A startling new development on the frontiers of anti-male oppression. According to the loquacious lady MRA known as girlwriteswhat on Reddit, men are being oppressed by evil feminist dudes cruelly clamping down on their right to bitch about ladies in the bathroom. In a recent comment she writes:
No space is allowed to be male-only, or male-viewpoint-only, but women insist on female-only or female-viewpoint-only spaces all the time.
The only male safe space left on the planet is the men’s bathroom, ffs. And even then, there will be feminist-leaning men policing what is said. It’s very frustrating.
As a dude feminist who is a regular user of men’s restrooms, I should note that dudes do not actually talk in restrooms.
Happily, this does not prevent me, as a dude feminist, from policing the non-existent speech of other dudes in said restrooms.
Here is the complete transcript of a restroom discussion I recently policed:
Dude One: [silently urinates]
Dude Two: [silently urinates]
Dude Three: [silently poops]
Me: Goddessdamnit, keep it down with all your lady-bashing! Men are bad!
Always glad to help.
HT to Shit Reddit Says, which has just ended its month-long moratorium on r/mensrights posts, for pointing me to girlwriteswhat’s observation.
o_O clearly I have missed a great deal wrt this character. Wowzers. Do we think his wife-n-two are real? If so, d’you suppose she (or the kids for that matter) are aware of his malignant Walter Mitty-via-Stepford and/or the Turner Diaries fantasies?
Wow… he said ““If men had the legal ability to take the children, expel the mother and enslave her as an ATM machine, I think many of us would do that. And we would move our new 24 year old blond bimboes into the bed recently vacated by the “old bag”, who now has to work 12 hours a day to stay out of jail. And we would deny the few precious hours of visitation that the “old bag” has a theoretical right to, whenever it suits us, for any reason or for no reason.””
Keep in mind he has a wife he loves. That’s some tough love. I pity the people whom he intereacts with, with whom he has not a strong emotional bond.
I have no reason to disbelieve his wife and kids.
I do have every reason to disbelieve his motives, and his stated desires; based on things he has said.
See, that’s the thing. If I had the legal ability to do all that to my ex (which I don’t), I wouldn’t, because guess what? I don’t want to! Not just because I still have a good relationship with him, but because seriously, who does that?
One of the fundamental problems with the MRM seems to be that many of them are horrible people, and based on that they assume that everyone else is equally horrible, thus the paranoia.
@Pecunium, CassandraSays
I would never do any of these things to my family. I assume you read my post, which means your dishonesty is intentional. Very sad.
AntZ, you said you would always lie to feminists. So you fussing about dishonesty is disingenuous at best.
So basically you’re saying that what you said in the other comment was a lie, Antz?
It’s very sad that you feel the need to lie all the time.
Why wouldn’t you? You have said you want to get rid of your wife and replace here with a simulation. Why wouldn’t you trade her in for a newer model? Esp. since you are terrified of being put in jail if you get a divorce, and are mandated to pay child support.
Is that it? Is that why you are so upset about the child support issue? Do you want to leave your wife, but worry that if she is granted custody you will have to pay child support, and laws such as the ones you decry would make that hard to do?
That would explain a lot.
Sorry, laws such as the one you decry would make it hard to not do.
Also, Antz, if you love your wife and you think she’s a good wife, why the whole fembot thing? You do realize that your statements on these two issues directly contradict each other, right?
Can someone post a non ad hominem comment so that I can reply to it? One hour and 20 minutes and nine personal attacks in a row is getting boring. I know you can do better.
What ad hominem? I’ve not said your arguments were wrong because you are douchebag. I said you don’t understand english and are lying.
Those are responses to your arguments.
I’ve asked why you won’t do the things you say most men would do.
I’ve speculated as to why you might have the views you do.
But nowhere have I said, “Antz is an MRA, so you can’t believe anything he says; that would have been you, saying you lie when it suits your purpose.
But, since you asked, so nicely and all… Without even calling us bigots (and so implying we aren’t to be listened to, because we won’t listen… there’s a latin phrase for that… anyone know what it is???), I’ll repost something, and take out anything which might be intended to hurt your manly fee-fees.
+++++Because we disagree with your description of how contempt of court in longstanding refusal to pay child support was described we were/are all bigots who hate men.
When a completely different set of topics (not at all related) to that one comes up, and you discover feminism is all for it, suddenly the opinions of years (most of which you can find being held of long-standing, and discussed on this very blog) is “when one feminist goes against the tide and embraces (essentially) the entire MRA platform, all of you sudenly de-bigotify and become human beings who feel emotions like compassion and pity.”
So what gives is that you are an idiot. That you don’t read. That you are so full of your own delusions that anyone who doesn’t agree with every one of your claims is a bigot.
And you don’t even read what you offer in support of your inanity.
