Friday, November 19, 2010

What Women Think of Men, Apparently

She's thinking unkind things about your penis.
Yesterday we met Christopher in Oregon, a fellow who feels that other fellows might want to avoid all contact with women, who are all, as he put it, "whores ... walking cesspools of filth ... DIRTY creatures, pure and simple."

Christopher was such an articulate spokesman for his cause that I thought I'd bring him back for an encore. Today, we learn that the hatred doesn't only flow one way. In fact, he suggests in another epic comment on Marky Mark's blog, women think as poorly of men as he thinks of women. Not just some of them, but every single one of them:

ALL women hate ALL men ALL of the time! (most of them can keep it hidden for some time.)

This is a CARDINAL RULE! If you can't accept it, you've already lost the game. You're rat-fucked! You might as well just give up and go hang yourself by getting married!

In case we forgot that women aren't too be trusted, he gives us a little refresher course in the Evil That is Woman:

You can't deal with women safely because we aren't playing by the same rules. One must keep in mind that the three primary characteristics of All women are as follows:

1) Immoral (or amoral, if you prefer)

2) Dishonest

3) Selfish

Many other adjectives would apply, but these three are the main attributes of women. Since this is true, and the laws are on their side, a man can't hope to break even in any dealings with women. It's impossible.

Now we come to the crux of his argument. More sensitive men may wish to sit down at this point, and perhaps move to protect their testicles. For what Christopher has somehow figured out about what goes on inside the dirty, filthy, selfish, dishonest, immoral, whorish minds of women while they're having sex with you will shock you to your core.

Every time you are humping and grinding and snorting like a rutting pig on top of a woman thinking you are SUCH a stud (in all fairness, you probably are NOT) she is:

1) Bored

2) Faking it

3) Disgusted

4) Glad she took her valium first

5) Fantasizing about a black man

6) Fantasizing about a new car

7) Fantasizing about the butch lesbian that drilled her last week with a ten-inch strap-on for six hours

8) Laughing inside about your pitifully small penis

9) Comparing you unfavorably to any one of her previous two-hundred partners

10) Wishing you would go even faster and trigger ... a massive coronary

11) Fantasizing about the neighbor's German Shepherd

12) Thinking about how your deodorant just ain't making it

Sorry to burst your bubble. I've heard this from women. It's all a sick joke. You are NOT Don Juan, and they don't view you as such. In her mind, you are a disgusting, smelly pig, and you are invading her body with that.....thing.

Well, if that's what he thinks women think of men, no wonder he wants to have nothing to do with them.

It's kind of sad, really.

On a not-entirely-unrelated note, if you scroll up to the top of the page on Marky Mark's blog on which this comment from Christopher is posted, you will note that Mr. Mark has worked himself into a lather over a story in The Onion. I can't quite tell if he thinks it's real -- I mean, how could he? -- but he acts as though he does. He even writes up a point-by-point rebuttal and everything. It's so cute! As he puts it, unaware of the irony, "I can't make this stuff up. ... I can't! No matter how hard I tried, I could not make this up." Well, no. That's why the folks at The Onion make it up for you.

67 comments:

  1. He forgot #13: Composing a mental grocery shopping list while "rutting pig" ruts. "We" do this all the time!

    Poor Christopher indeed! He's "heard this from women" - i.e., the one or two women who made the grave mistake of having sex with him.

    The sorry sod is carrying around massive amounts of self-hatred.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It does appear as if Mr. Mark thinks The Onion story is true - and so do all those who have commented on his analysis of the story so far.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I like Marky Marks blog, but I think in this case Chris from Oregon goes a little too far. MRA's are right in pointing out how the laws are skewed to shaft men, but I don't think all women are filthy man haters. Feminists however. . .

    Futhermore, #5? I wonder if that's good or bad for me personally. I guess if she's fantasizing about me while being with me, but then again if it's another black guy? Well that's no good.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  4. @OP/Previous Blog Post

    Hilarious! And sad. But hilarious!

    Funny how MRAs quote Andrea Dworkin and McKinnon "to prove" somehow how anti-sex and anti-male "all" feminists are. Then turn around and post stuff like this where other MRAs turn around and say, "oh you can't take him as being a rep of the whole movement", blah, blah, blah (every MRA in the Judea front post) and/or he can be excused b/c of the off chance he was "falsely accused of rape" (Eoghan) or fucked over by the feminazi divorce court (Bishop) yet women who were raped, abused, etc. deserve it (Paul Elam) and have no right to be angry (Yohan) and said women who blog about rape and abuse (abyss2hope, Shakesville's Melissa) are trolled by MRAs who claim, ironically, that these rape survivors are pro-rape(!) because they apparently would prefer innocent men in jail and rapists on the street(feminism supporting false rape accusation MRA meme), not to mention hating all men when MRA bloggers/commentors post blatant misogyny (Chris) - it's the fucked up circle of MRA cognitive distortions!

    If the feminists at Feministe who blog about their polyamorous relationships and Clarissa Thorn blogs about BDSM are considered anti-sex feminazis and feminism is a monolith, despite several devisions and different beliefs(David,tigtog,every feminist really) then why, after claiming to be a monolith previously(MRAs in the Judea Front blog post), no one can judge MRAs similarly?

    I mean, seriously, do you not understand the definition of hypocrisy, double standard, doublethink, irony, etc.?

