"Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Grow up already!!!

By: rob | Wed, 11/25/2009 - 03:23

With few exceptions it appears that most posters to this thread, including the author of the article, Kathryn Joyce, have yet to reach puberty. Chalk one up for sensationalistic journalism. I suppose it serves its purpose if said purpose is to generate conflict and retain eyeballs. Shall we all just sit back in our righteously indignant glass houses and throw stones at each other or should we act like reasonably mature adults and propose solutions? I hereby challenge all current and former posters to this thread to take the conversation up several notches and propose some solutions to the problem rather than sitting here pissing on each other like so many Neanderthals. To the Radical Feminists and the Men’s Rights Activists is say:

Stop it you two!!

I’m not a writer and won’t pretend to be. I am a parent and I am TIRED of both sides of the custody debate acting like children. If one strips away the occasional eloquent prose and ‘big words’ the raging bicker-fest between the “Radical Feminist” (RF) movement and the “Men’s rights Activists” (MRA) sounds more like my 8 and 9 year olds bickering over who has to set the table than adults debating what is, without doubt, a top-tier social issue. I get so damn tired of the childish stone throwing and mud slinging between ‘you two’ I need to give myself a daily timeout lest my blood boil over. GROW UP YOU TWO!!!

Put your vitriolic bitch-fest aside and put some fraction of that time and energy into coming up with some reasonable solutions.

How the hell did this get to be a pissing match over which ‘radical’ group is more ‘abused’ or more ‘disadvantaged’? Listen to yourselves. Grow up and drink a triple shot of reality. These are our children for crying out sideways! This is about our most important parental responsibility – leading by example and raising our children to be good people. Why do you both insist on clouding the issue beyond all reasonable recognition? How many more years and millions of dollars should we squander on how many more dozens of studies before you two stop twisting the statistics and, presumably, facts beyond all recognition? Have none of you actually been married or in long-term relationships before? Do you honestly believe that both men and women are not equally responsible, statistically speaking, for the conflict that occurs in a relationship? Do you honestly believe that one of you has some god-given superiority regarding the nurturing and raising of our children? Both of you go to your rooms and we’ll talk about this once you’ve both had some time to ponder the other’s perspective!

I sat through a presentation recently by two therapists who lead a domestic violence treatment program in Seattle – presumably a ‘progressive’ town. The woman had 13 years in “this business” and the man was an intern ‘learning the ropes’. The group had just filled the whiteboard with a list of 50 or so “threats” or “threatening behaviors”. The list included “direct verbal threats such as”; “fine, I’m leaving” to “implied threats” like; “I can’t do this any more” to “threatening gestures” such as; “scowling”, “shaking one’s head” and “raising an eyebrow”. The exercise concluded with a list of “intimidating acts” like; “yelling”, “talking in a low tone/voice”, “refusing to talk about things”, “clenching teeth”, “crying” and “laughing”. Lest I be accused of “minimizing” I should note that the list included more obvious “threats” such as: “I’ll kill you”, “watch your back”, “finger to head like a gun”, “punching a wall” and “throwing the cat”. When someone in the room pointed out the fact that these are obviously not uniquely male ‘threats’ and stated that his former wife had committed more of these offenses than he the counselor immediately defended the exercise by commenting, “statistics show that 99% …well 90-95% of all domestic violence is male on female….”. I felt like sending them both to their rooms for a timeout. Both counselors were practically brought to tears of joy when someone else pointed out that “this sort of exercise should be conducted in all of our middle schools and most definitely prior to granting a marriage license”. The response was “from your lips to god’s ears…we just don’t have the funding”.

So lets role play here just a bit shall we. Imagine that the operators of said state licensed Domestic Violence Perpetrator’s Treatment program come to your kid’s school to conduct their presentation - don't think they won't.
“Boys and girls, it’s not OK to hit anyone, you all know that. But the law says if you are a boy and your sister or girlfriend hits you and you hit her back you go to jail. If you break up with your girlfriend and she gets angry at you and calls 911 claiming that you pushed her, even if you didn’t, you go to jail – no questions asked. If you are living together or married and your relationship ends and she decides she wants the house and kids she simply needs to call 911 claiming your are scary and you will be forced to leave your home and your children. If you have children together and she decides she should be the primary or sole parent she simply needs to make a claim that you are abusive and she will have, by a very significant margin, the upper hand in any legal proceedings regarding the children, property and child support.” Next comes the discussion about why life isn’t always fair. I’d like to be a fly on the wall of all the family dinner conversations around the country when Joey and Suzy come home to talk about what they learned in DV school today.

