Feminist.... Until She Wants a Baby.

I really love these kinds of articles - there have been many of them the past year or two. Why do I love them? Because the authors consider themselves to be quite insightful into the topic of love and marriage, but are themselves little more than old children. They have not loved - for long - married, divorced, or had children. They've never been rich or poor or wondered how they were going to pay for childcare or their child's college education. They are like 13 year olds giving advice on how to be a professional race car driver because they raced their buddies around the block on their BMX bikes when they were 13 years old.

Want advice about marriage, relationships, love and life? TALK TO YOUR GRANDPARENTS. They've seen some shit in this life. They don't sit around reading or trying to reinvent the things that make marriage possible. Why? BECAUSE THEY ALREADY KNOW. THEY'VE LIVED IT.

I'll comment as I see fit.


http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/sex/quot-im-a-white-picket-fence-feminist-quot-2466428/
EMandLO.com contributor Abby Spector, who is majoring in Feminine/Gender/Sexuality Studies at Wesleyan University, has a confession to make:

My armpits are hairy. I study gender and sexuality. The Birkenstocks in my closet are held together by duct tape. If it were the sixties, my bra would probably be burning in the town square (if women had actually done this, which they didn't). All roads lead to feminist (if not die-hard lesbian). But I have a secret that would shock my combat-boot clad, non-conformist sisters: I dream of becoming a housewife.

[So do your sisters. You are not one of a kind. You are a girl with girl parts and girl hormones. Your sandals and viewpoints may be a bit different, but they don't make you a monkey among gorillas, just a gorilla with a little more rebellion. Your sisters, like you, don't admit wanting to be a housewife, but by the age of 31, they will be weeping to become one. Why? Find out what a hormone is honey and then come talk to the adults.]

This is not because I love taking out the trash or organizing placemats around a seasonal wreath. Trust me, I have no desire to become the next Martha Stewart. I just want to fall in love with someone for the rest of my life, have kids with him, and watch those kids grow up. I want to be there for Clementine’s first step, Milo’s first taste of solid food and Delilah’s first look of confusion when she sees a woman shaving her legs.

[Yes, you're a woman. Thanks for just showing up. Because you didn't play with the extra-girlie barbie as a kid you thought you were never going to want kids or play with them? Sorry, but only if someone ripped out your x chromosomes at birth, dumbass. You want to nurture and be close to another human being. You feel this so badly you are literally fantasizing about it already - you have chosen the children's gender and names and you don't even have a boyfriend yet. By the way, YOUR HUSBAND, if he's not a mangina, will probably have some kid's names of his own in mind and #2, you don't get to pick the gender of your children. They just come out as whatever they'll be.]

I don’t think this fantasy is rooted in traditional sexism. Growing up, my mom worked a 9-5 while my dad stayed home. She made more of the money; he made more of the food. It wasn't until we got cable that I realized our family dynamic was different. But even then, our strange set-up didn't faze me; I had other fish of the familial variety to fry (my sister and I were constantly fighting, my cousin had just moved in and three of my grandparents had died within a two-year span). And I really didn’t give a flying f--- who washed my socks. All I cared about was having clean socks.

The point is, my upbringing was the opposite of sexist. So my dreams for my future are not just mimicking what I grew up with. In fact, at times, I think these semi-traditional dreams are rooted in rebellion against my non-traditional upbringing. Scholars would name this phenomenon “fourth wave feminism”, “post-modern modernism” or something else equally wordy and pretentious. To me, it’s life.

[Your mom probably resented your father for not being more of a breadwinner. She wanted to stay home with the kids, but picked a mangina because she was too scared of the alpha males. Either way you saw that she didn't get the time with the kids that your dad did and your father probably shrank down into himself from the shame of not being able to properly support his own family. Weak dad, strong, resentful mom - its a miracle you're not a lesbian. After all, you admit you see no purpose in dressing up with clothes, makeup, or other decorative pieces in order to attract a male - because men don't hold a lot of value for you; or at least they didn't until now and now? Now you want a man who will provide. Better not burn your bra. Providing men tend to be quite masculine and testosterone-filled - they like bra's. Sexy ones. And girls who stay powdered, and fresh and feminine. He tarzan, you Jane. And Jane didn't wear birkenstocks. Not even in the Jungle.]

I am not ashamed to admit I dream about my future wedding. And I’ll be the first to admit that these dreams are far more elaborate than the occasional online browsing of Vera Wang gowns. I have the whole thing planned. My fantasy even has a budget. There is a three-tier cake and a bouquet of sunflowers on every table. But I won't just follow the traditions blindly -- I'll put my own personal touches on them. My sister will do the vows, my guests will sleep in tents and my dress will NOT be white (the idea of me, a sex-writer and naked model, pretending to be a virgin is a hoot). And I will tattoo the ring onto my finger, a guarantee that it will never be lost.

[Fine, be different. That's not a crime. But this is not all about you. A wife makes sacrifices, a mother makes even more. Start talking and thinking about what you're prepared to do for your family. Listen to yourself. You want a man who will work his ass off all day to pay for an expensive house (I know you don't want to raise your 3 beautiful children in a tar-paper shack), food and clothing for 4 people, and at least one car. You won't be making a whole lot if you're home with the kiddies, so don't tell me how you're going to make his life so easy. The fact is, you and the kids are going to be a tremendous burden to him. He is choosing that burden because he loves you. Fine. But you have to give something back. Talk to a good WIFE and MOTHER who has the same arrangement you want. Ask them what they give and make sure you're sitting down when they answer. Going to college and reading about how women should really behave like men doesn't exactly prepare you to be a wife and mother. The book on that subject would be one line long. This is what it would say: Love is sacrifice. The end. Your husband? You've already thought this man into a life of sacrifice - years of hard work to race home and please you and help with the kids in exchange for too little sleep, a big mortgage, a college bill for 3 kids and a wife that's not getting any sexier with age. That's the bottom line. That's not a small request you're making, honey. Better start thinking about your end.]

My family life will follow a similar form of unconventional convention. Entire walls will be covered in flags, bumper-stickers and postcards. All of my kids, no matter their gender, will be given trucks and dolls. I will teach them every Ani Difranco lyric and how to cut a T-Shirt into a halter-top. Diva cups will be in the bathroom instead of tampons. Best of all, I’ll give them sex talks that will blow their mind.

[You're marrying a fantasy here, not a man. Your fantasy doesn't get you pregnant. A man does. Stop acting like a fantasizing little girl and start thinking about what kind of house your husband might want and his ideas on raising the children. Or do you think he'll just hand you his check every month and be content to let you run your own little home economics experiment? Not if he has a pulse. He'll have an opinion and theories and his own childhood experiences that will affect his parenting style. By the way, giving the kids trucks and dolls is hysterical. Sometime in 1979 even the feminazis figured out all but the most masculine girl hates trucks and likewise good luck getting a boy to play with dolls. Waste your money on extra toys though, the kids won't stop you. Just don't be shocked when your daughter gives your son the trucks and your son gives your daughter his dolls and your theories are shattered by the reality of the immutable laws of nature.]

Some see my dream of being a stay-at-home mom as a waste of my education. But I love learning for the sake of learning. I feel as though raising my children will stimulate this desire for curiosity more then a wall of a cubicle would. Plus, a degree in Feminist, Gender, Sexuality Studies doesn’t exactly put me on the fast track to career success. In my white picket fence dream (yes, my dream home has a white picket fence…the kids draw on it with chalk in the summer), I will still be a writer. I have a desk overlooking the back-yard where I work for the “Dear Abby” section of the local paper. Or I am the occasional sex therapist. Or I teach erotic finger painting at a nearby nursing home. Whatever this “other” activity is, it won’t be how I define myself. First and foremost, I will be a mother.

[Good for you. Mother is very important. But since you won't be making much if any money, that INCREASES the burden on your husband. Have you seen the economy? People do more for less everyday. Meanwhile you're busy building a family of 5, a house for them to live in and all on the salary of a man you haven't met yet. I hope you like thongs, stilletto heels, pushup bras and anything else your husband finds desireable. Why? Because you have to give something for all that you are demanding and frankly I haven't heard you say one thing to balance the scales in the 'swap' of what what you want vs. what you can offer. What do men want? We want Kim Kardashian in a thong doing the dishes and not complaining. Yeah. You're a far cry from that.]

I know that marriage and the nuclear family is a screwed-up social construction. I’ve even written papers on the topic. But this argument is based on logic (and a desire to get an A). My happiness is not logical. My choices are not logical. What I’ve discovered is that you have to look past all forms of the ‘stereotypical’ woman. Some feminists shop at Victoria’s Secret. Some lesbians vote Republican. And some housewives wear combat boots. Being a feminist is about having the right to choose what you do with your life. My choice (as of today) is to be a stay-at-home mom. Therefore, I am a feminist. -- Abby Spector

[Um, no. Not really. Marriage and the nuclear family are not 'screwed up'. They just are. They're far from perfect. What to make it better? Then make a government that gives free child care and health care and ensures 100% employment. This life ain't got none of that and never will. Furthermore if you think the nuclear family is a screwed-up construction, be prepared for yours to disintegrate shortly after it comes together. If you want an 'alternative' life, that's fine. To each his/her own. But wait. This isn't your own. You see, once married, only PART of your life belongs to you anymore. The rest belongs to your husband and kids. Kids want to sleep in bed with mommy. Husbands want to have sex with their wives. You want to get some sleep and still keep everyone happy (if you want to stay married that is). How do you do all this? Sacrifice. Juggling. Teaching the kids to sleep alone and hoping your husband is a 10 minute man. You've written papers on the topic? That's cute. I've written papers about war - but I've never actually held my buddy after he's had his face shot off. See the difference? Wake up. You really don't know what you're getting into other than the fact that you have your perfect desires defined. Throw them out. Your husband will have desires too. You will both have to MARRY your desires and many of your desires won't make the cut. Sex, food, water, clothing and shelter make the cut. Everything else is basically a bonus. And you may very well struggle - both of you working and rushing home to take care of the kids - and that's fun for about 1% of the day when your kids hug you. The rest of the time its pain. Want a fantasy? Write some more of them down and put heart stickers on them. Want a husband and family? You're going to ask a man to walk into the kingdom of sacrifice with you - I would ask him in stilettos and sexy skirt with your hair done up nicely if I were you. All the men (not manginas) I know would laugh pretty hard in your face if you asked them for the rest of their life wearing birkenstocks and sweat pants. You want to be taken seriously? Then play ball. Idealism is for class only. It has nothing to do with life. No one needs me to tell them this. Just read a big pile of leftist feminazi male-hate literature - the kind that told you the nuclear family is 'screwed up' and then go tell what you learned to your GRANDPARENTS. The look on their face ought to tell you want you need to know.

