Thursday, January 20, 2011

Beware the jackbooted feminazi marriage thugs!

The denizens of the Happy Bachelors forum, always alert for possible threats to their Happy Bachelorhood, seem to have discovered a new one: Evil feminists "enslav[ing] men through forced marriage."

That might sound a bit like the plot of an old episode of Futurama, but apparently the threat is all too real. Artbunker sounded the alarm in a recent posting:

What if women and manginias in power pass a law to make men marry with women?

Hear him out, guys:

[M]ore and more guys are truly waking up to the no marriage to Western Women concept. It's a small but growing fact. We already know feminist have made it harder fro Eastern European women to come over here and probably in other countries as well.

If they can get laws passed for that how much longer till they start going after single men? How much longer till they want to make sure single women with kids are paired with single men for "the betterment of the children?" because the single man makes a good wage to support her and her family.

Why would this be necessary, you may ask. Aren't there a lot of simps and manginias doing this already, of their own volition?

Sure there still a lot of simps and manginias that dont mind doing this already without a law sure. But we know these women really want guys who have the economic power to provide them the lifestyle they want. A lot of simps and manginias today cannot provide that for them .They want the guys with the big checks whom they know wont chose them.

Yes, all the fantastically wealthy movers and shakers who spend all their time trading stories about how evil women are on the MGTOW message boards of America.

Longshot39 suggested one (somewhat familiar) way to resist the jackbooted feminazi marriage thugs:

A man with any sense could still refuse to marry, at least in the traditional sense. Just get another MGTOW friend and marry them, like was said in another thread. Even if a person were required by law to live in the same house, having your friend as a roommate would still be a HUGE improvement over being forced to marry some womb turd with little thuglits.

To be sure, not everyone on the Happy Bachelors forum is convinced such a danger is imminent. The always logical spocksdisciple responded:

There won't be forced marriage, as women want the earning power of the beta but 'gina tingle factor of the thug/bad boy. Instead what the gov't will do is simply start to garnish the wages of single men with selective taxation and "fees."

And if any men resist the New Girl Order by not earning enough, well, naturally they'll just be forced into labor camps:

These labor camps would come into existence under some economic pretext set up by gov't. One such pretext is that unemployed or underemployed people(ie men) of a certain age range say 18-40, would be very useful to the government as labor for various federal projects. ...

Of course women would be exempt because they'll have some beta or stooge on standby for marriage and they would claim "gender oppression" should women be inducted into such camps. ...

These camps would be run under the auspices of FEMA and would be painted to be "emergency support facilities", note that some form of this type of forced and indentured labor already as come back in the form in prison chain gangs which were all but abolished by the 1950s-60s but made a comeback in the late 90s.

But hey, still beats being married -- amirite, fellas?

All joking aside, I feel that one thing we can all agree upon here at Man Boobz is that the fine gentlemen at Happy Bachelors should not be marrying anyone any time soon, either voluntarily or as a result of evil feminist legislation. So I ask the women reading this post now to pledge publicly, in a comment below, that they personally will not marry anyone on the Happy Bachelors forum, even if they are required by law to do so.



--

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it. 

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

107 comments:

  1. ....

    gawdDAMMIT!

    They figured it out!

    Alright, my fuzzy-legged, man-hating sisters - time to come up with another plan to oppress the men. They done caught us on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  2. And here I thought the stereotype of a feminist involved being a single minded career obsessed childless person who hated marriage. I need to update my stereotypes file.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So that is why FDR came up with the CCC-it was the prelude to forced marriages!

    I always knew FDR was fiendishly clever and now we haz proof!

    ReplyDelete
  4. As I am already "own" a slave-boy (husband), I promise not to commit bigamy by marrying one of the Happy Bachelors.

    Unless the USA legalizes polyandry. Then it's on. Come to mama, bitches!
    The queen bee needs her drones.

    (sarcasm)

    I, too, immediately thought of FDR's CCC camps.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ....buh?

    Wow, that's some SERIOUS persecution complex they have going on there. You can almost hear them fapping furiously.
    They spend an awful lot of time on thinking about women forcing them to marry them.
    The MRA doth protest too much, methinks.
    They are aware that no one in their right mind would want to marry them in the first place, so they pull the old "Well, you can't fire me! I quit!" card.

    Also: this woman of Eastern European descent would like these guys to go fuck themselves and buy real dolls or something.
    We don't want you, either, sry2say.

    ReplyDelete
  6. They are aware that no one in their right mind would want to marry them in the first place, so they pull the old "Well, you can't fire me! I quit!" card.

    Actually, they very much remind me of how children try to browbeat their oppressive parents into submission...with little red wagon in tow, peering back only to warn, "I'm LEAVING! I'm GOING! And I'm NOT coming BACK!! You WON'T SEE ME EVER AGAIN!"

    ReplyDelete
  7. I hearby pledge not to marry anyone on the Happy Bachelors forum, even in some bizarro oppression of the menz paradise wherein there is a legal requirement. I would happily twart that law, going to whatever equivalent of prison is indicated (I guess, being female, some kind of day spa?) rather than have any association, mandated or otherwise.

    Elizabeth - obvs it was Eleanor who controlled the whole thing!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Actually, they very much remind me of how children try to browbeat their oppressive parents into submission...with little red wagon in tow, peering back only to warn, "I'm LEAVING! I'm GOING! And I'm NOT coming BACK!! You WON'T SEE ME EVER AGAIN!"

    Hmm, okay, good point. I think I was giving them too much credit, comparing them to responsible adults ):
    Your example captures their childishness a lot better!

    Oh, I totally forgot!
    I never wanted to marry anyway but if it should become required by law for some reason I also pledge not to marry any of these guys, even at gunpoint. I'd much rather endure torture.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Your example captures their childishness a lot better! "

    Just like the childishness of thinking marriage is a evil plot that men want to make women their domestic slaves, bare foot, pregnant and at the sink.

    That feminist theory is older than me. heh

    ReplyDelete
  10. Nick, that used to be the reality of marriage. Then we changed it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well, all joking aside - I think that taxes will go up.

    I know that you'll disagree, but marriage is now - nothing more than a redistribution of wealth system.

    Bankers count on it - cosigning on house loans, car loans etc...

    Lawyers count on it (despite the rumors of prenups - I called several lawyers here in Reno - nobody does prenups anymore - judges throw them out in divorce court - and the prenup lawyers started getting sued themselves...)

    Women do constitute the majority of consumerism in the U.S. economy.