Is it right that our judges are lead to believe that mother’s are by default better parents than fathers? NO.
Is it right that a father be prohibited from contact with his children simply because the mother claims he is abusive to her or the children? NO.
Is it right that a father be forced to move from his home simply because the mother claims she is afraid of him? NO.
Is it right that a father be relegated to severely limited or only supervised visitation with his children simply because the mother claims he is abusive? NO.
Is it right to blow the children’s college education fund on attorneys and experts chasing false DV allegations? NO.
Is it right that the state defines DV one way only to have the state and federally supported DV industry, who takes it upon themselves to educate our judges and GALs, define DV in overly broad terms? NO.
Is it right to make false allegations of DV with no consequences attached? NO.
Is it right to lump ALL crimes such as rape, murder, drug position and tax evasion together? NO, that’s why we don’t. We even discriminate between manslaughter and murder. So why is it OK to lump “scowling” and “raising an eyebrow” together with punching a loved one? IT’S NOT OK!

We need to change the system so that one party is not encouraged/rewarded for gaming the system ...with no down side i might add. I am not a lawyer. I, like many American’s, believe in our judicial system. As laypeople we know that our court system is a model of fairness and equality the world over. In America, as much as we all like to jump to media-inspired judgment, suspected rapists, murderers and even terrorists are afforded due process rights and an assumption of innocence until proven guilty. As far as I know this is true for criminal defendants, but not so for civil divorce participants. We all know ‘they are guilty’ because of the picture painted by the news anchor who’s ratings depend on his/her ‘unbiased reporting’ and the prosecutor’s “I’m-running-for-office-again-soon” 30 second sound bite. I suspect that the families of convicted rapists who have recently been acquitted and released from prison by the advent of new DNA technology or recounted witness testimony that after years of incarceration proves they are innocent, would beg to differ. Why then do you two tolerate a judiciary that routinely, by default, strips 50% of our citizens of their due process rights by virtue of their gender? Do neither of you have sons or nephews or uncles or fathers? Do neither of you have daughters or nieces or aunts or mothers? I have two daughters and should either of them come to me for help with an abusive husband/boyfriend I would be glad for our current system – just convict him and get him into treatment and get my grandchildren away from him immediately, no questions asked. But I also have a son. If he were faced with the false accusations of a vindictive ex I would be beside myself with grief and sorrow for him and my grandchildren knowing that our current system is stacked so heavily against him.

Do you two really believe that it is too expensive to design a system that upholds our system of due process? Gee, slavery, civil rights, gay/lesbian rights, women’s rights seem to come to mind. I submit that it is too expensive NOT to implement a system that upholds our system of due process especially for family matters.

We look back on pre civil rights days in this country and blush with shame that our grandparents’ generation, hell our parents’ generation, could possibly believe that it was OK to deny a black man the right to drink from a ‘whites only’ fountain or enjoy a movie in a “white’s only” theater. RF, are you really so hypocritical as to believe that it is OK to deny a father his right to raise his children or live in his home simply because he was born male? Now don’t go accusing me of equating children with property, that is absolutely NOT what I am saying, but doesn’t it seem just a bit hypocritical to you that our divorce courts tend to default to dividing assets and liabilities of a marriage 50/50, but with kids its “winner takes all”? How is it not fair to assume joint custody? Are mother and father not equally responsible for bringing children into this world?

Why is it so hard for you two to put your differences aside and do what’s right for our children? We hear that refrain all the time: “in the best interest of the children”. Are you so blinded by the fear that ‘the other side’ might gain some advantage as to ignore what is simply “right”? Here is what is right ...here are my suggestions for changing the system. Lets debate suggested changes rather than who's right and who's wrong:

1. All men (and women) are created equal. Feel free to explain to me how I am wrong here. The courts should assume that mothers and fathers are equally adept at raising their children to be ‘good people’. Joint custody (50/50) should be the default assumption absent a darn good reason and due-process-derived PROOF otherwise. Given the more than questionable judgment I witness on a daily basis at the grocery store this point is open for debate – both of you take note. If our court system is willing to hand out marriage licenses on the unquestioned assumption that both parties are qualified adults then we must be willing to accept the consequences of such blind-eyed optimism. I happen to think there is a better way, but I’ll get to that later. Every psychologist I have spoken to on the subject tells me that “maximum time with both parents” is best for the children. Now please explain to me why this is not fair and in our children’s best interest.