    At the very least, come up with some new quotations from Naomi Wolf or something, change it up. I'm beginning to think actually there's some sort of Dworkin Bartlett's these guys all own....

    ReplyDelete
  5. Stop telling lies about the other contributers Tec its women like you the give these guys the impression that all women are deceitful.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @ TEC

    What you constantly fail to understand is that the important difference is in the LAWS. Dworkin shrieks her anti male hate and then pushes the system and her feminist buddies to enforce anti male legislation. How many anti female laws have MRA'S passed? To the best of my knowledge the answer is none.

    If Dworkin's screeching didn't affect public sentiment and get hate laws passed I wouldn't care one whit. Dig her up, reanimate that animal and let it start screeching again for all I care. That's not the main issue.

    It's the laws.

    Again, for clarification, the "hate" MRA'S spew, is not followed by anti female laws. Got it?

    Try to get that through your thick skull.

    MRA'S action = an annoyance to women.

    Feminists action = legal and social disenfranchisement of men.

    Women can ignore MRA'S rantings. Most MRA'S can't just ignore the feminist hate laws.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bishopsinister is enjoying the weather over in Alternate Dimension #4,283.

    Eoghan has been practicing in front of mirrors, but then he got bored and decided that he'd just pretend that everybody else was a mirror. So far it has resulted in a 100% drop in his social anxiety disorder, and he is currently planning to write an epic self-help/memoir ebook entitled Shut Up And Cook Me Dinner (Objectification and its Use in Curing Anxiety).

    ReplyDelete
  8. @bishopsinister
    The hate MRAs spew is in response to laws that favor men being repealed. For example, the law that you can beat or rape your spouse if you like. In fact, it's not even rape. Or the law that women cannot be employed in certain careers, keeping the supply low and salaries higher for men. Or the law that if a man has children it is up to his good conscious to support them unless he's married to the woman, otherwise that harlot will simply have to live in poverty. Or the lack of laws providing any real consequences for beating someone as long as you were in a romantic relationship with them.

    But like Cerien said, you live in another world, where the feminazis have passed legislation to disenfranchise men.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sandy

    dont just make things up, other wise you are just confirming the beliefs that guys like that have about women. What you have just done there is make a false allegation about rape and a bunch of other things.

    The laws that mras talk about are the human rights abuses and civil rights roll backs that feminism is responsible for, ones that repeal innocent until proven guilty, exclude male abuse victims from services, facilitate women in kidnapping children, allow abusive women to act with relative impunity and facilitate education and workplace discrimination.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Eoghan, Sandy has in no way or form made a false allegation of rape. Don't blatantly misrepresent other commentors here. In the future I will delete any comments from you or anyone else who makes that kind of accusation against another commenter here.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sandy claimed that the mrm is about people being upset because marital rape laws were put in place.
    She made a false allegation about rape, as tec does pretty much in most of her posts. Feminism has put so much stock in using rape and rape victims as political ammunition, while suppressing politically incorrect victims of abuse its become second nature to the people within the ideology.
    And you are clearly showing your bias here.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Basically what you are saying is if I call a feminist out on making false allegations about rape / misrepresenting the other members, you will delete my comments while feminists will get the carte blanch to continue misrepresenting advocating for politically incorrect and marginalized victims as advocating for the abuse of the politically correct.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I misread your comment as "false allegation OF rape" rather than "false allegation ABOUT rape."

    Whether you deliberately chose that phrase because it sounded like a "false allegation of rape" or whether it was unintended, I suggest not using that particular terminology in the future.

    Arguing that feminists make false arguments about rape will not get your comment deleted here. Suggesting falsely that someone is falsely accusing someone of rape will.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Sandy--

    WTF are you on about? There are no laws that say anything like what you are claiming. Yes it used to not be a crime to rape your spouse...USED TO not IS. There is an entire industry of affirmative action that prevents any of the wage gap/career inequality crap that you're talking about. And what rock have you been under that you have missed the entire body of legislation dedicated to pursuing fathers who have abdicated on child support? Do you READ the news or just have it spoon fed to you in feminist sound bytes?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I've no intention of accusing people of making false allegations of rape, Im talking about the incessant insinuations, allegations and misrepresentations about rape and abuse here.
    This is the internet, its permanent and not a seems day goes by when one of the women here doesn't make a false allegation about rape and or abuse... and then you are all wondering why asshats like Christopher come to the conclusion that no women can be trusted.

    ReplyDelete
  17. To get a good idea of how MRA's feel about marital rape laws, see the article 'Volokh Discusses Islamic Law and Marital Rape' from 10/29/10 on the-spearhead.com website. I can't link to it as I'm not on a computer at this time, but check out the article as well as the comments.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Here's one particularly egregious comment:

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/10/29/volokh-discusses-islamic-law-and-marital-rape/#comment-49880

    ReplyDelete
  19. Cristine

    The article you cites has nothing to do with bemoaning legally recognizing marital rape.