    As marriage rates fall, there is less money being pumped into the economy (how much less? who knows for sure - but it is less - divorce lawyers are expensive, they get both sides emotionally riled on purpose, so they can really "milk" them - and often, both sides (man and woman - lose the house - it goes back to the banks - with little or no profit going to any money the couple put into it).

    And - as we all know - the government is short on money - and it keeps pumping "fake" money into the economy that it doesn't actually have (national debt).

    This means that sooner or later, taxes will have to increase.

    However - anybody with a job will suffer - not just men (or single men) - so his comment is lacking there - but - taxes will go up eventually - no matter who is president.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'll happily pledge to avoid marriage with any of them, even if the federal fines for not doing so are steep. Even if they throw my ass in jail.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Why marry men when you could just marry yourself? Everybody wins.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well, that woman who married herself - she got caught in a very bitter domestic violence scandal.

    Terrible too - my heart goes out to that lady:

    http://men-factor.blogspot.com/2010/10/woman-scheduled-to-marry-self-now.html

    ReplyDelete
  15. Just like the childishness of thinking marriage is a evil plot that men want to make women their domestic slaves, bare foot, pregnant and at the sink.

    ...
    You do realize that women HAD to marry back then or they would end up on the street/would have to prostitute themselves to survive, right?
    An unmarried woman was basically worthless.
    But that aside, I don't see where anyone claimed marriage to be an "evil plot by teh menz!!!1" nowadays D: Please, do enlighten me!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Kollege, someone mentioned it on another post comment thread.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "You do realize that women HAD to marry back then or they would end up on the street/would have to prostitute themselves to survive, right?"

    Or they could have stayed with family and chose not to get married at all. Women had a choice who they could marry. In fact, a man had to get down on his knees and bare jewels to be worthy of marriage. If that's not royal treatment towards the poor oppressed women, what is?

    ReplyDelete
  18. nicko81m - what?? "In fact, a man had to get down on his knees and bare jewels to be worthy of marriage" - that's hardly the case historically. Ever heard of dowry? (where the bride's parents paid money to marry their daughter off?) Not to mention arranged marriage (in which, to be fair, neither groom nor bride had much choice)...

    ReplyDelete
  19. I, the smart, sexy, beautiful, funny, and all-around wonderful LexieDi hereby swear upon punishment of torture and death not to marry a man who belongs to this Happy Bachelor's forum, thereby freeing them all from the threat of my awesomeness.

    ReplyDelete
  20. nick she could not just always stay with her family, but WOW, TWO CHOICES- HOLY COW! And no, most places and time periods, the woman did not have a choice, it was up to her father.

    nick your comment is worded strange you SEEM to contrast offering "jewels" with choice. Like, 'oh well you say they had no choice, but the man had to demonstrate she would not die in his care, so.... yeah...' Once again, not being able to simply steal and abuse a woman is counted as oppression of a male.

    They also did not "bare" jewels, there is the comedy of the day,as now the image of 'family jewels' has been invoked and I thank you.

    I mean good god (!) the man, or his family bought a ring and not the bride's family. WOW Nick, that's like...totally royal. Anyone owning a wedding ring, and trying to discuss"oppression" should just be mocked. A wedding ring is a JEWEL, for christ's sake.

    Poor men... being forced to demonstrate that a mere woman would not die in his care due to lack of provisions.

    And please, no woman that turned down townsmen, or men her family wanted her to marry to merge families would have any trouble after she rejected the offer and stayed home. I see no pressure there. So clearly, she had a FULL TWO CHOICES in front of her.

    And now we have, like...two and half, sometimes three. BUT AT WHAT COST?!

    ReplyDelete
  21. I wonder how long those MGTOW/MRA marriages to each other would last. Would make for bizzare reality TV

    ReplyDelete
  22. Booboonation - I also had a horrific vision of Nic (or the men he was talking about) on his knees with his balls hanging out. If that was the standard you can see why maybe a symbolic jewel was substituted

    ReplyDelete
  23. booboonation: Well put (:

    There is also the whole issue of women having been considered property of men (of their father and of their husband, respectively).

    ReplyDelete
  24. Also, aren't engagement rings a fairly recent invention? I remember reading somewhere that the 'tradition' of engagement rings was started by DeBeers.

    I've told my boyfriend that if ever wants to propose to me, I would much prefer a note slipped into the pages of a book of love poetry.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The state can stay out of my goddamn love life. Marriage is an outdated economic unit IMHO; hence my happy unmarried cohabitation.

    Ever read John D'Emilio's "Capitalism and the Gay Identity"? It breaks down the oppressiveness of the institution nicely.

    http://platypus1917.org/wp-content/uploads/readings/demilio_captialismgayid.pdf

    Or Emma Goldman's take on it? That marriage is completely incompatible with love?

    http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/bl_eg_anb_marriage_love.htm

    Methinks the MRAs are wishing feminists would want to marry them.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Laws already exist, right here in America, which impose State-recognized marriage on citizens who are unwilling to designate themselves as married. Such laws are known as "Common Law Marriage" laws, and about one third of the states have them in some form. Live together with a girlfriend long enough, and in the State's mind you and she are considered married. Such laws are even more draconian in the UK.

    ReplyDelete
  27. John: Only 12 states recognize common-law marriages. Seems that some states are phasing it out. In addition, the state does not impose it on the unwilling; in most cases, BOTH parties give consent. Read more here:

    http://www.unmarried.org/common-law-marriage-fact-sheet.html

    ReplyDelete
  28. I think we should stop mocking these guys.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutory_delusions



    Still, I hereby pledge (...) I will never marry, nor date, nor kiss, nor even look at one of these guys, nor any other so-called MRA, nor a "masculist", nor any of these ridiculous PUAs EVER.

    (Was that enough?)

    ReplyDelete
  29. Jsckboots! The most feared footwear of wingnuts and misogynists alike: http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/the_footwear_of_tyranny/

    ReplyDelete
  30. Someone should edit that Wikipedia page so it starts out with something like:

    "Carl, we know you're reading this. Stop now."

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Methinks the MRAs are wishing feminists would want to marry them."---switchintoglide

    Don't flatter yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Ummm - could you give us a direct link to each of these forum posts?

    ReplyDelete
  33. They don't need marriage, the feminsts have already slid in palimony. Also, I read a while ago, NJ supreme court stated that you do NOT have to live together in order to get palimony.

    More greedy "empowered" women stealing from men. You go girl.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  34. Methinks the MRAs are wishing feminists would want to marry them.

