There’s two broad categories of MRA’s. One wants a return to traditional marriage, with most women staying at home and the workplace being mostly a male realm. The other takes the libertarian view that this tradition is just another form of exploitation of men and that in the future, women should expect to have to support themselves financially.
Of course, as things are now, men should avoid yoking themselves to a woman. But the reform I would like to see is in the former category.
There are a few reasons for this. One is that it will only continue the current system of female hypergamy. With culturally enforced monogamy, most people got married. With “sexual liberation”, a handful of alpha males get all the sex from numerous women, leaving the majority of men celibate, lonely and with no hope of children. With so little in the way of rewards – no sex, no female companionship, no children, and no job if the quotas require hiring a less-qualified woman – men have little motivation to work at steady jobs instead of becoming criminals of some sort. Polygamous societies, which leave a large number of perpetual bachelors, have a high level of violence because young men have no reason not to commit it.
In addition, as I keep showing, most women are not particularly valuable in the workplace. There are exceptions, but for the most part, the work that most women are being paid to do ends up getting done by men (or lesbians). Most men have experienced this. This is what evolution designed women to do – get other people to work for them so that they would have someone to provide for them while they cared for children – but it is a liability in the modern workplace.
Few women can psychologically cope with the rigors of the workplace. The Larry Summers example is familiar to everyone; a woman heard a highly caveated speculation that she didn’t like and had to flee the room lest she swoon. What would we think of a male professor who announced that a colleague who proposed a theory he disliked made him faint? As Mencius Moldbug put it:
One clue to the fact that something fundamental has changed is the almost complete absence of true intellectual debate in the modern university. Nor does this mean congeniality pervades throughout. It means that when you see the appearance of an argument over ideas, the substance beneath that argument is not that of men trying to convince each other and/or an audience. The substance is that of bureaucratic warfare. When someone criticizes your work in the modern university, he is probably trying to kill you and take your funding. His criticism is not the opening for dialogue; it is the ritual pretext for an attack.
Thus, any fool who starts such an argument, with no better reason than that he (a) disagrees with someone else, and (b) grew up reading about the age of Darwin, Huxley and Wilberforce, will be surprised to find himself on the other end of an administrative mafia war. You might as well call your opponent a faggot. It will not exacerbate his ferocity in the slightest. He is right to assume that you are probably out to kill him, and right to respond in kind. When in Rome, etc.
Mr. Moldbug blames this on “Progressivism”, but really, it is due to a particular offshoot of Progressivism: feminism. Women are too threatened by heated debates; some primal part of the female brain knows that if shouts give way to blows, she is at a disadvantage. Indeed, scientists have determined that the normal way in which men interact with each other is perceived by women as “harassment”. So universities (and other institutions) that employ female professors are stuck with enforced conformity of opinion. Since we need room for debate and intellectual freedom in universities if they are to serve their purpose, it is necessary to limit the number of women in this field.
Women, quite naturally, do not want to work full-time. Feminists might not like this, but in real life, raising children does take time; it can’t be done in half an hour a day after a fulfilling day at the office. “Gender equality” in the workplace means that women will demand special privileges for the sake of more flexible schedules. Female doctors in Ireland are only half as likely to work full time as male ones. The same applies in England. Also in the UK, female pilots are demanding to be paid the same amount for less work.
Just imagine for a moment what work would be like with few women in your office, and those few compelled to actually do their jobs because they lack sex discrimination legislation to force employers to hire them. No sudden backlog because a co-worker has to take time off to look after her child who caught the flu at his day care center. No random outbursts of emotion because you failed to anticipate a working woman’s delicate feelings. No worrying that a casual joke will result in accusations of “sexual harassment”.
Feminists have robbed women of a chance to do something truly useful to society, something for which women are actually suited: raise children. Of course, today’s western women have been carefully trained so that they are unfit to be anywhere near a child, which makes them pretty much completely useless in any area. Retraining will be required, which will require that anti-male legislation be repealed, allowing men to treat their partners with the firmness which women need and want anyway.
The most important reason I oppose the notion of making the sexes genuinely equal, leaving women to support themselves, is that children need to be raised. My Republican friends were furious at me for saying that a woman with a newborn special needs baby was not in a position to be Vice-President of the United States, but it’s true: preteen kids need to be looked after. They need to be taught proper behavior, they need to bond emotionally with a mother who gives them affection, they need nutritious food, and they need to be supervised. Not only do children need these things, but the survival of the society requies it. These things take time. It’s impossible to be a good mother and work full-time.
Feminists like to respond to such arguments by whining, “But most women can’t affooooord not to work.” This is true, and it is one of the most heinous of feminism’s many crimes. In the 60′s, most men, even blue-collar workers, could afford to support their families themselves. The great fraud of “equal pay for equal work” was not, contrary to current propaganda, a measure against the mythical pay gap; it put a stop to the before-then common practice of paying married men more, since those men had families to support. In fact, a century ago, one promise labor unions made was that they would win men a “family wage” so that their wives and children would not have to work!
Feminism has wrecked the economy. It abolished the practices which allowed most men to support their families. It inflated prices of things like houses and cars by dragging naive women into the workplace, allowing sellers to base their prices on the two-income family. At first this might have been fun for those few women who had fun jobs, but soon, all women were forced into this system whether they wanted to be or not.
Women don’t belong in the workplace. Their job is at home, and men should be able to do their own work without having to coddle and protect women while they do it.
***
Read my MRA blog.
Subscribe to The Spearhead Newsletter for a free copy of the Book of Zed
{ 93 comments… read them below or add one }
I suppose it passed completely over your head that globalization forces everyone to work as capital tends to go to the cheapest wage areas? Feminism has its hooks in many things, but it rarely has the power to compel. I’d love to see you tell me that feminism is behind globalization.
In short, until workers the world over are given some basic economic rights (such as a world-wide minimum wage adjusted for the currency) wages will tend to go lower and thus women will have to work. I’m afraid defeating feminism won’t make much of a dent.
Women worked in the fields in the middle ages along with their men. There is alot of truth in women tending to choose different professions than most men and there is definately a need for sane reforms to sexual harrasment laws, for one thing, but I find your argument over reaches the biological and sociological evidence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I could never really recommend monogamous marriage to any body. It is also rather limiting to suggest that the alternatives are between monogamy any polygamy. Although I think polygamy is worth considering and may be part of the solution so might the idea of fractional marriage. That is only to be married for a part of the time. What I think would be both the simplest and most effective suggestion would be if there where a good supply of women willing to exchange sexual services on a commercial basis. I live in the UK and I would think about 100000 such women would satisfy the most of the nation.
Such women if able to freely act in the marketplace would do rather well financially. Also the availability of such women would remove the sexual stupidity that drives men into marriage in the fist place.