    From the article

    "Although it may seem humane and right on the face of it to call sex by force within marriage rape and punish it accordingly, the logical conclusion of this is to invalidate the religious concept of marriage, and indeed almost all traditional concepts of marriage. So while it may be “progressive” to put the crime of marital rape on the books, a better and more honest solution would be to eliminate marriage altogether from our law, and classify all sex crimes as sexual assault rather than rape, since the very concept of rape itself is outdated and inextricably tied up with religious attitudes concerning marriage and ecclesiastical law"

    And David from your "particularly egregious comment" (not that one comment on a thread was ever going to define an international rights movement and its members and goals in the first place)

    "Two generations ago, rape was a heinous crime, as it evoked ideas of an unknown attacker forcefully violating a woman who was most likely someone’s wife, or daughter, or mother. The horror of this was felt by all men, as they could relate to a raped woman through their own female relatives.

    Today, rape is a crime that is apparently committed by a friend who a woman has a few drinks with and does something stupid with; or her husband; or a lover who she later regrets having allowed to touch her. This continual cheapening will have the unintended consequence of making more and more men simply not care about ‘rape’, when rape has been devalued as a meaningful term".



    As I said incessant insinuations, false allegations and misrepresentations relating to rape and abuse, feminism has been relying on using idea of rape and rape and abuse victims as political ammunition, its become second nature
    to many feminists, you come out of your education system thinking that its normal and correct behaviour.

    Im going to quote from your particularly egregious comment

    "This continual cheapening will have the unintended consequence of making more and more men simply not care about ‘rape’, when rape has been devalued as a meaningful term"."

    Rape and abuse to you people is more about smearing political opponents/heterosexual men and rolling back civil rights, than anything else and if it wasn't, you wouldn't be so keen to marginalize and exclude politically incorrect victims. And then you are confused by the intense dislike that many have for your movement and its laws.

    ReplyDelete
  20. More false rape allegations about rape..


    From christines article

    "Although it may seem humane and right on the face of it to call sex by force within marriage rape and punish it accordingly, the logical conclusion of this is to invalidate the religious concept of marriage, and indeed almost all traditional concepts of marriage. So while it may be “progressive” to put the crime of marital rape on the books, a better and more honest solution would be to eliminate marriage altogether from our law, and classify all sex crimes as sexual assault rather than rape, since the very concept of rape itself is outdated and inextricably tied up with religious attitudes concerning marriage and ecclesiastical law".

    Not that a solitary article or comment from a online publication were ever going to define an international rights movement, its members or ts goals in the first place.

    False allegations of abuse and rape and rape and abuse victims are political fodder to the feminist movement, every debate the card is played. Its sick, and then you advertise the fact that the movement is just exploiting rape and abuse by suppressing politically incorrect rape and abuse victims and protecting npolitically correct rapists and abusers. The with a proven track record of using the idea of rape as political ammunition (since the progressive era black rapist propaganda) progressives try to insist that false rape allegations aren't a problem and wonder why so many people want to see your movement gone.

    This blog is a testament to the progressive feminist over reliance of false allegations about rape and abuse. The behaviour is so second nature, that feminists cannot see anything wrong with it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. What on earth are you talking about?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Eoghan: Christopher come to the conclusion that no women can be trusted

    bishopsinister: MRA's are right in pointing out how the laws are skewed to shaft men

    All laws in Western countries are openly biased against men - basically seen, a man badly cheated by a woman within a marriage is very much defendless. He might be cheated financially, he might be cheated with another lover next door, he might be cheated even in case of children, so-called paternity fraud.

    There is not much in Western laws protecting a man with good intention against false DV-accusations from his wife and daughters - such laws are often functioning as a frequent legal loophole to get ride off a husband/father for a lucrative divorce.

    I would not say, as 'Christopher' pointed out that no women can be trusted, but I think, to meet a woman you can trust is nothing but good luck. -

    In case something is going wrong in Western countries with your relationship as a man you might face a financial ruin even without any wrongdoing by your side.

    There are many complaints about Western laws by many men and to call them all women-haters, losers etc. is nothing but malicious feminist propaganda.

    Luckily Germany became the first Western country in 2008, changing various laws for the FIRST TIME to the favor of men and children.
    I expect other countries within EU to follow soon.

    To point to Islam is a feminist excuse.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  25. David, Im talking specifically about the women here that consistently use false allegations about rape and abuse in debates and more generally, ideologues that have been conditioned to use the idea of rape and abuse to bludgeon political opponents while protecting rapists and abusers in their own group and marginalizing their inconvenient victims and more generally, political groups that use/have used this rhetorical tactic, eg. progressive era racism, nazis, and progressive feminists as a political platform and to manipulate and motivate their ideologues, and the fact that the ideologues of these movements tend to believe thats its correct thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  26. as someone pointed out to tec, it wouldn't matter if this rhetoric and political platform wasn't manipulating the cultural, social, and legal systems, but it is.

    Yohan, yeah it looks like germany might lead this and men shouldn't have to live under feminism anymore than women should have to live under Islam. In ways I view the two as two sides of the same coin.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @Eoghan

    There are also Asian countries, which have nothing to do with Islam, but their laws do not accept hard-core-feminism.

    In South Korea, cheating your spouse is a criminal offence up to 2 years jail.

    In Thailand, cheating your spouse might result in lawsuits against the lover for breaking into your marriage.

    In Philippine law there is no divorce, you might cheat your husband and move away to your lover, but you will be unable to claim anything. To nullify a marriage contract is costly and time-consuming, you remain married over years and cannot marry again. Child-support/alimony? No way.

    As a married man you feel (a little bit) protected in these countries in case you are facing a malicious wife and her lover.