2. If you are abusive or mentally unbalanced then this should be a consideration in designing a parenting plan. If you hit or are truly a danger to your loved ones you need counseling and possibly other consequences – no matter what your gender. Why is this not eminently fair? If you are so emotionally unbalanced that you cannot see your own children past your own self-serving histrionics then you need treatment and possibly other consequences – regardless of your gender. If you make false claims of DV or mental incompetence then you should be punished – regardless of gender. So why is it that only one state out of 50 provides for sanctions for filing false allegations when petitioning for a Protection Order? Explain to me why one should not face consequences for lying under oath? If you lie under oath to gain advantage in a custody case there should be adverse consequences, period.

3. Due process is not a bad thing. Both of you are equally responsible for bringing children into this world. Both of you are equally responsible for the success or failure of your relationship – read “both of you are equally responsible for any conflict that may occur absent any due-process-derived PROOF otherwise. Deal with it. Spend half as much time and money on some couples counseling as you do on divorce attorneys – your kids will be eminently better off. Now there's a novel idea - why don't we require soem form of counseling prior to trial like we do mediation? Do you suppose if you had a better understanding of your spouses issues/perspective it might make for a better outcome of mediation?

4. Don’t rob your children to satisfy your own insecurities: You want to get divorced, fine. The first thing the court should do is establish a budget at the very first hearing. X percent of your net worth. That’s all you get. You want to spend it on lawyers and experts, go right ahead, but you will not squander your children’s educational futures on a “winner takes all”, scorched earth pissing match between lawyers who don’t give a damn what happens to your kids as long as they get paid (only moderate offense intended to you attorneys - you after all are officers of the court and your bar associations have significant influence over how this all plays out. I realize that it is not in your financial best interest, but come on. Petition the legislators to change this broken system) . When the budget is gone it’s gone. If you don’t have enough for lawyers then you go it Pro Se. Most counties have a specially designed court system to handle family law matters (40% of all court cases in Washington - in the interest of full disclosure, this is an unsubstantiated statistic). Said courts can easily set up a system for managing divorce proceedings involving children for parties who can’t afford lawyers, but both parties get treated the same. If you have lawyers then both parties have lawyers and the lawyers can’t quit unless they can convince the judge otherwise. If one quits they both quit and you both finish without representation. You could read this as “don’t fill your attorney with a bunch of unsubstantiated horse hockey or wild goose chases”. If either of you think this won’t sober up the attorneys real fast to focus on what’s right and what is necessary think again. Our judicial system is based upon a trying of fact by a jury of our piers – except when it comes to divorce. There is no jury and various other ‘formalities’ are tossed aside too, so don’t get all caught up in some argument about how this isn’t in keeping with our current judicial system – get over it. Make it work. whatever you come up with can't be any worse than we have now.

5. Get to the bottom of DV quickly and honestly: If there are claims of domestic violence then there will be some well defined manner of due process before and after a DV evaluation is ordered. Said evaluation will be conducted by a licensed counselor who must follow detailed guidelines for proper forensic evaluation. No more GALs or “DV experts” flying by the seats of their pants playing god with our children. Said therapist/counselor/psychologist will preferably be a PhD in psychology if budget allows. Said counselor will NOT be allowed to provide DV treatment services for either ‘victims’ or ‘perpetrators’. In my state the judges routinely order DV evaluations by state licensed DV service providers, one in particular. He has testified under oath that he has NEVER conducted a DV "evaluation" that did not recommend DV treatment for the father/man. Help me understand how this is fair, unbiased or at all helpful to the courts? The licensing requirement is 30 hours of training – period. Three guesses where they get their DV training and the first two don’t count. No need to be a licensed therapist or psychologist. The current statute prohibits these providers from even “implying that the victim has any responsibility for the violence which has occurred” (I believe that's verbatim from the statute). Mind you at this point there has been virtually no due process to determine if ANY violence has occurred let alone who is the “perpetrator” and who is the “victim”. It appears that this statute was written by the same organization that wrote the laws requiring that all hen houses in the state be guarded by foxes. Let’s get real. Are we truly so naïve as to believe that a fox is the best source of advise when designing a hen house …especially when said fox stands to loose his/her henhouse license if s/he questions the voracity of one parties unsubstantiated claims? Can you say "Salem witch trials"? I thought this was about the best interest of the children, not your own self interests? The bottom line is the evaluator should be there to help the court come to a truly unbiased, educated decision as to what has/hasn’t happened in the relationship, how it affects the children and what is likely the best plan of action to support the needs of the children going forward. Do either of you really feel that it is in our children’s best interest that the ‘evaluator’ be an individual who’s opinion is based on potentially false ‘industry’ statistics? Is it in our children’s best interest that the evaluator be someone who’s financial future relies on making sure fathers get railroaded? OK, now ask yourself that same question only this time don’t forget to take your own self portrait out of this equation and replace it with a picture of your son/nephew. Same answer? Are neither of you appalled by the fact that this is how our system actually functions today or doesn’t as the case may be? You two have sat there for years bickering about statistics and condoning this sort of judicial nonsense. You should be ashamed of yourselves. FIX IT …then you can go back to bickering!