As for children. This is not an imperative. I do not see myself under any self sacrificing obligation to provide the next generation. I think the human race will continue but if the part of it that I belong to becomes extinct then I would not care at all.
So yes a supply of good women, who in my scheme of things would be much respected members of society , would be a big improvement on what we have now. Monogamy is just a hell.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would argue that feminism and it’s ills are only a subsection of an more widespread attitude that is causing it.
The attitude: ‘winner’ takes all in a rigged game.
The real question- can a complex system that requires active cooperation survive such an attitude for any significant length of time (more than a couple of generations).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good question, Devils Advocate .
I have no idea, but I’m willing to bet it can’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
But what about the role of the father? If his wife works outside the home as well, shouldn’t he pitch in with raising the kids and some household duties? It has been said that despite mothers working outside the home, they still perform the majority of household duties. And shouldn’t a father also be expected to perhaps take time off to take care of a sick child?
What about those women and men who don’t want children?
And I have you know that not only do I like debates (at least online), but I’m not prone to “random outbursts of emotion” or have “delicate feelings”. Nor would I equate casual jokes with sexual harrasment. If the joke was misygonistic in nature, then the guy’s just a misygonistic a-hole.
I don’t need to be coddled or protected thank you very much. And as a single woman, I should be able to support myself financially. If I get married, then it depends on the situation. Not even God intended for mothers to ONLY be stay-at-home mothers. They should be free to explore their interests and passion, just as long as it doesn’t completely take over their lives.
Speaking of taking over lives, what about those fathers who puts their job before their family or who’s job position has completely taken over their lives.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Renee:
There is nothing wrong with being an outlier. This viewpoint (that women should be somehow compelled to go back to “the kitchen”) is a minority among MRA’s. There’s nothing wrong or shameful about wanting to be a stay at home parent, though women seem to desire this more than men. Still, I wonder somehow if the peasants and farmers of the middle ages and early american republic didn’t have more time with their families (think a farmer working with his son in the fields) than the modern “breadwinner”. There’s no doubt if we could curb the worldwide economic system to take into account human needs (I’m for establishing quid pro quos with business, obviously even in our plutocracy there’s alot of arbitrary government inteference) men and women would be a bit freer (there will always be some tradeoff and the work has to get done) to choose how to structure their lives. What the author of the post overlooks is that women today are compelled to work whether they want to or not simply by the costs of things and the status of wages for most work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
FM wrote:
“Women don’t belong in the workplace. Their job is at home…”
The problem I have with this “traditional” interpretation is that it is found nowhere in Scripture. Yes, there is that bit in Genesis about the man being punished to work the ground to eat, and the woman being punished with pains in childbirth. But neither of those punishments imply that men are to be resource providers and women are to be child-raisers (and, by implication, resource-consumers). This notion comes instead from a post industrial-rev conception of how labor is divided in the family. In other words, it is man’s traditions grafted onto the Word.
An honest reading of Proverbs 31 makes it quite clear that a woman is to work as well. It even mentions women considering fields and buying them and women performing light manufacturing, things that Complementarians would probably have seizures over.
Renee wrote:
” …shouldn’t he pitch in with raising the kids and some household duties?”
Absolutely. This is where I lock horns with the traditionalists again. Traditionalists cast men as the resource provider for the family. The problem with this interpretation is that they limit him to this role, where, again, a read of Scripture freed from Man’s interpretation implies that husbands are to provide way more than just materiel to the family.
“It has been said that despite mothers working outside the home, they still perform the majority of household duties”
Yes but. If you examine the investment of time for men and women in the tasks to support the home, you will find that men spend more time in paid employment whereas women do not. If the totality of household investment is considered, both sexes work the same.
Also note that women work more around the house because they want to. Women tend to create work to do around the home, and then get POed at men for not being as enthusiastic about getting this voluntary “work” done as the women are.
“Speaking of taking over lives, what about those fathers who puts their job before their family or who’s job position has completely taken over their lives.”
#1: he’s an idiot.
#2: the women whose husbands do so benefit from it materially. The same woman would probably criticize him bitterly if he failed to maintain her in the manner that she liked. For many guys, it’s a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t scenario.
Post industrial-rev traditionalism kills men early and leads to lonely, harried women. I say we kill post-industrial-rev traditionalism instead and replace it with a more Scriptural viewpoint.
Clarence wrote:
“…globalization forces everyone to work as capital tends to go to the cheapest wage areas”
You are making the same mistake as those women who say they “have” to work.
Re: minimum wage. One problem with a minimum wage is that it over-prices work that isn’t worth that wage, resulting in fewer jobs. Another is that a min wage interferes in the employer-employee contract. Yet another problem is that a min wage violates private property precepts. None of the three are consistent with freedom, liberty, or prosperity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
EW:
Globalism forces “free” workers to compete with slave and near slave labor in countries such as China. Now, we could refuse to trade with them. But if we are going to have a global economy, we are going to have to have global laws that deal with wages and certain environmental/safety issues. Otherwise, its merely a race to the bottom, a race I have no intention of joining peacefully.
And if women, in this country, aren’t married and don’t work and don’t have a kid – how do you propose they eat? Find a way to scam welfare? If us wages go down, yes more and more women wil have to work, married or not. Even living in a shitty apartment and sending the kid to public school costs money ya know , and if daddy’s wage is stagnant or going down, I don’t know what world you live in where mommy won’t have to work. I suppose she’s “free” to starve and let Junior starve too. I don’t consider that freedom, so no, I don’t agree with anarcho capitalists.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Has been said”, but is actually wrong. Marcus Buckingham pointed this out in his recent article on female unhappiness over at The Huffington Post (hardly a hotbed of misogyny):
“Nor, surprisingly, is it caused by women bearing a disproportionate burden of the workload at home, the ‘second-shift’ as some have labeled it. This explanation falls not because women don’t do more cooking, cleaning and child-caring than men; they still do. It falls because when it comes to the sharing of ‘home’ duties, the trend lines are all moving in the direction you would predict would lead to greater happiness and less stress for women: namely toward greater parity. For example, between 1975 and today women’s housework hours declined from twenty-one per week to seventeen, while men’s jumped from six to thirteen. In 1977 dads with non-teen kids spent 2 hours with them on an average weekday, while moms spent 3.8 hours. Today moms still spend 3.8 hours, while dads’ kid-time has climbed to 3 hours per week day–and if you are a Gen Y dad, you’re all the way up to 4.3 hours per day (Gen Y dads actually spend more time with their non-teen kids than do Gen X moms.)”
The full article is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus-buckingham/whats-happening-to-womens_b_289511.html
Most couples *do* share household and child care responsibilities in a way that makes sense to them, rather than in the lopsided way that is the stereotype, still, in the culture — particularly in Gen Y couples, as Buckingham points out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And just how do you propose to impose on the low wage countries these kinds of regimes — regimes which would kill their own international competitiveness?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s simple really.