    In Germany a new family law is already working since 2008 and we see now some results and decisions of the Supreme Court. Alimony at its best is for 3 years. Child-support for adult children is not paid anymore to the wife, but to the child /or university etc. and since 2008 the ex-husband pays only the half, the other half has to be paid by the ex-wife.

    Under investigation in Germany are now also visiting rights for fathers and the obligation for the ex-wife to respect them - and if not, a large part of the child-support/alimony will be cut.

    Also property laws in EU are now under review, and also unfair retirement age.

    I will retire with 65, the men after me maybe even with 67, while women retire as young as 53 and never over 60.

    Norway could not push through unpaid military services for females (for males up to 2 years!), but recently again in Central Europe the discussion is coming up for unpaid community services, which can be forced on all young citizens regardless the gender.

    I spent almost 1 year unpaid in military services (refusing means facing a court-martial and jail), while young women are refusing to work even 1 week free for social services. And my native country has to import foreign nurses even from the Philippines...

    That's feminism, but hopefully, in Europe we will be now progress to 'equality'. It's about the time.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @Eoghan

    men shouldn't have to live under feminism anymore than women should have to live under Islam

    Yes, I am not a Muslim and I will never convert to Islam.

    Unfortunately so far, Islam is the only major power willing to fight it out with feminism.

    Further there are a few Asian countries - some quite powerful like China - which do not accept all and everything coming from feminist-guided USA.

    Recently however I notice also discussions coming up in Europe, it's urgent indeed.

    Can you imagine, that my native country (not Germany) in Europe has now a divorce rate of 68 percent in the cities? Over 43 percent of young men are refusing marriage/family/children calling it as too risky, too expensive for them?

    The most idiotic law however made by feminists is in Scandinavia. To buy sex is illegal, to sell sex is OK. - The woman as victim. Women are indeed treated like children. Time for a major change.
    In Sweden the FI (feminist initiative political party) is now gone. Voted out by a huge majority of both, men and women.

    What is really better in Continental Europe is the way to talk about it. It's less hateful compared to USA, women are still by far more reasonable and the majority of them are not psycho-grrls just demanding something.

    Many people in Europe understand it cannot continue as it is now. The time of feminism will be hopefully soon a time of the past.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @ Sandy

    Feminists want to change the burden of proof in rape cases. And they push for laws to support that.


    Can you not see how that is wrong?
    Are you feminuts really that dense?
    Or is it just the relentless and bitter evil in what passes for your souls?

    Feminsts would rather a million innocent MEN go to prison than one guilty man go free.

    Again most men understand that such a policy would be wrong and a danger to society, but not feminsts. They don't care, it's all me, me, me, me, me.

    The laws most MRA'S want stopped are one's that take away men's rights. Feminists like to play this stupid word game and call men's rights priveldges, but they're not, they are rights. And you and your kind are exactly like nazis in the fact that you see another group and want them to have nothing. If a man has one thing more than you that he earned you'll call it a priviledge and try to take it from him.
    Disgusting. The lot of you. Repellent, short sighted and disgusting.

    That's why you can't negotiate are compromise with feminists as they call everything they want a right and everything that is fair to men a privilidge and want men completely enslaved to their whims.

    But don't worry WOMYN'S, you'll always have brain donors like Dave, hoping for a little used, fisted out of all shape feminazi vajayjay, to tell you how perfect you are. Again, disgusting.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  30. "In South Korea, cheating your spouse is a criminal offence up to 2 years jail.

    In Thailand, cheating your spouse might result in lawsuits against the lover for breaking into your marriage."

    Men cheat just as much (and, in most countries, more) than women.


    In Philippine law there is no divorce, you might cheat your husband and move away to your lover, but you will be unable to claim anything. To nullify a marriage contract is costly and time-consuming, you remain married over years and cannot marry again. Child-support/alimony? No way."

    Because men never cheat or leave their spouses and children don't need support if their parents break up because of cheating? You don't actually want laws equally applied, you want men to be able to abandon their children with impunity while punishing women, who you see as theiving sluts.

    ReplyDelete
  31. @ Darksidecat

    Darksidecat said: "You don't actually want laws equally applied, you want men to be able to abandon their children with impunity while punishing women, who you see as theiving sluts."

    You mean equally applied like here in the US the way it is now, where when a man cheats on his wife, the woman gets everything, and when a woman cheats on her husband she gets everything as well? Feminist equality like that, you mean?

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  32. @Eoghan -What lies? Are you didn't say in the previous post on Chris that "oh was he falsely accused of rape?" Hmmm,you're a hypocrite and a liar.

    "Stop telling lies about the other contributers Tec its women like you the give these guys the impression that all women are deceitful."

    Oh ad hominem attacks, the last straw of a dying troll. Translation: I cannot in any way find any flaws in your logic so instead I'll try to defame you personally, and pretend it's the same thing...

    On choice: No. Nope. False. Can't make him do anything. It's a choice, 100%. He'll chose to take my comments seriously, blow them off, or frame it to suit his own views (just like you!) This is a common cognitive distortion - "you make me feel" and especially common in violent criminals, btw. I'm not coercing, brainwashing, physically forcing, etc. so really how can I be responsible for his beliefs/thoughts/actions? Or do what you really mean is shut up because any dissenter esp a woman has no right to express his/her opinion?