And remember - no one is telling you and your yet-to-be husband how to live. Be different. Be alternative if that's what makes you happy, just remember dear - no matter who you marry, no matter how "in love" you are, he is a man and you are a woman. He will have different ideas of child rearing and you will have to learn to accept some things you may not agree with because your husband is your husband and if you don't respect and listen to him then there is no sense thinking you two will ever have a family that remains intact for very long.]

Casual Sex Finally Overdone

Apparently having random sex with people you barely know enough to even GREET afterwards has lost its appeal. I'm still struggling with how that seemed appealing to begin with. Sex with someone you don't really know leaves you feeling vacant and hollow the next morning. And rather ashamed. Hopefully no one has learned that the hard way, but Christ after learning it once what's the big hurry to learn it again and again? These people have done it to the point where there is practically no one left at the party to sleep with! One word: Yuck. I hope you're all proud of yourselves. You act like emotionless zombies. That's possible, genetically and hormonally for the men, but for the women!?!?!? That kind of behavior doesn't make women exactly feel good. So wtf are they doing? Acting out of desperation and loneliness I imagine - hoping one of these guys turns out to have fallen in love with them and begs them for marriage. That's nearly a good plan... all except for the sleeping with him part. That's the problem when women accept sex SO LIGHTLY and before marriage - they worry, and rightly so, that if they fail to give a man sex that he'll simply find a woman who will give him sex. And this is where that system ultimately ends up - everyone screwed and no one married. I rest my case.


Young People Aren't Having Sex In New York Anymore, Says Young Man Who Works At A Hedge Fund
Courtney Comstock

Twenty-somethings In New York City are not getting laid anymore and they don't really care about it, according to a reporter from the Observer who visited a number of parties and bars this weekend.

The observer was startled by the number of people *not* going home together at the end of the night, but everyone at the parties told him it was pretty normal.

“New York is too dense; you’re running into people all the time, everyone knows everyone,” said a male consultant in his mid-20s. “Sex just doesn’t make sense—it’s dirty.”

He continued - “It’s gross to be, like, at a party and there’s five people you’ve had sex with, but you don’t really even have a relationship with them to the point that you’d even say hi.

“I’ve noticed that happen at parties here. It’s just … awkward. It’s come to a point where people don’t necessarily want to do that anymore.”

A little background on the people at these parties: they were also smoking cigarettes, doing cocaine, and updating their Twitter.

In the end, the conclusion is that we're obsessed with ourselves, so we're too busy working and getting ahead to get any in bed.

“Capitalism has replaced sex,” a model told the Observer.

The best explanation (in our 20-something opinion) came from a young man who works at a hedge fund who offered his input:

“Twenty-somethings are wary of sex."

“It’s not 1998.”

In other words, we're smarter, so we know that sex could be a health risk, and we don't want anything bad to happen to us, so we go overboard and avoid sex altogether, as an extra precaution to protect our precious selves.

Fuck the Divorce System

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/money/27189111/detail.html

This article is about the growing increase of couples signing cohabitation contracts. Like a pre-nup for unmarried people who are living together.

It should've been entitled "People Send Divorce System Message: "GO GET FUCKED"

Why would people live together long-term and not be married (that is, apply TO THE STATE for a marriage certificate so THE STATE is aware that you are LEGALLY married and therefore BOUND to state laws and the lobbyists/legislators who write them)?

Why would people not notify the state of their union?

Why would people choose to cut the PUBLIC state out of their PRIVATE relationship?

Why would people choose to divide or not divide their PERSONAL PROPERTY outside of the influence of a third-party (the STATE)?

Because divorce is now TOTAL DESTRUCTION for your life. There is no winning in divorce because its so long, painful and expensive. Only lawyers win in divorce.

And this is nothing but an end around a system that arbitrarily rewards one party and RUINS the other for life. As one lawyer who was interviewed said, "Without some kind of agreement like this, THERE IS NO LIMIT TO WHAT A DIVORCING SPOUSE CAN ASK FOR."

People's response? FUCK YOU.

They're now handling it themselves.

People have heard the horror stories. They've heard the nightmares. Years in court. Lawyers advising you to push for everything because that's what the other side will push for. Your ex is being told the same thing. You take the advice. The judge doesn't know what to do so they listen and listen and listen to your lawyers argue and lie and point fingers. Whoever gets the kids gets the house and half the other's salary for decades or even life. Personal decisions made years ago don't matter. The person who lied, cheated, and/or stole doesn't matter. It all gets muddled in the lawyers talking over eachother. The judges have little to no evidence to use. Your spouse may figure out that lies will not be cross-examined and start telling ever bigger and bigger lies in order to win. Afterwards you're drained, financially devastated, years of savings annihilated, hard work wasted, and unlike the Phoenix you do not rise from the ashes; you become defensive and guarded for the rest of your life, terrified of ever having someone you trusted so well betray you so completely.

And now it seems ever expanding numbers of people are in no hurry to go through that. Gee, imagine that.

All I can say is good for them, and I hope this totally replaces marriage UNTIL DIVORCE LAWS ARE REFORMED AND THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS TOTALLY DISMANTLED - RIPPED APART, TORN DOWN AND BURNED FOR THE LAWYER-ENRICHING TRASH THAT IT IS.

You see we have reached that point. Which point? The point where corruption and inside dealing to rig a system has gotten so bad that people simply avoid the system altogether. Its like speculators bidding oil prices up to $200/barrel. Its simply so expensive, the demand for the resource collapses and the speculators actually destroy the market for the resource they are holding and trading. Divorce has become quite prevalent in this country and the lawyers quickly rigged the system to be as destructive as possible. Increased stakes drove up time battling it and therefore expenses skyrocketed as well. This continued until we have what we have today: a system in which even middle class people are treated like wealthy billionaires. Every man is treated like a wealthy industrialist who is too cheap to support his "poor, feeble" ex-wife and every woman is portrayed as a helpless victim who will starve without a "modest allowance" from her super wealthy ex-husband.

Eventually people wake up to the fact that for whatever reason - possibly reasons well outside of their control - divorce has become prevalent and regardless of how much they "love," love is not a guarantee and it can be fleeting and unfortunately much less lasting than it seems. This is not to say love is bad, simply that it is not easy and the truth is that "love" eventually boils down to work and effort. You cannot control if someone else chooses not to work at love anymore. If someone else stops loving you, this really ought to constitute a breach of contract as marriage is essentially a contractual promise to partner or "love" someone for life. But in divorce, the party who breached your legal contract is somewhat irrelevant. So the contract is basically worthless. The contract used to mean something. If you left the relationship (breached the contract), you left with nothing. This is not desireable, so unless you were really unhappy you wouldn't leave. Now, the inverse is nearly true. If you are the slightest bit unhappy and feel you can be wicked enough to ruin the other person in divorce, you can leave with everything, including most of the other person's wealth. This turns marriage not into a partnership but into a kind of vulture hedge fund. Where you are temporarily invested and scheme for when you're going to leave and ensure you are leaving under circumstances that guarantee you you're spouses wealth - otherwise they'll take all of yours. Its like Sun Tzu's Art of War. Once your neighbor is 'armed,' you must practice for war. Because they will. And if war comes and you're unprepared, you'll die. So you might as well prepare now. You may not really want to leave and blow them out, but whoever decides to leave first has the advantage as they can scheme to come out ahead; given the utter destruction awaiting the loser, prudence demands the other partner similarly prepare. In this way, both parties could very well spend much of their "union" preparing for the departure of their spouse by scheming against them. Throw in a lot of society-induced anxiety about your appearance, sexual attraction, and value as a mate, and marriage has never been more tenuous and dangerous than it is now.

THE DEAL

The Deal is something I've been meaning to talk about for quite some time. The Deal is very important as The Deal is what makes life life, its what makes everything hold together or else fall apart and send us all into a French-like stupor of existentialism.

Rule #1: The Deal is The Deal. Modifications are few and seldom work.

Rule #2: See Rule #1.

Rule #3: The Deal belongs to no one. No one owns The Deal. It is not my idea and it does not belong to me or you or Muhammed or baby Jesus or anyone else. So just leave it alone and roll with it. Admire it like you would a well constructed math equation that seems terribly complex and terribly simple all at the same time.

Rule #4: The Deal is itself. Its not a new self-help craze. Its not a new therapy or theory or mode of thinking or any of that non-sensical crap. The Deal is like that old stone on the old mountain that returns the same question to you when you ask it "How did you get here?"

Rule #5 The Deal is self-evident. Its not open to interpretation or revision. The Deal simply is. You obey The Deal or you suffer the consequences.

Rule #6: The Deal does not punish, it does not hate. It simply is. See previous rule.

Rule #7: The Deal is known by those who have come to understand it through experience. Those who have "guessed at" what The Deal is and failed know who they are and will doubt the existence of The Deal because they are afraid they cannot respect The Deal.