6. Being controlling is NOT the same as being violent: so stop treating them as though they are. I’m not a psychologist so I can’t speak with authority as to the root of violence, domestic or otherwise. I suspect violence is closely related to one’s need for control and both likely spawn from the same sources of insecurity, upbringing, culture, sense of entitlement and a lack of skills identifying and managing one’s emotions. I suspect men and women are equally prone to being insecure and controlling and both seem to have equally questionable senses of entitlement. Stop lumping jealousy and controlling behavior and verbal abuse together with physical violence. They are NOT the same and do NOT deserve the same punishment. You don’t punish a rapist like you do an embezzler. Yes, I’m sure there is some correlation somewhere, but by lumping the two together you condone and encourage gaming of the system. STOP IT! Don’t sit there and convict the father because he looses control and calls his wife a degrading name. Likewise, don’t give mom a free pass when she slaps her husband just because “well she’s a woman and it didn’t hurt him anyway”. Since when did we start teaching our children that double standards are OK?

7. Put your money and reputation where your mouth is: Our prosecutors are too busy prosecuting criminals. They don’t have time to babysit you and your childish divorce antics. If you really believe that your spouse is abusive toward the children then you have an obligation to your children to make your case. But be forewarned, if you bring false allegations of domestic violence then there is at least a chance that you will be sanctioned. The judge needs to have the authority to at least have the option to penalize you if you lie to the court. Please explain to me how imposing at least the possibility of some form of punishment for lying is not fair - especially when that lie can have a devastating effect on the relationship between your children and their parent? Don’t forget to insert your son’s or nephew’s picture here. And someone please explain to me why only one state in the country provides for such reasonable consequences. And it happens to be West Virginia …no offense West Virginiansm, but talk about social misperceptions. I will never again think of West Virginia as a socially challenged state.

8. Look before you leap: In my state, couples with children are required to take a parenting class before their divorce can be finalized. No exceptions. Hmmm, possibly designed by the same guy who decided the best time to close the barn door is AFTER the horses get out? I consider myself to be a reasonably knowledgeable citizen. I was shocked to learn not only of the systemic biases of our divorce-court system, but quickly came to the stark realization that I had no idea of the very real consequences of divorce, both legal and financial. So, said newly designed family court system shall require that all parties seeking a marriage license must, PRIOR to marriage, 1) take a parenting class regardless of their plans for parenthood – we have been known to change our minds on occasion and 2) must spend at least 8 hours sitting in on real live divorce-court proceedings. Said proceedings must include at least one divorce involving children and one involving claims of domestic violence. A test will be given as to your understanding of the true consequences of divorce involving children. Speaking of settling out of court, perhaps a refresher course should be in order once you file for divorce. Is this really the best path for you and your children?

9. Speaking of closing the barn door: why don’t we educate ourselves and our children BEFORE dad gets hauled off to jail. Novel concept? Since you two can’t stop pissing on each other long enough to agree on one simple set of undisputed factual statistics regarding domestic violence it looks like we taxpayers have no choice but to turn this over to the politicians – oh joy! Obviously one of the few points you two can seem to agree on is the importance of this whole subject (DV) and its impact on families. Therefore, President Obama shall appoint a commission to evaluate all the rhetoric you two have been spewing for the past 20 years and decide on what the facts really are. We already have enough studies to choke more than a few horses so presumably there won’t need to be any more long drawn-out studies before we can get down to the business of fixing this broken system we call family court - correct me if I’m wrong. Lets just have some smart statisticians (maybe we need to require that they not have any children lest you two find something else to fight about) who can review the mountains of meta data from the dozens or hundreds of studies already conducted and report to the President’s commission the TRUE FACTUAL DATA. I hate to say it, but it is possible that many of the studies done to date may be tainted by virtue of the substantial head start of the RF movement so we may need to design a few truly unbiased studies. Do either of you really have a problem with that? Do you really think it is in our children’s best interest to have our courts and therapists and treatment providers making decisions and designing solution based on inaccurate data? If our courts/judges can’t make decisions based on accurate information about you and your family specifically because you two refuse to support a system that is truly unbiased and transparent then they at least need to have accurate generic data on the general population to help them make reasonably informed decisions. You two have to agree up front that you will support whatever statistics the commission publishes (OK, so perhaps Pollyanna is my middle name!). Said statistics to be updated periodically via new UNBIASED studies. Then our judges and legislators and educators will have reliable data on which to design educational and treatment programs. Perhaps then our newly designed divorce court system can make some truly informed decision as to what is truly in our children’s best interest. Remember, this is not “SHE against HE”, this is about our children. So help me if I hear one more “95% of all DV is his fault…” or “she’s crazy and unfit to be a mother” I will send you both to your rooms for a timeout AND take your internet privileges away for a month!!!!