One of two ways:
A. Don’t trade with them. Problem solved. We can trade with them when they’ve developed more. They can certainly trade among themselves. And who said “impose”? How is saying ” I won’t trade with you if you don’t follow these laws” imposing? Aren’t we free to trade with whomever we want?
B. If everyone has to follow the same rules (adjusted to the local currency) there is no competitive advantage to low wages or lax environmental laws. There will still be competition on business climate after the basic floor has been met, but that’s ok. We have our floor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
<And I have you know that not only do I like debates (at least online), but I’m not prone to “random outbursts of emotion†or have “delicate feelingsâ€. Nor would I equate casual jokes with sexual harrasment. If the joke was misygonistic in nature, then the guy’s just a misygonistic a-hole.
Renee, I am sure this is true of you and it is true of other women I know as well. However, as a woman working in academia I also see many, many women exhibiting the very characteristics the post author refers to.
I agree that what the authors refers to is an issue in academia.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Which won’t happen, as you well know.
This requires the stick of “A” to achieve, something which I don’t see as realistic. The reality is that the rich countries are going to become more like Brazil: a small elite that is quite wealthy sitting atop a mass of uncompetitive proles (uncompetitive with the proles of cheaper labor countries). I don’t see free trade being reversed. Gradually the standards in the poorer countries will rise as their living standards rise, but in the meantime the proles in the rich countries are going to suffer, and quite badly, I think.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“But if we are going to have a global economy, we are going to have to have global laws that deal with wages and certain environmental/safety issues.”
I don’t disagree with this, well at least the slavery mentioned in the preceding sentence and the environmental/safety laws.
But a recommendation for a global minimum wage, which is a clumsy interference in the marketplace by ham-fisted governments, that will still result in capital flight to lower-wage countries, is silly and counter-productive.
“…how do you propose they eat?”
Not to be too snarky, but they go out and get a job. Just like anybody else.
You are presenting me with a false dilemma, the same thing the fembots do on this topic.
The alternative isn’t for a family to be two-wage-earner or starve. Many many families make it on 1 or 1.5 incomes just fine by reducing expenses. Besides, if I understand the data correctly, most if not all of the secondary wage earner’s income is consumed by ancillary expenses like child care, an extra car, dry cleaning, fuel, and insurance and the like. So no, I don’t buy it at all that it “requires” two incomes to maintain a household.
The standard of living in the US will drop. There’s no way around it, no way of hiding from the invisible hand or the consequences of debt-driven malinvestment and consumption. And protectionism will only make it worse, I’m afraid.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
EW:
I mostly agree with what you said in your last post, but I’m afraid some protectionism is inevitable. I wish the current benefactors of our current world economic order were more farsighted then to continue to push this on people, but with the exception of a few (Bill Gates father) most of them are rather clueless about social responsibility counting it as just another expense and not something that benefits them in the long run.
So we’ll all have to suffer. I’m afraid however, that blaming the average US consumer is a bit unfair. Our toxic social and dating market is largely the result of social and economic forces that were operating before you or I were born, based on a postwar boom economy. As for standard of living, please note I said “shitty apartment” and “public school” (and you do know how crappy most public schools are, right?) something many “middle class” people would “die” before they would sink to. Our mother in my example is hardly a consumption whore, and my main point is that there are certain minimal expenses a family has in order to survive.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is what I see happening, too. The standard of living for all but the elite is going to drop. No real way to stop that at this point. There is going to come a great equalization between the richer countries and the developing ones in two directions: the developing ones improving a bit, and the rich ones slouching down a bit.
The EU has softened this so far by having a large, protected internal market. That’s changing now for a few reasons, including the expansion of the EU into lower labor cost jurisdictions, as well as the difficulty with sustaining the existing welfare state which itself cushions the blow of having the chronic high unemployment rates featured in the EU. Still, because the EU has that large internal protected market, the richer countries in the EU will likely hang on to some degree of social equity for much longer than North America does. The situation in North America is already eroding rather rapidly now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Feminists might not like this, but in real life, raising children does take time; it can’t be done in half an hour a day after a fulfilling day at the office.
My sister is a rare stay-at-home mom, like my mother before her. Not because she’s stupid and unemployable (she worked for years before the boys were born), and not because she’s especially religious. She and her husband just wanted it that way.
I have a lot of respect for the job she does. She does it better than a man could. (Most men, myself included, would prefer not to be around screaming kids.) She runs that household like clockwork, and those kids are so damn well behaved it’s sickening. They actually sing while they clean up after themselves. Kids need to be reared, not just allowed to “develop.” They need to be trained to be decent human beings.
She takes care of a lot of the annoying household stuff–bank deposits, paying bills, shopping for the best deal, etc.–that I see people doing AT work, because there’s no one at home to do it anymore. Americans want to work 6 hour days (Starbucks runs, shopping online, negotiating home loans, office parties, gossip, reading the news) and get paid more than anyone else. Talk about efficiency!
Economic changes combined with feminism created a world where maybe the jobs of women at home got too easy. On farms and so forth women lived hard lives, and did as much harder physical work as they were able to do. Men did the stuff that was even harder. But even though we have dishwashers and women don’t have to scrub clothes against a washboard any more, running a family is still a lot of work to be done. I think a lot of things would work out better if there was a dedicated person doing it. It’s a damn shame that we’ve created a system where women and men can’t work together because the system is so stacked to one side.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I really could not care less about what the modern western woman wants to do now. They have become irrelevant. If men (sepecially those who call themselves MRAs) would only pull their head out of their arses for long enough to learn how common law works and to refuse the jurisdiction of Admiralty Law and the Uniform Commercial Code they would realise they have all the rights they need. How many men here actually know the difference between common law and Uniform Commercial Code and how those two things affect each and every one of us? I’m pretty sure almost none.
Facts. Any man can contract for hire and not involve the guvment in the transaction and therefore pay no income tax. Any group of men can form a co-operative under an umbrella company and contract for hire to that company and therefore not require the ‘woman quota’ in the company because the company is a 1 or two person shell company merely to administer the contracts.
Once men wake up and figure this out they can start companies and compete on the open market for business that they then deliver on effectively and efficiently. Of course, they will be called names by women but who cares, western women call us names no matter what we do.
I am a man so law abiding that at 45 I’ve had one speeding ticket as a teenager on my motorbike and one parking ticket when I stopped in a loading zone to pick up my heavily pregnant wife (yes the ticket was issued by a woman). I raised 4 kids, earn USD300K a year in a good year, am a model husband/father according to my father in law and I am still ‘not good enough’ for these ‘entitled western princesses’. LOL!! Fine. I’ll date eastern women. They are lovely.
Leave western women to their vibrators and cats. Start your own companies and run your own lives and if you really want children import a foreign woman and make her sign a common law contract saying you own the children. She will likely stay.