    @Bishop - so you concede that the laws were already unfair to women? And thus needed to change? The idea that misogyny wasn't already apart of the justice and political system is just ignorant. Hence, why fems had to lobby for those laws e.g. rape shield laws b/c the existing system would attack victims with slut-shaming, victim-blaming, etc.! Or laws that force men to pay child-support and/or alimony. It's a patriarchial construct that women and children should be dependent on protection from their male family members and he is within his rights to deny protection/financial support/etc.

    Of course, you think men shouldn't have to support their children if they don't want to, right? So it would be completely futile to point out that women who give up their earning power to raise said children should also be supported right? Or if the man gets custody, he should get child-support right? Or that if the man is the primary caregiver and gave up part of his earning power to do so, he should be supported right? And let's not even mention that the majority of divorce cases, the child-care and monetary support is worked out by the divorced couple right? So the laws are really there to enforce dead-beats like you who don't want to pay for support right?

    "What you constantly fail to understand is that the important difference is in the LAWS."

    Yeah, in this context, that's pretty fucking ironic. Oh and let's all take a moment to examine the other irony of a black man in the US complaining about affirmative action... Tell me, bishop, are you apart of any white supremacist groups too? (Anyone else thinking of Dave Chapelle's skit with a blind black guy white supremacist leader?)

    ReplyDelete
  33. @Bishop
    "You mean equally applied like here in the US the way it is now, where when a man cheats on his wife, the woman gets everything, and when a woman cheats on her husband she gets everything as well? Feminist equality like that, you mean?"

    In the majority of divorce cases in the US, the divorced couple work out the specifics about child support and alimony and custody.

    I don't understand this rant - are you saying that if a woman cheats and then divorces, she still shouldn't get child-support (if she has custody) and/or alimony? I don't follow the logic. If a women is a housewife and/or uneducated and experienced in higher paying work because of family commitments and/or b/c her husband didn't want her to work, how does it follow that alimony and/or child support shouldn't be given to her if she initiates divorce?

    Also, I'm not a lawyer, but don't pre-nups often state this explicitly i.e. cheating voids the person's rights to alimony?

    And 1/2 isn't everything; it's 50%, someone needs to go back to math class....

    I agree completely with Cat, you only want gender specific/neutral laws when they suit you.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Out of all the divorced women I know, I only know one who has been awarded alimony. I'd be interested to know if there are any statistics showing the percentage of divorces in which alimony is a factor.

    ReplyDelete
  35. @ Tec,

    I'll answer your second post first.

    Tec said: "In the majority of divorce cases in the US, the divorced couple work out the specifics about child support and alimony and custody."

    Where did you hear this? Most of the specifics are adjudicated to the male and the female is given whatever she wants. You are wrong.

    TEC said: "I don't understand this rant - are you saying that if a woman cheats and then divorces, she still shouldn't get child-support (if she has custody) and/or alimony?"

    She certainly shouldn't get alimony. She violated one of the cardinal rules of marriage! She shouldn't get a cash pay out for it!

    If you were married to a man who constantly cheated on you, then dumped you for another woman, then had you booted out of your home so that he could move his new girl into the house and on top of that you'd have to pay him alimony and child support, you'd see that as unfair as well. Don't believe me? Then just ask Halle Berry.

    Also child support should be affordable! It should take into account the payers living expenses, needs and should not be increased if the payer gets a raise.

    TEC said: "If a women is a housewife and/or uneducated and experienced in higher paying work because of family commitments and/or b/c her husband didn't want her to work, how does it follow that alimony and/or child support shouldn't be given to her if she initiates divorce?"

    Any women who is a housewife has made a choice. She chose not to work. Her husband didn't make her not work, she chose that. She calculated that it was the best option for herself and her family. Also, there is a bit of a disconnect with your logic here. You seem to believe that if a woman has an affair she still deserves alimony, and yet if a woman is somehow forced by her husband to not work she also deserves alimony. How is this fictional husband able to stop his wife from working but not able to stop her from screwing around? But I digress. The point is once the relationship is over neither party should have any responsibility to the other adult in the marriage. The only responsibilities should be towards any children. If women don't want to be in this position, they should work. It shouldn't be another adults job to carry someone's lazy butt through life because they didn't want to work.

    TEC said: "Also, I'm not a lawyer, but don't pre-nups often state this explicitly i.e. cheating voids the person's rights to alimony?

    This shows clearly how little you know. ANY judge can vacate any pre-nup for whatever reason he or she wants. Which means that pre-nups are essentially worthless. There was even a case in England where a woman was awarded a fortune after a divorce, spent all the money she got and came back several years later, sued her ex husband again, and won. Another great day for feminism.

    TEC said: "And 1/2 isn't everything; it's 50%, someone needs to go back to math class...."