Rule #8: The Deal must be respected. I repeat, respect The Deal at all times. The Deal is your friend, even when it doesn't seem like it. Disrespecting The Deal is disrespecting yourself if you have entered and agreed to The Deal.

Rule #9: The Deal is immutable. It was invented by your grandfather's grandfather's grandfather. The Deal is so old and so final, the last person that remembers revising it was last seen on a mountain top writing on stone tablets.

Rule #10: The Deal incorporates the laws of nature, physics, psychology, time, love, hate, and the Holy Spirit of the universe. There is no getting around the deal, not with explanations, rationalizations, ideologies or claptrap. The Deal is as hard and fast as the stars, sun and ocean. Do not try to circumvent The Deal. You will fail and will be punished by cosmic powers you cannot begin to understand.

Rule #11: No one really invented The Deal. It came into being like tadpoles who freakishly mutated from single-cell protozoa 2 billion years ago. Looking for The Deal's founder results in lots of lost time and unanswered questions.

Rule #12: The Deal is not really mysterious, and it can be trusted. Its one of those things that holds up a mirror when you ask it questions. Frustrating, I know.

Rule #13: A tip: Try to think of The Deal as you would a metaphysical God: at the end of the day, its just a reflection of you and what you think and say and do. If you believe it exists to help you, than it does; if you think otherwise, then that may be your reality.

Rule #14: Try to reinvent The Deal if you want, but just be sure to catalog your failures. Success in this vein will be only temporary, no matter how long it lasts.


You're probably confused at this point. That's fine. Most people are confused. It'll end.

Men and women are very, very different creatures. Please remember that. While they may want the same things at the end of the day, they go about getting these things in VERY different ways. They are very different from birth and the estranged relationship between boys and girls in puberty and continuing through adolescence and on into adulthood for many should be your first clue.

We once had a very clear and obvious deal between men and women. In foreign, "conservative" countries, we still do. People will argue that The Deal in those countries is too rigid. Perhaps. Perhaps not. It really matters not for us. Everyone will fine tune their Deal. But the fact that it exists and is largely immutable is pretty self-evident. When you figure out how to abide by The Deal, you're find yourself in it. Until then, you'll stand outside and probably criticize it. But it won't do you any good. Because everybody wants to be part of The Deal in some way. Its just the way we're made, for better or worse.

The Deal usually goes something like this. You're mileage may vary.

A man needs to feel like a man and a woman needs to feel like a woman.

Neither you nor I nor the self-anointed "social engineers" can change the above fact. And if you leave people alone and let them follow their instincts that's what they will do. The men will do what feels natural to them and the women will do what feels natural to them. Read "As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl." Attempts to make a boy into a girl were as fruitless and pathetic as trying to turn water into fire. Boys are boys and girls are girls. And that's ok. These creatures are not inherently evil and with time they will find their way into cooperative long-term relationships. But it must be done with care and some kind of structure.

Read Marcus Aurelius. What is this thing that we question? What does it do? What is in its nature? You can talk a man or woman into accepting ideas they don't naturally have, into behaving in ways that are foreign to them, or to modify their behavior in ways that they find to be strange and uncomfortable, all in the name of some kind of social agenda or social responsibility, but regardless of what everyone is persuaded or "convinced" to do.... a man has to feel like a man and a woman has to feel like a woman.

This is easy to spot if you listen to the complaints of men and women. Look at what they buy and what they ask for or even demand. Men follow sex: sexy women, women who dress in an attractive way, women who exude sexuality, who are healthy and strong and work to remain so. Women follow love and romance. They need to feel adored, worshipped, romanced, loved, needed, wanted, cherished, etc.. They also want powerful men with resources, and the intelligence to acquire them. Women draw men with sex appeal, men draw women with the allure of money, power and romance or some derivative thereof.

What's happening today is that education has been tailor-made for women and men are failing to qualify for and apply to higher education opportunities and eventually become low-earners while the exact opposite is happening to women.

This is major problem #1. After getting that high-powered medical or legal degree and making big money, the woman tries to find - not her equal - but a superior, conquering male to romance her. With all due respect, BWAHAHAHAHAHA. She has no idea the powers that ensured she got that degree (no honey, it wasn't all on your own, that would be the case 50 years ago) also ensure she received it AT THE EXPENSE OF the men who would've otherwise qualified and applied. With the number of DESIREABLE men (defined above) available drastically reduced, many women have taken to pairing with an INFERIOR male (yes that's how they see it), and their complaints are easily seen and expected: that they out earn their husband, that he's not romantic, not "successful," does not "try hard enough" (in general), and/or isn't a real "man."

Men for the most part, complain that they're wives aren't home enough, don't do enough house work or child rearing, out-earn them at work, are married to their jobs, are too tired for sex, are out of shape, don't cook often, and otherwise do not "take care of themselves."

Men aren't conquering and providing and have been crowded out from the positions that would allow them to do so. Women aren't being romanced, coveted or conquered because quite frankly the men feel like pussies and don't control the requisite money, power or resources that their fathers and grandfathers did.

In short, The Deal is not being respected: men don't feel like men and women don't feel like women. The solution? Whatever is necessary to correct the imbalance. I'm not suggesting women go home and put on an apron all day every day, but seeing as it is very many WOMEN demanding proper "men" once again, I suggest the educational changes be made truly equal to both genders and that more traditional gender roles be embraced. Because quite frankly, at the current rate, boys are slipping further and further behind until the amount of men left will literally be fought over by the hordes of women out in the workplace. I'm already hearing stories of women chasing and/or screwing the husbands of other women, such is the lack of available, AND DESIRABLE men. It is so bad, I have actually literally overheard conversations in which high earning women (they identified themselves as dentists) complained they couldn't find any men and the ones they did find were divorced and kept so little of the salary they earned (men are routinely forced to pay up to 40% or more of their salary after taxes in child support and alimony), that they (the women) would obviously be forced to pay for much more of things (such as dinner), even while dating said men. The women delighted on this subject in haughty tones of frustration as the "perfect" upper-class lives they had constructed for themselves were simply missing the other half - the even higher-earning man.

These women are perfect examples of what has happened to The Deal. It has been stolen away, distorted, corrupted and generally ruined. The women have become the earners and conquerers, the "real men" are few and far between and the leftovers are sorted through like discarded garbage by women who hope they are lucky enough to find a decent piece without too much mold. The women are frustrated and lonely, the men are dejected, broke, depressed and frustrated and the "social engineers," comprised of feminazis, lawyers, and the twisted state and federal politicians who rig education curriculum (17 yr. old boys being asked to read Emily Bronte?) and divorce laws at the behest of special interest groups like the well-funded National Organization for Women, are generally pleased and want things to continue to "progress" - that is, continue to get even worse than they are now.

Bear in mind WHO constructed our current system of broken men, empowered women and rapacious divorce laws that favor women 90% of the time. It was no accident. People constructed this system and this system provides incentives for women to get divorced and take sole custody of the children, the system provides incentives for violent disagreement and custody battles that drag on for years, the system has left men unable to provide and women longing for someone with the power to. The system never used to be like this. The system used to discourage what is now encouraged. The system used to reward the married for staying married, but now tantalizes and seduces us into divorce. The system is rigged by those who profit from it and nothing more than that. Now....

Let's examine the issue from foreign eyes. Go to Saudi Arabia, India, anywhere in the middle east, northern Africa or anywhere outside the western world and Australia, and ask a stranger in the street why most of the students in the Universities aren't women and not men? That women should be assuming the bulk of the high-paying jobs and that men should be bringing up the rear, so to speak. They would look at you cross-eyed and ask about the inevitable: "what about the children?"

"What?" you would respond.

"The children" they would say. "Women have children. Look around. How do you think you got here?"

You would say, "That's no big deal, both parents will work or else the man could stay home."

They would say, "But women want to feel close to their children and raise them themselves. Men want to work and provide."

You would respond with what you've been taught "No. Women want careers. Men must provide or else they should be punished for not providing, regardless. Women should have the flexibility to work and have a family. Men should do more of a woman's job at home such as cooking, cleaning and raising the kids so that she can have a career."

They would say "But that's too confusing. Who knows what to do and when? How can the man provide if he has to be at home cooking, cleaning and child rearing? To do well in your career, man or woman, you have to work very hard. He can't do both and women like men who earn plenty of money and work hard, so why can't he just do that? She could have a career too, sure, but who will raise the kids? Women won't feel like women if they work and the man stays home, will they? Won't they feel sad they don't see their children? Won't they be around other men all day? If they work hard, they'll probably be at work a lot and wind up falling in love with another man and then getting divorced."

Not sure what you would say to that other than "Not true." (even though it is demonstrably true).

The National Organization for Women would say "Then its all his fault. He should've tried harder. Men don't try as hard as women and statistics show they leave them constantly (total lie). He was going to leave her anyway, so it doesn't matter. Men are all evil and they only cheat, so just give her the kids and all of his money."

They would say "But a man isn't just his money. The children need a father. They have problems without a father. Besides, most women like having a man who does the hard work of punishing the kids, or doling out discipline. Besides, who will teach our sons to grow up to become men? They need to learn how to treat a woman with respect and how to work hard and provide for their families. And what will the man do if he is divorced? How can he have another family if you give all his money to the first one?"

You or N.O.W. would give more rationales, more excuses, more explanation, none of which would directly answer their questions satisfactorily.

Then they would raise an eyebrow and say: I see; "Ok, thanks for stopping by."

And then they would go home and let everyone know how crazy Westerners like you are to think men - creatures without breasts with milk that are used to feed babies - will stay at home and care for a baby that is hungry for breast milk every 2 hours. That we think men should be thrown out of their homes on their wife's whim and bankrupted, that families should be torn apart at the slightest problem, that children should grow up fatherless, that families should contain children from different husbands and wives, that this somehow has no catastrophic emotional damage on men, women, and children, that the fabric of society should be treated with such carelessness and disdain, that marriage is fleeting, easy and not to be trusted, that divorce could actually make you feel better and solve all of your problems, that your problems come before that of your spouse and your children.