    Female chauvinism.

    Women are superior, men want our pussy regardless blah blah blah

    This attitude is socially acceptable ladies and gentelmen

    ReplyDelete
  35. specialshrink, I did give a direct link to each of the posts. I believe you have to be registered on the site to see the posts, though.

    ReplyDelete
  36. There is nothing wrong with marriage if you are living with a good wife and children in a country which is supportive to family as a whole and which is not using biased law execution against husbands and fathers.

    Such a country is not necessarily a 3rd world country and women living there are not necessarily very poor and uneducated as feminists are telling us all the time.


    I always ask men, who are interested into marriage to take a deep look into the entire family laws of their country and to compare their legal situation with those overseas. It's not only about marriage, but also about possible divorce in the future including father's rights.

    A country which feminist laws make it possible for a cheating ex-wife to claim alimony over more than for 40 years or gives a cheating woman the right to claim child-support from her ex-husband despite he is not the biological father is not a good country for a man to sign a marriage contract.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Methinks the MRAs are wishing feminists would want to marry them." [me]

    Female chauvinism.

    Women are superior, men want our pussy regardless blah blah blah

    This attitude is socially acceptable ladies and gentelmen
    -nicko81m

    Yet another failed attempt at reading and understanding context. If you need a summary, I can give it to you: "there is no factual basis for this idea that feminists would force all men into marriage, in fact, the evidence is skewed quite to the contrary [see Emma Goldman]; people who have delusions about a group of people--one who obviously doesn't want to marry them--forcing them into marriage, could plausibly be desiring that outcome. This would explain the source of the delusion." This, of course, was said mostly in jest. I was using a writing device called humour. Look it up.

    You'll get there one day buddy. Until then, work on spelling the word "gentlemen" correctly.

    @wytchfinde555 I wasn't flattering myself--I was giving myself nightmares.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Look magazine made in 1960 made an article about unmarried men that had psychological problems and I'm sure it apply to many guys in the manosphere.

    http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6564/
    ==============================================
    A large number of those who reject marriage are fixated on a mother figure. These men live at home with their mothers until the death of the parent “releases” them—and then find it difficult to carve out a different kind of life.

    A second—and familiar—type is the man who is not so much antiwoman as antiresponsibility. Panicked at the thought of heading a household, he spends a lifetime evading marriage while believing he is seeking it.

    Some of the unmarried men in this category carry heavy psychological burdens. Raised with admonitions to “be a man—be independent,” some adult males become confused over the conflict between their determination to be truly self-reliant and the need to lean on a woman for love and comfort.

    A third troubled group consists of latent homosexuals. These fall into two classes—the “neuter” who practices no sexual activity of any kind, who is often found working in boys‘ schools and boys’ organizations, and the Don Juan, who is so threatened by his fears of his unacknowledged homosexuality that he engages in affairs with women to prove his masculinity.
    ==============================================

    ReplyDelete
  39. @ switchintoglide

    switchintoglide said: "This, of course, was said mostly in jest. I was using a writing device called humour. Look it up."

    But humor is supposed to be funny.

    Random Brother.

    ReplyDelete
  40. On a lighter note, a woman called "J" said on Dalrock's blog that she had a coworker that was on marriage strike

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/marriage-strike/#comment-1851
    =============================================
    My co-worker was quite the omega and chronically smelled like urine. He had a lot of issues with women, their sense of entitlement, their lack of accountability, divorce, disease, abortion, etc. But the bottom line was that women weren’t interested in him. I think a lot of this marriage talk comes from men who are not in love relationships with women.
    =============================================

    ReplyDelete
  41. @ avpd0nmmng

    Why does the marriage rate continue to fall?

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  42. @richard

    You don't need to get married to live with a woman, to love her, to have sex with her and to have children with her. Why do you think that the rate of out-of-wedlock birth is increasing as well as the cohabitation rate is rising ?

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

    ReplyDelete
  44. In California, which is not considered a common-law marriage state, you can be ordered to pay "spousal support" (a.k.a. alimony) if you had a child together with a woman with whom you were not married. This "spousal" support is distinct from child support. If you cohabit with a woman with whom you had a child, then following a breakup you are liable to pay alimony in California, even though you weren't married and even though California is not a common-law marriage state. And so the notion that marriage obligations (in reality divorce obligations) can be imposed upon people who never intended to get married is merited and deserves serious treatment, not the mockery posed by David's post here. This post is not meant to examine the injustice, but to mock those who decry the injustice and specifically to perpetuate the injustice. The allegation of misogyny is thus the vehicle through which feminists attempt to silence male-friendly voices.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Yeah, no worries about being forced to marry me. Fortunately I am Canadian, and will be sticking with "manginas" in any case.

    This stuff is like reverse homophobia -- they're closeted hets, jesus. OMG the disgusting wimminz are going FORCE US TO MARRY THEM and have BABIES and will parade their REVOLTING LIFESTYLE DOWN THE STREETS WHERE ANYONE CAN SEE THEM!!!!!!!1

    And don't forget the recruiting. No one is safe.

    ReplyDelete
  46. @ av

    av said: "You don't need to get married to live with a woman, to love her, to have sex with her and to have children with her. Why do you think that the rate of out-of-wedlock birth is increasing as well as the cohabitation rate is rising ?"

    I think the out of wedlock birth rate and cohabitation is increasing as marriage is seen as more and more of a joke (by both sexes) and that IMHO is not good.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  47. Reality check here.

    I am married. To a feminist.

    Nobody has forced me to share any of my money or possessions with my wife, that I would not willingly share with her, without begrudging it or expecting anything in return. Because I love her.

    For example, even though I make 10x more than her, we don't have a joint bank account and I don't give her an allowance. She never demands money and rarely asks for it, and I can always say no.

    I pay most of the bills and the mortgage. This is *my choice*, no one is making me do it. She does lots of housework and all the cooking. This is a feminist we're talking about. You know, those scary, man-hating, lazy, gold-digging feminists you guys are always ranting about.

    If we got divorced, under the law she would be entitled to 50% of my stuff, or something like that. My solution to that problem is that I lived with her out of wedlock for like 10 years until I was really sure that we loved each other and were going to stay together. If we get divorced, it won't be because she has freaked out and wants my stuff. If she was after money she would have sought out someone much wealthier and more successful than I am. Of course, something awful could happen like she could suddenly turn into a different person, or cheat on me, but guess what? I'm the one who cheated on her, many years ago, and after that horrible experience we both decided not to do any of that crap anymore. Because we're adults, and we love each other. As for child support, well, I have no children. Again, my wife is a feminist. You know, the ones who force men to sire expensive children.