Me? I don’t teach women my skills. I engage with women as little as possible in the work place. I don’t associate with western women AT ALL outside the workplace. I use examples of western women failing badly when I promote my skills to new clients. Women in the workplace are great because they make it so much easier to look good. Since I can do much more than any woman, I always ask for that sort of money. We don’t allow women to do any consulting in the company I operate out of.
I believe us older guys, who run our own companies, have an obligation to take on and train young men in our specialisations. One problem we are finding is that the young western men ‘act like wimmin’ now and many of them are just as useless as the average women. So we are typically giving work to young indian men who are only too happy to work hard and do what they are told in return for learning skills. I have run a ‘night school’ over the last 12 months. I had to invite the women for fear of being called ‘sexist’ but they won’t come because I hold it from 5:30-7:30pm. The way to exlude women from educating them is to offer the education ‘after hours’ and then they exclude themselves. The other way to exclude them is to make it too complicated for them and only allow them the same amount of Q&A time as any of the men. Pretty soon they will stop coming to classes.
Gents. Knowledge is power. And if you do not understand common law (former british empire) and Uniform Commercial Code (global) you are giving up vast amounts of power in your dealings with women and guvments. These are very important things to know about. How many men here know you can refuse the jurisdiction of the police in common law countries when they come to arrest you for the inevitable DV call? You can just tell them to ‘get lost’, lawfully. And they have to go. Now..how many men would like to know how to tell the police to ‘get lost’ at the DV call?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Renee October 11, 2009 at 6:58 am
“But what about the role of the father? If his wife works outside the home as well, shouldn’t he pitch in with raising the kids and some household duties?”
Renee, thank you for demonstrating how you fascist femnazis think. The woman CHOOSES to work outside the home. It is her FREE CHOICE as a sentient being. So, now you turn that around and say because one sentient being took a free choice that gives her the RIGHT to tell the other sentient being what he should do because he as a penis and she has a vagina? What does ‘should’ mean in your argument.
A woman wants to work outside the home. Great. Go for it. Unless she NEGOTIATES with the husband that HE take on a share of HER duties which SHE had previously agreed to she can go to work AND do the duties she has previously agreed to.
And by the way. Men do MUCH more work around the home. I renovated two houses and my ex never lifted a finger to help me…would not even bother to make me a sandwhich to keep me working longer.
Western women are complete crap now…and quotes like this show just why..they think that they have ‘a right to choose’ whatever it is they want and a man has the obligation to fill in the gaps….the best example being children. Women have the right to choose, men have the obligation to pay.
“And I have you know that not only do I like debates”
No woman likes ‘debates’. They like attention. All women are attention whores. Women do not have the intellectual capacity to engage in a ‘debate’ with an intelligent man so they should just leave that alone. I have only met one such woman in my entire life and I asked her to be my christian wife. She was too brainwashed though so I stepped back.
Why don’t you go and educate yourself on how crap western women are now rather than put your parthetic child like attempts at arguments into a place where men are talking. You women have nothing to contribute the debate by men as to how we are going to defend ourselves from the Illuiminati and then set in place a social order we want. Do something useful. Go make a man a sammich…;-)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Regarding FM’s essay, I must say I am firmly with the latter MRA camp that he mentions. That is women need to work outside the home and pull their own weight financially. The age of stay at home baby making factories is over. Also keep in mind that in our hunter/gatherer past, that is 150,000 of our 160,000 years in existence as a species, women did indeed work work work outside the home. All that “gathering” meant women rarely stayed in the “home”.
In my career I had the chance to work with talented female co-workers, and on one occasion a great female boss. My own mother put in a full career in accounting, while staying married to my father the whole time. In school even tough most of my college Profs were male (engineering), in pre-college level I did have good female teachers who were passionate about their fields (everything form biology, to math, to foreign languages).
For these reasons, I am in the second MRA camp of expecting women to be fiscally self-sufficient. Note that this also means no alimony, and no overt asset theft, should divorce occur.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Re: Globalman’s method, I would say it won’t hurt if one of the guys on this board who is already mired in family-court-hell read and learn more about it. I am already past the sausage machine for this round, so it won’t do me much good. But I am sure there are guys out there who can really benefit if those findings can be applied to their own jurisdictions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Renee October 11, 2009 at 6:58 am
“Speaking of taking over lives, what about those fathers who puts their job before their family or who’s job position has completely taken over their lives.”
Gents, please allow me to comment on this one as I was one of those men criticised for being away from home too much earning money. You are welcome to spread this far and wide.
The facts are these:
1. My fiancee as she was wanted to work and had zip skills. Left school at 16 as a ‘pregnant teenager’.
2. Over many years I coached and trained her and supported her get her degree in my area of specialisation. IT.
3. I helped get her a job at IBM. I promoted her skills inside IBM. I helped her in IBM in ‘how to get along’.
4. We bought our first home. Her child care costs (2 children of a former marriage) and cost of children completely took up her salary and more so I also supported HER children and accepted them as my own.
5. I renovated our first house day and night for 5 years and the eventual profit on it was $A50K. ALL earned by my labour.
6. We had a child and my wife was very adamant she wanted to go back to work and she did.
7. We then really extended ourselves to get our second house in a MUCH better suberb next to a MUCH better school for HER children so they would get the BEST education possible at high school level that we could afford.
8. We had a second child.
9. BANG…sweetums simply refuses to go back to work. WTF? We now have 4 children, a BIG mortgage and she FLATLY refuses to go back to work. She says “I never promised to pay the mortgage.” I say “Your signature is on the mortgage.” She says “So what, just because I signed a contract doesn’t mean I have to keep it. If I didn’t make a promise I don’t need to keep it.” (Mind you, she laster all said “If I make a promise and I don’t write it down (meaning her wedding vows) I don’t need to keep them”. Really?)
10. Then we start going backwards at $A1K per month with no prospects of being able to afford our mortgage payments any time soon.
11. Sweetums decides that since she is home all day and ‘too far from mummy’ that she will relocate ALL 4 children back to our home town 500kms away so she can get ‘help from mummy’. I am supposed to stay in Sydney and work my arse off and NOT SEE MY CHILDREN from one month to the next!! Really? We rented a second house and now we are going backwards $A2K per month.
12. We are completely out of credit, over extended on the mortgage, looking like losing our house.
13. I land a fantastic job that is more than double what I was earning just 2 years earlier at IBM. The catch? It has a gruelling travel schedule and no-one else wants to take it on. I will spend much of my life travelling.
14. I take the job in order to pay for the excessive lifestyle of ‘sweetums’ who refuses to live on a budget.
15. I am accused of ‘living life only for the job and not spending enough time at home with the kids’. Really? Sweetums relocated the children 500kms away and that’s ok but I work my arse off in a gruelling job that the company could not find ANYONE ELSE in the country skilled enough and willing to take it on and I am the ‘bad guy’? Really?