10. She VS He or “Why must the pendulum swing?”: Why do you two insist on making this a gender debate? Both of you please remember to insert both your son’s pictures here. It is not OK to discriminate on the basis of skin color or gender or sexual orientation – my 9 year old knows that. So why is it that you, RF, not only condone, but fight tooth and nail for a system that blatantly discriminates against your own sons and nephews? Are you so blinded by your own unfortunate history that revenge is your only option? Explain to me (and your children) how two wrongs now miraculously somehow do make a right? Is our present system which puts men at a disadvantage by virtue of gender really the system you want your son faced with should he ever find himself in a relationship with a vindictive woman? Is this the system you want your son and his children facing should his marriage end?

It’s time we stop hiding behind clouded and misrepresented statistics and address this head on. You both need to focus on educating the entire community about THE truth, not your rhetoric. This tantrum has gone on long enough. STOP IT! Put your substantial resources to work now to educate our judges and legislators and come up with a system that is fair – it’s not hard. It’s right here in black and white. You have my full permission to plagiarize to your hearts’ content. Put your differences and lobbying efforts aside and focus – difficult for children I know, but you represent yourselves as adults. Stop pointing fingers at each other long enough to solve the problem. If you are worried about VAWA funding drying up don’t be. The task at hand is much larger than that. In fact job opportunities and funding will grow because the general population will no longer be able to sit with our heads in the sand and ignore reality. Lets call it EVIN (End Violence In families Now – OK that’s a bit of a acronym-ical stretch, but you get the idea). Focus your substantial energy, time and resources on educating the community – legislators, teachers, lawyers, judges, mothers, fathers and our sons and daughters at an appropriately early age that violence is not OK in any form no matter what your gender, but it is a reality so stop trying to make it something its not. Teach us how to deal with our anger and our insecurities and our differences in ways that don’t hurt each other and do it BEFORE the insults and fists start flying. We've done it with smoking. We've done it with drinking. Do we teach our kids that smoking is dangerous to their health only AFTER they are dead? NO. Do we tech our kids that drinking and driving is not OK only after they end up in jail? NO. Do it in some format other than “Domestic Violence Perpetrator’s Treatment” programs. By the way, I also suggest you throw out the Lundy Bancroft / Duluth model of DV treatment and come up with something a little less Ward and June Cleaver-esque, but if you both believe that “scowling” at a family member is abusive then so be it. Just remember that we all do it and we are all guilty regardless of gender. By the Duluth model, we are all guilty of abusive and controlling behavior. Either change the definition of DV or change the way you deal with it. We need to teach our children that controlling, manipulating and abusing a family member or intimate partner has consequences just like we teach them about the consequences of sex. Sex is not a bad thing, irresponsible sex is. Conflict in an intimate relationship is not bad, its all in how you BOTH handle it. Men aren’t inherently ‘bad’ nor are they more or less abusive than women and women don’t get a free pass by virtue of the fact that they are born with two X chromosomes.

Yes, you two apparently are from different planets, but surely you both can understand that fair is fair. Surely you can understand that a system which is inherently biased one way or the other will surely come back to bite you….or your son/nephew/uncle/father/daughter/niece/aunt/mother sooner or later. You are supposedly grownups – your childish tantrums over the past 20+ years indicate otherwise. Please show us all that fleeting glimpse of maturity of which we all know you are capable.

Warmest regards;

RG,
Seattle WA

a tide is coming in

By: theotherside | Fri, 11/20/2009 - 11:19

This is something I wrote in response to a woman writing a script for a man to follow in order to be more dominant. The cognitive dissonance created by the illogic of women can be frightening. It is not that she is illogical, it is rather the false view of woman as innocence that allows the ruse of doublespeak to work. No more. I believe the essence of my comment is valid here as well.