AND THEN, every person in town would look at you the way most people in those countries look at Westerners today. And now you know why.

Even MENTION this in a Western nation or, GASP, to a Western woman, and you'll be drawn and quartered at high noon. Led by very, very angry unmarried feminazis who are convinced every man ought to be exterminated for reasons which boil down to one-sided personal biases - easily recognized as such: men are heartless and only interested in sex, men are shallow and untrustworthy, men are insensitive animals who cannot love, men leave women because they are wicked beasts, women are always innocent and gentle and pure and the wicked men don't deserve them, etc., etc. [the millions of happily married men and their wives are simply ignored as living, breathing facts to the contrary of all of these pathetic arguments].

Divorce court used to be about discovering who violated The Deal and holding them accountable. Now there is no discovery and the man is butchered unless his wife is so crazy she glows in the dark. This disrespects The Deal. This helps make The Deal seem less unimportant and fleeing when it is anything but. There are consequences for violating The Deal. Once entered into it must be respected. But now we have people being punished even though they were not the ones who violated The Deal - this has destroyed the institution of marriage and made everyone question the wisdom of The Deal. But The Deal is the same. And disrespecting it or attempting to destroy it out of fear, self-loathing and anxiety does not work. Because The Deal is not out to get you. Its here to help you. And ruining The Deal simply ruins us all, starting with those who are prepared and willing to love. And that is not just wrong, but a recipe for the dissolution of the nuclear family and the pair bond between men and women which is so critical to the fabric of society as a whole.

Shoot First, ask Questions Later

or... being on your local FemiNazi campus.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/02/27/colleges_actions_in_sexual_assault_cases_scrutinized/?p1=Local_Links

The "New England Center for Investigative Reporting" wrote this piece of trash. It is a self-described "nonprofit newsroom based at Boston University."

The article was written in whole or in part by Boston University journalism students Jenna Ebersole and Allison McKinnon.

Jenna and Allison, please grow a brain. I don't even know where to begin. This is your "investigative journalism?" Wow. Well here's a lesson for you that apparently the women's studies program at BU forgot to give you, but my father taught me when I was about 6: there are two sides to ever story. TWO. Not one, but two.

The men in all of these cases of yours have a side too. The police took it. You couldn't get it, but further, YOU DID NOT EVEN PRESUPPOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE WOMEN COULD BE WRONG AND THE MEN EXONERATED OR AT LEAST FOUND TO BE LESS CULPABLE THEN YOU IMAGINE.

You are WOMEN. The people you are demonizing are MEN. It would only make sense that you would be aware of your strong potential for bias and CONSIDER WHAT SIDE THE MAN MIGHT HAVE IN THE STORY.

Let me clue you into reality. Read slowly.

The article starts:

It was supposed to be a fun college version of Friday night at the movies. A group of students at the Massachusetts College of Art and Design in Boston gathered in a classroom building, spending the autumn evening in 2009 drinking rum and Cokes and watching films.

No, that's what the girls thought. The guys thought that they would have an opportunity to get close to some cute (hopefully HOT, they were thinking) girls and flirt with them, charm them and maybe get some physical affection. They're men for chrissake, they're full of hormones. It doesn't make them monsters - but you need to keep an eye on the nature of the beast and not pretend they're girls. THEY ARE NOT GIRLS. They don't look, act, or think like girls. They are men. Get it?

But in the middle of the night, a 28-year-old sophomore said she woke to find a male student, whom she did not know apart from seeing him in class, fondling her, according to a police report. He was found responsible following a campus disciplinary procedure.

She just woke up to find him there? He just busted in and started grabbing her? Is her door not locked? If some strange guy grabbed any girl I've ever met she would start screaming or else strike him. Was he bruised? Was she? Scratched, cut, dishelved, etc.? Anything? The article doesn't say; perhaps she was too drunk to remember. I'm guessing right off that he was more sober than she. She "woke up" to find him there. Was he a cat buglar? I'm guessing he just walked right in, girded his loins and made his play - which she rebuffed eventually.

This is classic he-said, she-said, yet the article does not reach for the first thing the police do: PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF A CRIME. Without that, how do you know there has been any crime? Because someone claimed there was? That doesn't mean it actually happened, girls. Don't trust the "victim" because she claims to be a victim. Look for evidence.

Let's get what little we have of his side.

Telephone and e-mail messages for the male student were not returned. When interviewed by campus police, he said the victim was looking at him as he kissed her and didn’t tell him to stop.

He said he began to feel weird because she didn’t seem “into it," the police report states. Asked by police if he put his hands near or under her pants, the assailant “nodded in the affirmative and said ‘I may have,’ ’’ according to the report.

The student’s father then told his son he did not have to answer further questions, the report states.

He kissed her and she let him (not surprising, kissing isn't like being stabbed, dear reader), plus she was drunk and not in her right mind - as always you'll see that his drinking is his responsibility, her drinking is something he's supposed to notice, plan for, and take responsibility for as well. Next? Seems he made another move and it snapped her out of her drunken stupor (or changed her mind - her right) and told him to leave and he did - the poor, stupid guy probably had no idea she was drunk; men seldom understand when women are drunk until they start acting strangely - she was sleepy, or else asleep and he didn't realize why. No screaming, no violence, no 'assault' of any kind took place by either party. He certainly didn't seem to intend to actually hurt her and her intoxicated state probably resulted in him thinking she was fine with what was happening.

In other words, what we have, YET AGAIN, is a couple of college kids drinking, a guy making a move, and a misunderstanding arising. Imagine that.

The "victim" in the case is horrified that the "assailant" wasn't drawn and quartered.

MassArt sanctioned him by placing him on probation until graduation, and ordering him to stay away from the victim and participate in an educational workshop and counseling, according to US Department of Education records obtained by the New England Center for Investigative Reporting. The victim complained to the department’s Office for Civil Rights about the inadequacy of the sanctions, but the agency determined the school did nothing wrong, the records show.

“I’m kind of blown away because what he did to me, in a criminal court, would be a felony,’’ said the victim, a MassArt transfer student, now a senior. “It’s just really weird that his rights come before mine.’’

Sorry Ms. Victim, you're WAY off the mark. Let me help you.

In Massachusetts felonies are often defined as crimes that are the most serious and are more grave than misdemeanors. Felony charges usually offer a prison sentence of at least one year. This amount of time depends on severity of the crime.

Felonies in Massachusetts include rape, fraud, racketeering, burglary, assault and battery, grand theft, aggravated assault, illegal drug use and possession, embezzlement, kidnapping, murder, robbery, and arson.

Burning and killing, madam. Those are serious crimes. Misunderstandings are not. They're not even misdemeanors. Further, we have millions of people in jail for being in possession of some illegal drugs who are otherwise non-violent, tax-paying citizens; you want to add to that men who were too forward?

In your case, Ms. Victim, there is no PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to suggest a crime even took place. IN THIS COUNTRY, EVEN IF A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED, UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE THAT BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, THE ACCUSED GOES FREE. This can be pretty inconvenient sometimes and downright ugly other times. But it protects the innocent.

Is the man in this case innocent - no. He's guilty of not figuring out the girl he was making a pass at was in a alcohol-induced stupor. Was he taking advantage of her? I doubt it. If he was, he didn't go very far - a kiss and some touching? Some predator he is. He wasn't TOLD by the 'victim' something was wrong until after he did it. You want us to put this kid in jail for that? Are you kidding? Under what law? Illegally making out? If this was gross sexual misconduct or assault, fine, let him do the punishment for that. But what evidence is there of that? Did she scream, cry, push him away, punch him, kick him, etc.? Anything? No. Why not? Because she was too drunk to understand what was happening and he was too stupid.

When guys attempt to "make out" they kiss a girl, usually. Then move a little further and a little further. That's what this guy was doing. He was too scared to talk to her and apparently felt there was something between them. So he may be both stupid and socially awkward - both of those things are not crimes. The school's conclusion? Pretty much my own; she was too drunk to get around to stop him from touching her after he KISSED her, and he was too stupid to realize she was drunk. So they tell him to stay away from her (they should've sent him to a how-to-be-a-lady-slayer seminar). That might've done more good.

If you believe his story, he kissed her and received no negative feedback so he continued even though it felt "weird," but he stopped. Sound like a predator to you? He didn't rape this woman. He stopped. And he did leave. There was no "attack." She wasn't physically harmed. Legally, this is VERY gray. When someone is doing something to please you that you feel is injurious, YOU MUST SAY SOMETHING FAST BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW THEY ARE "INJURING" YOU. He had no knife or gun. Until she said something, he thought he was doing something she liked. Stupid, naive, insensitive? Sure. Illegal? No.

Since we don't want things like this to happen, let's be honest about why men hang out with women to begin with, shall we? Its not to watch movies. We can do that with our buddies, thanks. My buddies and I watched movies in college - girls just started showing up - they wanted our attention and we didn't mind because we wanted to hit on them and get some physical affection, eventually. The girls had no pretenses about what we wanted. They were there and they knew what time it was; they kept a firm eye on us and we kept an eye on them to make sure we didn't cross any forbidden lines and there was never any misunderstandings. Modern day college men and women seem to get together and drink and think they are both after the same things for the same reasons; this is just foolish. Let's not be stupid, shall we?

The "authors" are still outraged that this dumb man and others like him aren't hung on the courthouse steps:

The Department of Education’s MassArt decision last October comes even as federal education officials are touting a tougher approach to colleges and universities that fail to adequately punish perpetrators of campus sexual assaults.

Speaking on the condition her name not be used, the MassArt victim said she is fearful of her attacker, whom she regularly sees on campus. She has considered dropping out, she said.

“I have had a hard time being a student at this school in the last year,’’ she said.

