Feminists and Social Conservatives Cluelessly Proselytizing for Islam

Post image for Feminists and Social Conservatives Cluelessly Proselytizing for Islam

by W.F. Price on October 6, 2009

Revolutions often result from bad law. For many who suffer under injustice, Islam is an attractive alternative to an oppressive regime. In fact, the corruption and abuse of justice in Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier Province is one of the biggest reasons for locals’ support of the Taliban, who promise to return righteous rule to the region with their strict version of Sharia.

Reader and commenter The Fifth Horseman has brought a couple of articles concerning the use of Sharia – which is currently sanctioned in Britain to conduct certain civil matters – by non-Muslims and recent converts. Many of these British people who are turning to Sharia are men, and some British “conservatives” fear that there will be large numbers of conversions to Islam by married British men who fear the potential devastation of a secular, civil divorce.

MP Mark Pritchard, member of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, writes:

Women are also losing out in rulings over child custody disputes, which more often rule in favour of men. It is not unimaginable that, in the near future, people from other faiths – and no faith at all – will nominally or genuinely convert to Islam, in the hope of begetting a sympathetic custody hearing and paternal settlement compared to the maternal bias of some English family courts.

Although a severe understatement, at least Mr. Pritchard is honest about the “maternal bias” in the Anglosphere’s secular family law. A host of other so-called conservatives raise the specter of abuse of women being sanctioned by Sharia (abuse of men by secular family law appears unimportant to them):

We should do more to strengthen Muslims within the legal profession, who oppose a parallel Shariah system, tackle financial sources of support for Islamist groups, resist further implementation of Shariah, and recognise that protection of Muslim women from abuse “is better secured through Western marriage and family law than through Shariah schemes”.

Just like the preacher who rails against men in his Sunday sermon only to find that they are soon absent from the pews – indeed, absent from any church at all – the conservatives will soon find themselves and their feminist allies of convenience all alone in their counter-jihad.

If the abuse of men by family law, which provides women with incentives to leave their husbands and attack them with government agencies, is not addressed by these conservatives they will simply be abandoned by their base of traditional British men, and they will have deserved it. The Church of England, once a bastion of British respectability and national character, is a faint shadow of its former self. Confronted by a more vigorous and manly faith, even the Archbishop of Canterbury is now endorsing Sharia.

Although I do not support Sharia in the West, because I think it is a poor fit for Western culture, environment and civilization, it would be disingenuous of me to write that it does not offer an attractive alternative to contemporary family law. If the West cannot address its own broken law and the millions of injustices it has brought down on its men, we may soon face the specter of a home-grown Taliban, and if the only people fighting it with all their hearts are Feminists and opportunistic Social Conservatives, there’s a good chance it will eventually win.

{ 45 comments… read them below or add one }

Novaseeker October 6, 2009 at 06:19

Interesting, Welmer.

In reading the comments of the Archbishop of Canterbury, I’m reminded why we need the separation of church and state:

But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said “there’s one law for everybody and that’s all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts – I think that’s a bit of a danger”.

Yes, that’s right — he thinks that the idea that everyone is subject to the same law is “a bit of a danger”.

What we are witnessing right now, folks, is the slow suicide of the West. Self-inflicted cultural annihilation, thanks to values like diversity and multiculturalism which, when taken to an extreme, are used, as by Williams here, to obliterate core aspects of what made the West what it is (or used to be), such as the idea that everyone is subject to the same law.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
Welmer October 6, 2009 at 07:38

Maybe the West needs to die a bit before it can be reborn. What’s left of it isn’t all that attractive anymore, and certainly not worth fighting for.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
Paul October 6, 2009 at 08:53

I am glad I read your article Welmer. Form the title I thought it might be like a lot of other MRA articles which don’t seem to get the point the way you have.