First things first, I think that the saddest thing is that you truly have no clue, because you are always surrounded by yes men who will not stand up to your crap for fear of being shut off from the sacred vagina. I am being general in all of this, and I fully acknowledge that certain women are aware of their web-weaving powers and do choose to not use them for mind-hijacking. We men have awesome powers too that we restrain out of love (and, honestly, also due to the ruse that both of us have created that you are somehow wonderfully pure moral agents, when you are simply agents across an entire spectrum). I am also admittedly being EXTREMELY harsh in this comment, but I feel I must alert you to an emotional recoil from men which you have had a very active hand in. I do not generally view it in the harsh way in which I communicate, but I do so for a valid reason in playing this "game" that you so love to play. Tee hee. I profoundly see the importance in shining a mirror to the drivel with which you (droves of women and not necessarily you) have been subjecting us to for years. It does hurt us, a lot. We are just as emotional as you, but somehow you are threatened in your self-contradictory view of self as an archetype (alter or idol and not true self?) of sacrificial powerlessness. You are clearly threatened by a man emotionally in tune. If I were to forbid you to think in the same way you forbid me to feel, well....all hell would break lose from the hate in your universe. And don't lie viper, you do not want an emotionally aware male, you want someone sensitive to your narcissistic web, and otherwise a numb, programmable robot.

Some men might have objectified you, but you have subjectified us. We are subject to being a "character" in your drama. We are a "tool" to provide for you and to sacrifice our expendable, worthless selves in the name of protecting you. We are to serve the goddess and damn well love the privilege. Now, you are objectifying us as well. That leaves a zero for us to be, if we are to get into the glorious arms of the self-described goddess. Soulless meat puppet playing the role of dominant like a good minion. Nevertheless, the following is ironically a dominant social wave of awareness that IS to come to many, if not all men in the VERY NEAR future. It is as natural a reaction to women's recent actions (and manipulations) as is a billiard ball bouncing off of another.
Is you acting as the source code for us malleable male robots the same as us being dominant? We can self-program, don't you know, at least if we don't get duped into letting women dissolve our Yahweh egos in grand anti-Christ fashion, WITHOUT our permission. Showing our independence by being the characters in your drama, the flies in your woven webs of vainglory is somehow us being dominant? Cognitive dissonance much? It all has eerily the same flavor of, "Let them eat cake." Bending to the wills of petulant children is not, in any way shape or form, no matter how you try to twist it to your protective layer of fantasy, being dominant. And don't say it is easy to stand up to your bullcrap. You have infiltrated media and business and law and commerce with your witchcraft, with your carefully constructed woven spells (words are the most powerful thing on the planet, and it all comes back to bite the authors if they played the roles of vipers). Now that you women have gained more "outer" dominance, through the aid of entitlements and special treatments and ostracizations of all that is masculine, including drugging your sons to make them more "receptive flowers", we men are far to aware of the inner dominance you have had and have diabolically applied for years. It is clear that we "respect" you, as in seeing your perspective, far more so than you do ours. Hell, you have consistently manipulated us ants in order that we might build a colony from your perspective. It is quite clear that you have consistently acted in duplicity, forever exploiting man's love for you. He has loved you so much, that even when faced with constant suspicions of the webs you have woven, he has chosen to continually forgive. You killed Yahwweh, except to the extent that he can be your soulless meat puppet, and now it is time for us to kill Satan. This world seeks balance. You thought you could gain outer dominance with the men not encroaching on your inner territory? How very foolish of you. Typical of a beast so foolishly enclosed upon itself in an act of self-congratulatory masturbation to think of itself as divine. Repent and seek the truth, beyond your narrow angles, or enjoy choking on the forbidden fruit. You might not like the realm to which it transports you.

You women are now androgynous creatures. You have been for years. Either go back to feminine or face screwing yourself. Oh, you can also go masculine, and I can tell you exactly when, where, and how to screw me, have infinite self-contradictory expectations in how you "relate" to me (we know you only want a mirror to YOUR other side, in all your narcissism), and then somehow weave a web to convince you that you are "dominant." Wait, that will be easy, I will simply mandate that I am the only one allowed to emotionally cycle, and thereby the only one able to see how to control a drama. I will then ride on you like the beast you are like a good Jezebel spirit.

Oh, and if you are going to eventually be a singularity of masculine and feminine (I am superwoman narcissist with (ostensibly) male logic and external power; I am all things to all people; worship me), make sure it is instead Christ-like (the sublime androgyne) and not Beast-like (the base, enslaved, mindlessly manipulating and dominating androgyne.) It is obvious what will win in the conscious social evolution. It is a choice all of us must make every moment. The end game might surprise a few, or rather just about everybody.

