Saturday, March 31, 2012

Fathers Screwed Again; But Euros Have Nothing on U.S.!


Read the following carefully. What it amounts to is women screwing one man, and then choosing a second to "act as day-to-day father." HOW QUAINT!

European Court Deals Blow to Fathers’ Rights

March 29th, 2012 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

In Germany, and now in Europe generally, biological fathers have no parental rights as long as another man plays the role of father. That’s the ruling of the European Court for Human Rights. Read about it here (The Local, 3/22/12).

German courts had previously ruled the same way, and their decisions were upheld by the European court.

The rights of fathers to develop and continue relationships with their children do not grant them the right to challenge the position of the legal fathers, the court said.

A 41-year-old man from Berlin had a relationship with a woman who had been living with another man. When she had a baby, her live-in partner was registered as the father and the couple raised the child.

When her lover challenged this, he was recognised by a court expert as the biological father, but was denied legal paternity in the interests of the child.

The second case involved another 41-year-old man from Willich in North Rhine-Westphalia whose ex-wife had a baby four months after they divorced. She later declared a new partner to be the father and then married him.

A German court, now supported by the European one, ruled that the biological father had no right to legally-recognised paternity – the child already had a legal father.

Child Abduction: Could it be...shhhh... ILLEGAL?!?!?!

Want to know the really pathetic truth to this? The Feds and their child support money to the states for-deadbeat dad hunting, turning dad-killing into a FOR PROFIT BOUNTY, have created this. Now any parent who has lost custody will be BANKRUPTED AND ONLY BE ABLE TO "VISIT" THEIR OWN CHILDREN IF THEY'RE LUCKY. And snagging another mate!?!?! IMPOSSIBLE!

So what the F*CK DO YOU EXPECT!?!?!?!

Child custody fights could hurt US-Japan ties

February 03, 2010|Associated Press
    • ShareThisNew
    • Print

TOKYO - Japan should work to solve problems in international custody cases so that children of broken marriages have access to both parents, a senior US official said yesterday, hinting that the issue could hurt bilateral relations.

Visiting US Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell said Japan’s position has “raised very real concerns among senior and prominent Americans in Congress, on Capitol Hill, and elsewhere.’’

Japan has not signed an international convention on child abductions, and its domestic family law permits only one parent to have custody of children in cases of divorce, nearly always the mother. That leaves many fathers, including foreigners, unable to see their children in Japan until they are grown up.

There are about 70 cases of American parents who are kept from seeing their children in Japan, and Campbell met with several of them in a group earlier yesterday. He called their situations “heartbreaking.’’

Steve Christie, an American university instructor who lives in Japan and met with Campbell, said he has rarely seen his son the past four years ever since his wife, whom he has divorced, suddenly left with the boy.

“This is our life and blood, this is our offspring, and we’re being denied a chance to see them,’’ said Christie, 50. “It’s not right, it’s immoral, it’s unethical.’’

In some cases, Japanese mothers living overseas have fled to Japan with their children and kept the fathers from having any contact, even if court rulings abroad ordered joint custody.

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Flash: Kids Don't Need Parents, Just Orphanages

The what? The "case for".... orphanages? Right. Is this an early April Fool's day joke? Ever ask a kid what he thought of an orphanage? Of course not. Because, you're an idiot, Mr. Harmon. Kids from orphanages report feeling desperately sad, mainly because they don't know why their parents gave them up. So would you, so would I. When one parent is crazy, you give the child to the other parent. Period. GENDER DOES NOT FUCKING MATTER.

At present, only moms get kids after marriage - about 90% of the time. In most states in the U.S., if a mom is crazy - like the one below - then dad is ignored and bypassed and the kids go into state care, and typically given to foster care homes run by psychos or scam artists, who get state aid for the kids and pump them full of anti-depressants to control them. Otherwise the kids go into an orphanage - which has no parents or surrogate parents, just EMPLOYEES. To run a proper orphanage, with full-time care for the kids, including health care, activities, etc., well, requires millions. Think of prisons or old-age homes. These are facilities that meet all the needs of a group of people with no serious neglect. ANY IDEA HOW EXPENSIVE THOSE PLACES ARE? They're comically expensive. And you would hope an orphanage is better run than a prison (realistically, the prison probably is).

Meanwhile the child(ren) could have a dad who wants to raise them but is disallowed by the Nazis, er, state, because he does not provide "the best available possible home environment for the child." To translate for you who haven't read what I've read, that means since dad is unmarried AND A MAN, he's considered to be a philandering asshole who neglects or abuses kids, REGARDLESS OF ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. The state labels him as "sub-optimum" and then RETAINS CONTROL over the children and puts them wherever they want, whenever they want. The child's natural parent IS REPLACED BY A BUREAUCRACY. Let me guess..... THE STATE IS IN FAVOR OF THIS IDEA? The same state who then demands INCREASING FUNDS for all of their "child welfare programs?!?!? Paint me shocked.