She sees him on campus because its a small campus. He committed no legal crime. He pays his tuition. The school cannot just kick him out of school and charge him with a felony because she's upset. That's not the way the law works. If we based the law on crimes with no evidence but someone's word, lots of confused people would be in jail and this would all amount to witch-hunting.

Further she claims she "fears" him. Why? Has he been accused of harassing her, stalking her, threatening her, calling her, contacting her, e-mailing her, or any derivative thereof? No. Just a bad, drunken pass. He stays away from her as he was told. He's probably afraid of her too. Jesus Christ, a misunderstanding with her nearly got him thrown in jail. Would you go near her if you were him?

The authors in this article focus entirely on her feelings as if they were perfect and unfettered truth. This is foolish and childish of them at least and grossly incompetent at worst. Further, they seem to agree with her because they share her feelings on the matter; that men are unthinking predators to be feared and that this 'incident' is a prime example of it. As a logically-thinking adult, I must emphatically say: GIVE ME A BREAK.

But they won't let it go:

The Office for Civil Rights’ effort to crack down on schools failing to adequately punish assailants follows a series of reports on campus sexual assaults led by the Center for Public Integrity and published last year

Adequately punish "assailants"?!?!?! What does that mean? Throw a girl, a guy, emotions and alcohol in a bottle, mix them up and then start convicting people of felonies? That's a good idea, now, isn't it? The authors do not even acknowledge that false rape charges are possible, that they have happened, and that they can ruin a man's life and even put an innocent man in jail. True rapists or sexual predators, I have no pity for. Hang them on the courthouse steps, quite frankly. But you better be GODDAMN SURE that's what you're hanging! Otherwise this turns into a low-grade witch hunt for any man who did something while intoxicated that another intoxicated person believes to be "inappropriate." Again, with all due respect, give me a break. If you walked into a middle eastern country and told them girls and boys with lots of hormones should live in close quarters, party and drink, they would look at you cross-eyed and ask you how you got to be so stupid. Yet that's exactly what's done in this country and ONLY THE MEN who get mixed up in these "incidents" are accused of improper, AND EVEN ILLEGAL!, activity.

This kind of attitude has resulted in universities passing laws requiring a man "ask permission to touch a woman (such as put his hand on her leg) or kiss her." And they say romance is dead. Imagine that. The current thinking, laws, regulations and attitudes between men and women propagated by people like the authors, the mindset that all men should be girls' protectors and 'sense' when they've had too much to drink or are doing something they don't want to do WHILE they are doing it, or else go to jail for it, is what KILLED romance. It is exactly the reason why college campuses are FULL of frustrated, lonely girls who discover the supply of "well-employed, available men" outside of college is actually MUCH WORSE. Would you want to be a guy trying to kiss a girl on one of these campus's? How would you do it? Better make sure she likes you, wants you, is comfortable with everything you are doing ahead of time, isn't inebriated, isn't going to change her mind about what you are doing, and isn't going to accuse you of any Class A felonies afterwards.

This is why guys play videos games. The rules are much clearer and the game is much less work.

Further, bear in mind, dear reader, that colleges are defining "sexual assault" as what happened in the example previously examined here. Was this really a sexual assault? She admits there was no violent sexual attack, only inappropriate groping which her 'assailant' thought was not wanted until after the fact. When did she tell him no? What EXACTLY happened? He's afraid of saying anything that could be used against him - and he should be - and her story leaves many, many unanswered questions. There is no evidence of violence and no evidence GROSS misconduct. Just two careless, intoxicated kids. I am happy to convict this man of misconduct, but there just isn't any hard evidence suggesting it, and the authors of this article refuse to provide any. They have convicted him based solely on the word of an intoxicated person and moved on to save the "hordes" of other female victims on college campuses, nationwide, who are similarly "attacked."

I have seen and read of genuine incidents of valid sexual assault and rape, and a blame-the-victim response to it. THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE. Do NOT compare apples and oranges. I have no problem with the guilty doing their well-deserved punishment for genuine crime. But I have no desire to send what would be a taxpaying citizen to jail where he will become a taxpayer EXPENSE for what amounts to an improper sexual gesture that was not, at first, rejected.

The authors need to use their head and quit trying to 'save' every female romantic complaint and focus on GENUINE societal problems and crimes. Would the authors like to help AVOID incidents like this? Then make behavioral recommendations to prevent misunderstandings from happening in the first place.

I would start with suggesting the ladies demand respect and romantic gestures from men; yeah, that's right, demand romance! How do you demand romance? You can start by not dressing like whore, getting drunk, gyrating suggestively on the dance floor and throwing guys come-hither looks (standard weekend college behavior, I've seen plenty of them). Be ladylike, honest and vocal with men at all times. For men: act like gentlemen and treat women with respect - and its easy to treat ladylike women with respect; sorry, respect isn't the first thing that comes to mind when a girl is impersonating Madonna, on-stage. I will always sympathize with the men because I am one and because I know the mindset of a man, intoxicated or not, when surrounded by flirtatious, intoxicated, sexy, scantily-clad college girls; it can't possibly result in anything good for them or for the intoxicated men surrounding them.

The ladies have been told or else have been given the message that dressing VERY provocatively, drinking and acting like a dominatrix around intoxicated men is a good idea; some I believe have divined you will hook a boyfriend this way. THIS IS A LIE. It results in getting no respect, fleeting, bad sex, no intimacy and basically being treated like who you are impersonating: a prostitute. Sorry, this man-fan doesn't like seeing women treated like that. I think they deserve better. But then feminists hate me, so that makes sense.

While I believe men should be held responsible for their actions, I have no doubt you will find dear reader, more gentlemen are to be found in countries that contain women who insist men be gentlemen; they are also the ones that insist ladies act like ladies. And another thing - the ladies in these countries don't have to hunt for dates, as in this one - the men court them. COURT them. Romantically. The ladies have their pick of COURTING GENTLEMEN. Misunderstandings like the one described here are practically non-existent and there are no articles in Cosmo asking where all the "real men" are. But we have "transcended" that way of courtship here.

Look at how well its working for us.

-JB

The Law - Useless...... for you at least, pleb

I don't know how anyone takes the law seriously anymore. When I was a kid it seemed to be somewhat intact - of course reality is that it started crumbling back in the 1920s when excess wealth - mainly funded by stock and equity speculation (sound familiar?) - bought and paid for enough politicians to cause Congress to start passing laws to set prices, interfere with the economy and trade (tariffs) and basically do anything to support their rich friends who were at the top of the capitalist food chain.

Then the mafia became a major player and managed to dodge prosecution for murder, extortion, bribery and the like until the Justice Department and FBI finally cracked down - read that again - the LOCAL POLICE were bought and paid for; it was the Federal police who ultimately enforced the law. And I say that as someone who is no fan of Federal power at all. As the 1920s and recent credit crisis (that's banker speak for credit contraction- a normal and healthy economic phenomenon.) have shown, enough money buys even the Feds, Hell the President is on the take; where do you think his campaign money came from? Little donors like you?

Yeah, right.

This is an example of the local goon squad run amok:

http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/brookline/2010/06/all_charges_dropped_in_brookli.html

I'll sum up for those unfamiliar with the case. Some off-duty cops had a bachelor party and of course got drunk, and apparently someone had ordered a private stripper (ahead of time). Well if you've never known a frat party brother, when a stripper comes, she doesn't just come alone into a roomful of what could be large, drunk and ornery men. She brings a man for security with her. Its common practice. So the stripper and her man show up to the party (at 4 am), as ordered, and the bachelor had left residence to go somewhere else (WHERE, at 4 am?). So the remaining off-duty cops, instead of apologizing and offering to handle it later, or else negotiate for something to compensate the woman and security guard for their time and trouble, just tell them to both get lost. Well it seems the stripper and her bodyguard were a little ticked (understandably) and demanded some kind of compensation, gas money and the like - the off-duty cops said no way. So the stripper and bodyguard left and went to the street and got in their car. The off-duty cops followed them (you should be wondering why). The bodyguard got out to ask them what they were doing as one of them was photographing his license plate. At that point all four off-duty cops jumped him and beat him up (I mean, how DARE HE challenge their authority!). He sustained cuts, bruises and a fractured eye socket - this is what happens when 4 men beat you up. The stripper claims she was terrified for him and backed the car up towards him. The cops stopped the beating but they had a new problem.... a real cop showed up. You know, IN UNIFORM, ON THE JOB. He talked to his 4 buddies and arrested..... the beaten bodyguard. For assault. I'm not kidding. He actually did this. The 4 off duty cops were without a scratch on any of them. He made no police report (wha?) and threw the victim in jail, but never charged him with a crime (you readers with a brain ought to be screaming at the monitor how you can throw someone in jail without even CHARGING them with a crime as this amounts to arbitrary and capricious detention without cause). And pray tell dear reader, WHAT COP SHOWS UP TO A SCENE WITH 4 MEN WHO HAVE BEEN DRINKING AND ONE BEATEN MAN AND CONCLUDES THE ONE BLOODIED SOBER GUY ATTACKED THE 4 DRUNKS? I have a very good friend who is a cop (and a good one). This guy can tell if you're lying before you can. He was also trained that, guess what, drinking doesn't exactly make most men non-violent; some may just get sleepy (like me) but as my gramps says - alcohol must be mixed with either condoms or boxing gloves because when people take it they seem to want to do one of the other. For these goons, it was clearly boxing gloves. Well the genius on-duty cop decided the drunks standing next to the beaten victim were innocent and telling the complete truth.

Give me a break.