    I just care much more about having reasonable, sane relationships with people than I do about my modest wealth. Anyone who values those things in the other order is going to have crappy relationships, full stop.

    Not all marriages are like mine, and some divorces are awful. But if you think that those divorces are awful because of divorce laws, then you don't know anything about human relationships. I had two friends that got divorced recently. He had cheated on her. He and his wife amicably agreed on how to divide their stuff. There was no fighting about that, and no lawyers were involved in that discussion. And they're both happy with the outcome. Again, adults, trying to treat each other with as much respect as possible, given the circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  48. John Dias: You seem not to understand palimony, in California or anywhere else. Basically, palimony is a contract enforcement action. Meaning that if A never expressly or impliedly manifested intent to be bound to an agreement, or if B never expressly or impliedly manifested acceptance of the agreement, then the court would not find a contract to enforce.

    Again, it's not marriage-lite, where the obligations of marriage are forced upon someone who is not married; it's simply a contract action: enforcing someone's bargained-for promise.

    Speaking of promises, I solemnly swear never to marry an MRA or a MGTOW. It's hilarious that they think that would be something women would want, and wouldn't run screaming from, but no. I politely decline.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Lydia said...
    ... I hereby pledge (...) I will never marry, nor date, nor kiss, nor even look at one of these guys, nor any other so-called MRA, nor a "masculist", nor any of these ridiculous PUAs EVER. (Was that enough?)


    NO! This is not enough.

    You should better promise, that - despite you are a woman - you will never demand any money from MRAs etc. etc. and that you will never fabricate any false rape allegation against them.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Bee said...
    John Dias: You seem not to understand palimony, in California or anywhere else. Basically, palimony is a contract enforcement action.


    Whatever you call that, it's money from a man to a woman without any justification, it's a strange form of a 'separation pay', it's a rip-off.

    The only way to reject such claims is about being very careful with the time-limit.

    It is possible to claim palimony after living together for only 6 months, but in most cases the deadline is 2 or 3 years.

    Best solution is to kick your girlfriend out of your rooms, BEFORE the dead line expires, even if she is a nice person.

    If you are living in a country with such bad laws biased against men, you cannot trust any woman anymore.

    No co-habitation as it is basically the same as marriage, the only exception I see is the time-limit.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Joe ... Not all marriages are like mine

    Yes, and you fail to explain, what these men should do in such a case...

    You expect, because your girl is acting like that, all other girls will also act similar as your girl, but this is totally wrong.

    There are plenty of malicious women and unfortunately they are protected by biased laws even in case of very serious wrongdoings.

    As for child support, well, I have no children

    You not, but there are not so few men, who pay child support but they are not the biological father - what is your advice to them?

    ReplyDelete
  52. @Bee:

    "John Dias: You seem not to understand palimony, in California or anywhere else. Basically, palimony is a contract enforcement action. Meaning that if A never expressly or impliedly manifested intent to be bound to an agreement, or if B never expressly or impliedly manifested acceptance of the agreement, then the court would not find a contract to enforce."

    I've lived it. In California, my state, "spousal support" is the actual term that is used even for unmarried formerly cohabiting parents of a child, even when there was "no contract to enforce" as you put it. Don't just make things up if you don't know. I have experienced it, and I do know.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I see what Yohan considers important-and it is not his wife and kids.

    ReplyDelete
  54. @Elizabeth:

    "I see what Yohan considers important-and it is not his wife and kids."

    If you have to pay child support for a child that is not biologically yours, then that is money that could have been spent providing for your own family, but instead went to someone who took it by fraud at your real children's expense.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Because if you spend ten years raising a kid-that kid is yours even if the DNA does not match.

    "Best solution is to kick your girlfriend out of your rooms, BEFORE the dead line expires, even if she is a nice person."

    Apparently the terror he has of having to some day make some kind of restitution to female is so great that he even advises treating one's loved ones like crap.

    ReplyDelete
  56. @Elizabeth:

    "Because if you spend ten years raising a kid-that kid is yours even if the DNA does not match."

    If you feminists would simply support the notion of mandatory DNA testing at birth for the purpose of determining biological parentage, then this mess would never occur in the first place. But you don't; feminists are opposed to mandatory testing. And so the injustice continues, despite a readily-available scientific remedy.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Pt. 1

    @ Joe

    Joe said: "Reality check here.

    I am married. To a feminist.

    Nobody has forced me to share any of my money or possessions with my wife, that I would not willingly share with her, without begrudging it or expecting anything in return. Because I love her."

    Yeah, what if you were divorced? What if you came home one day and everything in your house was gone and you weren't allowed to see your children (assuming you have any) would you be so quick to willing share the little you had left? Well many men are forced to do so, feminists love this, and it's fucking unfair.

    Joe continues: "For example, even though I make 10x more than her, we don't have a joint bank account and I don't give her an allowance. She never demands money and rarely asks for it, and I can always say no."

    You can say no now because you are married, if you get divorced and the judge imputes 90% of your earnings to her, even if you can't live on the remaining 10% well, you can not say no. And that's what you support when you support feminism.

    Joe said: "I pay most of the bills and the mortgage. This is *my choice*, no one is making me do it."

    And in case of the divorce you will continue to do this while she stays in the home and you live in a shitty studio apartment.

    Joe said: "She does lots of housework and all the cooking. This is a feminist we're talking about. You know, those scary, man-hating, lazy, gold-digging feminists you guys are always ranting about."

    Let Amused or Elizabeth or one of the other feminists bend her ear and she'll be telling you how you should stop oppressing her and start doing all the housework.

    Joe: "If we got divorced, under the law she would be entitled to 50% of my stuff, or something like that. My solution to that problem is that I lived with her out of wedlock for like 10 years until I was really sure that we loved each other and were going to stay together."

    1. You really should check the laws in your state. I doubt you will, but you should. 2. If you think that you are only going to be giving up 50% of your stuff you know NOTHING of the divorce industry and should not speak on this topic until you educate yourself. 3. No one can guarantee that he or she will stay together. No one. You could walk into your house tomorrow and she could be riding the mailman like a pony. Or she could decide she's a lesbian and wants out.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  58. >> Joe ... Not all marriages are like mine

    > Yes, and you fail to explain, what these men should do in such a case...