It could well be, indeed most certainly is, true that a man would get a better deal under Sharia law than he ever would in a British Family Court. It could also be true that all would get fair treatment. So it’s disappointing that so many MRAs just have a knee jerk and rather contradictory response to this sort of thing.

Now I am an atheist but that does not make me hostile to religion. I think it is quite possible to look at a religion and become attached to it because its values and teachings are appealing. I could do this and indeed I think there are many reasons people are religious other than ‘faith’. I can see the attractions of Sharia law though I would certainly miss the drink. Also I think there are a lot of different forms of Islam so perhaps there is one that would fit us all just fine.

So yes I think it was a fine article and made ever better by your comment above about the West not being really worth fighting for.

I get exasperated with MRAs who have had their families torn from them , their assets stolen and who are then made to be in effect slaves of the state who none the less think they are living in a free country.

In what sense are we free if this can happen? It’s not a freedom worth having if these things not only happen but are commonplace.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Thursday October 6, 2009 at 10:02

Uh, are you seriously classifying members of the present day British Conservative party and the pro-gay Archbishop of Canterbury as social conservatives?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Welmer October 6, 2009 at 10:12

Not Rowan Williams, no way.

But the Conservative Party seems to be, at least from the writing on their blogs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JD October 6, 2009 at 10:55

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If there’s one thing I hate more than radical feminism it’s a culture/religion that endorses genital mutilation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4
Vladimir October 6, 2009 at 11:04

Are you kidding? Under David Cameron, the British Conservative Party has been bending over backwards to portray itself as ultra-liberal and progressive and deny that its program might include even the slightest whiff of social conservatism (unless perhaps you count their opposition to the fox hunting ban). Right now, their chief sloganeering strategy is to obsessively refer to themselves as “progressives.” If you go to their website (conservatives.com) and look at the “Causes” section, you’ll see that they’re being quite honest about it.

Outside the U.S., you won’t find any real social conservatives in mainstream politics these days.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Welmer October 6, 2009 at 11:17

JD, I’m pretty sure the genital mutilation is a NE African thing rather than Islamic. I believe Copts and some Ethiopian Christians traditionally do it as well. It also predates Islam, and was probably a part of ancient Egyptian culture (some Greeks wrote about it in the 2nd century BC).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
novaseeker October 6, 2009 at 11:24

Yep, cultural conservatism is dying, and being replaced with a “progressive” consensus that involves some degree of capitalism combined with a huge, overbearing state that acts as everyone’s nanny. This may be the actual sign of the end of the West. I hope that whatever follows the West in this geographic area has some strength and teeth to it, though.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Welmer October 6, 2009 at 11:46

Actually, Vladimir, I’ve been hoping some Brits would show up and explain a bit of what’s going on over there. I noticed we’re getting a fair amount of hits from the UK, and I’d love to get some contributions from British men who could explain how it is over there to us Americans. As I understand it, the crisis among men – particularly young ones – is just as bad as it is here, and maybe worse.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Steezer October 6, 2009 at 12:26

The British Conservatives aren’t social conservatives by U.S. standards.

As for this — the specter of a home-grown Taliban, and if the only people fighting it with all their hearts are Feminists and opportunistic Social Conservatives, there’s a good chance it will eventually win — I’ll be fighting it alongside them. You know me, too — I’m no social conservative, nor, though I do believe in equality, am I the sort of feminist this magazine’s writers are arrayed against.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Welmer October 6, 2009 at 12:40

If you really want equality, you aren’t a feminist.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
mike October 6, 2009 at 13:09

Feminists fighting against Islamization? I’ll believe it when I see it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Steezer October 6, 2009 at 13:20

Welmer — perhaps not. Many people who call themselves feminists might not be feminist under that definition, either, of course.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Thursday October 6, 2009 at 13:40

Social conservative, as used pejoratively on a lot of MRA sites, often seems to mean little more than white-knighting member of a right wing political party.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 6, 2009 at 13:45

Although I do not support Sharia in the West, because I think it is a poor fit for Western culture, environment and civilization, it would be disingenuous of me to write that it does not offer an attractive alternative to contemporary family law.