Well the bodyguard was no idiot it seems. He got a lawyer, who of course demanded the police report. The police department claimed it was "investigating," produced no report, suspended the 4 officers WITH PAY for 4 months (that's called a vacation where I come from), and dragged the incident out until everyone more or less forgot about it. Then.... FOUR MONTHS after the incident, they charge TWO of the four men with MISDEMEANOR assault (yawn) and charged the victim with FELONY ASSAULT. Forget the pathetic charges against 2 of the 4 perpetrators - WHAT EVIDENCE suggests that the beaten man assaulted the others? Did he have bruised knuckles? Nope. Did the 4 off-duty cops have bruises, marks, broken bones, etc.? Nope. Did the one NON-POLICE witness see the bodyguard fight back? No. Did the bodyguard make threats before supposedly jumping FOUR men, according to anyone at the scene? No. So then why was he charged with a crime? Well this cute little ploy worked wonders you see; the prosecutors told the beaten man's lawyer "You drop your charges and we'll drop ours." Everyone is then magically acquitted and goes home. The man with the broken eye socket? He gets nothing. NOTHING. The four drunk thugs, who also happened to be cops, that beat him senseless? After a 4 month paid vacation, they went back to work - THEY WEREN'T EVEN SANCTIONED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, NOT BUSTED A GRADE, NOT SUSPENDED, NOTH-ING. The story from the Police department? Well, you see, small pleb, it was all handled by the appropriate authorities, now there's no need to worry, we have handled it, we gave the officers a stern warning and now everyone can go on with their lives. There's nothing to see here, just move along, little pleb, we are the authorities and we make the decisions, so don't ask too many questions, its not good for you.

When I was young that kind of incident would've at least cost the officers their jobs and probably misdemeanor assault charges at least, if not felony charges. Losing their jobs would've been a given and it would've been the least of their worries. Today? A four month TAXPAYER-FUNDED vacation and a return to the same job. THE GESTAPO WOULD BE PROUD, EH COMRADE?

IS THAT SOME KIND OF FUCKING JOKE? These men ARE NOT FIT TO BE POLICEMEN. THEY COMMITTED FELONY ASSAULT - ANY OTHER CITIZEN IN THAT SITUATION IS PROSECUTED AND CHARGED. They clearly ABUSED their authority at a time WHEN THEY DIDN'T EVEN HAVE ANY! OUT OF UNIFORM they STILL felt ENTITLED to SAVAGELY ATTACK a man in an unprovoked manner and get away with it! Oh I'm sure they'll be sweet little cops now. Like a child who kicks his mom or dad in the leg and receives no admonishment, I'm sure those men have "learned their lesson." The lesson they learned is this: you can assault a ordinary citizen when drunk and receive no punishment AT ALL. These men are authority-drunk, power-hungry apes who feel the law does not apply to them! That they are part of a "special class" who is above the law! The only on-duty cop didn't even write a report! He arrested the victim! What is this, the Soviet Union!?!?!? Why would anyone trust the police? The high and mighty "law" does not apply to everyone equally and this is a clear example of that.

Divorced men who have been arrested when their wife assaulted them, thrown out of their homes and been hit with false restraining orders based on no evidence other than the word of a woman divorcing them are not surprised at this story. Family court routinely ignores due process including the right to question your accuser and hands out what amounts to stealing nearly 40% of your pay for up to 23 years and doesn't bat an eye. Why? Because feminazi, man-hating extremists have bent the law to allow such monstrosities to happen. Period. The constitution is ignored, the bill of rights is ignored, shocked and outraged men are told to "sit down and shutup," and innocent children are given to manipulative women who tell their children lies about their father and/or interfere with the pathetic 2 days a week the father IS ALLOWED by "the court" to see his own children, and then only if he pays their shakedown money, which commonly runs into the thousands for a simple, middle class man.

WHAT'S THE WEATHER LIKE IN SWITZERLAND?

LADIES: WHY YOU'RE NOT MARRIED

LADIES: WHY YOU'RE NOT MARRIED - BY TRACY MCMILLAN (A.K.A. A VERY SMART WOMAN)

You want to get married. It's taken a while to admit it. Saying it out loud -- even in your mind -- feels kind of desperate, kind of unfeminist

[this is a larger theme: want happiness girls? kick that feminism streak to the curb.NOW].

, kind of definitely not you, or at least not any you that you recognize. Because you're hardly like those girls on TLC saying yes to the dress and you would never compete for a man like those poor actress-wannabes on The Bachelor.

You've never dreamt of an aqua-blue ring box.

Then, something happened. Another birthday, maybe. A breakup. Your brother's wedding. His wife-elect asked you to be a bridesmaid, and suddenly there you were, wondering how in hell you came to be 36-years-old, walking down the aisle wearing something halfway decent from J. Crew that you could totally repurpose with a cute pair of boots and a jean jacket. You started to hate the bride -- she was so effing happy -- and for the first time ever you began to have feelings about the fact that you're not married. You never really cared that much before. But suddenly (it was so sudden) you found yourself wondering... Deep, deep breath... Why you're not married.

Well, I know why.

How? It basically comes down to this: I've been married three times. Yes, three. To a very nice MBA at 19; a very nice minister's son at 32 (and pregnant); and at 40, to a very nice liar and cheater who was just like my dad, if my dad had gone to Harvard instead of doing multiple stints in federal prison.

I was, for some reason, born knowing how to get married. Growing up in foster care is a big part of it. The need for security made me look for very specific traits in the men I dated -- traits it turns out lead to marriage a surprisingly high percentage of the time. Without really trying to, I've become a sort of jailhouse lawyer of relationships -- someone who's had to do so much work on her own case that I can now help you with yours.

But I won't lie. The problem is not men, it's you. Sure, there are lame men out there, but they're not really standing in your way. Because the fact is -- if whatever you're doing right now was going to get you married, you'd already have a ring on it. So without further ado, let's look at the top six reasons why you're not married.

1. You're a Bitch.
Here's what I mean by bitch. I mean you're angry. You probably don't think you're angry. You think you're super smart, or if you've been to a lot of therapy, that you're setting boundaries. But the truth is you're pissed. At your mom. At the military-industrial complex. At Sarah Palin. And it's scaring men off.

The deal is: most men just want to marry someone who is nice to them. I am the mother of a 13-year-old boy, which is like living with the single-cell protozoa version of a husband. Here's what my son wants out of life: macaroni and cheese, a video game, and Kim Kardashian. Have you ever seen Kim Kardashian angry? I didn't think so. You've seen Kim Kardashian smile, wiggle, and make a sex tape. Female anger terrifies men. I know it seems unfair that you have to work around a man's fear and insecurity in order to get married -- but actually, it's perfect, since working around a man's fear and insecurity is big part of what you'll be doing as a wife.

[And you better fucking believe that's what husbands do for wives - DAILY.]

2. You're Shallow.
When it comes to choosing a husband, only one thing really, truly matters: character. So it stands to reason that a man's character should be at the top of the list of things you are looking for, right? But if you're not married, I already know it isn't. Because if you were looking for a man of character, you would have found one by now. Men of character are, by definition, willing to commit.

Instead, you are looking for someone tall. Or rich. Or someone who knows what an Eames chair is. Unfortunately, this is not the thinking of a wife. This is the thinking of a teenaged girl. And men of character do not want to marry teenaged girls. Because teenage girls are never happy. And they never feel like cooking, either.

3. You're a Slut.
Hooking up with some guy in a hot tub on a rooftop is fine for the ladies of Jersey Shore -- but they're not trying to get married. You are. Which means, unfortunately, that if you're having sex outside committed relationships, you will have to stop. Why? Because past a certain age, casual sex is like recreational heroin -- it doesn't stay recreational for long.

That's due in part to this thing called oxytocin -- a bonding hormone that is released when a woman a) nurses her baby and b) has an orgasm -- that will totally mess up your casual-sex game. It's why you can be f**k-buddying with some dude who isn't even all that great and the next thing you know, you're totally strung out on him. And you have no idea how it happened. Oxytocin, that's how it happened. And since nature can't discriminate between marriage material and Charlie Sheen, you're going to have to start being way more selective than you are right now.

4. You're a Liar.
It usually goes something like this: you meet a guy who is cute and likes you, but he's not really available for a relationship. He has some condition that absolutely precludes his availability, like he's married, or he gets around town on a skateboard. Or maybe he just comes right out and says something cryptic and open to interpretation like, "I'm not really available for a relationship right now."

You know if you tell him the truth -- that you're ready for marriage -- he will stop calling. Usually that day. And you don't want that. So you just tell him how perfect this is because you only want to have sex for fun! You love having fun sex! And you don't want to get in a relationship at all! You swear!
About ten minutes later, the oxytocin kicks in. You start wanting more. But you don't tell him that. That's your secret -- just between you and 22,000 of your closest girlfriends. Instead, you hang around, having sex with him, waiting for him to figure out that he can't live without you. I have news: he will never "figure" this out. He already knows he can live without you just fine. And so do you. Or you wouldn't be lying to him in the first place.

5. You're Selfish.

[AT LAST, SOMEONE SAYS IT]

If you're not married, chances are you think a lot about you. You think about your thighs, your outfits, your naso-labial folds. You think about your career, or if you don't have one, you think about doing yoga teacher training. Sometimes you think about how marrying a wealthy guy -- or at least a guy with a really, really good job -- would solve all your problems.

Howevs, a good wife, even a halfway decent one, does not spend most of her day thinking about herself. She has too much s**t to do, especially after having kids. This is why you see a lot of celebrity women getting husbands after they adopt. The kids put the woman on notice: Bitch, hello! It's not all about you anymore! After a year or two of thinking about someone other than herself, suddenly, Brad Pitt or Harrison Ford comes along and decides to significantly other her. Which is also to say -- if what you really want is a baby, go get you one. Your husband will be along shortly. Motherhood has a way of weeding out the lotharios.

[My only reserve here - men don't prefer other people's kids, and you're not a Hollywood movie star, so skip this one and just be really serious about who you pick]

6. You're Not Good Enough.
Oh, I don't think that. You do. I can tell because you're not looking for a partner who is your equal. No, you want someone better than you are: better looking, better family, better job.