    Don't marry anyone, if you are not prepared to work through conflicts with your spouse in a responsible, respectful way. There, I just explained it.

    > You expect, because your girl is acting like that, all other girls will also act similar as your girl, but this is totally wrong.

    I expect nothing of the sort. But you just told us all that no woman could be trusted. You are not describing my wife, who I am quite sure is a woman. You are the one expecting my "girl" to be untrustworthy, simply because she's a woman. Which is called prejudice.

    > There are plenty of malicious women and unfortunately they are protected by biased laws even in case of very serious wrongdoings.

    Don't marry them. There are also plenty of malicious men. Women shouldn't marry them, either. Malicious people suck. Stay away from them.

    >> As for child support, well, I have no children

    > You not, but there are not so few men, who pay child support but they are not the biological father - what is your advice to them?

    Don't marry someone if you don't like marriage laws. This is the same advice the MGTOW give, except that instead of just giving that advice, they also express a lot of prejudice towards women.

    The idea that men are *forced* to marry women is fantasy, as the OP demonstrates.

    The idea that no woman is trustworthy is also pure fantasy, and amounts to prejudice.

    The example I'm giving from my life shows how far off these prejudiced descriptions of women are from the reality I experience every day. Virtually none of the attitudes manospheroids ascribe to feminists are held by me, or my wife. And my wife is not out to get me, as MGTOW constantly insist.

    I have no problem with a serious critique of marriage and divorce laws. I have a problem with prejudice.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Pt. 2

    @ Joe

    Joe: "If we get divorced, it won't be because she has freaked out and wants my stuff. If she was after money she would have sought out someone much wealthier and more successful than I am. Of course, something awful could happen like she could suddenly turn into a different person, or cheat on me, but guess what? I'm the one who cheated on her, many years ago, and after that horrible experience we both decided not to do any of that crap anymore. Because we're adults, and we love each other."

    Don't be a martyr. Because you cheated on her and she hasn't (to your knowlege) cheated on you should not force you to live a life of poverty if she decides to leave you. Also why would you support laws that harm all men in just because you cheated on your wife? It sounds like some odd martyr complex to me.

    Joe said: "As for child support, well, I have no children. Again, my wife is a feminist. You know, the ones who force men to sire expensive children."

    If your wife wants to have children and is able to conceive and you guys are having sex, you're having children period. BTW another thing that feminists support is men being forced to pay child support for children that they are duped into believing are theirs. Do you support that?

    Joe said: "I just care much more about having reasonable, sane relationships with people than I do about my modest wealth. Anyone who values those things in the other order is going to have crappy relationships, full stop."

    Lose most of your stuff to divorce and you'll care far more about modest wealth.

    Joes said: "Not all marriages are like mine, and some divorces are awful. But if you think that those divorces are awful because of divorce laws, then you don't know anything about human relationships."

    Divorce is awful. But the potential to cause continued harm and resentment IS caused by the unfair divorce laws.

    Joe said: "I had two friends that got divorced recently. He had cheated on her. He and his wife amicably agreed on how to divide their stuff. There was no fighting about that, and no lawyers were involved in that discussion. And they're both happy with the outcome. Again, adults, trying to treat each other with as much respect as possible, given the circumstances."

    That's nice, but most divorces aren't like that.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  60. @ Joe

    You know I saw your last post and I had to respond. Your basic advice for men is if you don't like marriage laws don't get married?

    If tomorrow, somehow, men passed the rule of thumb law, giving men the right to beat their wives, would your attitude to women be, "Well just don't get married" or would you call for the removal of bad laws?

    Random Brother

    Sorry for the excessively long posting over my last two or three posts.

    ReplyDelete
  61. John Dias: I don't know how else to say it. Whoever told you about palimony laws in CA was dead wrong. Every law review article, ALR article, and case I've read on palimony (in CA and other states) sets out the elements of the claim--one of which is an agreement to support. When courts find no enforceable promise, they don't order remedy. Don't want to support your live-in girlfriend after you break up? Easy: Don't promise to support her.

    Yohan, that goes for you too.

    ReplyDelete
  62. @Bee:

    "Whoever told you about palimony laws in CA was dead wrong."

    It's called spousal support.

    ReplyDelete
  63. @Random

    You respond to my posts without reading them.

    Some tells: "... your children (assuming you have any) ..." in response to a post where I explain that I don't have children.

    You write "If tomorrow, somehow, men passed the rule of thumb law, giving men the right to beat their wives, would your attitude to women be, 'Well just don't get married' or would you call for the removal of bad laws?"

    in response to a post where I wrote "I have no problem with a serious critique of marriage and divorce laws. I have a problem with prejudice."

    > Sorry for the excessively long posting over my last two or three posts.

    Oh, you're sorry for that? But you're not sorry for writing the following about my wife, who is a real person:

    "You could walk into your house tomorrow and she could be riding the mailman like a pony. Or she could decide she's a lesbian and wants out."

    Really.

    You're doing more than wasting my time. You're insulting my family. You think my wife, simply because she's a woman, is a mean, spiteful, lying, gold-digger. That is just straight up prejudice and displays a shocking ignorance of the potential of human relationships for empathy and respect.

    You have no respect for me and my family. Since you seem to think that everything in every human relationship is quid pro quo, on what basis do I owe you any respect? You got any facts to share with me, or do you just want to spin out persecution fantasies forever? Because I can do that, too:

    What if all your friends in the manospherical movement were actually ax murderers???! Then our evil conspiracy laws could have you locked up as an accomplice, even though you didn't ax murder anyone!!1!1!!

    It's easy. And a complete waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
  64. tl; dr: Random Brother is sure that my marriage could easily end in divorce, which would be my wife's fault for sure, because she could easily force me to have kids and then cheat on me, after taking instruction from radical feminists on how much housework to do, and then she would steal all of my possessions and take 90% of my income forever.

    ReplyDelete
  65. @ Joe

    I had hoped you'd respond with something well thought out instead you decided to go the hysterical route.

    1. I did NOT insult you nor your family. I was talking about a hypothetical situation. To compare a hypothetical situation about the possiblity of one person cheating, (which unfortunately happens) to every single MRA being an axe murderer is fucking ridiculous. I don't know you and I don't know your wife. I simply said that cheating is within the realm of possibility and it is. I didn't say she is or does cheat. Got it?

    2. If you have no problem with a critique of divorce laws, answer the questions I asked. Is that so fucking hard?

    In fact, don't fucking bother. It's clear that you've swallowed the feminist jock so fucking badly that you can't count up.

