Men Who Hate Men

One of the biggest problem facing the father's movement is guys like this:



That pinnacle of masculinity is Jeff Fecke. He's a liberal freelance writer from Minnesota. Fecke is divorced, and the father of "one really terrific daughter."

Not sure what kind of deal he got in the divorce, his blog doesn't say. He claims to be from the "moderate left." Which is to say he's only moderately confused. He also claims to have been conservative but has become more liberal with age. Right. Anyone have family or friends that became MORE liberal with age? I don't, and yes I know liberals. After having kids and paying bills and watching the government (Dem and Repub) promise a lot, deliver nothing and tax even more, most people have moved to the keep-your-hands-off-my-money crowd by the time they hit 35. And divorced men all the more so, because after child support and taxes we keep about 1/4 of what we make - yeah, that's fair.

Fecke has, in his supreme wisdom, written an article called "Real Men Don't Fight for Men's Rights." Jeff, what the Hell does that even mean? Your article title by definition means a select group of society should not fight for itself. Care to explain that? How about defend it? If I don't fight for myself, Jeff, who will? Everyone fights for themselves, Jeff. Welcome to the land of grownups; you should join us sometime. Did you miss that multi-trillion dollar bankster bailout? How about the 40% child support rate (for one child), where the politicians take N.O.W. money to enforce it using the "law" (the law - that thing that taxes GE and IBM at just above 0%), and the state gets a piece of the action as the Feds reimburse them for what they collect from divorced men. Sound fair and just to you Jeff? Forget to fight for yourself Jeff, buddy and you're sure to be the one everyone else wipes their feet on.

Now onto Jeff's advice for men to volunteer to be raped. This should be funny.

I have some sympathy for the Men’s Rights crowd.

For the most part, what the MRM claims to be for is good, even laudable. They support the idea that fathers should be given equal consideration in custody proceedings, and the idea that fathers are as important as mothers in the lives of children. They talk about how we need to recognize men’s contribution to children, how we should encourage society to accept that women and men both have a responsibility to parent–and to let the other parent parent, too.

Yes, Jeff. We want to be fathers. Regardless of whether mom has a mis-timed panic attack or screws her boss, we want to be what we are: dads. Go figure.

All good. And all things I believe. I do think that men are undervalued as parents, and subtly discouraged from viewing themselves as a primary caregiver to their children. One need only look at how few men are stay-at-home dads to see that as far as society has come, we still view men as the second-most-important parent.

So we need to find a way to move to equality in relationships. All well and good, and it seems to me that there are two strategies one could adopt.

No Jeff. There are not "two strategies." Just like N.O.W. in the 60's we ask for one thing only: equality. In our case, equality that is enforced in all things having to do with children. But define your brainy "strategies" for me. Maybe we could have a scotch-filled strategy session with action items afterward.

The first is for Men’s Rights advocates to recognize that they have common cause with feminists. Women are pressured to stay in the home as much as men are pressured to be good providers. For every man who secretly would like to stay home with the kids, there’s a mom who would love to get back into the workforce. By stating that we oppose the ideal of declaring one sex the “nurturing” one and the other the “providing” one, we could work toward a future where men and women were truly able to make decisions based on what was important to them.

Huh? Where do you live, man? What women are pressured to stay at home? All the women I know or know of have or had a career or else don't yet have one and expect to have one. Its not an option or a "alternative" anymore; if anything, being a stay-at-home mom is the alternative and a rare one - to be a mom who stays with the kids you have to be married to a rich guy more or less, and there are damn few of those running around single (they've all been snagged quite quickly by a woman who.... intends to stay at home with her kids, go figure. Competition for these men are fierce. Ask around). Let me sum up for you Jeff: a boy and a girl hold hands and one day start to kiss and then more and then one day there is a baby. Mom has the milk so it makes sense for her to feed the animal that must eat every 2 hours. Complain to mother nature if you or her or whomever does not like it. As the child ages, care giving is divided between a woman and her husband. Whatever they decide is what is best for their FAMILY (a word you somehow fail to use). FAMILY Jeff - that's mom, dad, junior, i.e. everyone. Not mom above everyone else or child or Davey crocket. All have needs, all must live, all must find a way to live happily. That said, parents tend to put kids before themselves.

Most women naturally want to be close to their children. While men have expanded their role here, they still tend to work because mom wants to be with the kids. Some couples may chose the opposite. Fine. But the majority chose the former. Either way, they do what is best FOR THE FAMILY. By the way, I don't know a whole lot of guys dying to stay at home, but I do know ones trying to get better jobs so their wives can stay at home.