    With alimony and child support, plus keeping the house and not having to pay any of the outstanding bills, it's more than half that most men have to pay.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  36. @ TEC

    1. Yes there were laws that were unfair to women, but they have been changed as they should have been.
    2. Rape shield laws are unconstitutional in my opinion. You should have the right to face your accuser and there is a huge potential threat in anonymous persons destroying ones reputation, just ask any man falsely accused of rape. If you have to have rape shield laws, then in the interest of basic fairness the accused man should also be left anonymous until after his guilt is established, but you know what? Feminsts are against this. Surprise, surprise.
    3. There is zero proof required that a man's money actually goes to the child, this should be changed. Further child support should be affordable, not her living in the penthouse while he lives in an outhouse.
    4. Men next to never become primary care giver, but when they do WOMEN tend to default on child support more than men, funny about that isn't it?
    5. You actually have had men assed alimony and child support "obligations" in excess of what they have ever made monthly. I call that injustice. You call those men deadbeats. But if it hurts men feminuts are for it.
    6. Lastly, don't lecture me on affirmative action and the black community. You know NOTHING about us. And I mean nothing. And it is galling to watch feminists play victim while being far more privilidged than anyone else on the planet.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  37. It is absolutely untrue that in rape cases the accused is denied their right to face their accusers. Rape shield laws are in place to limit the introduction of evidence about an accuser's sexual history, reputation or past conduct. All states have such laws in place, but not all states have laws that protect the accuser's identity.

    ReplyDelete
  38. DarkSideCat: You don't actually want laws equally applied, you want men to be able to abandon their children with impunity while punishing women, who you see as theiving sluts.

    For sure family laws are not equally applied in countries like USA because of feminism.
    Men and women are treated differently.

    -----

    I see nothing wrong with laws in Asia which are protecting a cheated spouse and marriage in general. Btw, these laws are 'gender-neutral'.

    The law in South Korea says, if you want a change, don't cheat but get a divorce first, otherwise it is a criminal offense.
    What's wrong with that?

    The law in Thailand says, do not approach a married spouse for a sexual relationship - if you break into a family, you might face lawsuits in return by the cheated spouse and the divorce ruling might favor the cheated spouse in many claims.
    What's wrong with that?

    In Philippines, as divorce is not existing in the law - it requires nullification of the marriage contract - you will remain married for a long time. If you cheat and live together with somebody else, do not expect to marry again soon and repeat the same game.
    What's wrong with that?

    Why should we, while living in Asia, copy/paste all and everything which is coming from USA?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Christine said...
    Out of all the divorced women I know, I only know one who has been awarded alimony. I'd be interested to know if there are any statistics showing the percentage of divorces in which alimony is a factor.


    Men accounted for 97 percent of the payers in alimony cases in 2008, according to the US Census.

    Americans paid $9.4 billion in alimony to former spouses in 2007, up from $5.6 billion 10 years earlier, according to the Internal Revenue Service.

    I cannot find any number of people, who have to pay any form of alimony, but 97 percent are men.

    The rest of 3 percent are not always from women to men, as it is sometimes possible to claim alimony even after the death of a person, for example in case of real estate property income/life-insurance etc.
    In this case a third party pays alimony to an individual until her (his?) death.
    Sometimes alimony is similar to a retirement allowance, without age limits.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Christine said...
    ...Rape shield laws are in place to limit the introduction of evidence about an accuser's sexual history, reputation or past conduct.


    This means an accuser known as a liar, is accusing an innocent man and her past is considered as non-existent.

    Rape shields are a legal loophole for misuse to protect the anonymity of women for life despite their false rape allegations, solely out of the fact, that she is an accuser.

    However the accused person can be named in the news, even before his conviction. He will be sentenced to jail, as evidence is withheld. He is totally innocent, but who cares about him?

    The result? Link below:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-405074/Do-fake-rape-victims-right-anonymity.html

    There cannot be a man in Britain - or, indeed, any right-thinking woman - who did not shudder at the sufferings of Warren Blackwell: convicted, sentenced and locked away for more than three years for a rape that we now know never even took place.
    On Tuesday, Mr Blackwell was cleared of all charges by an Appeal Court which heard that his alleged victim had faked the whole incident. Indeed, we know a lot more about his mendacious accuser. We know that she had made at least five other false allegations, as well as two against former husbands and one against her father.
    .....
    What we still do not know, however, is her name. As an alleged victim of rape, Miss A will continue to hide behind the anonymity that protected her throughout the lethal web of lies she spun at Mr Blackwell's trial, while he will have his identity splashed everywhere, despite his complete exoneration.
    .....
    How can this be right? Surely it is time to admit that this inequality is well overdue for a re-think.


    What do you think, Christine? You think, that's fair?

    ReplyDelete
  41. No, in that case, and in others like it, it is not fair. Laws are needed to protect true victims, but do need to be adjusted when proven to have flaws.

    ReplyDelete
  42. bishopsinister: Also child support should be affordable! It should take into account the payers living expenses, needs and should not be increased if the payer gets a raise.

    That's the reason we use now in Continental Europe percentages according to the age of the child. You earn more you pay more, you earn less you pay less. The child is still small, you pay less, the child is getting older, you pay more. It's deducted in percentages automatically by the employer from your salary every month.

    Health insurance is not an issue, as all EU-citizens have health insurance anyway.

    Child support is not cheap starting with 16 percent for one child, but easier to be accepted by men in EU than in USA. - You will never face jail, if you are jobless and cannot pay, this is for sure.

    USA can learn a lot from Europe, but is unwilling to learn anything. The entire execution of law in EU is not that rude as it is in the US.

    Alimony for the ex-wife in Germany is now also down to 3 years since 2008(in the past up to 15 years) and if the ex-wife is earning more than 40 percent of the income of the ex-husband, there is no alimony anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Christine said...
    No, in that case, and in others like it, it is not fair. Laws are needed to protect true victims, but do need to be adjusted when proven to have flaws.
    November 20, 2010 8:00 PM


    Discrimination because of the male gender happens all the time, and feminism is not supportive to change such laws.