Bingo.

If a Sharia court in the UK offers a desperate man facing a divorce, a better deal than he would be subjected to under feminist family law, who can possibly blame him for going to the Sharia court?

I certainly don’t.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 6, 2009 at 13:46

Actually, the best person to elaborate on this particular issue is Bhetti. She is a Muslim woman in the UK, who knows a lot about a lot of subjects.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 October 6, 2009 at 15:02

Vladamir

Outside the U.S., you won’t find any real social conservatives in mainstream politics these days.

If we take as socially conservative, not supporting anything but the most basic feminism, considering divorce usually shameful, believing it’s important that decent women are sexually modest and at least quite chaste before marriage (and deeply shameful if they’re unfaithful in marriage), believing that a woman’s first duty is to her family and children and that family is important, and generally supporting patriarchy or female solicitous patriarchy, then most of the world remains socially conservative I think. All of it but the Euro and offshoots zone e.g. the West, with Japan a bizzaro intermediary and/or orthogonal case.

E.g. Latin America; the Muslim world, from North Africa through the Middle East, to Central Asia and then down into Indonesia. China seems to be still quite socially conservative, and Korea as well. Africa is in it’s own way.

Really it’s just the Anglosphere that REALLY isn’t, in it’s elites.

The French are way less into feminism than we are. They aren’t at all into sex sameness, and never were. I think the French attitude has always been that even if gender is in some ways a social construct, it’s a good one and we like it (and besides we don’t believe it is totally or mostly one). Certainly the Italians are. Spanish feminists are pushing for Anglo standards and have gotten some legislation but not so much culture change. (E.g. I believe it’s in Spain that the left got a law passed that men are legally required to do equal amounts of housework. Outrageous much?)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Doug1 October 6, 2009 at 15:15

As for child custody under Islam, Bhetti has told me she believes the usual principal is that a fit mother should get custody of infants and small children, and a fit man should get custody of older children and teens. She brought that up when I said that maybe the dividing line should be half of 18, or 9; saying that something like that was the traditional Islamic principle. However she cautioned me that this was all her vague cultural gleanings not any expertise, and that there are lots of exceptions and of course splitting couples often agree differently.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Doug1 October 6, 2009 at 15:36

5th Horse–

I can tell you from my intimate conversations with Bhetti over many months now that the position and influence of Muslim women in at least upper middle class Middle Eastern Muslim families there and in London both is MUCH stronger than the cartoons of the West would have it. Very strong in fact, depending on the women.

The law is less that way but probably not what people think; though she’s not really that knowledgeable about that. Just what she sees happening. I.e., I get a general impression of default patriarchy but a whole lot of social pressure on men to in fact take good care of their families and to not be a tyrant. If a man is not a GOOD MAN he loses a lot of status and that is likely to effect his work or his ability to network and get something further.

There is enormous pressure on girls from good and respectable families to remain chaste before marriage. That’s very real and there are real marriage market consequences. Huge ones actually. Divorcees, widows, different story if they’re discrete. IF. Discrete. (I.e we’re talking post kids women here, basically.) There’s also a fair bit of de facto divorce, i.e. separation, rather than de jure divorce.

Female cheating is REALLY taboo. Male cheating isn’t religiously allowed either but it’s not nearly the same thing. He’s deeply sinned and wronged his wife; she’s shown herself to be low, base, unworthy. I’m not actually getting this last directly from Bhetti but somewhat indirectly and it fits with what she’s said.

But maybe I’ve gotten some of this wrong. Bhetti, please correct me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Bhetti October 6, 2009 at 15:37

Thanks, Fifth Horseman, for bringing this to my attention.