The second would be to bitch incessantly about how women get too much child support.

Pardon? Bitch incessantly, eh? So in the 60's women bitched incessantly about not having equal opportunity and someone should've told them to QUIT BITCHING? Hard to imagine it would've been a guy like you, Jeff. Fathers want equality everywhere, including financial support. Mom has a career and so do we. Why are men stuck with the "SUPPORT" role? What if she was the primary financial support up until now? Does she get stuck paying us to take care of junior? Statistics say no - we pay in that case too.

Further, if a woman DOESN'T EVEN MARRY US, or divorces us, you're saying justice and equality equal me giving her half my income for the next 18 years? And what does she give me? ACCESS to MY OWN CHILD? That's not a gift to me, buddy. I have a right to my child and he to me. She has nothing to do with that equation. The child isn't anymore "hers" than it is "mine." So if mom doesn't have to provide financially, ever, she's just this old romance in our lives that now take nearly HALF of what we make for 20 years. And men are bitching. Call me crazy Jeff, but why shouldn't they? And since you're dying to give money away to women, what about the woman I do have a family with, Jeff? My wife. Should she stop bitching that my remarried ex lives like a pampered queen while my wife works 2 jobs to make up for my lost income? Perhaps you should tell my wife to stop her "bitching" too, eh Jeff? I mean, it is completely fair to the children I have with my new wife that they get access to less than HALF of what the child of my ex-girlfriend gets, right? The ex-girlfriend who cheated and ran off. The ex-girlfriend who is supported by an ex-husband, ex-boyfriend and current boyfriend? Clearly she needs help - but not the financial kind, Jeff, buddy.

Guess which tactic the Men’s Rights crowd has chosen?

Much as is the case with abortion, the Men’s Rights movement isn’t really about gaining equality in the home. MRMers don’t want equality, they want fealty. They complain about how “their” money goes to support “her.” They complain that feminisim destroys marriages by making women too critical of their mates–never questioning whether any of that criticism is valid.

You sound like you self-flagellate yourself nightly, Jeff. "Fealty" is defined by Webster's as extreme faithfulness. So... expecting my WIFE or even GIRLFRIEND to be faithful is a mistake? How is that? Um, what did you point out that was so untrue? My ex graduated from college with a 3.8 GPA. She went to high school on a merit scholarship. She began earning 65 grand as a proposal writer in Boston. Then she cheated on me with a co-worker, kept my son from me for 2 years while we battled for custody and then basically retired - quit her job to work as a masseuse and use my "child support" to plug the gap in her income. I made the money, and the state gives it to her so she can spend it WITH NO STRINGS ATTACHED - on herself, on her boyfriend, on my son, on a cult, on anything. No-strings-attached cash for 20 years - that sounds good to you, does it Jeff? You think everyone will do "good things" for "our kids" with that money? Right. And all the lotto winners give to orphanages too, right Jeff? Do ya think maybe, just maybe, some of that money is spent on consumer items for herself or her new boyfriend, or her kids with another man, buddy? That is what is happening. You act as though she has a right to my money. Where would that right come from? From having sex with me? You're calling her a Gold Digger now Jeff and a prostitute at worst. And I thought you defended women. She had sex with me willingly. She never married me. She cheated purposefully - no one held a gun to her head, Jeff. She deserves nothing but what she's earned - she wasn't a good partner, she's just some dysfunctional girl who slept with a man and once she learned she had gotten pregnant decided to keep the baby, regardless of what anyone else wanted. Then she demanded money. Sounds like extortion to me. That's a crime in this country Jeff. Not an accomplishment. She doesn't do the day to day work of a wife. She doesn't even work FULL-TIME, despite proving she can make 60k+, with benefits. She expects the person she ruined (me) to pay her a king's ransom. Interject when you think you see the "equal and Just" American way in here Jeff. I can't find it. She's not helpless, Jeff; not but in her own mind. How many college-educated 33 year olds do you know who work PART TIME BY CHOICE, Jeff, buddy? My son is 9, not 1. If you pay a little extra at his school he can stay until 5:30 and she can work all day, every day. Instead she demands I pick him up twice a week at 3:15 for which I must leave my FULL-TIME job to do so.

Men in my father's group have ex's that don't work at all. They remarried and they use their $1500/month child support as income. Or would you like to talk to my friend who's a doctor and lives on $20k a year because his wife left him and took their 4 children and FOUR GRAND A MONTH of his money with her? What does she do to earn that money? She had the kids years ago, Jeff. Being a mom she chose to do - the money and house comes with being a wife. Instead of being a wife SHE divorced HIM. He didn't "run off" with a nurse. He wanted to STAY MARRIED. These women are no longer the wives of the men THAT MARRIED them. You are advocating divorcing money from marriage; what incentive have these women to be married when they can have their husband's money and his kids without doing the job of being his wife? Zero. That's how much. But that fact you ignore Jeff.