    I'm going to skip all the whining about respect and empathy and summarize your fucked up manginaesque post.

    Here's your belief in a nutshell.

    Joe: I married a feminist and it worked out great for me so fuck all you other men.

    This make you and *AHEM* "male" feminsts like you massive tools and dim witted morons.

    I was hoping that you'd find some self respect and talk like a man, but I was wrong. Pound sand kid.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  66. Let me just say one more thing about my post.

    Mean people can use laws to fuck with each other. People can sue each other, call the cops on each other, all kinds of crap like that. That sucks, and there are really two things that need to be done to address this:

    - Try to make the laws as fair as possible by reforming them. I'm all for that. That means fair to everyone, regardless of race, creed, disability, sexual orientation, etc. Whatever is truly fair, I'm for.

    - Don't be a mean person, and stay away from mean people.

    My post about my marriage talks about the latter. I picked the right person. You can argue that I didn't, to make a point, but at that point you've pretty much lost me.

    As for the former, in my case I'm confident that I can resolve conflicts with my wife, even ones that would end our marriage. I'm confident of this because we've put lots of work into resolving conflicts, including getting counseling and lots of advice from people who are good at it. We've worked through really hard conflicts. That means we would reach an agreement, and no law would force us to do anything else.

    The laws come in when mean people are involved, and they're trying to screw each other over. That's why the laws need to be fair. If you can explain to me how they're unfair, then I'll support reforming them.

    But if you tell me all women are lying sluts, then I'm going to tell you to get your head out of your ass. Because that's prejudice and that has nothing to do with reforming laws.

    How many of you manospheroids actually work on reforming laws? Show of hands. I work on that kind of stuff. I go to meetings of legislative bodies. I've run petitioning and political campaigns. I've even been a candidate for public office. If you're trying to get support for reforming laws, you can't do it if you lead with the idea that women are evil whores. Because guess what? That alienates a very large portion of the electorate. Civics 101: reforming laws means convincing people to vote for reform. Want votes? Learn politics.

    ReplyDelete
  67. > Joe: I married a feminist and it worked out great for me so fuck all you other men.

    Did I say that? No. Do I think that? No.

    My point is not "fuck all you other men". My point is, resolving conflicts in relationships is a learnable skill. Learn it, and the resolutions of those conflicts will be better. Even if you're dealing with someone who's trying to screw you over.

    > If you have no problem with a critique of divorce laws, answer the questions I asked.

    I said "serious" critique. Come back when you know the first thing about criticism, or law.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Wow, just wow. I have never seen a bigger bunch of whiny-ass babies on the internet as these MRA guys. It's truly remarkable. No capacity for insight at all. It's all everyone else's fault.

    Here's a test, using Occam's Razor: either you all are the most unlucky oppressed people in all of history, or maybe, just maybe, you bear some responsibility for your own misfortunes. Which is more likely?

    Wait, I already know the answer: it's all the fault of feminists. I guess it's easier than taking responsibility for your own lives.

    ReplyDelete
  69. richard, you could walk into your mother's house tomorrow and find your mom riding the mailman like a pony!

    Oh, when I said "your mother" I didn't mean "your mother." I meant a hypothetical mother.

    ReplyDelete
  70. @ David

    Yes, she could. It is within the realm of possiblity.

    Now see, I didn't get all hysterical about it now did I?

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  71. @ Captain Bathrobe

    Yeah it's all the MRA's fault. The MRA's wrote anti male laws so that they could have something to bitch about on the internet. MRA are at fault for shit laws passes by non MRA's, good fucking logic there genius.

    God you feminists are tools. Who's done more whining in the last 40 years or so than feminsts? Keep kissing their asses "male" feminists. Maybe you'll get a nice pat on the head.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  72. @ Joe

    You didn't say it but that's your attitude clear as day.

    And as for your avoid mean people tripe, when mean people are forced to wear big buttons saying "I am mean, stay away!" come back and talk to me.

    Lastly, just because you and your wife can work things out doesn't mean that other people can do the same.

    As for you genius in knowing the law, if it's anything like you genius on the board I'd say you're the one who needs to learn something.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  73. Mr. Futrelle,

    I've been lurking on your blog for close to a month now, and I finally found a reason to delurk with this particular post. Which surprised me. As much as I enjoy your blog, I enjoy the comments that get posted even more.

    So on to my own comment: In reading Joe's comments I wanted to put out a supposition.

    Some commenters on this blog seem to have had at least one bad, perhaps horrific, experience with a woman or with multiple women. This indicates they keep repeating the selection of a certain type of woman guaranteed to hurt them.

    Since I know women who have done this as well, the parallel should be considered. Which begs the following question:

    If every woman you are attracted to treats you like something on the bottom of their shoe, have you ever thought that maybe the problem is at least partly yours? To rephrase: if there are women out there who would rather be mistreated by men, surely the inverse could be true, and there are men who like to be mistreated by skanks?

    Just food for thought.

    ReplyDelete
  74. > You didn't say it but that's your attitude clear as day.

    No, it's not my attitude. It just isn't. Since you don't respect me enough to have noticed that, I'm done with you.

    ReplyDelete
  75. John Dias: "'Whoever told you about palimony laws in CA was dead wrong.'

    "It's called spousal support."

    So, we're talking about married people? My apologies. I thought you were talking about monetary awards given to one party of an unmarried couple. A Marvin action, if you will. This is, of course, very different from spousal support.

    ReplyDelete
  76. > If every woman you are attracted to treats you like something on the bottom of their shoe, have you ever thought that maybe the problem is at least partly yours?

    Well, that's the thing. They're not forced to wear big buttons that read "I'm mean, stay away!"

    ReplyDelete
  77. This is all just so sad. The situations that these guys come up with to be married, it's like a bad sci-fi/romantic comedy. UUGG.
    They obviously want to or they would not spend that much time and effort talking about it. How can they not see through their own crap? Wow. Just all kinds of fail and WTFness.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Well, that's the thing. They're not forced to wear big buttons that read "I'm mean, stay away!"

    Guess that's just one more thing that the MRM will have to add to their To Do list.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Joe...Don't marry someone if you don't like marriage laws. This is the same advice the MGTOW give, except that instead of just giving that advice, they also express a lot of prejudice towards women.

    This is an interesting advice, don't marry. For MRAs however your general advice is not correct and not acceptable. Thank you.

    Marriage laws are not the same everywhere.
    There are countries where I recommend marriage, and there are countries with feminist laws where I recommend to reject even any private contact with any female.