16. Fast forward. We relocated to Ireland. Sweetums won’t even help spell check documentation for my software. She won’t take a call from a prospect. She won’t do ANYTHING to help me make money to support the family.
17. She DOES take 8 overseas holidays a year though with our two children.
18. I work my arse off travelling all over the world on high paying fee jobs. I break USD300K in one year for the first time.
19. HER eldest son gets cancer and we deplete all our savings doing our best to save his life. I keep working because we are now cash broke again.
20. At the end? Yep. You guessed it. I am the arsehole because I worked 47 days straight across three countries and 2 clients, sometimes working 36 hours in a stretch…..I am ‘too focussed on work and not spending enough time with the kids’. Really? How about NOT taking that 8th overseas holiday and giving me a week off? Nope. That’s not going to happen.
21. I am home at christmas and spending time with the kids. I ask sweetums to clean up the mess because the house is a mess after christmas. Nope. “You never help with the housework while you are away so you can do the housework now.” Really? What about ‘time with the kids’? Nope….now I am home from my greulling travel and work schedule I need to ‘do my share of the housework’. What about her share of earning the money? Nope…..nothing doing.
22. 23 months post divorce I am yet to see one cent of the proceeds of my 27 years of labour. NOT ONE CENT. It is all still tied up by the crimials masquerading as a ‘legal fraternity’.
Now…given my case is pretty much ‘normal’ now I think any man here is perfectly able to cut/paste it and put it anywhere some stupid woman like Renee puts that pathetic little comment about guys like me who’s job ‘takes over their lives’.
It’s called ‘constructive desertion’ where the woman spends so much money deliberately that the man is forced out of the home to provide in the face of being called a ‘loser’ and shamed for not being able to ‘keep princesses in the style to which she has become accustomed’. It is very common now. And oh yes…don’t even THINK about asking ‘princess’ for sex. That is what your right hand is for. THAT is how crap western women are now…in their millions. I am so glad to be divorced. I keep the proceeds of my labour for myself and I don’t pay income tax. I have a line up of eastern women who give me whatever I want. I have clients that are household names who pay me silly money and I take it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Globalman –
Leave western women to their vibrators and cats. Start your own companies and run your own lives and if you really want children import a foreign woman and make her sign a common law contract saying you own the children. She will likely stay.
Me? I don’t teach women my skills. I engage with women as little as possible in the work place. I don’t associate with western women AT ALL outside the workplace.
Great strategy, man.
I worked in administration with women for years. At the moment, I’m doing work that 99% of women can’t physically do. That’s one of the reasons I love my job. Many men can’t physically do it…I’ve interviewed some great guys who I had to pass on just because they were physically too small. I’ve also noticed that many younger men would rather do something “easy” than anything which actually resembles work. It’s harder and harder to find the guys who will give it everything they’ve got. Most are just texting all day, waiting till they can get home to drink, get stoned and play video games.
Now, I do have to work with women in some sense, and many of our clients are women, but I never have to compete with them or have them boss me around, or demand that I talk in tea party language to protect their illusions and delicate sensibilities.
That’s my personal solution to the problem that keeps me sane. Yours sounds very inventive–I like where you’re going with that.
As an aside…one thing I noticed when sifting through resumes from a job ad I posted is that several of the applicants sent me their resumes from their girlfriend or wife’s email address. Talk about a sign of the times. This says to me:
A) You’re not ALLOWED to have an email of your own, because your woman thinks you’re cheating on her.
B) You’re so dumb, dependent, lazy and pussywhipped that your girlfriend/wife is standing over you, forcing you to apply for jobs.
I can’t imagine sending a resume from a woman’s email address and thinking, “These guys are really going to respect me.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And that, like virtually all other feminist lies, has been disproven over and over. Just like the “wage gap” hoax, it relies on fiddling with the definitions to make them fit just a subset of the entire picture.
While mothers do work outside the home, they still average a smaller number of hours of paid work than men average. In addition,”household duties” are defined purely in terms of women’s traditional share of them and men’s traditional share – like interior and exterior maintenance, taking care of the motor pool, or major repairs or rennovations – are simply deleted from the calculations. This produces a misleading result intentionally crafted to support a foregone conclusion. In the studies I have seen which add up both paid and all unpaid work (not just the woman’s portion) going into the maintenance of the homestead, men and women are pretty much at parity, with men having the slight edge.
It is much the same as how “parenting” has been redefined to mean “mothering” and the very different role that fathers play in the rearing of children has simply been deleted out of the picture. Those previous contributions by men simply get lumped into a general attitude of things taken for granted (i.e. “entitlements”) while every action by women, no matter how miniscule, is valued as though it were done by a highly paid professional. I think the latest valuation of a “housewife” is something around $132,000/year. Since I don’t make anywhere close to that any more, I obviously cannot afford one – just like I cannot afford a yacht.
Years ago I settled on the perfect solution for myself to this perpetual and intentional distortion of the normal tradeoffs in a cooperative relationship – I live in my house, she lives in hers. I pay 100% of the bills, and either do or hire 100% of the household work, she does the same. 100%/2 households or people = exactly 50.000000000000% – out to as many decimal places as anyone wants to carry it. If I want pets or hobbies, I pay 100%. If she wants pets, hobbies, or children, she does the same.
Perfect “equality”, with the added bonus that I get literally hundreds of stress-free hours per year that I can use to do other things because I am not wasting them in perpetual stupid arguments over insignificant minutia.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act proved that, didn’t it?
As anyone can see:
http://tinyurl.com/yjma2f3
The Burea of Labor clearly documents the economic destruction of Smoot-Hawley.
Export- Import changed from 0.4 billion in 1929 to a low of -0.2 billion in 1935. Exports alone, went from 5.9 billion to 1929 to a low of 2 billion in 1933, a drop of only 3.9 billion.
The total GDP in 1929 was 103.6 billion, and the total GDP in 1933 was 56.4 billion… a total drop of 47.2 billion.
Assuming that Exports wouldn’t have dropped without Smoot-Hawley… because in a World-Wide Depression other countries would continue to buy products from America at the same rate…. AND assuming no other countries would have initiated tariffs against America if Smoot-Hawley hadn’t passed….. assumptions that are simply wrong…. Smoot-Hawley accounted for a grand total of 8% of the GDP decline.
Ignoring the increased GDP from the import decline, of course.
Isn’t it neat that people think Smoot-Hawley mattered?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To add a few more points to this –
Up until the advent of modern medicine, infant mortality remained fairly high. My paternal grandparents had 8 children, and only 5 lived to adulthood. In the hunter/gatherer period, I have read that infant mortality was on the order of 80% and the average life span was 8 years. If a woman was to produce above replacement rate, that means in order to have 3 children survive into adulthood she probably needed to have at least a dozen. Even as recently as my granparents’ generation, it took 14 pregnancies for my great grandparents to end up with 8 adult children.