What happened - did you cheat on your wife, so you're happy she ruined you in court? Or do you just wanna rescue her so badly you happily gave her half of what you make because you think sleeping with you enough times to get pregnant entitles her to half your lifetime earnings? Do you understand this means a one-night stand is enough to bankrupt a man and make his one-night partner a guaranteed second income for life, all for a single night of drunk sex? Why punish one party and enrich the other? Don't you advocate equality? What is equal about that? Equal would be SPLITTING all time and expense for the child. We don't have that Jeff, so therefore we have no equality. Women take the money, men are left financially broken - we even have laws that prevent a man from declaring bankruptcy to discharge any of his enormous child support obligation. So men go into bankruptcy some 90% of the time. Then they start to get depressed and many more than you would realize blow their heads off. But I hope you don't think I'm bitching too badly Jeff; after all I consider myself to be a "real man" even if it doesn't fit your description.

Perhaps if Men’s Rights activists really seemed to have the best interests of their children at heart, I could forgive that. But they just don’t. Complaining that too much of your money is going to your children, scheming to ensure that their mother is left in penury if you can pull it off, launching custody fights designed to bankrupt your ex–these are the actions of petty little men more stung by rejection than animated by a love of their children.

Missing the point YET AGAIN, Jeffrey. Why don't you ask the ex-wife of the man in my father's group who installs granite countertops in her house and in-ground swimming pools with his money, just how much she has her child's interest at heart? Or the ex of another father who flies her new family to Hawaii on vacation with his money? Or the ex-wife of another man who buys a new car every 2 years (2 door, and she has 3 kids). Or the ex-wife of another who has her Master's degree, and quit her job making 75k and became a clerk so that she could legally claim she makes zero money, thereby giving her grounds to demand EXTRA child support from her ex-husband. Or the man whose ex convinced a judge he "could" make more money so he should be therefore forced to pay EXTRA child support, and got it? Or the ex of a friend who lives down the street from him in his old house, takes $1,400 a month for ONE 7 year old girl, and demands all extra-curricular school activities and clothes HE pay for (and the idiot does) - the same woman who informs him of promotions at work SHE TURNS DOWN because she likes to spend plenty of time at home, while he works 12 hour days? But don't stop thinking women are always victims and men are CHEAP, Jeff, buddy. You wouldn't want to treat women the same as men, would you?

And that is why I have no time for them. Not that their stated goals are not worthy, nor that the current child support system is flawless, nor that women are “better” than men. No, my problem with the MRAers is that they don’t give a damn about their kids, not really. Real men–the men who do care about their kids, who fight for custody not to save a buck but because they think it’s in their children’s best interests–these men I can find common cause with. But those men are too busy helping their children grow into adults to complain about women–and if those men are honest, they know that whatever the faults of the woman they were not able to build a life with, their children benefit from having her.

No, Jeff, wide of the mark again. The men who don't complain are:
1)Much richer than I am, apparently
2)Probably Depressed
3)Tired of Fighting
4)Fantasize things will magically get better
5)Too exhausted to care
6)Only work and sleep so you'll never hear anything from them
7)Suicidal
8)Have moved to another state or country after realizing how FUTILE it is to fight

Further, your admission that the current system is less than "flawless?" Wow, that's a real gift to us, Jeff. You mean there MIGHT be something wrong with a system that DESTROYS men to the tune of 40% of their take home pay FOR ONE CHILD, without even asking IF THEY CAUSED THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO END OR EVEN WANT TO SEPARATE? You see, all men are not like you Jeff, and just because they just want to keep most of what they make (the founding fathers intended for you to keep nearly ALL of what you make - that's the entire premise America was founded on - keeping corruption in the form of government-sponsored theft out of your life) doesn't make them children-haters. In fact, I and other fathers, would be happy to raise our own children. In fact, I'd even be better off financially paying for EVERYTHING my son requires as it would cost less than what I pay his mother to supposedly support him (this proves I pay more than my son requires, Jeff, old boy). Because it doesn't take THOUSANDS of dollars a month to raise one 9 year old boy Jeff. And for a middle class man, that amounts to everything I have to offer a family; I've been forced to give it to a family, just not my own - the family is someone else's. My ex took up with another man and with my son and my money, she plays house. I live alone in bankruptcy, Jeff, like most divorced men. So if you'd kindly grow a pair and actually listen to some of us guys you seem to think are sleazy, cheap bastards, you might just see our point - you see, paying for someone else's family and having no money for you own is not equality or fairness or anything close to it, especially not when the mother who supposedly only has the kids in mind, QUITS HER JOB AND INTENTIONALLY MAKES SIGNIFICANTLY LESS MONEY. Equality loves company Jeff. So do some math, and hurry up. We're only getting poorer.