I literally have PHYSICAL, LEGAL DOCUMENTS of a father who's ex-girlfriend ABANDONED his son and after he ran to his son's aid, he was DENIED CUSTODY OF HIS OWN SON by the state who labeled him "sub-optimum." This, to a man who was from a large, Spanish, Catholic family where extended family lived in the same household and their entire way of life held family ties to be the most important thing in the world. If you don't believe me, go hang out with some moral, church-going Spanish folks and tell me what you find out.

Once again, the Constitution of the United States of America comes dead last and State Greed, Power, Lust, and Control comes FIRST, LAST, AND ALWAYS.

The case for orphanages


March 23, 2012|By Lawrence Harmon
COULD ANYONE in their right mind deny that the 3-year-old daughter and 8-year-old son of Tanicia Goodwin would have been better off in an orphanage than at home with their mother or in a foster care placement that would eventually lead back to her?
This week, Salem police accused Goodwin, 25, of attempting to murder her children - Erica and Jamaal - by slashing their little throats. It’s an extreme case. But thousands of other Massachusetts children carry scars on their bodies and psyches from their biological parents.
Goodwin poses a severe test to the underlying family preservation philosophy of the state Department of Children and Families, the agency charged with protecting children from abuse and neglect. The agency sees its mission not only as physical protection but as making “every reasonable effort’’ to keep family units intact. That mission reflects, in part, the social work profession’s decades-long bias against long-term institutional care. But it also reflects a simplistic view of orphanages as some Dickensian throwback where little kids go begging for bowls of gruel. What social workers should fear instead is the isolation of the Salem public housing unit where, according to police, Goodwin tried to kill her children.
Intensive investigations are under way. But no one should be surprised to learn weeks from now that the caseworkers and courts did everything by the book. Child protection workers followed their ‘kin first’ mandate some seven years ago when Goodwin asked voluntarily for her cousin to take guardianship of Jamaal. And the system respected “the right of families to be free from unwarranted state intervention’’ when it returned Jamaal to Goodwin in 2010.
Then, in May, child protection workers received and responded to a report that Goodwin physically abused her son in the course of disciplining him. She cooperated with caseworkers, signed a safety plan, and accepted child care and after school services. Even marginal improvements on the part of an abusive parent count heavily toward retaining custody under the shaky family-preservation model.
Still, social workers in Massachusetts remove about 4,500 children from their homes for parental abuse or neglect each year and place them in the care of relatives, foster families, or small group homes. Within seven or eight months, about 90 percent of the children are back under the care of their parents, according to state officials. And within a year of their return, about 15 percent of those children must be removed from the home again.
It would be far kinder to “institutionalize’’ these returnees than to keep them in a years-long cycle of abuse and foster care placements. Especially given the modern incarnation of orphanages......

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Janet Tavakoli: Dead Perfect, Again

Ms. Tavakoli has had an unsuccessful personal life. But God Bless the woman for having more courage than anyone else in calling a spade a spade regarding the financial crisis.

Monday, March 26, 2012

The Ultimate Buffoon: Allred

You may or may not have heard of Gloria Allred.

Hopefully, you haven't. She's a cold, cynical, bitter, aged scoundrel. An attorney, man-hater, and fame-seeker. Does it get any worse? Pretty much, no.

She claims to be gender neutral and she has represented men in gender discrimination suits, but its jut to make her look more rounded. Her success is in slandering men, especially high-profile playboys that in no way resemble the 99% of men out there trying to live and work and raise a family. Her worst argument is so pathetic it can only be the argument of someone who is wrong and reaching for anything to win the argument.

Lately she's been representing ex-girlfriends of playboys. Yeah. Like everyone didn't know this guy, who is an international golfer/soccer/basketball/finance billionaire is just out for sex and clearly not really in the market to marry her client - a porn star or hotel employee who willingly and freely had sex with said playboy. What this moron lawyer is trying to argue - in vain - is that the man made some kind of contract by having sex with her client and that this non-existent contract should be used to fleece him for money, emotions, an apology and a number of other absurdities. All because her client, was naive, stupid, horny at the time, or all of the above. There is a reason why mistresses are typically hot and dumb - smart women know when they're being used for sex (and some are game to use and be used if they are after the same thing), and they generally avoid it.

Gloia Allred tries to make money off of women who claim not to know what they were doing - even when they were sleeping with a married man. So she bandies about the worst examples of male playboys she can think of - mainly Tiger Woods.

ALLRED: Of course, she did. But do you care about women being hurt by men whom they trusted, whom they loved, who they had every reason to believe loved them?

MORGAN: I get that.

ALLRED: I mean, that's it. And do you care about the rights of women? Do you care about all those women across this country who are being hurt, and men treat them like, oh, well, they're just an afterthought. They're a footnote. They can walk away after being in a long-term relationship.

Not being hurt is not a legal or moral right, crazy lady. She says, DO YOU CARE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN!?!?! And then goes on to rail about how women are being mistreated. First off, and with apologies, fuck the rights of women. Seriously. Women have more rights than men in this country and that's a fact. Look up the "Violence Against Women Act" and tell me I'm wrong. Violence is illegal - PERIOD. Discrimination is illegal. Period. There is no reason to make a separate set of laws unless for women unless its for an ulterior motive.