Every person who is obligated to pay child support pursuant to an order or decree established by or registered with the family court pursuant to chapter 11 of title 15, who has incurred arrearage of past-due child support in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) five thousand dollars ($5,000), and who shall willfully thereafter,
having the means to do so, fail to pay three (3) or more installments of child support in an amount previously set by the court, according to the terms previously set by the court, shall be guilty of a felony for each instance of failure to make the subsequent payments and upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not to exceed five (5) years.
Willfully. That means they choose to. It means that a person (note the bill doesn’t say, “men”, it says “every person”. Also note that when men contest custody they are as likely as not to get it. As with my sister, who doesn’t have custody of her kids, but I digress) who isn’t able to pay, isn’t going to prison. That’s what, “willfully” means.
It means chooses not to. It doesn’t mean, “is unable to.”
It’s also willfully refusing to pay, for three payments (we shall assume the payments are monthly, but they might not be), after they have let themselves get 5,000 in arrears.
This is the formula for Child support in Texas:
• 20 % for one child
• 25 % for two children
• 30 % for three children
• 35 % for four children
• 40 % for five children
• Not less than 40 % for six children
So, assuming an income of 6,000 per month, and two kids, that’s 1,500 a month. A guy making $72,000 a year would have to pay nothing for eight months to have action initiated.
A guy making 2/rds of the family income (prior to divorce) is making about 30,000 a year (median household income in Texas from 2006-2010 was $50,000, per the US Census).
That’s $625 a month in statutory support. That means it takes eight months to get 5,000 in arrears, and three more to start proceedings.
So it takes a year for him to be at risk, and if he’s too broke, then he’s off the hook, so long as he makes the effort to show the court his failure to pay isn’t willful.
Mind you, if he’s never paid a penny… I’d say it’s pretty hard to show it’s not willful, since the amount assessed is based on income. It’s not random.
++++
I await your, reasoned, response.
“Not to blow your mind so early in the morning, Zarat, but my own parents, who are and always have been ardently feminist, set up this arrangement between themselves. In 1983. They both wanted to be involved in my upbringing, and they both realized that the genitals in their pants had zero effect on their ability to have a good parent-child relationship with me.
.. The court actually tried to give my mother full custody. She fought with them for nearly a year before the judge finally asked her, “So you really think this could work?” She answered, “We’ve been doing it for six months already, so yes.” The judge relented.”
—–
Your mother appears to be a decent person, like many women. But examine carefully your second paragraph. Both parents agreed to shared parenting. But the judge would not allow it. The judge wanted her to have full physical.
What chance does a father have of justice in such courts? What about cases where the mother does not have the strength of character to resist the temptation of money and power? Many of your fellow boobz brigadiers deny that there is prejudice in the family court system. Your example shows that this is not true.
More important than the fact of prejudice in the family court system is the QUANTITY of prejudice in the family court system. Presumption of full physical to the mother runs so deep, all the way to the bone, that it is virtually impossible for a father to hope for justice or fairness.
Given that our children are, by far, the most important aspect of our lives, how can you deny that the prejudice faced by men is far, far, far, far greater than anything that women have ever experienced? When have mothers had to face systematic and virtually automatic loss of their children? In what society, in what time?
Voting rights? What a joke. What a total joke. Do you think there is one non-custodial father in America who would not give up his lifetime voting rights for just one more precious weekend with his children?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!. Read up on the struggles of non-whites sometime, your world may be rocked. Also read up on the history of the poor, the homeless, and sexworkers.
” Do you think there is one non-custodial father in America who would not give up his lifetime voting rights for just one more precious weekend with his children?”
There appear to be rather a lot of them, actually. Here’s an idea – float the “exchange your voting rights for one weekend with your kids” idea on The Spearhead and see how it goes.
” Do you think there is one non-custodial father in America who would not give up his lifetime voting rights for just one more precious weekend with his children?”
No small number. Look at the guys who let themselves get $10,000 behind on child support, and refuse to go to the court to try and get it modified.
Now, since you were complaining about no one making comments you could reply to… “One hour and 20 minutes and nine personal attacks in a row…”, and I obliged, why did you suddenly feel the need to reply to something said, well before that one hour and twenty minutes?
What kept you from doing before?
When have mothers had to face systematic and virtually automatic loss of their children? In what society, in what time?
The English speaking world… up to the modern age. The Father was the paterfamilias. If he wanted the children, they stayed with him, because a woman with no husband (and usually no good job) was unfit.
Mind you, there was nothing stopping him from just having a, “male abortion” and just waking away. In that case the mother had to shift for herself.
Fixed that for you.
Also:
Roughly about 70-80 years ago here in the US and in Europe. Before that, all of recorded European history as well as American history.
So you know. See above.
Yes, lots of them. Including apparently that lady you admire so much’s husband.
The irony, it has returned.
@PfkaE
I completely forgot about that!! You really can’t make AntZ up
Suggesting that Antz should aim for some sort of logical consistency?
Yes, that’s misandry.
Cassandra, no… it’s not misandry… it’s bigotry.
Hope that helps.
It may also be feminist state violence and bloodshed.