    MRAs do not express prejudice towards ALL women as you are trying to suggest. This is a feminist lie.

    MRAs are often married, have children, but we are against laws, which are discriminating against men.

    MRAs advice men to be mistrusting against the legal system and women in feminist countries, as laws are against men, often misused and because how do you know who is who.

    Sorry, some good woman might suffer in Western countries because of mistrust and rejection of men, but she better should complain about feminists who are responsible for that legal mess and not about MRAs.

    MRAs do not talk about MARRIAGE laws, we talk about unfair DIVORCE laws.

    Unfair divorce - A subject you try to avoid even to mention in your comment.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Joe.... If you're trying to get support for reforming laws, you can't do it if you lead with the idea that women are evil whores.

    Interesting argument and more interesting to observe that it works perfectly this way in the other direction - all men are generally assholes, wife-beaters, rapists, dead-beat fathers, pedophiles, old fat losers with foreign wives and this list continues and continues...

    Any thought, Mr. Joe?

    ReplyDelete
  81. richard said...
    @ Joe
    .....
    As for you genius in knowing the law, if it's anything like you genius on the board I'd say you're the one who needs to learn something.


    Typically for feminist arguments, Joe is only mentioning 'the law', but fails to do a deeper research into how very much single-sided these laws are executed against men.

    Western family laws are widely open for misuse by malicious females, supported by feminist organizations and greedy lawyers and offer plenty of legal loopholes to rip off men over decades.

    ReplyDelete
  82. @Yohan

    Ever done any work on legislative reform?

    I have, on the issue of ballot access laws that are unfair to independents and third parties. I've knocked on hundreds of doors, raised thousands of dollars, held press conferences, appeared on talk radio, run bus and television ads, appeared in court to testify against partisan attempts to unfairly remove third-party-initiated referenda from the ballot, spoken at numerous public meetings of legislative bodies, and ran for county-wide office on a platform that included reform of election laws (I got ~30% of the vote as a third-party candidate, which means I got >1000 votes in my district). All this effort has had some results. Among other things, we got court decisions and legislation passed that reduced the unfairly high signature requirements placed on independent candidates in our state.

    I know about legislative reform *from having done it*. Now what are you bringing to this discussion? Got any specific laws and suggested reforms you want to mention, or some specific actions you want people to take to bring about this reform? Can you link to a petition, or some other campaign that might actually impact legislation? Are there any specific legislators or candidates you're targeting who might be amenable to enacting this kind of reform? If not, do you plan on running a candidate on platform that includes reforming divorce laws?

    And if you're not doing this kind of stuff, or volunteering for people who are doing this stuff, then how do you expect any of this legislative reform to happen?

    ReplyDelete
  83. Why do you give an evasive answer, Mr. Joe?

    You said:

    Joe.... If you're trying to get support for reforming laws, you can't do it if you lead with the idea that women are evil whores.


    And I was asking you why it works exactly like that against men...

    Yohan..... it works perfectly this way in the other direction - all men are generally assholes, wife-beaters, rapists, dead-beat fathers, pedophiles, old fat losers with foreign wives and this list continues and continues...
    Any thought, Mr. Joe?


    You are claiming you are working as a politician, right?

    May I ask you what will you ever do for men should voters elect you?

    About your questions, I expect US-MRAs to reply. I am an MRA since decades, but not from the USA. Men's rights are an international issue, it's not limited to men living in the USA.

    I am also astonished that US-politicians are presenting their opinion 'anonymously'.
    If you have any clear program and not only empty talk for gender politics, why do you not present them and introduce yourself with your real name?

    ReplyDelete
  84. so david, as far as I can tell richard aka random brother continues to lobby personal attacks at each and every feminist who posts on this site. When exactly are you going to ban him since he deliberately says things that go against your comment policy?

    ReplyDelete
  85. joe, don't try talking to them about the actual legislation that you support getting passed. Apparently no matter what law it is that we are fighting for, even if it is SHOCKING one which the MGTOW and MRM folks want we are wrong. I posted on here about the domestic violence law that I helped get passed, a law which made it possible for male victims of domestic violence to obtain shelter and legal justice and was informed that I did not indeed do that but passed a law to hurt men because somehow a domestic violence law whose only purpose was to balance the law to help male victims was somehow harming men overall. I'm sure they are going to lobby attacks at you saying that all you did was make it easier for feminists to get elected blah blah blah bitch moan whine. It's not even worth trying to argue with them anymore, especially richard. Do know however that those of us who are also feminists and heavily involved in political activism appreciate what you have done to help

    ReplyDelete
  86. When exactly are you going to ban him...
    I think David's just showing how he's equal opportunity, giving Random Bro a peenie pass and all.
    Besides, with his clever [chortle!] and cliché personal attacks, he presents himself as a perfect example of man-boobery and misogny.

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

    ReplyDelete
  88. there was a typo in that. I am so thrilled to have physical violence threatened against me to allow the misogynist to be mocked

    ReplyDelete
  89. rebekah, my inclination is to have as hands-off a moderation policy as possible, and not to delete posts or ban people unless they get *really* obnoxious and disruptive. If someone wants to make dumb blanket statements about feminists in general, I let them do it. When they get really personal and obnoxious, I do delete comments, and I've deleted a handful of richard's comments for that. But generally I try to stay hands-off. There are advantages and disadvantages to that kind of comments policy, but that's what it is, at least for now.

    ReplyDelete
  90. rebekah, I wrote my last comment before seeing your last comment. If someone is threatening violence that is obviously not ok. But I don't remember seeing any comments from richard that did threaten violence. I may have missed them. Could you point me to the specific comments?

    ReplyDelete
  91. rebekah,

    I'm sorry if you truly believe that Richard is a physical threat to you, but silencing him would not make him any less of a threat. Indeed, that would render him and the possibility of his carrying out his physical threats "invisible", which, in my opinion, would be a far more dangerous thing to do. Merely banning him or deleting those specific comments would not be an appropriate course of action.

    ReplyDelete
  92. @Yohan

    >> Joe.... If you're trying to get support for reforming laws, you can't do it if you lead with the idea that women are evil whores.

    > And I was asking you why it works exactly like that against men..

    Where did you read that? Because you didn't learn that from actually doing any political work.

    > May I ask you what will you ever do for men should voters elect you?

    I've already done political work that benefits men. In particular, I've done a lot of work on the rights of prisoners, which mostly benefited male prisoners in our state and county.