Secondly, women hurt men all the time - and again, so what? Its not illegal to hurt someone! Its not nice! But its not fucking illegal! Nor should it be! GIVE ME A BREAK!

Secondly, men do not just "walk away" after a long-term relationship, #1. #2, her clients didn't even have long-term relationships, so what is she talking about? I know plenty of divorced men. They're a bucket of parts. They're devastated, half-human beings. They're shattered. They look at women and run the other way. If that wasn't bad enough, they're financially devastated by the woman who left them. The real problem is that so many women are so full of anxiety and fear of not being young and sexy enough that they leave "BEFORE they are left." (Husbands begging for explanations as to why THEY were left, receive none or are told "its obvious things aren't working out." This can be for anything from forgetting a holiday to being too tired to have sex - yeah, that's right. Women need sex and if they don't get it, most automatically figure its because they don't look good - as if the suddenly became ugly or something.) You would not BELIEVE how often that happens.

Strangely, Ms. Allred argues that these short-term sex pals that she represents - some of whom are literally porn stars - are best discussed by examining every woman in the United States of America who is being, or has been hurt by, a man - in any way, shape or form. Whether the American woman hurt this man first, cheated on him, abused him, left him, has severe emotional problems, etc., is all totally irrelevant to Ms. Allred. Women are being hurt and that is all you need care about, dear reader. As if we should burn the Constitution and start over because women experience emotional pain.

The ACTUAL TRUTH is irrelevant to this lawyer as it is to most lawyers. Unless you are savagely attacked by a stranger, which is very rare, you probably are involved in some way when you are hurt and chances are you did a little hurting to your mate, yourself. Ms. Allred dodges this question, repeatedly, as she's worried about her clients being seen as adults instead of grown children.

Furthermore, she acts as though her clients are CHAINED to the perpetrator. These are not CRIMINAL issues. She's trying to steal money on behalf of someone who had their FEELINGS HURT but are otherwise fine - someone who could've called their lover a louse and walked out the door WHENEVER THEY WANTED TO. Basically she represents people who take no personal responsibility for much of anything, including dating a jerk.

Men of course, and their feelings, are never discussed. Jerks are made, not born, Ms. Allred. Every good guy who has tried to act like a jerk to get a girl has failed; trust me, I've known plenty of good guys. Male jerks, I think you'll find were hurt quite badly at some point and simply never recovered; they hide their feelings away and keep women at an emotional distance - men DIVORCED by their wives are good examples of this. Of course, good looking women can have any sweet, nice guy they want. Many choose jerks instead. Don't believe me? Find the "nice" guys on a college campus and ask them who gets first shot at the pretty girls - trust me, they'll tell you its the pompous, arrogant athletes, not the nice boys you'd bring home to mom. When a good guy chooses a woman who is a jerk, he's laughed at, mocked, jeered, and generally treated like a fool who just bought a used car, unseen and undriven and discovered its a mess. What would Ms. Allred have women who choose a bad guy do? Sue him for being a jerk?

Now that's a real practical idea, isn't it?

Its an idea only a lawyer could come up with, because lawyers get rich off such drivel. This type of garbage philosophy was formerly kept to the fringes of society, but now its gone mainstream. If you are a student of societies as I am, THIS IS A VERY BAD SIGN.

p.s. Ms Allred has been married and divorced twice. I'm guessing she did nothing wrong in both marriages and the men were both to blame. Just ask her.

Whole Transcript:

MORGAN: Do you wake up and feel angry for the men? Or is it all women against men?

ALLRED: Well, we actually have had a number of cases, where we represent men who have been discriminated against in employment, on account of their gender.

But we've had those cases in the past. I objected many years ago -- and this was a well-known case -- for at the beginning of my career, when there was a commission on the status of women that was created, I believe in Santa Monica, and they excluded men from being able to participate.

And I went before the court, and I argued that that was discrimination against men, that men have a stake in the equality for women, and that men should not be excluded from that conversation, and especially not from a governmental entity that was going to opine about that.

MORGAN: Does it worry you that for all the very good cases you fight, where there's clear evidence of discrimination or harassment or whatever it may be -- does it worry you that you have almost single- handedly created an atmosphere, a culture, perhaps, where people who want to try it on, and who want to make a few quick bucks, like claiming discrimination and harassment, can now do that because of this atmosphere that you have helped propagate? Does that worry you?

ALLRED: No, not at all, because we are a plaintiff's law firm. We screen our cases very, very carefully. We make sure that we have the facts. We've investigated the facts. And you know, we can only take a small number of a little of the cases that people ask us to take. So, no, the weak cases, we are not taking.

But I'm happy when women who believe they have been discriminated against on account of their gender seek the advice of any attorney, whether it's myself or anyone else in the country, and say, I feel that I've been discriminated against on the job, or sexually harassed.

Is there something I can do about it? Do I have a strong enough case?