"Enduring" Street Harassment - Where Does This Even Happen?

Comments forthcoming. This sounds like the ranting panic of someone who is being stalked at dawn by hunters with .408 Weatherby's like some kind of sporting Rhino hunt, when its nothing more than a bunch of unfortunate run-ins with some drunk or quasi-drunk assholes. Something we all live with (and complain about, but live with nonetheless).


"Hey Baby:" Enduring Street Harassment


I'm nearly 50. I'm tremendously fortunate. I live in a safe neighborhood, I am comfortable, and I have the privilege of a terrific education and opportunities in life. I am not timid — I have spent much of my life suing states for violating women's rights.

This is not a good start, madame. You've dedicated your life to upholding citizen's rights - that's good. But why only one class of citizen? You never intended to take a man's case? Why? What's wrong with men (in your eyes)? What would you think of me if I only took on men's cases in suing the state, regardless of whether a female defendant had a case or not?

But when I think about Women's History Month, I think about the ways in which all too often, as I walk on the streets, I put my head down, how I feel the street is not my place. And I think about how little I and other women talk about this.

What does that mean? The street is not your place? The street isn't a friendly place to practically anyone madame. I take martial arts. Why? Because police don't prevent me from getting assaulted on the street - they cleanup afterwards and promise to find the guy WHO HAS ALREADY INJURED OR KILLED ME. The streets are the jungle. Don't take anything for granted. Its just mother nature, quite honestly. Watch animal kingdom on t.v.. Its life. And don't blame men, we didn't create our instincts or yours for that matter.

Today will be different.

I first remember it happening when I was around 14. I was in high school. I lived in the country. I had to walk a quarter of a mile from where the bus dropped me off to home. Guys driving by would sometimes call stuff out the window of their cars.
Sometimes they slowed down. Sometimes they stopped the car to say things and offer me a ride. I was afraid. I didn't know if they would take no for an answer. I didn't know if I could run faster than they could. I knew bad things happened.

36 years ago some BOYS with raging hormones would "call stuff out the window." Well that merits an article. These things they said hurt your feelings? Well that's too bad, I'm sorry that happened. But kids are cruel. I wish they weren't, but they are. And adolescents trying to fit in can be wicked. These people didn't even know you. Why would you take what they said personally? And the guys that stopped the car to offer you a ride.... guess what? Some honestly just wanted to talk to you and give you a ride. How do you think a boy meets a girl to eventually date?

College. I was 20 feet or so from my dorm one night. A guy grabbed me from behind. He put his hands between my legs. He told me not to scream. I screamed. He ran. The cops asked me if I was frequently asked out on dates.

That's more serious. That's sexual assault. That is a crime and a nasty one at that. I'm sorry that happened, but that's some horrible jerk who probably grew up without a dad. That's not every man. As for the second part.... the cops asked you if you were frequently asked out on dates? What are you implying? They were looking for suspects, correct? Couldn't someone you turned down for a date be the perpetrator? No?

Life after college. I'm living in D.C. I'm walking on 18th or 17th Street. I'm walking with a friend. A man passes, walking in the opposite direction. He reaches behind to grab my ass as he goes. I turn. I point. I yell: "This man just grabbed my ass! Stop it!" People stare. I feel vindicated.

I've never even heard of this. He grabbed your ass on the street? He was an asshole. Pure and simple. Maybe under the influence of something. That's called "groping" by the way and is also a crime. Call the cops on these people.

My first years of being a lawyer. I am traveling to give a talk at a university about women in the law. I am walking out of my office building. A man passing by stares and says, "Nice tits." I look down. I want to disappear.

This is also rather disgusting. I'm guessing this man felt demeaned by a woman at some point in his life and now he is returning the favor. Not your fault and not your problem, but again - this isn't every man. In fact, I've never known a sober man to behave this way.

Fast-forward 10 years. My niece is living with me while she does an internship. She talks of her commute on a packed rush hour subway. She tells of a guy rubbing against her. She tells herself it's just that the train is crowded. Then he puts his hand on her thigh. Then he starts to move his hand up her leg. She was too stunned, too in disbelief to do anything at the time.