    Some examples see below

    http://www.thelocal.se/24244/20100107/

    Interesting, only the man is charged for buying sex, but the women are not charged for false rape allegations and not for theft...

    What do you think?

    http://www.thelocal.se/20694/20090716/
    That's also interesting, read the comments...
    Swedish man attacked by tattooed girl gang

    I wonder if this would be considered to be funny, if a woman of same age is attacked by a tattooed boy gang...

    -----

    Christine, you have to understand that MRAs are not limited to USA. And these 2 example are not about hate against women. And not from the USA.

    Unfair treatment against men is everywhere worldwide where is feminism, in UK it's bad too, and in Scandinavia as you see with these 2 links.

    That's the reason we complain. Why should we remain silent?

    ReplyDelete
  44. @yohan,

    Yes, there are some valid issues brought up by some MRA's. I agree. It's too bad that the entire MRM is undermined by the male supremacist component that runs rampant throughout the movement.

    ReplyDelete
  45. @ Christine

    Such rampant feminism and rampant MRM (rampant MRM = a few people also expelled from many MRM-forums) you will find only in USA, it's maybe because you can find any kind of people there you can imagine - black men, white women, rich Asians, poor Latinos, idiots more than enough, highly intelligent people more than enough...etc. etc. - any kind of any person, including extremists of any gender, haters, related or not related to any religion, any form of low-life, but also any form of honest people. etc. etc. a never ending list of people...but that's America. People are remarkable different from each other.

    In other feminist countries such hateful dialogs are rare as most people belong to the same ethnic group using the same local language.

    I have to say, there is almost no hateful vocabulary with MRM/feminists in case a conversation is not in English and away from US-influence. There are also less legal issues to talk about and a smaller number of opinions, how to solve such issues.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Yes tec I asked "oh was this guy falsely accused of rape?" and you projected your own meaning on to what I said. You would do well to monitor your projecting and belief that you know what people are thinking, saying and meaning better than they do. It takes up a lot of space on this blog.

    Here are a few pointers.

    If someone is saying that making false accusations of rape shouldn't go unpunished, it does not mean that they are advocating for rapists.
    If someone is advocating for equal rights for domestic abuse victims, it does not mean that they are advocating for wife beaters.
    If someone is advocating for victims of female pedophiles, it does not mean that they are advocating for pedophilia.

    You take up lot of space and energy here with your false allegations about rape and abuse.

    Know this - an abuse victims not looking like you or their abusers looking like you does not in reality warrant their marginalization and exclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "You take up lot of space and energy here with your false allegations about rape and abuse."

    No one here takes up more space and energy than you, dude. Except maybe Yohan. At this point the two of you have posted more total words on my blog than I have. (Heck, each one of you probably has by yourself.) And it's the same thing over and over and over with both of you guys.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Yeah but myself an yohan are contributing rationally.

    Tec reads "there should be equal right for abuse victims" and that provokes long posts about how people are advocating for wife beaters or some such crap.
    She rarely posts without bigotry or making a false allegation about rape or abuse.

    ReplyDelete
  49. @ David,

    It's good that Egohan and Yohan post more than you as they make more sense. Logical clear arguments instead of your style of posting a picture and adding snark. The only good thing I can say about you is that you are not censor happy.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  50. Christine said: "It is absolutely untrue that in rape cases the accused is denied their right to face their accusers. Rape shield laws are in place to limit the introduction of evidence about an accuser's sexual history, reputation or past conduct. All states have such laws in place, but not all states have laws that protect the accuser's identity."

    Sorry, I had a brain fart there, my bad. What I meant to say was that he should have the option of looking into the accusers past and seeing if she is say a multiple false rape accuser, etc. If needed they could close the court or something like that to make it less traumatic, if needed.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  51. Whew! You are right about that David...with Eoghan, it's a bunch of self-righteous rambling, saying the same things over and over. And he talks in circles. He'd argue with a rock about nothing at all. I generally just try to skip over his comments.

    ReplyDelete
  52. @bishopsinister,

    Rape shield laws were originally developed to prevent defense lawyers from viciously smearing true rape victims to try to get their clients off as used to be standard practice.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Christine

    perhaps if me and the guys posted teen girl snark, repeated feminist cliches as if they were our own thoughts and every time someone suggested that abuse victims should have equal rights we accused them of being rape apologists we would fit in a bit better?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Eoghan...Hah! Funny...but lobotomized conformist isn't a good look for you, love.

    @Tec--

    "Yeah, in this context, that's pretty fucking ironic. Oh and let's all take a moment to examine the other irony of a black man in the US complaining about affirmative action..."

    I'm a woman, I have directly benefited from affirmative action, and been pissed off about it...apparently, unlike you, I resent being handed something just because I have tits. Isn't that the biggest form of objectification that feminists bitch about? Being viewed a certain way because of their gender? Clearly you only mean being viewed in ways that you find negative; if having tits makes you seem smarter or more capable, then hey, you're all for it aren't you?
    There's the real irony, "sister"

    Tec said--

    Tell me, bishop, are you apart of any white supremacist groups too? (Anyone else thinking of Dave Chapelle's skit with a blind black guy white supremacist leader?)"

    So....people who are against affirmative action are now KKK members? That's a very interesting generalization

    ReplyDelete
  55. "So....people who are against affirmative action are now KKK members? That's a very interesting generalization"

    Yet she will not be modded or warned for her incessant insinuations that other posters are KKK members, pro rape, pro wife beating etc

    And AA discriminates against black men harder than it does white.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Well Eoghan, of course not...it IS AA after all ;)

    ReplyDelete
  57. Christine said...
    @bishopsinister,
    Rape shield laws were originally developed to prevent defense lawyers from viciously smearing true rape victims to try to get their clients off as used to be standard practice


    ORIGINALLY yes, but as you see yourself - I gave you a link to a real case - these laws are widely open for misuse, and as a result, an innocent man spent 3 years in jail and the false accuser enjoys anonymity for life.

    Somebody has to take care of these male victims but who? MRAs? Well, right, false rape allegations, which we consider as a serious crime, is one important concern of the MRM.

    Feminists do not even distance themselves from such female criminals, as the victim is only a man, and who cares anyway? Feminists even demand closing down prisons for females as 'females are different'. That's equality?

    ReplyDelete
  58. @yohan,

    I've already addressed this above in my statement that laws do need to be adjusted when proven that they are not working as intended.

    I do not personally know any women who have falsely accused men of rape and have never known anyone who has aligned themselves with false accusers. However, I do believe false accusers should face some sort of consequences when proven.

    I've never heard of any group demanding that female prisons be closed because "women are different". Please link to your source on that.

    ReplyDelete
  59. bishopsinister said...
    @ David,
    It's good that Egohan and Yohan post more than you as they make more sense. Logical clear arguments instead of your style of posting a picture and adding snark. The only good thing I can say about you is that you are not censor happy.


    Let me add, about censor happy - not yet.

    This is the only reason why I do not consider David to be a male feminist.

    A male feminist blog MUST delete and edit and ban all and everything which does not fit the feminist party-line.

    I ask myself, what is the purpose of this blog?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Christine: I've never heard of any group demanding that female prisons be closed because "women are different". Please link to your source on that.


    OK, links below...

    All the women's jails would shut within the next decade, and could instead be converted into prisons for men.
    .....
    The report claims: "Women and men are different


    Please read also some of the comments...


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-442113/Womens-prisons-close-decade.html

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6444961.stm

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/aug/02/closedownwomensprisons

    ReplyDelete
  61. @Yohan, from one of your own links:

    "We are not arguing that men and women should be treated differently as a matter of principle; rather, it is a pragmatic suggestion. The door is already ajar, with the Home Office at least recognising that too many of the women currently in prison should not be there. Women prisoners represent a discrete and relatively small group compared to men, and so real change can be made quickly.

    Two thirds of women received into prison are on remand and most will either be found not guilty or receive a community sentence; this begs the question: why were they were sent to prison in the first place? Very few women are sentenced for serious and violent offences, out of 12,500 women sent to prison fewer than 500 were sentenced to more than four years and only 20 for life. This means that the overwhelming majority of women today should simply not be in prison."

    The 'difference' being cited here is a difference in types of offenses and in in outcomes when prison is used for men vs women, not some sort of biological specialness.

    ReplyDelete
  62. This is what is written in these links:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-442113/Womens-prisons-close-decade.html

    All the women's jails would shut within the next decade, and could instead be converted into prisons for men.


    Indeed, release women only, but no men, even shut ALL prisons for females and the empty cells are for men.

    Thousands of women currently sentenced to two years or less would escape jail.


    And if you argue, that 1000s of women with shorter sentences of 2 years or less should be released, why not release also 1000s of men, who were sentenced to 2 years or less?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Mean while in Italy

    A London waiter who has been ordered to pay maintenance to his multi-millionaire ex-wife today appealed against the “manifestly unjust” decision.

    Francesco Traversa's marriage to Italian heiress Carla Freddi ended in tears after 20 years.

    He had been a restaurant worker from a modest background and she is an independently wealthy member of a family of industrialists with a personal fortune estimated at up to £4.2million.

    But when they divorced an Italian court recognised their pre-nuptial agreement and ordered him to pay up despite the gulf between their wealth.

    Now Mr Traversa has been forced out of his home, owes his ex-wife £57,000 and has had to go back to serving at tables, his counsel told the Appeal Court in London.
    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23897660-waiter-forced-to-support-his-heiress-ex-wife.do

    ReplyDelete
  64. http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/6391918/part_2/whos-the-daddy.thtml

    What women thinks about men...and comments are also interesting to read.

    Interesting article about paternity testing

    Who’s the daddy?

    Many men have, of course, ended up raising children who were not genetically their own, but really, does it matter?

    ReplyDelete
  65. What a disgusting person the authoress of that article is Yohan.

    Great example of on line activism in the comments section though, the person at the top, John Waters might be a local mra.

    http://www.johnwaters.ie/

    ReplyDelete
  66. Mr. Mark MUST be a genius. Yeah. Women TOTALLY think all of that stuff while having sex with men. That's why we have sex with men, you know?

    Wait. Wait, wait, wait... I see a flaw in his genius logic.

    If women hate men so much and during sex only think about those things and how the man is "invading" them... why would we have sex with a men in the first place?!

    Also... love how racism goes right along with sexism now days. Interesting.

    *The above comment is peppered with sarcasm*

    -Lexie Di.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Sociable

ShareThis