I’ve in fact read the whole speech by the Archbishop of Canterbury when it came out (because my trust in the media and not taking things out of context is this: ZERO. Seemed to turn out that was a good policy in this case as he seemed to be misread.) which caused all the original furor about him endorsing Shari’a. From what I understood: He was pretty much warning against the law’s inevitable adoption in the multicultural climate of Britain (and him believing muslims are operating under a separate law that — for them — takes precedence over UK law thus his implicit conclusion was limiting muslims in the country altogether, I believe) despite how incompatible he thought it was with the Anglosphere. He was NOT endorsing it, especially from his Christian rather than secular standpoint.

The fact of the matter is that if there are injustices and these injustices are not corrected internally (Parliament), then they will be corrected externally(Shari’a).

The consciousness over both divorce (I was surprised by how vehemently it was discussed in a relatively recent episode of The Big Questions: a mainstream show on the BBC ) and child custody (e.g. the controversial — and very good at getting attention — group Fathers for Justice) issues is very strong. If these continue to be ignored, then Islam’s likely to be turned to as a solution.

This is an eat or be eaten world. If the current system is not working and you cannot make it work, then you will both make the choice of abandoning it as well as the factor of the proponents of the alternative solution ruthlessly exploiting these weaknesses.

What all religions fail to understand when opposing each other is how big a threat secularism and internal hypocrisy is to their own collective values. The growing power and popularity of Islam can be arguably attributed to a weakening of the Christian Church in terms of compromising on the principles Christianity stands for. There are differences between the religions but they are gulfs away from the embracing of amorality a secular state practically shows itself to be. The roots for a secular state always starts at internal corruption in religious leadership. Any religious leadership.

A corrupt and dishonest Islam taking over the UK or gaining any significant hold over it’s certainly not I want to be seeing. That’s what will probably occur if those see only pragmatic value and none in it otherwise do convert. Opting for any religion should be due to a belief in it and what it is theologically offering to you. Internal reform over men’s rights is the preferred way. The difficulty in achieving this sometimes highlights how undemocratic a democracy practically is.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Bhetti October 6, 2009 at 15:51

Doug: It’s not openly talked about. On the other hand: Divorces don’t generally happen, although threats of it now and then (which the men display no concern over: probably a good tactic to use on these women). I’m assuming that cheating is accepted as they all complain of being sexually neglected. It seems to be a ‘see no evil’ and particularly taboo to even talk about it. They do hint, though, that their husbands’ attentions seem to be elsewhere but aside from constantly trying to improve their looks, they do not seem to openly lay blame on themselves for that.

These educated Arab women are probably very conscious of Western law and how it supports them. On the other hand, they’re even more conscious of social status: divorce results in a loss of that amongst them. My mother insists she’s still happily married to my father to all and sundry, she says, to make sure my marriage prospects are protected as — aside from passing Sex & the City inspired fantasies which she recognises as such — she sees herself as past the expiry date re: marriage now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 6, 2009 at 15:53

What all religions fail to understand when opposing each other is how big a threat secularism and internal hypocrisy is to their own collective values.

Yes. Dinesh D’Souza tried to make the case that traditional Christians and traditional (non-violent) Muslims and traditional Hindus have enough core values in common that they should align against the terrorist/leftist alliance. Yet both the left and right condemned him for that proposal, without really understanding what he was saying.

The saving grace is that religious people always have higher birth rates than non-religious people within the same society.

That’s what will probably occur if those see only pragmatic value and none in it otherwise do convert.

Yes. Those who convert will do so only on paper, but will do so to avoid the extremely poor treatment that British divorce laws subject them to. They will never actually do a Hajj or go to the Mosque on Friday.