I don't want them to judge that themselves. We act like private attorney generals in enforcing the rights. And we look forward to women standing up and asserting their rights, and protecting their rights and vindicating their rights in a court of law. And we're very proud of those women who have the courage to do so.

MORGAN: And men.

ALLRED: And men as well, but --

MORGAN: Occasionally. Let's take a little break, come back and get into some of the more high-profile cases you've taken on.

ALLRED: Love it.

MORGAN: Because you seem to be popping up with almost all of them, Gloria, one of the more predictable elements of any scandal is you and that a little red top of yours.



ALLRED: Mr. Polanski was able to victimize another child while he was a fugitive from justice.

I think we're beginning to unmask Scott Peterson. We'll find out who he really is.

It is time for Tiger Woods to take responsibility for the deep pain that he has inflicted on Veronica.

MORGAN: Just some of the high-profile cases that have had Gloria Allred all over our TV screens in the past few years, and she's back with me now.

I mean, you do pop up when you're -- I guess the people you're taking on least want you to. And for that reason, you've become the kind of legal agent provocateur, haven't you? Do you like that status?

ALLRED: Well, I like empowering my clients. I like providing them with a voice that they otherwise might not have, because I think they matter. The typical person matters, not just celebrities in our culture matter, and this is what we do.

We go up against the rich, the powerful, the famous, big corporations, government, celebrities, batterers, wrongdoers, killers, wrongdoers of all kinds, sexual harassers.

And we allow that individual person to fight that -- I'll call it a David and Goliath battle, or David and Goliath battle, and often win. And yes, people say, oh, my God, I mean, how could you go up against them?

I mean, these celebrities, often, they have their entourages. They have their PR people and an army of lawyers and their managers and everybody else. And who does that individual person have? They have us and they get to have a voice.

MORGAN: Roman Polanski, I totally get, because there you have very serious allegations of serious sexual misconduct.

Tiger Woods is an interesting case to me, because he's a golfer. What really is the public interest in exposing Tiger Woods when it comes down to -- yes, there's the role model argument and he's making money for whoever, Gillette or whoever it may be.

But actually, does it matter what Tiger Woods does in his private life? Why did you feel compelled to expose him?

ALLRED: Well, it matters if any man hurts any woman. And in the case of Joslyn James, whom I represented, she was hurt. She was deceived. She was lied to, and he never even offered an apology. They had a --


MORGAN: She was a porn, right?

ALLRED: They had -- she had -- she was an adult film star, yes.

MORGAN: And she went on to make an adult movie based on Tiger Woods' text messages.

ALLRED: Well, she, you know, she has a right to have a career. She gave it up for him.

MORGAN: Yes, but how's that --

ALLRED: Let me just say, he asked her to give up her career because he was jealous that she would be with anyone else. She did at great economic sacrifice to herself.


ALLRED: And then --

MORGAN: But she doesn't seem to have been --

ALLRED: After the scandal -- yes, she had to go and make a living.

MORGAN: Yes, but I mean, go and make a living, she would have made a porn movie starring Tiger Woods' text message. I mean, how hurt could she have been if she felt able to do that? That's my point.

ALLRED: You know, those of us who are -- lead a more privileged life and are able to make a very nice living the way you are and the way I am, I don't think we should look down our nose at other people who have to make difficult choices about how they make a living. It's not for me to sit here --

MORGAN: No, no, don't get me wrong.

ALLRED: -- and judge or second-guess how anybody makes a living -- I'm so glad that anyone is able to work.

MORGAN: Rewind. I wasn't making any moral judgment about her career. She's perfectly entitled to be in the entertainment industry. My point is, how hurt could she have been by Tiger Woods if she then just, the moment it was over, went out and made loads of money making porn movies starring his text messages?

It seemed to me that she was one of the cases where you were at your weakest, and you've had so many where you've been very strong. And I just wonder sometimes, when you watch what she did afterwards, do you slightly sit back and go, maybe I should have left that one alone?

ALLRED: Not at all.

MORGAN: Really?

ALLRED: No. I'm --


ALLRED: No, I mean, you know, I'm not a politician that sits there and puts my finger in the wind, sees which way it's blowing.

I'm going to stand up for women. I've stood up for women who are adult film stars. I've stood up for women who are judges, secretaries, factory workers, farm workers -- you name it, we've had it, just about. And I --

MORGAN: Do you ever regret afterwards taking on cases, because of the way that perhaps the person you've been defending or prosecuting on behalf of, because of their behavior afterwards, you have moments of self-reflection afterwards?

ALLRED: No, I'm so proud of my clients and the courage they've shown. You have no idea.

We are living -- I feel I live in a war zone every day for women, where we are fighting for their rights against very powerful, very well-funded forces, and I'm just so proud of the courage of my clients, because they come in. They're often crying -- like at a glass table like this, tears all over the place.

And then I see them evolve into -- from victims to survivors to fighters for change and standing up and being empowered, and then going on and empowering their children and their coworkers and other people in their community.

MORGAN: Where does, for example, the rights of Tiger Woods' wife override the rights of the adult entertainment star who's been having an affair with him, who just feels a bit, you know, aggrieved by the fact he isn't actually going to stay with her? Where do the rights of his wife come into that, in terms of your moral compass?