This is outrageous. And secondly, your neice NEEDS to say something when this happens. Like "WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING?" And then grab his hand and jerk it off - with her nails embedded in it. She did nothing? Why? That doesn't help. Some sleezebags will take advantage of packed subway cars, but given the close proximity of men and women in subway cars, its honestly surprising more jerks don't take advantage of this - why don't they? Because most men aren't jerks.

Several weeks later, the two of us are coming home and some guy says something. I turn and yell, "Stop harassing us!" He looks embarrassed. My niece smiles.

What did he say? Was he honestly harassing you? Was he drunk? If you embarassed him because he was being an asshole, great. If you were overreacting and that's why he was embarassed, not great. Further, remember madame, that in the fatherless world that the feminazis have created, many men simply lack the direction and instruction from a man on how to approach and behave towards women. They're really not terrible guys (the ones that keep their hands to themselves), they're simply very rough around the edges. One, cat calling actually works for some of these guys and two, they don't know how else to talk to women. They have no role model.

And now. I am walking to the subway. A man coming toward me says, "Good morning sexy. Want some [not printable]?" It's a Saturday. It's 6 a.m. It's New York City. There is no one else in sight. I think, as I did nearly 40 years ago, "Could I outrun him?"

Its common knowledge the the ENTIRE city of NY parties every Friday night. You were out at 6 a.m. on Saturday? Most likely the guy was coming home from a party or being out in a bar or club, and was still drunk. I wouldn't be basing any idea of men or harassment based on what some jerk said after a long night of drinking. Is it really likely this guy was just SUPER responsible and ambitious and decided to start his Saturday at 6 IN THE BLOODY MORNING? Drunk jerk. Period. May even not be such a bad guy when sober. But we don't know. You're judging him on 10 seconds of his entire life.

In between each of these incidents, there were others too numerous to count — the whistle from a student the first time I spoke at a university; the guy who stood over me on the subway muttering very not nice things no one else could hear; the boss who patted my butt; and just the seven million comments, or so it seems, on every part of my anatomy and my attire and what someone would like to do with it, offered at every time of day, on streets both crowded and isolated.

Lemme hazard a guess here. You're not ugly. In fact, you're probably quite well put together. I'm terribly sorry some boys and men have acting rudely toward you. Some men are angry with hot women over past offenses, some know they'll NEVER touch you and hate you for that, while others are just adolescent, immature, rude or all of the above. Ironically, if some of these men were told they actually had a chance with you, you'd see A TOTALLY different side of them I'm willing to bet; one that's charming and sweet and complimentary. But since they think you'll reject them, or else project someone else onto you that you're not, you're going to get some pretty rude behavior. And some behavior that's just bloody ugly. Hot women have endured that for millenia and there's not much anyone can do about it. From what I've read Marie Louise thought Napolean was something of a pig after meeting him and swore she'd never touch him, much less marry him. She did both. So remember while some of these men were scoundrels, NOT ALL of them were; I'm willing to bet most were just scared of you - much more than you were of them. You see madame no sword is so sharp, no bullet so big and fast, no fist so hard as to inflict the kind of pain the disgust and rejection of a pretty girl can cause. You were a target of many men for the sole reason you are want they want most in this world and are afraid they cannot have. The others were just drunk or otherwise were pricks.

Street harassment is pervasive. It's pernicious. But it's little discussed, and the pain it causes little understood. We don't talk about it in part because it's so normal; it's the fabric of life. And we don't talk about it because all too often the response is, "Why get so upset about a comment here and there?" That's the problem. Each comment, in isolation, may not seem that bad.