Stop the crap above, and I promise to f your brains out.
Oh, and if you're pouting and vainly indignant, you are proving my point that you refuse to accept your dark side which you have shown us so many times. Keep hiding it. It only grows stronger when you try to deny it, eventually causing a fissure of you. Hopefully, you will break down and see the light that things are not going back to the way they were, you were an ACTIVE WILLFUL agent in the process, and that you must now "man up" and face the consequences of your actions with no white knight to save you or no meat puppet to manipulate.

The AGES old religion of the whore of babylon is over. It is only a matter of a very short time before the already mortally wounded fully bleeds out.

patron002

By: Mz Petunia Pgg | Thu, 11/19/2009 - 13:06

Alerting the police would be all well and good if the police would listen. However if you check out the blog Behind The Blue Wall, you will see that domestic violence against women runs rampant in police departments and sheriff's departments across the country. Even if there is no dv in a police department many times they refuse to listen. Just look at Jessica Gonzalez (spelling?). Her ex-husband was granted visitation rights to their chidlren and was late bringing the children back. Jessica alerted police to this and they told her to wait. And to wait. And to wait. And to wait.

And then the children were found. DEAD!!!!!

Now this scenario with alerting the police to violations of RO's happens all over the country and the police do nothing. Many times the actual victim is told she will lose her RO if she continues to document the violations of the perp. I was told that if I did not just be quiet and be a good little girl, I would lose my RO. My ex was parked at the end of my street and had either been picked up by someone in the neighborhood or walked down to their house. To get to that house he would have to violate the RO. There was no way around it (one way dead end road and these neighbors lived past me). So I set up at the location where he parked with a witness and a video camera. My ex proceeded to call the police to inform them I was trying to trap him into violating the RO. HE HAD ALREADY VIOLATED IT BY BEING AT OUR NEIGHBORS!!!!

And I was ignored when I alerted the police to that fact before his call. So suggesting that women alert police if a violation occurs or if he assaults her is the biggest load of gabage I have ever read.

And if anyone doubts this I will restate it:

There will come a day when I am not tied down with court actions. That day will be here before you mens rights activists know it. And when that day comes, I will spread my story far and wide. And heads will roll. The first will be my ex-abuser and then we will work our way down the line. To those of you professionals who listened and who cared 100%, you will have no worries. Those of you who doubted or downplayed it or even worse assisted my ex-abuser in his abuse of me and our child, you know who you are. I would not get too comfy in your jobs. They won't be there. I would not get too comfy with all the money you stole from myself and the other protective moms you have terrorized. It will be my child's very soon. My child will never have to worry for a thing.

So stand there all warm and fuzzy in the knowledge that you are helping these "poor victimized fathers and men" in their searches for justice. One day it will all be gone. Us moms are out here and we are just waiting for the day to come. And it will be very soon.

Nope sorry your wrong.

By: patron002 | Wed, 11/18/2009 - 09:34

The idea that the person who has been abused has no free will is also a lame argument. If the abuser comes near your home you need to call the cops period. Otherwises its not really about abuse, its just about power balance. If the relationship is over, the victim also needs to take some responsibility for enforcing that, needs to call the cops as soon as that person comes home, not when she gets mad at that person. Period. If your not afraid of him when he shows up at your house and moves back in, you should have some responsibility in that. Sorry, protection orders should punish both parties. Because both parties are helping make a joke of the law. The abuser should go to jail, so should the victim, if the relationship is over period like you claim, then the victim should also have to do the same, do her part to say its over, or him for that matter. If you get a protection order, you should be partially responsible for doing your best to enforce it.

"ashg451"

By: sierraseven | Thu, 11/12/2009 - 21:55

Little Manny certainly does have a lot of Haloween costumes saved up, doesn't he?

textbook professional victim

By: ashg451 | Thu, 11/12/2009 - 19:45

"Claiming the victim is at fault because she or he allowed the abuser back in her or his home is pretty cowardly in that it implies the abuser has no free will, can't make choices and can't be responsible for his or her actions. It's like saying the mugger couldn't help himself or herself because he or she asked you for the time and you stopped to look at your watch and thus became vulnerable. So the victim of a mugging should also go to jail?"

actually it's pretty fucking cowardly to assume that all women are victims by default.