ALLRED: I wouldn't characterize the fact that Ms. James was upset that he wouldn't stay with her, OK?

It was his lying, it was the deception, it was the way he treated her, after three years of an intimate relationship, over a thousand text messages, and flying her around and making her feel that she was the only one.

As to his wife, of course she has rights, and I assume that she asserted them, and I'm glad that she did so, because that would be her right. MORGAN: Yes, but you know the point I'm getting at, right, is that, you know, you sort of paint a very compelling picture, because you're very eloquent about this, of this poor, unsuspecting adult entertainment star who got duped by Tiger Woods --

ALLRED: Well, do you think it's OK, Piers, for men to lie to women and break their hearts? I don't. I make no apology for that.

MORGAN: No, what I wonder, though --

ALLRED: I don't think that men should be able to hurt women and then just walk away and throw them out like a piece of garbage.

MORGAN: But she knew that he was married.

ALLRED: Well, of course she knew that he was married, but --

MORGAN: Does she -- does she not care about Ms. Woods?

ALLRED: Of course, she did. But do you care about women being hurt by men whom they trusted, whom they loved, who they had every reason to believe loved them?

MORGAN: I get that.

ALLRED: I mean, that's it. And do you care about the rights of women? Do you care about all those women across this country who are being hurt, and men treat them like, oh, well, they're just an afterthought. They're a footnote. They can walk away after being in a long-term relationship.

MORGAN: I'm not condoning any of it. What I'm saying to you is, though, that if you're Ms. Woods, and you see this adult entertainment star claiming my life's been ruined, and then she just goes out and starts making movies --

ALLRED: She didn't say my life's been ruined, and, again, you know, again, those of us who have a lot of opportunities shouldn't look down on those who are trying to make a living.

MORGAN: No, no.

ALLRED: And I -- and you know what, I make --


MORGAN: -- trying to paint me as a --

ALLRED: I don't represent his wife. I don't know what her thoughts were, but I --

MORGAN: No, I'm not making any moral --

ALLRED: -- I'm glad that she stood up for herself.

MORGAN: I think it's interesting about -- I'm not making any moral position or argument about what she does for a living. What I'm saying is, if you go out after all this, after you've gone public and said, Tiger Woods treated me really badly, he lied to me, he broke promises and so on -- fine.

But if you then go and make these movies, based on his text messages, all that's going to do is really add to the hurt and humiliation and public shame of Tiger Woods' wife. And I'm curious as to where you representing that client would have a view about that kind of behavior and say maybe that's not a good idea.

ALLRED: You know, I just don't sit in judgment of my clients. If they have to --


ALLRED: They have to survive. They have to make a living. I'm proud of her that, you know, she's trying to make a living. And, you know, not everybody has a lot of options to make a living like you do and like I do.

Let's come back after the break and talk about the political cases, because there I'll have a little bit more sympathy with your clients.


Thursday, March 22, 2012

What Happens When Real Men/Dads are Gone?

..and all the kids are raised by entitled, selfish, bratty young women?


I resent his parenting style

Q: My husband is being emotionally abused by his adult child. Junior demands money from Hubby, always gets it, and still goes on to say terrible things about Hubby to his extended family and friends, trying to garner sympathy (and further cash payments) from anyone who will listen (and via Facebook). He has lived with us now and then, does not work, is sullen and violent, helps with NOTHING, eats all our food, had caused property damage to our home, and is mean to our pets. From what I have seen, he does nothing but complain and suck everyone dry. There has not been any physical violence, but I see firsthand how much the emotional abuse takes a toll on Hubby, and it breaks my heart.

WHY IS THIS OK? If I pulled a fraction of this stuff even one time, Hubby would divorce me so fast it would make my head spin, as well he should. But because the Junior shares his DNA, he's regarded as a Precious Angel who is not to be scolded. I have never seen Junior punished for anything -- not one single time. Not so much as a stern talking to. Hubby occasionally suggests "rules" that are routinely ignored without consequence. As his behavior worsens, his enablers simply lower their expectations further to accommodate him. Hubby says "at least he's not doing drugs." Really? This is the benchmark you set for your offspring?

Do we live in a world where children are raised to believe this kind of behavior is acceptable? This is the only -- and I mean ONLY -- thing Hubby and I disagree or argue about (we married late in life and are late 40s). For the most part I keep my mouth shut and grit my teeth, but once in a while I just can't take it anymore and I finally speak my mind, but it makes no difference; nothing changes except the mood of our relationship, so it's not worth fighting about.

While the kid's behavior appalls me, it is the lack of response from Hubby and his ex-wife that bothers me even more. Precious Angel is the only child of a stay at home mom, and has never lifted a finger in his lifetime. He sits around watching TV, playing video games, and complaining on his cell phone (that Hubby pays for) to his delinquent friends about how much his life sucks ... and then cashes the next round of checks that Daddy just gave him while he hurls insults and punches holes in the walls.