No madame. You are not the world. Street harassment is not pervasive. You don't know that because you've never been an ugly person. Those people are harassed much less and with much less contempt, I'm sure. And average looking people receive little if any. We simply go about our daily business. And yes, the comments aren't really that bad. How? Because the people making them don't even know the person they are making them too. They're making the comment based on how you look; its not aimed at you as a person - they don't know you as a person. If a stranger tried to kill you in order to steal from you, would you think they really hated you, the you your friends and family know? NO. You would understand they just want your money and probably attacked because you looked rich. The comments are mean nonetheless, but only to someone who is sensitive. All people aren't sensitive and these days, many have become desensitized to cruel words and many are not taught that cruel words are worse to women than they are to men because women are more sensitive than men. Men aren't taught that women are different than they are (more sensitive, etc.), they are taught women are equal to, and THE SAME AS they are. This is confusing to many boys and some obviously treat women with the same disrespect they treat men. Isn't being equal wonderful? Think about what has happened; women demanded equality - that's fine, this is a free and equal country that does not practice discrimination. But what happened along the way is that it went too far. Women have become much more masculinized and men more feminized and now everyone is confused. Men have no role and women think they will enjoy total equality with men, yet still be treated politely and gently because they are still women with unique characteristics such as sensitivity. You are being treated like a man or worse than a man. How does it feel? Pretty lousy, huh? Men are cruel to eachother; they fight over resources to attract women and provide for their families. You are now competing for those resources along side men - you will be treated like one and that means with some bitterness and disdain as you are yet just another competitor making men's life more difficult and challenging. Further, the lack of manners and morals is easily traced to the breakdown of the nuclear family and the advent of fatherless homes. With no model of a father treating his wife nicely, boys have no idea how to treat women. And girls have little information of how to be treated and so many actually welcome bad behavior. I and several friends of mine made it a point to be polite to women in high school and college and in return we were generally shunned and disregarded by women as being "too nice." Acting like a bitter jerk and saying snide things while looking down your nose at girls? That yielded many more dates. So if you really want to tackle the problem, let the girls act like ladies and give all the boys traditional fathers. Suing the state for discrimination won't help solve any of those problems at all.

But for those of us wanting to move in the world, it's not just a comment here and there. It's a comment in the context of a culture. Some number of these comments come with following, touching, assaulting. Women know that.

It's a comment in a culture where I see its effect on me and other women. We put our heads down. We look ashamed. We look ashamed — for what? Because we were out? Because we had on a sleeveless top? Because we wore a skirt? The guys who commented, meanwhile, don't look down. They don't look ashamed. They sometimes even grin. That's all messed up. That's not the kind of world in which I want to live.

You can't change men's behavior. You're competing for resources with men, but you're not going to choose to sleep with any of the men you're competing with - you're utility to men is therefore very, very low. This will cause much resentment. I've known plenty of pretty girls - their lives were easy and hard at the same time. They received plenty of attention but if they turned down the attention romantically speaking, they were instantly hated. I can only recommend the men be in a better position to provide and feel like a man, further boys won't respect women until they are taught that women are DIFFERENT than they are and that means treating them differently. Also women must demand respect and girls demanding the right to dress however they want (far beyond a sleeveless top) doesn't help in the respect category - neither does sleeping around - typical in college and even high school these days; certainly after college for many. See my last post. And the best medicine is a man respecting his wife... seeing your father living in a basement, depressed and bankrupt? Watching your mom ruthlessly divorce your father and turn him into a debt slave? Watching your mother lie about your father or else poison your relationship with him? Watching your mother ACTIVELY PREVENTING you from spending time with your own father? These things don't exactly create healthy male role models or men with healthy attitudes toward women.

I offer this in the spirit of understanding — to give voice to an experience many of us have, to make the frustration and anger and fear some women have make sense, and to foster empathy. It's Women's History Month, and there are so many gains to celebrate. The world is so different in so many profound ways even from when I was young. But in terms of street harassment, there's still too little conversation, too little education, and too little change.

Being afraid and demanding change or education won't work. And for all the "gains" women have made, you're now seeing the flip side of those gains. Men left behind, without the education and jobs to even COURT women, are bitter, lonely dropouts who harass and catcall from the sidelines. Many are unemployed or underemployed. You're a lawyer - good for you. But there was a time when it was the men going to law school - mainly to impress and provide for hot women like you. Now the roles are literally reversed and you think a few rallies and some pamphlets will solve this problem? That's just naive. You must not be a good lawyer - look for the ROOT CAUSE of the problem. Blaming all men and crying about how hard it is to be a woman does nothing to fix things. Many of the men harassing you couldn't even legitimately offer you a life or provide for you and children - how do you think that makes a "man" feel? No, its no excuse to harass you, but until we have FATHERS raising boys to be MEN, you'll have lots of bad encounters with misbehaving boys who you may mistake for being men.

Sunday, March 20, was the first-ever International Anti-Street Harassment Day. If you've ever been harassed in public, learn about what you can do, and how to respond, by visiting the Stop Street Harassment website .

We're holding a month-long blog symposium on women's rights for Women's History Month. See all the blog posts here, and learn more about women's rights: Subscribe to our newsletter, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

A blog symposium. Well I am impressed. A huddle? A book club? You're not even asking the right questions. You're not asking any question of society or of the social construct under which we live, AT ALL. Your column is a meaningless whiny gripe that doesn't tackle the issue to any meaningful degree whatsoever. But go ahead and give more money to N.O.W. (I'm sure you already do). They are mainly trying to fund a new society of female-headed households that raise the boys that turn into the ones who are harassing you for lack of a good father figure to show them how to behave otherwise.