Doug1,

Everything you wrote about social constraints on women pre-marriage is equally true in Indian culture. But there is one BIG difference : Indians in the Anglosphere maintain a low profile and are too afraid to get involved in local matters, and hence, they are subject the the same Western family court laws. Muslims in the UK have boldly demanded their own legal system, and got it. That this is at the same time as when British men will turn to *anything* that gives them a better deal than misandric secular family court, is an explosive combo. But the explosion is worse for British women than for British men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Bhetti October 6, 2009 at 16:40

A question for me that needs to be fundamentally answered is despite all the media presence (the ‘cleaned out’ divorced man and the evil ex stereotype), all the cases of divorce, all the cases of them as part of this as children and as husbands and as friends and as relatives, why are men still believing in the status quo?

Why when it comes to action, the average man is utterly ideologically opposed or — worse? — indifferent to whatever solution is being put on the table.

Exploring this thoroughly and more importantly real solutions for every possibility behind it, is something I know I can’t do but seems a very important thing that needs to happen.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Doug1 October 6, 2009 at 16:51

Bhetti

despite all the media presence (the ‘cleaned out’ divorced man and the evil ex stereotype), all the cases of divorce, all the cases of them as part of this as children and as husbands and as friends and as relatives, why are men still believing in the status quo?

What media coverage of this? Not in America. Very, very little. It’s back pages stuff, treated as one off kinds of things, man got a terrible divorce lawyer, didn’t stand up for himself in the divorce proceedings or change his lawyer (the US sitcom Two and a Half Men), etc.

Any serious objections re: the laws are hardly ever featured in the mass media and when they are are the are crushed by shaming / disapproving / loser implying reporters, columnists, unfairly matched feminist pundits, and so on. There’s more or less media censorship re the issues in other words. Not total censorship but extreme marginalization.

I can’t think of a single significant American media outlet in any medium that’s campaigned on behalf of ANY SIDE of men’s rights. Ever.

Men are just starting to learn about this and are only communicating via the internet, or small groups of friends. There’s some buzz – but feminist “infiltration” of the media both by female feminists (how many female reporters aren’t some kind of feminist or VERY feminism friendly?) and male PC supporters, is huge.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 6, 2009 at 16:55

why are men still believing in the status quo?

*Unable to think outside of the box.
*Told from birth about the old rules, only to realize as an adult that the rules have changed
*Socialcons are defacto allies of feminists, while there is no equivalent group of women that shame other women into chastity and devoted wifely duties
*Men are fed a message of chivalry (by socialcons) which makes men too divided while women are quite united.

I maintain that 80% of men can never, ever grasp what Game is. Their minds just cant think at such a level.

The plus is that only a small percentage of men (20% or less) have to act in order to make big changes. All men don’t need to act, only a fraction do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Vladimir October 6, 2009 at 18:28

Doug1:

If we take as socially conservative, not supporting anything but the most basic feminism, considering divorce usually shameful, believing it’s important that decent women are sexually modest and at least quite chaste before marriage (and deeply shameful if they’re unfaithful in marriage), believing that a woman’s first duty is to her family and children and that family is important, and generally supporting patriarchy or female solicitous patriarchy, then most of the world remains socially conservative I think. All of it but the Euro and offshoots zone e.g. the West, with Japan a bizzaro intermediary and/or orthogonal case.

You’re right, of course. I meant to refer only to the Western world, but I ended up writing an imprecise statement.

Really it’s just the Anglosphere that REALLY isn’t, in it’s elites.

The French are way less into feminism than we are. They aren’t at all into sex sameness, and never were. I think the French attitude has always been that even if gender is in some ways a social construct, it’s a good one and we like it (and besides we don’t believe it is totally or mostly one). Certainly the Italians are. Spanish feminists are pushing for Anglo standards and have gotten some legislation but not so much culture change. (E.g. I believe it’s in Spain that the left got a law passed that men are legally required to do equal amounts of housework. Outrageous much?)

Well, it depends which aspects of social conservatism and liberal radicalism you look at. It’s true that Anglo-Saxon feminism has always been the most fanatical and non-compromising among Western nations. On the other hand, the present level of hatred and rage displayed by feminists and other leftists in the U.S. is to some degree a consequence of the fact that unlike elsewhere, there are still some non-negligible right-wing and socially conservative influences in the U.S. mainstream politics. Most Europeans are at a loss to understand how it’s possible that something like the socially conservative wing of the U.S. Republican (and even Democrat) party can exist at all.