Here is what you need to know: You are enough right this minute. Period. Not understanding this is a major obstacle to getting married, since women who don't know their own worth make terrible wives. Why? You can fake it for a while, but ultimately you won't love your spouse any better than you love yourself

[ready that part ten times over aloud. Then repeat.]

. Smart men know this.

I see this at my son's artsy, progressive school. Of 183 kids, maybe six have moms who are as cute as you're trying to be. They're attractive, sure. They're just not objects. Their husbands (wisely) chose them for their character, not their cup size.

Alright, so that's the bad news. The good news is that I believe every woman who wants to can find a great partner. You're just going to need to get rid of the idea that marriage will make you happy. It won't. Once the initial high wears off, you'll just be you, except with twice as much laundry.

Because ultimately, marriage is not about getting something -- it's about giving it. Strangely, men understand this more than we do. Probably because for them marriage involves sacrificing their most treasured possession -- a free-agent penis -- and for us, it's the culmination of a princess fantasy so universal, it built Disneyland.

The bottom line is that marriage is just a long-term opportunity to practice loving someone even when they don't deserve it. Because most of the time, your messy, farting, macaroni-and-cheese eating man will not be doing what you want him to. But as you give him love anyway -- because you have made up your mind to transform yourself into a person who is practicing being kind, deep, virtuous, truthful, giving, and most of all, accepting of your own dear self -- you will find that you will experience the very thing you wanted all along:

Love.

Out-rageous

Think of stories like this the next time you consider all police "good guys" and anyone they might be after a 100% "bad guy."

Two CA Men Sue for False Arrest in DV Cases
February 7th, 2011 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

The misuse of domestic violence laws and faulty police practices when DV is alleged just keep on coming. This case out of San Carlos, California (San Jose Mercury News, 2/4/11) bears some striking similarities to this one out of Atherton, California, just a few miles away (Palo Alto Online, 2/2/10).

In the more recent of the two, it looks like Mark Littell Adams’s wife went to the doctor to have a finger splinted. The doctor decided, on the basis of what we don’t yet know, that Mark had attacked her. So he called the police who, Adams says,

forced their way into his Kelton Avenue home on April 23 without a search warrant or probable cause, and arrested him on suspicion of domestic violence against his wife.

[ENTERING A PRIVATE RESIDENCE WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT OR CAUSE IS A CRIME. ITS CALLED BREAKING AND ENTERING. THE POLICEMEN THAT DID IT SHOULD BE BROUGHT UP ON CHARGES. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. PERIOD.]

Prosecutors never filed charges against him and, three months later closed their file. Now, Adams has gone to court requesting that a judge make a finding of actual innocence in his case. If the judge agrees, Adams’s arrest record will be expunged. He’s also filed suit for deprivation of his civil rights.

Meanwhile, Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said,

“The evidence wasn’t sufficient enough for us to prosecute, but we also believe the evidence does not show his innocence.”

[Really? Then divulge the evidence you have that suggests ANY GUILT OF ANY KIND. YOU HOLD A PUBLIC OFFICE - DIVULGE TO THE PEOPLE THIS 'SECRET' INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE.]

That’s interesting because, in the earlier case out of Atherton, he said

“It was not sufficient (evidence) to prosecute, but it was not a case where we would agree to declaration of factual innocence.”

Maybe someone should write some new lines for Mr. Wagstaffe. He’s overusing the ones he has. That’s because a judge in the earlier case agreed with the Atherton man police had arrested and in fact issued a formal declaration of innocence.

[So the prosecutor didn't find him innocent, BUT A JUDGE DID? Again, WHERE IS YOUR 'EVIDENCE' MR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR?!!? YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC, NOT JAIL US WITH THUG TATICS AND NO CAUSE, YOU GODDAMN EGOMANIAC TYRANT.]

That case involved a man named Jon Buckheit who was involved with an unnamed woman. He placed a 911 call to police claiming she was being violent toward him, but, in an all-too-familiar outcome, they arrested him, not her.

Like Adams, he was arrested, like Adams he was never charged, like Adams he’s sued the police and county for violation of civil rights, like Adams he claimed actual innocence and like Adams it all came about amid allegations of domestic violence. And in both cases it was the man who was arrested despite there being no obvious evidence of wrongdoing on his part.

One aspect of the Buckheit case that may or may not be present in the Adams case is that a police officer seems to have illegally altered the police report of the incident to include an allegation of child abuse. The officer who actually made the original report testified under oath that it had been altered by another officer.

[THIS IS POLICE CORRUPTION. IT IS THE THUGS TRYING TO COVER THEIR TRACKS. WHERE IS THE PRESS ON THIS? ALTERING POLICE REPORTS? WHAT'S NEXT TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE? OH YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT - THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE.]

For his part, Adams says that he’s found it hard to get a copy of the audio tapes of his own arrest. That bears a definite resemblance to the same difficulties Buckheit had in getting his police report. And, in yet a further similarity, Adams says he thinks the audio tapes may have been doctored.

[What was I saying again? Something about tampering with evidence... Where the fuck do we live? Saudi Arabia? Are these police officers or hired goons? They are making a mockery of the entire police force. Why would anyone trust people like this?!?!?!]

We’ll see what happens in the two cases. But what’s happened so far isn’t exactly new. I’ve reported before that police are trained to believe that, in DV incidents, it’s men who are perpetrators and women who are victims, so it’s no great surprise when they act accordingly. Indeed it’s those rare occasions when a woman is arrested on a DV charge that are the exceptions.

The most telling example of all comes from the training materials for Maine police officers answering domestic violence calls. Not only are they written in almost exclusively gender-specific language, their hypothetical examples include not a single one in which officers are instructed to arrest the woman.

That’s true even in the case in which both the woman and the man admit to officers that she hit him and he didn’t hit her. Combined with objective evidence of injury, most people might think she would be the one arrested, but no; police learn that, once again, he’s the correct one to arrest even though he has committed no crime.

That looks a lot like what happened a continent away in the Adams and Buckheit cases.

Runaway Husband Syndrome

Make sure it doesn't happen to you. Because its a vicious and dangerous killer and its on the move. It could gobble up your children at night, it could ruin your life. So be prepared! Learn to spot the signs! Your husband could LEAVE YOU! So check for any sign that he could be going and if you spot something suspicious, why maybe you should leave him first! Call a lawyer! Know your rights! Know what you are ENTITLED to!

[At this point, most divorced men should have killed their computer monitor as many men have been divorced for reasons which still leave their mouths agape, questioning what happened after coming home to a locked door or accusatory state social worker].

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/runaway-husbands-unfaithful-abandon-wives-warning/story?id=10829180

Let's start with the low-hanging fruit:

"As a therapist, she had counselled couples on divorce, but Stark was completely unprepared for the disintegration of her marriage."

- Are you freaking kidding me. Nice piece of journalism, dear author. She's a couples therapist who couldn't keep her own marriage together? She saw no signs, held no suspicions, heard no complaints, etc.? Impressive. What intuition. That's like being a professional golfer who can't get par at the local mini-golf. What does she tell her clients? I assume advice she herself cannot take? My guess is that her husband is the Lester Burnham type (See American Dream) and he just goes along with the program. She's too busy having a big, sexy career to notice her husband is a self-loathing schmuck. So was he... until he decided not to be, it seems.

"Three years ago, Montreal author and therapist Vikki Stark took the red-eye flight home from a book tour, eager to be back in her loving husband's arms."

Oh, cute. Check it out - she takes a HARD, HARD flight back from HER OWN book tour, to see her 'loving husband.' I guess his job was to go meet her at the airport and welcome her back from her long trip. A trip that was all about her success and her career. Jesus, I'm already thinking this was one understanding guy. So she has a big shot career. What does he have? What does he contribute to the family, to the relationship? It sounds like she makes the money. I mean, he's at home, apparently, waiting for HER.

"How do you deal with the hit to self-esteem when you feel like an old dish rag he threw away?" she said. "How do we turn anything life throws at us for an opportunity for growth?"

Sorry? He "threw you away?" How? This lady was on her own book tour - hey lady, what was your husband doing? Does he have a career that he LEAVES YOU AT HOME FOR WEEKS AT A TIME FOR? And if he did, would someone whisper the word 'selfish' about him? Would someone ask him what his wife did all alone for weeks? I guess he understood your career.... or you thought he did. But perhaps you running off to your career (like a mistress, nearly), for weeks at a time, made him feel like the one that was a old dish rag that was thrown away? Do ya' think? Just maybe? Emasculating maybe? Yeah.

"More than 400 of women aged 45 to 60 from around the world responded to her online survey, and their stories were mind-boggling."

Around the world? Wow. A whole 400. Blow me down. 400 out of.... what hundreds of millions? You could make it 5000 women and still be a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the women in the world. That number does not EVEN BEGIN to portend any sudden-man-leaving crisis. Besides, the reasons for those husbands leaving could be wide and varied and have nothing to do with her situation. Her husband had no role. He couldn't contribute anything she couldn't. The only job left for him was to cook and clean and apparently that wasn't enough for him. He should've told her that a long time ago. Now she has to troll for another poor-luck loser. Study after study shows testosterone-filled, alpha-male, top-earning men are happier than the "even-steven" earning men, and the WIVES of the higher-earning men are happier than the wives of the earning-equal wives, but I guess book-tour genius didn't read those studies. Of course she could've just had a heart-to-heart talk with two dozen non-alpha lesbians but that was too much work as well. She was too busy patting herself on the back for knowing so much. Take a lesson, madam. Relationships are like the ocean or the stock market - just when you think you have them figured out they blow up in your face. Be humbled, priestess.


As always, the author, Ms. Stark, directs the entirety of her book on HIM. What the man did wrong. What he was after. Why she wasn't good enough for him (meaning his false expectations). Blah, blah, blah. What she might've done wrong? Her culpability in his leaving? Non-existent to this woman. In other words, she doesn't really want to know why he left. She wants to make herself feel better; she wants to convince herself it wasn't her fault. At all. Even a little bit. What bunk.