Man Up.....When I Want You To

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=109&load=5090


This is a discussion about "What it Means to 'Be a Man.'" Specifically when one is told to "Man Up."

First of all, being from the younger generation that started using the term, let me clarify it for the hosts: it means to act like a traditional man. That is, don't take excuses, demand accountability, demand respect, act in a respectful, yet forceful manner, demand others do as well and get things done. Basically what a man did in 1955. This includes calling his wife on bullshit when she's ranting and raving without a point; basically getting to the heart of the matter at all times and fixing things or else applying the appropriate salve to the wound. Planning, preparing, and being superman all count here. Acting like your wife is a little girl and you are her father, here to conquer and protect her. That about sums it up.

What do you get in return for manning up? In the old days it was a very grateful and faithful wife (still gotten by some), and children that called you "Sir" and looked you in the eye and never talked back. But that was 1,000 years ago. These days someone will arrest you for even spanking your children in your own home even if they are doing naked backflips into an empty swimming pool while taunting you about their ability to disobey you at will. Open a door for a young woman and compliment her and she'll probably think you weak and pathetic or else be ashamed that a man is treating her so well (I speak from experience). Demand to be called "Sir" or even be called "Mr. [last name]" instead of by your first name and people think you a stiff, conservative jerk. Teachers at my own son's school called me by my first name before even properly meeting me for the first time. Some children don't even bear their father's last name. Every societal mechanism or identification we had for the importance of a man as a father is gone or has been seriously disintegrated. Its practically illegal to even suggest some of these things were GOOD and ought to be reinstated yet plenty of people are ready to bitch about so many men not being "MAN ENOUGH"!

The point is made in the video that men do more of the child rearing - yes, they do. That's been a "demand" of the women's movement for years. N.O.W. women declared they were overwhelmed. Yup. New mothers and mothers of many children often are overwhelmed. They always have been - kids don't come with instructions. Oddly, no one says "Woman Up." A woman's mother may have in the 1950s, but everyone's too busy making excuses and petting women as if they were helpless dolls these days.

This is one half of the problem - men get no credit for doing what is traditionally thought of as a "woman's" job. Its just a bonus. The same goes for women - they get no credit for having careers. Women can have careers and many do, but men don't especially care. Do women use the money they make to help us buy a house, pay for dinner or otherwise "court" men? No. That's what men are supposed to do. So women keep all of their money and usually spend on clothes and handbags and makeup. Men's money doesn't belong to them - the most liberal woman in the world expects a man to always pay for things, up to and including her children. If I had a nickel every time a woman said to me "Well HE is supposed to pay for that!" I'd be a billionaire.

What do men want [once they've "Manned Up" of course - a man who hasn't manned up deserves nothing]? Men want sexy women. Is that narrow of us? Shallow? Sure. But what do you expect? Men are men. Period. Men used to be able to expect a woman to cook, but we're not allowed to expect that these days. Her career gets in the way so... no one in the family eats I guess. Or as my friend tells me, his male co-workers' wives just order take out food. I guess the men are supposed to cook too (who's left to?), but honestly, why should we? We won't get credit for it. That's traditionally a woman's role so it will never be counted. I get credit many times for cooking, but I'm a very good cook who makes many things from scratch and the women I've seen in years past have careers so that can't cook a goddamn thing and are grateful to have a home-cooked meal... at least at first.

With time men and women always revert back to their priorities - she wants money for children and a house and he wants a sexy body. Cut it, splice it, mix it, strain it, bake it any way you want, that's what the genders do.

Heaven forbid we construct a world around such desires. That would be far too practical and the National Organization "for" Women would sue everyone for disobeying them and for allowing men to live with happy wives for eternity.

So MAN UP! fellas. You have no other choice. The rewards for doing so may be sparse and slender but the powers that be are terrified of you not being a man while being terrified of you being a man. If you're too much of a man, every woman - AND I mean EVERY woman will be worried they're thighs are slightly too big for you or some other such nonsense and battle anxiety and weight loss for life; if you're not enough of a man it'll be worse: she'll worry you won't conquer and gather resources for her and her children, she'll worry she's not sexy enough to drive you to achieve, she'll worry you don't want her, it'll be the seventh level of Hell. Confused? Yeah, welcome to the Twilight Zone. Let's call it Femerica.