Spain is something of a special case. They were ruled by a right-wing regime until relatively recently, and I have a feeling that their presently reigning leftist elites are trying to make up for the lost time by trying to outdo everyone else with their outbursts of creative PC fanaticism. (Off the top of my head, in the last few years they’ve become one of the first countries to legalize gay marriage, their judges have claimed worldwide universal jurisdiction in the name of leftist foreign policy ideas, they’ve extended human rights to apes… The Catholic Monarchs are spinning in their graves like propellers.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Vladimir October 6, 2009 at 18:46

Bhetti:

A question for me that needs to be fundamentally answered is despite all the media presence (the ‘cleaned out’ divorced man and the evil ex stereotype), all the cases of divorce, all the cases of them as part of this as children and as husbands and as friends and as relatives, why are men still believing in the status quo? Why when it comes to action, the average man is utterly ideologically opposed or — worse? — indifferent to whatever solution is being put on the table.

The answer is very simple, and fundamentally the same as for all other issues. What matters is not the popular sentiment, but the ideas and opinions of the intellectual elite that are disseminated through the academia and the mainstream media and (indirectly) mass entertainment. Anything that’s contrary to the broad ideological consensus of the elites can never become a matter of legitimate mainstream political debate, simply because it will never be discussed by any of the elite academic and media outlets except perhaps to condemn it or jeer at it, and no money will be forthcoming for such a cause from the government and fashionable rich do-gooders. Unless men’s rights activists somehow manage to get their views taken seriously and respectfully by Harvard and the New York Times, they’ll stay an impotent and scorned fringe group, completely below the radar of anyone of consequence.

As for the average man, it should always be remembered that the masses of people almost never rebel unless they’re propagandized and organized from above.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech October 6, 2009 at 23:05

On the feminist side of things I don’t know if they are cluelessly proselytizing for Islam. Many feminists are doing it directly. Naomi Wolf is a good example of this.

Beyond that, I can’t fault any man for doing a pretend conversion to Islam to access Sharia courts to get a better divorce deal. However, with lots of men doing it, it’s a disaster. Yes, there’s the problem of Talibans within the West, but the real problem is even worse than that.

Islam allows a man to take up to 4 wives. This means that potentially 75% of men could be forced to go without a woman ever. Around 12% of Muslim marriages are polygamous while in Saudi Arabia its as high as 30%. This is why there is an endless supply of Muslim suicide bombers. The promise of 72 virgins in Heaven has real appeal for someone who will never get a woman due to the way Islam is organized. (And Game will not help here. Using Game will get your head chopped off.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Welmer October 6, 2009 at 23:05

Thanks for your input, Bhetti.

You seem to have an uncommonly sophisticated understanding of the issue for such a young woman.

I’d like to respond to your questions in more depth when time allows.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
sestamibi October 7, 2009 at 09:27

Doug1

Discreet, not discrete.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman October 7, 2009 at 11:46

Gents, I have just been through 22 months of ‘Family Court’ cases in both Ireland and Australia. I can tell you that they are totally corrupt. Does anyone else here know that when you engage a solicitor what you are saying legally is that you are ‘copus non mentus’ and declaring yourself a ward of the state? Once you engage a solicitor you waive all rights. Now, how intelligent does that sound to you? They ALL know this but they won’t tell you about it.

Do you men realise that the judge and lawyers get together behind closed doors and work out the ‘charade’ they are going to play? They come back and present to you their lines like they are acting in good faith. The whole thing is a scam to destroy families and take money off men to keep them working and too busy to figure out what is really going on.