Urbanization and the shift from agrarian lifestyles to compartmentalized high-density populations have subtly redefined “home” away from “homestead” and more toward “house.” Women seem to define whatever happens within the exterior walls as “house work” and not even consider what happens outside of them. The women in my lineage always had huge gardens, and orchards. Tending them, harvesting and preserving the produce was “work” within the “homestead.”
Having seen firsthand on many occasions the high risk and potential lethality of the traditional “provider” role for men, I am also in the 2nd camp. There used to be a rule of thumb for large scale construction projects that one man would die, and 5 would be severely injured, for every million $ spent. There were 112 deaths of men associated with building Hoover Dam. The estimated deaths from construction of the Panama Canal were about 25,000 men. When I was in HS, I had the absolutely delightful experience of finding a farmer I was working for chopped up into bloody pieces inside his hay baler. I saw one of my friends almost lose his hand in a rolling press, and another almost get pulled into a conveyor belt when he got his arm caught in it.
The pressure to “be the provider” pushes men into doing things which are potentially very self destructive. This was probably an OK tradeoff back in the days when the culture at large and women in particular understood the value of their sacrifice. But, as Globalman has so eloquently described, in today’s world that sacrifice does nothing for a man except give other people, particularly the women in his life who feel absolutely no need to honor their “commitments”, the means and tools to completely jerk him around and enslave him into producing wealth for others – women and the elites who profit from his producti0n.
Someone who feels entitled to the produce of my labors has the mentality of a slaveowner. Fortunately, in today’s world, participation in their slavery scheme is partially voluntary. Beyond what I need to do to take care of myself and share the tax lug of the welfare state, I have no reason to kill or maim myself to make my slaveowners richer or more comfortable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Puma October 11, 2009 at 9:11 am
Re: Globalman’s method,
Guys,
these are not ‘GMs’ methods. We have over 6,000 members at http://thinkfreeforums.org/index.php. Thousands and thousands of men are refusing court jurisdiction in many areas. Only a small number of us are trying it on in Family Court because only a small percentage of us are in the same position. Robert-Arthur: Menard and many others are the ones who have done the ‘hard work’. I am merely bringing their work to the attention of MRAs. I am also willing to take on the FCs directly myself and see how that goes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
FM,
In order to move in the direction you propose, all that would have to be done is to get rid of the EEOC.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Let me start by saying that I completely disagree with the premise that women should stay at home. But even if that’s what you want, and you accomplished it, what makes you think society would be any better? You’d still have people in power and people without power — people with money and people without — higher classes and lower classes.
I think it’s fundamentally not about men vs. women, black vs. white, Christian vs. Muslim, what have you, but it’s a power/money dynamic.
Wouldn’t it be more productive to figure out ways to do something about that?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
But that isn’t about men, that’s about socialism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As long as there are resources and people with differing abilities trying to get access to them, you will have oppression.
The idea that you can use the state to eliminate this and make everyone work together in peace and harmony and share and love one another in one big happy ant farm is Marxist bullshit.
It’s what women want. To sit around in a circle holding hands — young and old, ugly and fat, smart and dumb, and be “equal” and “celebrate diversity.” Men like power based hierarchies. They understand them, even if they’re not at the top–so long as they believe the men at the top deserve for some reason to be there. Starting from zero, men will quickly re-construct hierarchies. You start out with John Lennon’s “Imagine” and end up with the KGB.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Of course feminism is the problem.
Women working lowers wages. They more than double the size of the labor force. As a result, wages are half as high.
Women spending raises the cost of living. More competition for products.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am going to post this periodically, because I want everyone to read it and internalize it. This is above and beyond all the other costs of the divorce industry (dehumanization of men, damage to children, declining birth rate in Western Civ, etc.)
____________________________________
It is extremely important to consider the economic costs of the divorce industry. I want anyone who is a fiscal conservative, who believes in entrepreneurship and incentives, to read this :
Wonks debate endlessly whether the top marginal tax rate should be 39.6%, as it was under Clinton, or 35% as it presently is for another 16 months. The debate about incentives, marginal tax, etc. is fierce, even though we are talking about just 4.6% more or less on the max.
There is also endless discussion on how high tax states like CA (with a 9.3% income tax rate) steadily lose businesses, capital, and labor to lower tax states like AZ, NV, or TX with 0% income tax rates.
So again, 9.3% is apparently a big deal.
What about the fact that millions, perhaps tens of millions, of American men, are suffering under a marginal tax rate of 70% or more.
Under ‘no fault’ divorce, a woman can be entitled to years and years of alimony and child support = alimony, without having to prove any wrongdoing on the part of her man. Even if HE doesn’t want a divorce, he still has to pay. A pre-nup CANNOT affect child support, which is why FeminOrcs lobbies to get the child support percentage of income award to be absurdly high, far higher than the cost of a full-time nanny.
So many men, after Federal, State, and FeminOrc taxes, pay out 70% of their income. The child support tax accrues even if he loses his job.
Now, if a significant percentage of American men have a 70% tax on marginal income, why will they start companies? Why would they invent anything? Why would they moonlight on the side?
If tax rates affect incentives, which I believe everyone reading this agrees with, then having 10%, 20%, or 30% of the male workforce under a ruinous 70% tax rate CANNOT be good for the economy.
Think of the inventions that are not invented due to a lack of incentive. Think of the businesses not started. Men are the only people who invent new technologies, of course.
It is quite possible that a decline in US innovation and entrepreneurship started at along the same time as child support payments were raised in the early 2000s.
Note that unlike published IRS or State tax rates, no one gets to vote on child support percentages or alimony laws, or the ability of a judge to reject pre-nups. The public does not get to vote on the decision-makers of these laws. In fact, the public is not even informed of them.
But aside from the dehumanizing unfairness and society-destroying social implications of the out-of-control divorce industry, there is a huge economic opportunity cost as well.
Why debate whether the public should have a top tax bracket of 39.6% vs. 35%, when 10% to 30% of the US workforce is under a whopping 70% tax bracket.
Fiscal cons, take notice on how the left bypassed you altogether, and got this silent specter of leftism enacted right under your noses.
Scale back the absurd percentages assigned to child support = alimony, and the economic supercharge that a tax cut creates will begin in earnest.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Women working lowers wages. They more than double the size of the labor force. As a result, wages are half as high.
That is a zero-sum fallacy that stems from being ignorant about economics.
Wages (in the private sector) track productivity. If women are less productive, they get paid less.