    - I have spoken out repeatedly against the death penalty and have signed numerous petitions and donated money to anti-death-penalty groups;
    - I participated in a campaign to cancel a predatory contract that was charging prisoners exorbitant telephone fees in our county jail; and
    - I spoke out in strong terms against the use of tasers in our prison system; a police sergeant in our sherriff's department was later convicted of using tasers to torture male prisoners in the county jail.

    > If you have any clear program and not only empty talk for gender politics, why do you not present them and introduce yourself with your real name?

    I am with the Green Party. Our US national platform is here:

    http://www.gp.org/platform.shtml

    The platform includes feminism. Note that what we mean by "feminism" is equal rights, regardless of sex. If you have a problem with that (you shouldn't), then support some other party, or start your own like we did.

    Or you can just keep trolling feminist blogs. You decide which one is going to be more effective.

    ReplyDelete
  93. @ david it was one on the page that made me so angry to start mocking him. It was directed at both booboonation and I where he basically said that what happened to rep giffords should happen to us. He then went on to say that it should happen to all women. Earlier in that same comment he had called us c*nts so you may have deleted it on that without seeing the threatened violence.

    ReplyDelete
  94. @ Rebekah

    That's a lie. I've never called anyone on this board the "c" word that I can recall.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  95. Rebekah wrote:
    "I am so thrilled to have physical violence threatened against me to allow the misogynist to be mocked..."

    "it [the alleged threat] was one on the page that made me so angry to start mocking him. It was directed at both booboonation and I where he basically said that what happened to rep giffords should happen to us. He then went on to say that it should happen to all women. Earlier in that same comment he had called us c*nts so you may have deleted it on that without seeing the threatened violence."

    I believe that this is the comment in question, the allegedly threatening one made by Richard:

    "This is just a lame excuse to try and give feminuts more power. You'll claim the killing was based on misogyny. Then you'll advocate for more laws against 'hate speech' all the while retaining your right to insult and degrade anyone who disagrees with you.

    You claim that hatred of women drove him to kill. I hate the subset of women that are feminists. I
    haven't harmed any feminst or woman.

    Maybe
    feminists like Giffords should look in a mirror and see how awful their actions are instead of blaming others.

    Random Brother"

    http://www.manboobz.com/2011/01/is-jared-loughner-misogynist-does.html?showComment=1295513037821#c8540194424016555498



    The above comment is political advocacy against making more feminist-supported laws under the pretext that political beliefs are inciting violence against women. In other words Richard was speaking out against criminalizing what are known in authoritarian regimes as "thought crimes." It is a political statement, not a threat in itself nor a justification of violence.

    The above comment by Richard also seems to dispute the notion that hatred of women was the particular or primary motivation behind the killer's murders and attempted murders. Can you please explain how this amounts to Richard placing blame on the victims?

    ReplyDelete
  96. Elizabeth said...
    Yohan, why should he? Why should he not? As a politician he should not be ignorant and arrogant to refuse to
    January 22, 2011 3:48 PM


    answer questions, even if these questions are disturbing him so much and he considers such questions as 'trolling'.

    He could even find some additional feminist voters with replying in internet blogs and forums and it costs him nothing.

    Joe.....I am with the Green Party. Our US national platform is here:
    http://www.gp.org/platform.shtml
    The platform includes feminism. Note that what we mean by 'feminism' is equal rights, regardless of sex.


    http://www.gp.org/tenkey.shtml
    No. 7, feminism and gender equity

    This text is rather lukewarm and might be used either for or against any agenda.

    I wonder if it is solely about gender equity, why to mention 'feminism' in the same sentence?

    This means, that feminism and gender-equity are 2 different things.

    What might be the difference between feminism and gender-equity? Anybody who can explain?

    Does this mean the Green Party is a feminist party?

    Please be aware, that in Sweden the feminist party (FI) was totally voted out by the huge majority of Swedish voters, regardless their gender.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_Initiative_(Sweden)

    Good luck to you, Mr Joe.

    ReplyDelete
  97. rebekah said...
    joe, ..... I'm sure they are going to lobby attacks at you saying that all you did was make it easier for feminists to get elected ...


    http://www.gp.org/tenkey.shtml
    Ten Key Values of the Green Party

    Support of feminism is mentioned as one of the 10 key values of the GreenParty, Joe is presenting.

    Indeed, this US-GreenParty gives preference to feminists and will make it easier for them to be elected.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Richard,

    Ah. Sticking with whiny victimhood, then? Well, at least you're consistent.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Not really Yohan, most offices are so small in nature of votes that it is not worth it.

    For instance, I know one person here locally who reads this blog and *I* told her about it.

    ReplyDelete
  100. rebekah.

    Stop acting like a boy acting as a girl.

    Lets take a step back and understand what's going to happen with this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  101. rebekah, richard, et al:

    Looking aback through the various Giffords threads, richard did say a lot of obnoxious stuff -- that he doesn't give a shit about Giffords because she in his mind is an enemy of men, that any man who helped to save her life was like a "house slave," some personal attacks (one pretty obnoxious one directed at booboo). But I didn't see any threats or any use of "c*nt."

    I also looked through deleted comments, which I save, and didn't see any from him in there that fit this description either.

    It's possible I missed the comment in question, though I looked fairly carefully. If anyone does find such a comment, please post a link.

    A lot of richard's comments are borderline cases; generally in such cases I don't delete.

    ReplyDelete
  102. @Yohan

    > this US-GreenParty gives preference to feminists and will make it easier for them to be elected.

    Wow, you're dense. Did you actually read the platform? How about this section?

    http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/democracy.html#307054

    Here in the US, we are calling for reforms that'll make it *easier* for *any* US citizen to run for office, *even if they don't agree with our platform*.

    We're a feminist party, and we're trying to get feminists elected, so if you're a not a feminist, don't try to join. Start your own party or run as an independent--we're trying to make that easier for you, and you're welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Joe, in most states it is pretty easy to run for office.

    Arizona, you just need to file a certain number of signatures on a properly created and filled out form and you are off and running.

    ReplyDelete
  104. @Elizabeth

    It's easy if you're a Democrat or a Republican. The problem is ballot access for third parties and independents, and in some states there are unfairly high barriers, starting with signature requirements, where we've seen laws where third-party candidates and independents need to gather 10x more signatures than D's or R's. For details, see the non-partisan Free and Equal:

    http://www.freeandequal.org/

    ReplyDelete

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

Sociable

ShareThis