I was lucky enough to have a buddy bail me out and have time to do the research to figure out just how corrupt the courts were. It wasn’t hard. There are whole books about this. You might try this one. It is very good. http://www.freedomfiles.org/extortion.pdf

Once you understand the money system it becomes clear the legal and political systems are also totally corrupted.

So don’t any of you be thinking that there is going to be any better legal representation for men in families in the future. We have all the tools we need today. It is possible to divorce your wife and state and refuse jurisdiction of the family court. If you still want to keep your wife you can create a common law contract between you. But since no government can even run a railway, why would you want it to run your relationships?

Kick the goverment out of out beds I say. And it is perfectly simple to do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Bhetti October 7, 2009 at 17:02

Doug: Okay, you do have a point with the presence of the divorced male as downtrodden (in a way, it always seems to be implicitly stereotyped as his fault in some way by e.g. lack of spine, not being attractive enough) in TV shows.

I do believe the media coverage in the UK seems to be high profile with examples like the hatred over Sir Paul McCartney’s divorce with Heather Mills (she is universally hated) and beloved John Cleese mostly known for Monty Python/Fawlty Towers fame . More recently, Peter Andre and Jordan Price (divorce parties? Sickening) are undergoing another high profile divorce.

[Eh, fact of the matter is, celebrities is what the masses pay attention to. Well, the masses. What kind of media coverage will influence the necessary 20%?]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Bhetti October 7, 2009 at 17:10

Vladimir:

it will never be discussed by any of the elite academic and media outlets except perhaps to condemn it or jeer at it

Therein seems to be the crux of the problem: there’s something about the distinction between condemnation and discussion and how that translates into action. I’m recognising it as the possible key to this but it feels like evaluating it is just beyond my reach of understanding at the moment.

If we rely on the intelligentsia… the problem with the academics is that they are stubborn, obtuse. The more intelligent you are, the easier it is to find arguments for what you are wishing for emotionally. This is well recognised fact in the field I know best, medicine, where historically a long time is taken to recognise anything as fact despite very good evidence being presented.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 October 7, 2009 at 17:50

Bhetti–

The UK doesn’t enforce prenup agreements in any way whatsoever. Not just with respect to child custody or child support but not with respect to anything.

UK divorce awards including in the case of rich men seem to have arrived at the US no prenup position. Aside from child support, which is statutory, the rest is judge discretion. But it seems that the UK basically divides “marital property” in two, regardless of what the wife did or didn’t contribute, regardless of her behavior, regardless of everything. California and then other US marital property is what both parties earned as income in any form during the marriage.

Any very high earning man in the UK would literally be a fool under that country’s laws and also divorce culture to get married in the wake of this development, made clear in several recent high profile rich men divorces.

I wouldn’t marry any woman and live in the UK either. I simply wouldn’t. True story.

I would live with a woman there, and treat her completely as my wife. But it’s ridiculous that a cheating or no longer sex providing wife (or blown up like a seal wife) should by law get half of a way more economically successful and high earning than her man’s money. It’s an obscene and wholly unjustified transfer of power by agreeing to marry. so I wouldn’t in the UK until the law on prenups changed. Period.

Can you understand that? Why aren’t I right?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Doug1 October 7, 2009 at 17:56

Bhetti–

It’s really stupid for the British elites to not give judicial effect to prenups. The result is likely to be an elite, or rich elite anyway, turning away from marriage in ever increasing numbers, and that will cause MAJOR cultural waves that feminists and higher level UK females will hate.

This will take awhile though. Especially since the UK media, while reporting on the cases certainly is campaigning for a change in divorce laws there that I’ve seen. And I do look from time to time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Doug1 October 7, 2009 at 17:57

Is NOT campaigning for a change in divorce laws

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 7, 2009 at 21:20

Doug1,

The US does not uphold pre-nups for child support = alimony, which is the worst component of the whole scam. Asset division is usually the least costly part for the average man.