I wish I could love my stepson and have peace in my home, but the truth is I don't like him even a little bit. I don't have children of my own, and now that I see what it's like, I'm glad I don't. It's gotten to the point that I can't even listen to Hubby's stories of "can't believe what this kid pulled today," because it's his own fault that his child acts this way. For my part, I smile, clean up after him, try in vain to engage him in conversation, serve him dinner, and keep gritting my teeth.

I'm at a complete loss as to how to handle the anger that this is causing in me. Someone out there please help me find a single redeeming quality in this person!

Thanks for letting me vent,

– Frustrated With Rotten Kid, Formerly Boston

Think you would've read that 30 years ago when the Mad Men-style "old school" men were around?

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Boston Globe: Awake, Yet Very Much Asleep

The Boston Globe is calling for shared parenting.

Um... what the Hell took them so long!?!?!?!

Are we going to wait until fathers are thought of by society as Dinosaurs now are? Cool, yet LONG GONE and hey, who needed them anyway?

Or shall we wait (haven't we already?) until the children are all COMPLETELY lost, without discipline, respect, responsibility or any of the other traits men instinctively instill in kids?

Well, at the tail end of the nightmare, the Boston Globe sat up and said "Well what if we just let kids see their dads more? I mean men and women are equal and women earn a lot more money now, right?"


Gee, thanks Boston Globe. Thanks for repeating what the "radical fathers movement" has been SCREAMING AT THE TOP OF ITS LUNGS FOR 15 YEARS NOW.

EDITORIAL | Editorial

March 19, 2012

FEW MATTERS can be as contentious and emotional as post-divorce child custody arrangements, and in recent years that acrimony has spilled over into Massachusetts politics. Several times, a bill calling for what is known as “shared parenting’’ — which would create a legal presumption for joint custody — has been introduced in the Legislature, and failed.

The debate has often been passionate, as divorce proceedings can be, and it has sometimes turned ugly. Some proponents of the bill, who claim that the family court system is biased against fathers, have launched ad hominem attacks against opponents. Unsurprisingly, this hasn’t created a receptiveness to compromise.

But the Legislature has recently provided a model for compromise on deeply felt issues: the task force on alimony, which met for more than a year, and resulted in the passage last fall of a sweeping overhaul of state alimony laws. The state can - and should - follow the same approach to modifying custody laws by bringing together responsible advocates on both sides. It’s time to break the contentious impasse on an issue that’s already painful enough for every party involved.

The alimony task force was launched amid some doubt that opposing parties could even sit at a table productively. But they did, and reached some compromises that had seemed elusive, if not impossible. That gives confidence that a similar approach could find common ground on the even more important issue of child custody.

Advocates for custody reform aren’t going away; they are among the loudest and most persistent constituencies to lobby state government today. Their passion bespeaks a genuine need to examine the workings of family courts, and to determine whether some complaints about bias have merit. And while some shared-parenting advocates won’t be satisfied with anything less than joint custody in all cases, others have suggested smaller changes in law and practice that are worthy of discussion. These include tweaks in the language used in domestic relations cases - such as replacing the term “visitation’’ with “parenting time’’ - and changes in the restraining-order process that would encourage more healthy contact between parents and children.

The task force should not be another forum for fathers’-rights supporters to push a shared parenting bill that would deprive judges of the necessary discretion to determine the best interests of the child. Still, a full airing of the current state of custody proceedings would surely be valuable, as would a chance for all parties to get beyond polarizing rhetoric and us-against-them attitudes. Either the Legislature or the Patrick administration should convene a task force soon, and get to work.

Monday, March 12, 2012


Just watched the romantic comedy "Friends with Benefits."

It was a funny movie at times, but as always, cliched and a bit lame.

More importantly, everything winds up being Justin Timberlake's fault, of course. He's the guy wrapped up with Mila Kunis, the leading lady.

Its all a big joke, but a bad one. They hit it off, but instead of trying to be lovers, they try to be friends. Only they want to have sex and find eachother attractive enough to do so - there is a word for this: lovers.

But they have convinced themselves they are both horrible mates after having too many failed relationships. So they decide to have their cake and eat it too: friends that sleep together but are not emotionally involved.


And these claim to be intelligent people. What idiots. So what happens?

What do you think happens?

She gets emotionally involved and blames him for not going against what they BOTH agreed to from the beginning - friends that sleep together. Of course if a baby came along that would be his problem too.

There is a word for men that commit to to women for babies - marriage. Women have declared that's no longer the case, of course, and have kids whenever they damn well please - and enact laws requiring men to pay for it all.

Men are either too stupid to live or else can't believe a woman would have their child without their consent. So, both, basically.

Going back to the movie, Mila Kunis, demands that Justin Timberlanke not do anything too sentimental and actually freaks out when he does. Then at the end of the movie she demands he's "just like every other guy out there - only after sex."

I laughed, but I wasn't supposed to. This was coming from the same woman who demanded he not emotionally care for her. Now she's was showing her disappointment in him for not caring about her.