Blissfully we get to the truth, which the author somehow is blown away by. What a moron. Here it is:

"[The men] are often pillars of the community: doctors, dentists, professors, pastors, little league coaches, who seemed to be involved with their families and community.

"People look at the couple and see them as having the model marriage," she said. "That's part of why it's so devastating to friends and family -- if that couple could split up, what marriage is secure?" [Oh Lord - what is this, a NOW poster article for divorce and distrust of all men everywhere?]

In 95 percent of the cases, Stark found, the men ran to other women, almost always younger, but surprisingly not "trophy wives."

"The girlfriend is not sexy and gorgeous," said Stark. "Often she is rather ordinary, not as accomplished as the wife and looks up to him and laughs at his jokes and makes the man feel like he's king of the world."

Holy shit. There you go. You can act surprised now. And I do mean act. So the secret to men's hearts is.... not net total sexiness of a woman? IMAGINE THAT. He's a human being. No kidding. Who'd'a thunk it? So the lady he winds up with is... a feminine woman who looks at him as a provider with a distinct role in the relationship, someone who admires him and needs him. Stunning. Really. I'm blown away. I mean, what MAN (not mangina, ladies) would want a woman like that!?!?! Oh guess what ladies - all men more or less want that. He doesn't want to compete with you to make money or be very successful. That's mostly HIS role. Or at least the one he ENJOYS living. Welcome to THE TRUTH. Men with balls (like me), say it. YOU seldom hear it or believe it when you do. When you out-earn your man or else out-accomplish him, he feels like a second-class citizen because that's what men are supposed to do. You're doing his job better than he can. Congrats. So what do you need him for? And don't give me a load of shit about "wanting" him or "loving him" or any of that other bullshit. Love and want are sweet for kiddie stories. But out in the real world they come and go. Love can be fleeting, I'm sad to say. As Chris Rock said, You can fall in and out of love with your wife several times over the course of your relationship. Now, NEED on the other hand.... Need, IN THE REAL FRICKING WORLD, is truthfully much more dependable. These men have a role with their new ladies. They are needed. They do something she can't do. It makes them feel worthwhile, depended on, needed, relied on. That makes men feel good. GET IT!?!?!? EVERYTHING about their old wife DID NOT make them feel ANY OF THAT. And that is a BAD thing. Comprendé? With his new wife he gets to feel like a MAN. A God-made, chest-thumping gorilla. Not someone's girlfriend with a penis. Kill the word 'partner' someone. It suggests everyone does the same things and should be happy to do the same things. Men have been force fed this shit and they've swallowed it, grudgingly. But the deep down truth is that they fucking hate it. I want to feel like a man and make you feel like a woman. Want to be someone's perfectly equal double's partner? THEN GO PLAY TENNIS WITH MABEL FROM NEXT DOOR. I'm your fucking husband. I make hard decisions, eat people for money, provide, keep the kids inline, and fuck your brains out. Sound so terrible? I've got article after article all over the web and traditional media about girls practically BEGGING to know where all the "men" have gone. Real men sister. The men I describe. Some women turned off by that? No sweat. There is some mangina waiting for them somewhere. The rest? They are smiling ear to ear at what I described. The marlboro man. Trust me. I've talked to them. You might try my little lost author.

It typically works out best when the man has the big shot career and his wife doesn't because if she had one too then tell me who cooks, who cleans, does the laundry and takes care of the kids? Answer: no one. The women's movement claims it'll just magically get done or else you will both do it. Yeah, right. That's been the cause of half the man-woman fights in America. Men just traditionally DON'T CARE as much as women do how clean the house or kitchen is. They just don't. Period. Forcing them to doesn't change reality. And sharing is the 'best' case scenario here. In our above case, wifey is gone away with her bigshot career. So the above list falls solely on hubby's shoulders. I guess he doesn't care. Or more likely, he did, but didn't have the balls to say so because his wife is the family breadwinner. So what happened? He realized he'd rather live life poor with his balls intact.

Me too buddy.

More nonesense:

"Many wives reported their husbands were "disgruntled and unhappy" at work, and figured they couldn't leave the job, but could change partners."

No, they wanted a job they could be more successful at and maybe change your relationship dynamic which is pretty shitty at present.

"According to Stark's research, these runaways appear attentive and engaged before they check out, never mentioning discontent. They are typically "conflict avoiders" and described by their wives as "narcissistic.""

No, they can't admit they feel like a loser because they make squat and live off their own fucking wife. Yes, it is their fault if they are discontent, but don't tell their wife that. But what exactly are they going to say? That he's jealous of his own wife's success? The comeback to that he already knows: "If my being successful is a problem, why don't YOU go out and become a success? I'm not going to be an underachiever so that you can feel better!" And of course, that's all true. But since this guy can't or won't do that, he's made another choice: find a different woman that makes him seem more of a alpha male. Bad choice? Not as bad as deciding to marry a woman who always had more potential than he did. If a man is threatened by that, fine; but don't marry a woman like that. And ladies... for the most part... don't marry guys who are going to resemble your housekeeper more than they will your husband.

"But when they blurt out the news, their reasons are "nonsensical, exaggerated, trivial or fraudulent," she said. Oddly, she reported, most of the men leave between October and January, perhaps because their unhappiness is amplified by holiday stress."

She's reaching here. The holidays make them feel more like a pussy because other guys are giving expensive presents and feeling, you know, LIKE A MAN. While these guys get by just because their wife offers them a joint checking account. Holidays make them feel more pathetic.

"Quite a number of men and women have affairs, and I can understand where marriages do break down," she said, "but to leave without involving a spouse at all?"

Wait, what? Men AND women have affairs? What does that prove? So the men aren't cheating anymore than the women are?

"It's like a parasitic relationship," she said. "He depends on his wife, and when he finds someone else to boost his self-esteem, he hops from the wife to the next partner."

Nope. Not even close. He has no self-esteem with you. Zero. His new lady gives him one. The poor pussy can't even tell you he resents you for emasculating him. Why don't you just bench press more than he can while you're at it.

"When women seek help, often therapists don't understand how devastating it is, said Stark."

This is fucked. And when a man is divorced by his wife, who leaves with his house, his kids and so much of his money he can never have a private life ever again... WHAT DOES THAT GUY FEEL? Why don't you look up divorced male suicide rates and learn a fucking lesson you frigging moron.

"Reality is distorted and the sense of betrayal is huge," she said. "If I can't trust 'George,' who I trusted with my heart and mind, who can I trust? You start to question all relationships."

No kidding. That serial dater breaking some poor woman's heart on page 2 of Dear Abbey? Yeah. Now you know how he trusts women about as far as he can throw them. I imagine you'll do the same. Isn't divorce great!

Go focus on your career. Its your brand new husband. Don't cry and be lonely, it makes a bad professional impression.


Addendum: To buttress my earlier thoughts, examine here, dear reader, there is a central theme at play here: two people in a relationship both sacrifice for one another - this is a tried and true axiom of marriage. When one person is having an AMAZING career, then the other often takes a supporting role - when a man plays the supporting role, this threatens him and that should be understood early on. Secondly, when both people have bigshot careers, that takes a helluva lot of time out of the relationship. Both people will feel "cheated" out of time with the other, and both will demand more and get less. A career can be every bit as demanding as a spouse - even more so. Many successful and "famous" people (Emeril, Martha Stewart, etc.) got divorced along the way. Why? Because they lived at work. They basically married their job. And I don't know anyone who can stay married to two people at the same time. One is hard enough. This is why the "traditional" method (oh, no, be scared! the word 'traditional' was used!) is for the man to have a career and for his wife to stay home with the kids - some people can live with the opposite, but many try to and fail. Many find out that they are not as "flexible" and "liberal" as they thought they were when it comes to gender roles and money. And that's fine. The truth is most men and women want "traditional" roles and studies show that men and women in those roles more often report being happy. What is happening with situations like the one above is that a man - a weak man - who didn't know what he wanted or who lied about what he wanted - swallowed the feminazi "line." That men should somehow feel guilty for not supporting a successful spouse and should eat their pride and their masculinity and accept the fact that they are the "supporting" spouse because their wife "deserves" it.

Deserve has nothing to do with anything here. And her happiness is not superior to his and vice versa. Some men can do it - some just aren't threatened by their wife's success and have their own hopes and dreams that they take responsibility for. But for many men, its just too emasculating. Its not right or wrong - its just the truth, and if it upsets someone's social agenda, I don't give a shit. Men - be who are, period.

Ladies - better really grill your man about how accepting he is about your career, and you better really appreciate him if he is accepting; it generally goes against his nature and as you've seen above.... that can blow up in both your faces.

Further, regardless of your gender, any career that is TOO successful will wind up being your ONLY relationship; this seems to be especially the case for women. When someone talks about being professionally 'successful' you should immediately think they are alone or will be soon. Professional success eventually tends to equal personal failure. And THAT, it should be pointed out, typically hits women MUCH harder than it hits men; again, THIS IS WHY WOMEN MORE NATURALLY ASSUME A SUPPORTING ROLE. Given that most women judge themselves by the success of their relationships, perhaps a bigshot career is not their path to real happiness?

Now its time for our female readers to buy a REALLY nice handbag, down an apple martini and think about going shoe shopping tomorrow; these things are the modern woman's elixir for the chronic love deficiency that makes her deeply unhappy morning, noon, and night.

-JB

The Sad State of Affairs

Do I really have to say?

From Yahoo Marriage and Family:




If you told these lines to WOMEN from so-called "conservative" countries they would ask you just how long it took your man to get rid of you as you clearly are a selfish person who does not even BEGIN to understand what it takes to be married. Here, of course, it passes as run-of-the-mill.