The UK is slightly worse, hence the Sharia court outlet being used.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sean_MacCloud October 12, 2009 at 00:04

>

As for this — the specter of a home-grown Taliban, and if the only people fighting it with all their hearts are Feminists and opportunistic Social Conservatives, there’s a good chance it will eventually win — I’ll be fighting it alongside them. You know me, too — I’m no social conservative, nor, though I do believe in equality, am I the sort of feminist this magazine’s writers are arrayed against.
>>>>>>

Yes.

Buh bye.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 November 18, 2009 at 18:23

The UK media certainly ISN’T campaigning for a change in divorce laws.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 November 18, 2009 at 18:24

A lot of this is UK anti elite populism in the media.

Make the old rich bastards pay!!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
newly divorced January 1, 2010 at 21:35

Does anyone know if Americans could move to the U.K. and file for divorce in a Shariah court?

Converting to (moderate) Islam might be the answer for men with laws the way they are now. I don’t think this is what feminists intended.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Stu September 26, 2010 at 02:20

Bottom line is this guys. The system is against you, your own government, your society, your wife, your sister, your mother, the whole lot. The answer to the problem is to not marry, not cohabitate and make no committment at all to women in relationship terms. Tell them why you won’t to…..it’s the laws stupid. On top of that…..refuse to feed the beast as much as possible…….save your money and hoard it….don’t spend it consuming junk that keeps the system alive…..the economy will collapse and system crumble if men refuse to produce more then they need for themselves……..refuse to spend what they don’t need to…..and refuse to support women in any way shape or form. Support any and all groups in society that are trying to bring the system down…….Islam especially because they have mens rights that are defined by Allah….and can not be bargained away by feminists or even critisized. Feminisms enemy is our friend.

Yeah yeah…I know……what about Islams mistreatment of women…..well……lets see……mmmmm……don’t care. Your only concern should be….what about feminisms mistreatment of men…….identify the enemy…..and use whatever tools and means there are to destroy it……and Islam is a hell of a weapon against feminism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Stu September 26, 2010 at 02:39

Newly divorced. No hope of you using UK sharia courts. As for you idea to convert to (moderate) Islam……you just had to throw in the “moderate” didn’t you. There is no moderate…..thats a western invention…..Islam is what Mohamad said it is…..what is in the Koran……ahadith. It hasn’t changed therefore Islam hasn’t changed. Moderate just means pretend Muslim. One that doesn’t take Islam seriously.

It is the serious muslims that scare the crap out of feminists. I can’t remember the name of the book…or author……but a couple of years ago I read that a radical feminist was threatened with death from Islamic fundamentalists if she published her book with any critisism of Islam or muslims……she edited it. Show me any MRA or anti feminists that could have got that result. What we need to do is get muslims to see that feminism is an attack on their religion even if they don’t specifically attack Islam…..feminisms ideas are a direct threat to Islam and a direct attack on mens rights…..included muslim men. Feminists are the perfected infidel……completely reversing and rejecting Allah’s ordained role for men and women…..therefore….they are the ultimate enemy for Islam. If we can turn Islam to attack feminism directly…….blame feminism for the erosion of their culture in their countries…….blame feminism for the ongoing war in Afganistan…….which has become about nothing except womens rights. Then we join the bandwagon……demonizing feminists……making it politically incorrect to be a feminist………we make it like being a nazi……we do this by promoting muslims as the ultimate victims and feminists as their oppressors. Then we cherry pick bits of Islamic law and use them to dismantle the family court system….etc etc. People who oppose are branded as misandrists…..Islamaphobes……whatever it takes. And we let the fundamentalists execute some of them…..blow up a few of their womens shelters or whatever. What we have to get through the muslims heads is that it is not the white male that is their enemy……it’s the white female. And it is……just as it’s the white female that is the enemy of the white male…..and all men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Anonymous October 16, 2012 at 19:41

Dude Are you guys blind does it matter what religion it is They are not ENglish why should they impose their system on ENgland’s system

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: