly need someone to feed them and wipe their butts. So sorry you don't agree. So sorry dear."Staying home to take care of your children or being a stay at home wife has little if anything to do with wiping your husband's butt. Liar. Amused: "As for the whole "gubmint" thing — until I see MRA's actively lobbying for deunionizing "dangerous professions" (so that those working them are paid market wages), removing security for state-employed laborers and repealing social security, I will dismiss all that screeching for what it really is: a big red herring."1. Why the hell would unions deunionize? What sort of idiot thinking is that? Wouldn't that lead to their wages decreasing? So MRA's should work so that men have LESS money? Are you drunk? There's a rallying cry, join MRM and earn less money! Moronic. Amused said: "Are Dollars to donuts my taxes support your sorry ass, not the other way around."No. I'm not like your kind. Some sort of welfare loving entitlement queen. I work for a living, novel concept for you, no?Amused said: "Lastly, given your general attitude and tone towards not only people who disagree with you, but even those who dare assume a position less extreme than yours, you are simply being disingenuous when you complain about my supposed "arrogance"."I consider you arrogant. How is that being disingenous? Do I secretly think you're not arrogant? You're an arrogant poster and a tool, IMHO. I treat you with the contempt you treat me, MRA's and men in general. If you ever change your attitude towards us, I'll consider changing my attitude towards you. Amused said: "Oh, right, a woman is "arrogant", while a man is "outspoken"."Oh this old canard. Just an excuse for women to be obnoxious. Get a clue, dearie, men don't like male or female assholes. And since your posts are arrogant and assholish, I'll choose not to like you.Amused: "And no, I don't bristle at your petty nastiness any more than I would bristle at a clump of mud or a common cold. Irritating? Sure. Something to think about for more than 10 seconds? If I'm really bored."Me thinks you doth protest too much. Random Brother
>@ AmusedAmused said: "And like David, I also don't quite understand why, if the mother in a particular family is the primary care-taker of children, she shouldn't automatically get physical custody of those children. Someone needs to feed them, bathe them, take them to school, help them do homework, etc. If all this is the mother's "job" during the marriage, then who is going to do all this if the father (whose only "job" is to earn the money and to lay down the law on weekends) gets custody?"You really don't understand this. Really? You don't understand the difference between primary and best? Really? Really? Jesus. By that rational the day care teacher who watches a woman's child should be given custody over a working mother. Can your estrogen addled brain get it now?If a marriage ends the question of custody of the child/children should be not who currently takes care of the child but which parent can in the future best take care of the child. Which parent has the best ability to provide for the child and raise the child to be the most he or she can be. Random Brother