That would be my response if I were him. How you ladies get mad at this crap is beyond me. This is how women - smart women - can get the reputation of being a total idiot, especially in the minds of men. She said one thing but meant the opposite. When she changed her mind? When she was betraying her original intent? No one knows. Why? Because she didn't say shit. Does she even think about taking responsibility for that? NOPE.

Justin Timberlake? He meant what he said. He did what he said he would. He wanted more, but he was content to keep her at a distance, because he too had fears about getting hurt; he respected her fears and he thought she respected his. Turns out SHE WAS LYING. Two people were involved, ONE PERSON WAS LYING. Get it?

Here is a lesson for you ladies:

YOU CAN'T BACK YOUR WAY INTO A RELATIONSHIP THROUGH SEX, YOU CAN'T PROTECT YOUR FEELINGS THROUGH SEX AND YOU CAN'T LIE TO YOURSELF OR ESPECIALLY TO MEN AND EXPECT THE MAN TO "SEE THROUGH YOUR LIES," DETECT YOUR TRUE FEELINGS OR ANY OTHER CRAZY BULLSHIT. Men are just not able to handle that kind of emotional complexity, nor should they be expected to. Be honest or else back out if you have a problem - men will understand. Better that than lying and manipulating.

Lying and manipulating is actually foreshadowed earlier in the movie:

"Dylan: Why do women think the only way to get a man to do what they want, is to manipulate them?
Jamie: History. Personal experience. Romantic comedies."

Its not really a good joke, once again - like the whole movie. Manipulation is not a good technique. I've dated women who have no idea how to manipulate - its wildly endearing and reassuring as a man to have a straightforward partner. Women here get into manipulating and it becomes thrilling - for them and their partners; but its the Road to Hell.

Soon its one, big, passive-aggressive nightmare where no on talks and everyone's guessing ALL THE TIME. Insane, unhealthy and destructive. I've had so many men tell me: I don't know what she wants! I ask her to tell me, beg her to tell me, I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT SHE WANTS. And women's famous comeback: "its obvious." Or "If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you." This is women treating men as if they were women. A woman would know, sure. BUT NOT A MAN. Its obvious only to you. You most likely started the game and now its blown up in your face. Women are far better at emotions than men and far better at navigating emotional "games." When the man finally breaks down and begs for the truth, she won't tell him because she is too angry that he used her game to hurt her and now wants to punish him with her silence. This is childish. What's worse; she won't take any responsibility for what she's done. Eventually she ends up alone and has the gall to wonder why.

At the end of the movie, who is apologizing?

Justin Timberlake.

Who is the "victim?"

Mila Kunis.

And ladies wonder why the marriage rate is plummeting.


Thursday, March 08, 2012

Women Kicking Economic Ass: Child Support Rates on the Rise


60% of ALL post graduate degrees going to women and men pay 40% of their salary in child support?

Sorry, but Fuck You to every woman with at least a college degree who asks for so much as a nickel.

Bank Of America Issues Big, Long-Term Bullish Call On Women

Bank of America economist Neil Dutta is out with a new report titled: Global Girl Power.

The report looks at the way the economy is evolving, and concludes that the long-term trends are bullish for women.

First Dutta starts by examining the dynamics of the latest cycle, which basically goes like this. Men (the blue line) lost jobs at a much faster clip than women (the red line) did. Men have also recovered sharper than women have. The collapse and rebound of manufacturing explains a lot of this.



But the long-term prognosis for women is quite good.

First Dutta cites this table from the BLS in arguing that the fields of tomorrow are in areas that are likely to be heavily staffed by women.


Bank of America

But even beyond that, there are other reasons to be bullish on women.

Some stats:

  • 60% of all higher ed degrees are awarded to women.
  • 58% of Masters degrees go to women.
  • The top college major for women is the same top college major for men: business.

And the story isn't just in the US: The same story is happening in Europe as well.

Now here's the problematic part. In the emerging world, the trend in the last recession was worse for women during the last recession.

Not only did the unemployment rate for men fall a lot harder during the last decade, the rate of unemployment for women jumped faster between 2007 and 2010.



So BofA's outlook is tempered somewhat between a high level of optimism in the US and Europe, and more tempered optimism in the developing world.

Love Letters: Relationship FAIL

This one's funny. The writer of this love problem, a man, builds up a life that makes him happy and then tears it down to please an anxious, panicky, emotionally unstable, UNHAPPY woman.

So he manages to make her happy (by rooting everything out of his life that made him happy), and once he's totally dependent on her, her anxieties relax and she's pleased as punch, only he's a miserable mess - the two are nearly perfectly correlated. His wife demanded he subordinate his entire life to hers FROM THE START and the sucker took the bait.


The first therapist they saw probably figured this out and said call it quits.


Because his wife is selfish and will never change. That's why. She was selfish and he was incredibly unselfish. Opposites attract.

Now he's asking (he should be demanding) a bit more for himself (probably just anything at all) - but his wife will never allow that. She needs him under her boot to keep her fear in check. Keep him nice and depressed and lonesome and NEEDING HER BECAUSE HE HAS NO ONE AND NOTHING ELSE. I mean, if you were happy, but your husband - the man you loved and married, was miserable - wouldn't you be sad too? Wouldn't you want to give him what he needed to be happy, or compromise or SOMETHING? A healthy, sane and/or decent human being would say yes. A vicious, blood-drinking harpy would say No.

The second therapist they saw undoubtedly was a quasi man-hater at a minimum because "things are better" yet he's still miserable. Um... what? How does a neutral, independent arbiter think the job is done when one party is still miserable? His wife is happy, his new therapist (which she undoubtedly picked) is happy and he's miserable.

Two happy women and one unhappy man. Can you do the math?

So the wife and the therapist believe everything is about her and his happiness should exist "magically" just because his wife has her every wish satisfied. And of course, now he's REALLY fooked because they have a child - also not his idea, I'm sure. But hey, the guy isn't making any choices, obviously. Once he met this woman, he gave her full reign over his life and she drove it into the ground. His wife is a worthless harpy, but for this situation, I blame him - he chose the harpy of his own free will. Poor bastard. If they get divorced she'll terrorize him for child support and attention every 5 seconds using a combination of guilt, shame, and recrimination.

Somehow this eludes EVERYONE, INCLUDING THE "Love Doctor" and nearly all readers who comment. Although, if you read the Love Doctor's advice carefully, its obvious she knows the truth and just doesn't want to tell this poor guy he married a vulture who intends to sharpen her claws on his face.

Absolutely Pa-thet-ic.

Q: Dear Meredith,

I met my wife through some mutual friends about two years ago. She was visiting Boston and ended up falling in love with the city and decided to give it a try. We ended up spending a great deal of time together and dating.

During that time, I had felt rather happy and satisfied with my life except for one thing -- I had not had a chance to pursue a meaningful relationship. I had spent almost all of my time after college building my life into what I wanted with my job, friends, and family. Because I was new to the dating game, I was did anything I could to keep this new relationship alive.

After about five months of us dating, she became very critical of me and began to complain about various details of my life. I would often hear that I would be spending too much time at work, with my family and friends, or that I didn't spend enough time with her. She began to threaten leaving me, and due to my weak sense of self at the time, I did all I could to accommodate her. I changed my job, moved, and essentially devoted as much time as I could into making her happy.

Soon enough we became pregnant and quickly got married. We never got a chance to finish the dating part of our relationship and essentially put it on hold as we prepared for raising a child. We now live closer to her family.

As you can probably guess, we have had a rough marriage. It is now a few years later and I still have problems being happy with our situation and working out our differences. We argue about everything from the smallest quirks to our plans for the future (although we have ensured these emotions don't leak to our child). In a desperate attempt to save our marriage and keep our family together, we saw two different marriage counselors. The first one pushed the idea of a divorce, so we left him to look for another one who would be willing to encourage us to stay together.

Fortunately, the second counselor has been helping us see past our differences and we have become considerably more loving and caring as a couple. We rarely argue now but no matter what happens through the sessions, I cannot be happy. It does not seem like I have any emotional issues, I am just so upset about what has happened and where I am in my life at the moment. My wife seems to be happy and I want nothing more than to be able to share that feeling with her.

As of right now I am having trouble becoming intimate and excited about life again. What can I do? I just want to get over the feeling that I lost control of my life and be happy.

– Want to Stay, Formerly Boston

A: Are you still seeing that second marriage counselor, WTS? Because you have to admit these lingering bad feelings in front of a third party. Counselor No. 2 obviously helped you guys make some huge improvements in your marriage, but you're still stuck. That's something worth discussing.

I can't fix this for you or give you a magic pill to prevent resentment and misery, but I can tell you that you need to start imagining ways to be happy in this relationship. Would you feel closer to your wife and happier about your situation if you lived near your friends and family again? Is there a geographic compromise?

I find it interesting that you bailed from the counselor who pushed you to get a divorce. That person was giving you a way out. You could have easily turned to your wife and said, "Well, the professional has spoken. Let's get this separation rolling." Instead you opted to find a person who could save the marriage. Is that because you love your wife or because you feel obligated to stay? You need to be able to answer that question -- out loud.

I want you to know that you're not the only person who feels like they lost control of their adult life. Sometimes change happens and we just have to cope. That said, your whole goal in life before meeting this woman was to have a great job and to be close to friends and family. By hooking up with her, you've lost all of it. There has to be a way that you can get some of those great things back (proximity to friends, an inspiring job, etc.). I have a feeling that if she prioritized creating a better environment for you, you wouldn't be so sad about staying committed.

I don't know whether I agree with counselor No. 1 or 2., but it sort of depends on whether your wife understands that you need a big community and a full life in order to be happy. Get the answer to that question, even if it means disturbing the peace.

Readers? Do any of us have control? Is he in a marriage that can be saved? How can he let go of this resentment? Am I right to say that he'd be happier if he was closer to friends again? Help.

– Meredith

Nude Body Scanners: Not Working

But we'll zap you with lots of radioactivity anyway....

Jim Grant: Stop Fcking Around