FOR THE RECORD

This blog is about my personal gripes, complaints, observations and problems with society and the behavior of men and women. It is not, as some have observed, a woman-hating site. I, and other separated or divorced men like me, do not hate women. In fact, despite being persecuted, lied to, cheated on, stripped of any and all assets, stolen from, threatened, plundered, kept from my child for over a year, accused of being everything but a white man, and having my rights as a free citizen essentially stripped from me, I do not hate women. "Women" did not do that to me. The state of Massachusetts, its many lawyers, crooked politicians and the money they receive from "women's" organizations which are little more than a collection of well-funded, bitter, man-hating, emotional, foolish, overzealous despots did that to me and many other men. Many women find what happened to me to be as appalling as I do and further demand equality in every area between the sexes as this is supposed to be a nation in which discrimination is repugnant and unconstitutional.

I have friends that went to all women colleges - steadfast supporters of women's rights and they personally estimated due child support to my ex at being half to one-third of what I was actually forced to pay before the order was given to me.

Furthermore, the most gallant and brave people in the western world, in my opinion, are second wives. They endure an environment that would make a saint balk. They deal with having less money, fewer resources and less time with their children and husband because the man's first wife has been given full legal reign to everything he has and will ever earn ever again. Despite the appalling and outrageous "punishment" (for what crime?) handed to their husbands, they stand by him with love and devotion, the kind that quite frankly qualifies as supernatural: as Holy. They love not only their own children but those of another woman. They are ethereal, to me they are surreal. And it is their example, their patience, their virtue, their understanding, to which we should all aspire. Despite every right to dispose of a very distasteful and inconvenient life, despite every consideration to an unhindered existence being removed from them, they endure and they love. Quite frankly they deserve a monument at the very least, for theirs is a life free from that which corrupts the rest of us. The N.O.W. sponsored message of the 19 year old bimbo who "stole" the good, rich family man is untrue but for the slim minority of millionaire playboys. Nevertheless, greater society has been taught to hate a man's second wife and see her as a ruthless and hungry sex doll who ruined the virtuous and faithful first wife: nothing could be further from the truth.

Take it from the horse's mouth: http://secondwivesclub.com/

My ex is something of a pest but she does not (yet) qualify as a poison. Next to other women I've heard told of she could be a model citizen; I have heard of some men's ex wives constantly plotting against them: telling the children their father is a rapist, thief, cheapskate, fool, an imbecile who does not love them and never will despite all facts to the contrary. I've heard and seen women interfere with visitation, promise to be somewhere for drop-off or pickup and at the last moment arbitrarily demand all plans be changed, create arguments where they don't otherwise exist, swear, shout, insult and generally act like the disgusting, filthy armpit of society. To witness these people and bear with their child-like tantrums and outrageous, destructive behavior would prompt most to award medals of valor and bravery to anyone who would suffer such women in any conditions at any time. In my own case court social workers quickly identified me as being the stable, sane parent and identified my ex for being the lying, conniving white trash that she is; I was told I would have to "deal with her. Put up with her and learn how to manage her and her unstable behavior." In other words I would act as a kind of surreptitious therapist for her, making sure she had enough money and didn't ruin my son - all of this for a grown, college educated adult? (aside: My demands that I be given custody of my son and the crazy lady be left to work and live on "her own" were dismissed as being too "harsh" for her). Seeing no repercussions for her insane and fitful outbursts my ex has gotten progressively worse over the years and I have no doubt my child will voluntarily leave her custody as soon as he has the legal right to.

Further, as one who has gone through it, I can personally speak to the TRAUMA that one suffers at the hands of family court. The entire mindset from moment 1 of everyone in family court from the clerks up to the judges is that the woman is the victim and the man must "take care" of her, especially financially, as if she were another child. Male judges are the worst perpetrators of this myth, but I had a female judge and she didn't exactly hold my ex accountable for her behavior. For YEARS after being financially sodomized in a courtroom which my taxes help pay for I looked at other women as one thing and one thing only: a threat. Dating becomes a game of russian roulette. And try not sleeping with a Western woman after 2 months and convincing her that you still like her. These people, nice or not, should I become involved with them and should they become pregnant, even if accidentally, could take whatever was left of my life and flush it down the toilet for any reason or no reason. I was, legally speaking, with the birth of a child, TOTALLY at their mercy, and I knew it, whether they did or not. DESPITE this fact I, and many other men like me, found a way to see through the fear and understand that it was still worth the risk to care for a woman. The fact that men get remarried in the very state that stakes a permanent claim to half of what is theirs, risking in fact, all they have left, is not just love, it is faith. To maintain faith in people after others like them have ruined you, is no small thing, and it is deserving of admiration and respect. I take umbrage with anyone who claims otherwise.

End Post.

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?