Feminism strands women in an adolescent, self-pitying
stage, fostering an attitude of negligence. Women are
simply conditioned to blame men for their problems. The
legal system today reflects this social trend, skewing
verdicts in favor of women9 at the cost of personal
accountability. Those who complain of being offended by
masculine expressions and male authority are rewarded
with Feminist laws favoring their arbitrary and self-righteous
sense of indignation. The more courts validate “emotional
distress” claims, the more women become accustomed to
viewing themselves as perpetual, blameless martyrs. Thus,
the courts act as enabling agents, institutionalizing women
as victims.

In the workplace, women can now be as ultra-sensitive
to sexual language as they choose. Or in social settings,
they can emasculate male sexuality with cavalier abandon.
Under this irresponsible legal climate, women feel licensed
to impose their hypocritical standards upon men. Anyone
daring to object faces the threat of litigation. What man will
dare point a finger at such a fully protected, legally bullying
gender. How can anyone even blame a “victim,” given such
a sexist definition.

Not only does their self-imposed victimhood tarnish legal
and professional climates, it also undermines romantic
lives. Nowadays, you are unlikely to hear of women
acknowledging any fault for their failed relationships.
It’s always the “asshole” boyfriend or the “abusive and
controlling” husband who causes the problems. Women will
constantly complain about being taken advantage of or lied
to, yet feel no responsibility whatsoever for their choices
in men. Such knee-jerk assignment of blame is the reason
their relationships never improve.

9 http://www.roydenhollander.com/documents/LadiesNightsPrssRels.doc

Patron002: Protection orders

By: Kati | Thu, 11/12/2009 - 18:32

Patron 002: "if you allow the man to live in your home and then you call the cops when you get upset or scared, and he goes to jail because of a protection order, you should also be violating the order."

Patron, if a relationship necessitated a protection order, then that relationship is over. Period. If any one of the partner in a relationship is ever, and I mean a single instance, frightened of the other, the relationship is over. Period.

Claiming the victim is at fault because she or he allowed the abuser back in her or his home is pretty cowardly in that it implies the abuser has no free will, can't make choices and can't be responsible for his or her actions. It's like saying the mugger couldn't help himself or herself because he or she asked you for the time and you stopped to look at your watch and thus became vulnerable. So the victim of a mugging should also go to jail?

So why did the abuser get back in this home (let alone why did he or she even want to)? I assume he or she broke the noncontact order and used all sorts of promises and sweet talk and threats to get back in. And the victim believed the abuser because of a thing called "love" which, as we all know, makes us blind. Why did the victim end up calling the cops? I leave it to your imagination --however a resumption of violence comes readily to mind....

As for love and the abuser: if you abuse someone you don't love that person, no matter how many times you say: "I love you, I'll never hit you again." If you hurt someone it means you hate that person even though you might mistake the passion of hatred for the passion of love (which can be easily recognized by the desire to protect your loved ones from harm, including the harm you yourself are causing)

If you abused a person once, you will abuse that person again. (Same if someone abused you once, that someone will abuse you again because that someone actually hates you: "actions speak louder than words"). So if there's a protection order against you, try to honestly come to terms with the reasons for it so that you can use it as a learning experience and you might be more successful in a new relationship.

Philip M. Cook

By: Kati | Thu, 11/12/2009 - 17:43

Thanks you for your thoughtful, balanced and informative post. I certainly will read your book on men victims of abuse.

The irony/tragedy about being abused is that the victim most of the time actually feels more shame than the perp. This might be doubly true with male victims of abuse. This shame is one of the factors making gathering data difficult when it comes to all abuse victims.

Evidence of Reincarnation

By: sierraseven | Wed, 11/11/2009 - 01:41

Looks like Little Manny is back - he's getting quite repetitive. Maybe Double X can block his IP address. We can hope.

Wow simply amazing :-)

By: Mz Petunia Pgg | Wed, 11/11/2009 - 01:18

I am now being accused of making up stories about men throwing babies off of bridges. This does happen and in fact happened in Australia to little Darcy Freeman. One need only do a google search for Darcy and you will see that despite the mother's pleas that the father was not safe, he was granted parenting time/vistitation privileges anyway.

His answer to what he felt was his wife's choice of freedom from battering and abuse? Throw this young girl to her death off a bridge.

It is simply amazing that these men are even walking among us. Amazing and scary. I would think that their words and actions should qualify as a hate crime. Yet they will accuse myself and my fellow activists of hate crimes against fathers.

We say no to that allegation time and again. We do not hate men nor do we hate fathers. We are against any parent who is abusive having any type of control of the protective parent and the children. And abusing a woman in the presence of a child or where the child can be made aware of the abuse, is abusing the child.

Plain and simple.