Plus, globalization greatly increases the labor pool, so railing about a zero-sum fallacy is even more uninformed in this day and age.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My general reaction to the Female Masculinist’s article is that like her fascinating website, it’s full of fascinating insights and truths, but goes quite a bit too far particularly in it’s recommendations.
While it’s true that a mother’s most socially and familially important role is in raising infants and small children, women only spend a minority of their adult but working age lives with young children. It’s also true that there are and should be outlier women, who can and do make great contributions to the world of work – in the arts, in business, and even in the sciences.
As for women typically getting someone else to do their work for them, there is that phenomenon but it’s overstated. Perhaps women do have some special skills in getting that to be the case but the main reason it often is in modern corps is because women have numerous and utterly pervasive special privileges in those environments compared to men, as a result of sexual harassment law absurdly broadly expanded, diversity and AA goals for women, and so on. For instance, to complain about it is a violation of mainstreamed feminism incorporated into political correctness. Specifically it’s easily derided as both “sexist†and “misogynist†and raises suspicions of sexual harassment – and likely to invite unjust of fabricated claims of same. The result is that stringent levels of proof are needed by a supervisor not to mention a co worker. Otherwise they’re likely to be the ones in trouble. Indeed, even with that level of proof they may still be. This is not only unfair; it’s bad for productivity.
Women should be just as easy to fire or not hire or promote as men are (non NAM that is). There should be nothing wrong with sexist opinions as long as they aren’t of the bigoted hate variety, but how common is that in so called “sexists†anyway? Claims of misogyny should be treated as the ridiculous effort to make criticism of any aspect of feminist taboo that they are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Fifth Horseman October 11, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Simple. Don’t pay income tax, don’t pay alimony, and don’t pay child support. It can be lawfully done in all former british colonies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Renee
I applaud your point her about not being one to claim sexual harassment at the drop of a hat. However by some huge ratio what’s called misogyny is really critiquing or making fun of feminism. At the most it’s generally sexist which isn’t the same as hating most or all women, but rather wishing to reassert at least some spheres of male dominance or primacy. It’s a basic male instinct to do so and has been at least since genus homo became species sapiens.
As a counter to the rampant misandry that feminism has managed to make pervasive in the entertainment media (“all men are dogs†and on and on) and pervasive message that women are in all important respects either equal to or better than men, men should actually put out a lot more so called misogynistic jokes and “sexist†calling out of bad female behavior especially when it’s typical.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Globalman,
Would you be able to elaborate how a man who *works at a corporation* can establish trusts and other structures to avoid getting killed in child support, etc? Even if he has a pre-nup?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Renee
As Nova says, that’s feminist misinformation. The feminist movement has a very long and pervasive record of asserting things which aren’t true, or vastly exaggerating from a tiny glimmer of truth. And almost never giving balancing information in any fair way. It’s been far too little challenged, in part because the media and universities are so feminist.
First of all, the level of household duties that must or should be done in the first place is neither some fixed quantum given down from the heavens, nor as feminists and indeed most Amercan women assume, rightfully the woman’s prerogative to determine, within VERY broad limits. I.e., only the most extreme OCD levels of cleanliness or other standards are too much; on the other hand if she “not obsessive about a little dust here and there†that’s her right to not be criticized for as well. Men are expected to fall in line and do AT LEAST half if they both work outside the house. Why? Why shouldn’t they have equal say? Or why shouldn’t the one who is obsessed with more housework being done or more play dates spend more time on doing what they want done so much more.
As well just because both work outside the home doesn’t mean they work equal hours outside or that their jobs are equally stressful or tiring. Men typically work a lot more hours, and statistics show that. As well they typically work a much more money maximizing rather than job satisfaction providing jobs as women do. Married men particularly maximize earnings; married women maximize job fulfillment.
In those circumstances even if the hours are equal then yes the man should have some more relaxation time when he isn’t working his stressful job where his first priority is to bring home the family bacon.
As a general cultural rule, no. It should be the woman who does. He job one is to take care of the infants or young kids, and manage other people’s taking care of them. His job one is to bring home the bacon, and advance further to do it better come college time etc. Further she’s not making the most money nor is she working as much for the family rather than her own satisfaction, as the husband is.
Obviously this isn’t always the case. But it usually is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would agree with the point that when women were full-time mothers raising children, those where the days when 3, 4, of 5 children were common, hence making it a full-time job.
Katherine Jackson had 7 kids in 8 years (and 2 more in the next 8 years, for a total of 9). This means she had 3 or more in diapers at once, for an extended period.
Rose Kennedy was wealthy and had servants, etc., bus still had 9 kids in 17 years, including 5 or 6 very close together. Robert and Ethel Kennedy had 11 kids, also very close together in age.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
‘Feminism’ of an Anglosphere variety is very different from the East Asian variety.
At work, I have a team of 3 reporting to me. All three are women. But all three are productive and intelligent. Why? Because they are ASIAN woman.
Now, countries like Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan do have women in the workforce, and are generally good contributors. None of the drama that American women undertake in. Yet, these societies are not known for misandry.
Yet, these societies have far lower fertility rates than the US. Even if you just take White Americans, whites have a much higher fertility rate than Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Japan.
So ‘feminism’ in (developed) East Asia is much more about true equality. Women are productive, yet misandry is not there. This results in better women, but a much lower fertility rate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Woman can do it all with the proper set up. They can take care of you, the kids, and the business.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Novaseeker wrote: “But that isn’t about men, that’s about socialism.”
I never said anything about using the state to do this. So, not socialism. Also, what’s your end goal here? Should it matter if it’s about men, as long as it gets you into a better, more fair situation?
Jack Donovan wrote: “As long as there are resources and people with differing abilities trying to get access to them, you will have oppression. The idea that you can use the state to eliminate this and make everyone work together in peace and harmony and share and love one another in one big happy ant farm is Marxist bullshit. ”
Agreed. I never said anything about the state. But what I am saying is that even if you succeeded in putting women “back in the home where they belong,” you’d probably still stand a good chance of being oppressed/repressed/what have you. And what then?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
”””””This is what I see happening, too. The standard of living for all but the elite is going to drop. No real way to stop that at this point. There is going to come a great equalization between the richer countries and the developing ones in two directions: the developing ones improving a bit, and the rich ones slouching down a bit.”””””
The developing countries already have much better conditions because if it is about woman then they are the ones with access to the fresh vag. What do “rich” countries have walmart and the ability to go out to eat? Does it matter?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
””””””The Fifth Horseman October 11, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Globalman,
Would you be able to elaborate how a man who *works at a corporation* can establish trusts and other structures to avoid getting killed in child support, etc? Even if he has a pre-nup?
”””””””’
Again something the “rich” countries have to worry about that the “poor” do not. Again who is rich and who is poor?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
5th Horse
As well modern appliances, which began coming in with widespread electrification in the 1920s, but then after a depression and WWII hiatus really came in to nearly every household for the mothers of the baby boom generation, make a huge difference. Washing machines and dryers, vacuums, dishwashers, even microwaves for some things. These made a huge diff. People utterly and totally take them for granted now, but when comparing how much free time even a woman with young kids has now they have to be considered.
Raising kids doesn’t allow huge blocks for free time, at least until they’re in school or pre school, but it does allow a whole lot of free time in the interstices. Soap operas and the female market novel and magazines are directed at this free time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
5H wrote:
“Wages (in the private sector) track productivity. If women are less productive, they get paid less.”
Not so. They are paid more per unit of productivity than are men. Call it the “litigiousness premium” if you will.
“Japan do have women in the workforce, and are generally good contributors. None of the drama that American women undertake in. Yet, these societies are not known for misandry.”
I read an article recently in which Japanese men are routinely denied the most basic of access to their kids after a divorce. I count this as de facto, if not de jure, misandry.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Globalman,
Can you elaborate on the not paying taxes and especially the ability to tell a cop to leave on a DV call? The claims of common law are always interesting but they seem to only exist in a fantasy world rather than the real world. They sound nice but when applied in the real world they don’t work. Do you not pay income tax at all?
I checked out the forum you linked and it seemed to be the usual. People not really knowing what they’re talking about. I perused the traffic ticket section and it seemed like everybody was unsure and had a different answer w/o any concrete information or facts. I did read claims that Obama and his family were really ancient Egyptians or if not, Obama is really Osama bin Laden. Kind of makes you not take anything on their as reality based.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Globalman–
I can tell you as an elite high end law school and BigLaw trained lawyer, who admittedly (proudly) didn’t practice law that long and hasn’t for a long time, that your notion of “not accepting jurisdiction” is complete crap. It’s a short term delaying tactic at best.
Now, FLEEING jurisdiction is another matter. That depending upon where you go or how well you hide (and how much they keep wanting to get you over time) can be and often is a very different matter.
So no I didn’t look at your websites based upon that fundamental advice of yours.
Next.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Can you elaborate on the not paying taxes and especially the ability to tell a cop to leave on a DV call? The claims of common law are always interesting but they seem to only exist in a fantasy world rather than the real world. They sound nice but when applied in the real world they don’t work. Do you not pay income tax at all?
I’m curious about the answer to this too. Even if GM is correct, why doesn’t Congress and the state legislatures fix this to their benefit? They can make whatever laws they need, and they have the guns to enforce them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Globalman,
Oh GEEZE you again?
Renee, thank you for demonstrating how you fascist femnazis think. The woman CHOOSES to work outside the home. It is her FREE CHOICE as a sentient being. So, now you turn that around and say because one sentient being took a free choice that gives her the RIGHT to tell the other sentient being what he should do because he as a penis and she has a vagina? What does ’should’ mean in your argument.
She chooses to work outside the home just like a man chooses to do so. Now if we’re talking about married couples with kids, it depends on the situation.
Elusive Wapiti posted a BRILLIANT comment about the role of the father and the fact that God never said that all mothers should ONLY be stay-at-home mothers. It’s not about telling another person what to do. It’s about principle. Here’s what Wapiti said since you obviously skipped over it:
FM wrote:
“Women don’t belong in the workplace. Their job is at home…â€
The problem I have with this “traditional†interpretation is that it is found nowhere in Scripture. Yes, there is that bit in Genesis about the man being punished to work the ground to eat, and the woman being punished with pains in childbirth. But neither of those punishments imply that men are to be resource providers and women are to be child-raisers (and, by implication, resource-consumers). This notion comes instead from a post industrial-rev conception of how labor is divided in the family. In other words, it is man’s traditions grafted onto the Word.
An honest reading of Proverbs 31 makes it quite clear that a woman is to work as well. It even mentions women considering fields and buying them and women performing light manufacturing, things that Complementarians would probably have seizures over.
†…shouldn’t he pitch in with raising the kids and some household duties?â€
Absolutely. This is where I lock horns with the traditionalists again. Traditionalists cast men as the resource provider for the family. The problem with this interpretation is that they limit him to this role, where, again, a read of Scripture freed from Man’s interpretation implies that husbands are to provide way more than just materiel to the family.
And by the way. Men do MUCH more work around the home. I renovated two houses and my ex never lifted a finger to help me…would not even bother to make me a sandwhich to keep me working longer.
Well that’s your situation. How do you know that it’s the same situation for all other men. Of course, it may be true for some but not all. There are women who do MUCH more work around the home. Don’t generalize something based on your own personal experience.
No woman likes ‘debates’. They like attention. All women are attention whores. Women do not have the intellectual capacity to engage in a ‘debate’ with an intelligent man so they should just leave that alone.
Oh PLEASE. As if you’re an expert on the behavior and characteristics of women. You probably based this observation on your personal experience as well.
Why don’t you go and educate yourself on how crap western women are now rather than put your parthetic child like attempts at arguments into a place where men are talking. You women have nothing to contribute the debate by…….
Well considering that there are other intelligent women who post on this site, this pathetic comment is completely pointless and only shows how delusional you are. And based on other posts from you, since you’re single and such a since you’re SUCH a “capable” guy, make your own sandwich….oh excuse me, sammich.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh and the quote starting with “And by the way” is by GM while the one above it is by Elusive Wapiti.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nope. Utopian nonsense. Much in life is zero-sum, as men have learned the hard way as a result of feminism.
I am not in favor of any redistributive system that flattens people down regardless of ability.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nova:
I’m in favor of a “floor” for people who play by the rules but lose out in society. My floor may be world wide, but that is what I think will be required if the present economic system is to survive.
I have nothing against capitalism or rich people, and if, in my utopia, I taxed them more, they’d still have their yachts and explicit protections in the laws they lack in our current society and explicit privileges too.
I don’t believe any current economic theory actually comports 100 percent with human nature whether the theory be from the Austrian school or the Keynesian school, or the Chicago school, or anarcho capitalistic or whatever. Really all economics is based on is human trading, and the important thing in trading is that both sides benefit from it. Provided I give my producers good incentives and value them more than those who are just parasitic or actively harmful then it is a ‘quid pro quo” between them and society.
I have no intention of peacefully allowing America to make a peasant caste, because our leaders are full of greed and lack vision. Mind you, I didn’t say that I would actively resist if our “standard of living” goes lower provided it is still at least subsistence. Part of that is inevitable due to our recent bubble economy and part of it is deserved. But I will fight any changes codified into law that expand debtor’s prisons, for instance.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am not in favor of any redistributive system that flattens people down regardless of ability.
Neither am I. Not calling for that. I’m just saying that there’s probably more to your situation than the fact that you’re a man and not a woman.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ll say it again : if feminism results in women getting paid more than their output and productivity justifies, then that merely hastens the speed at which the employer outsources the job to another country where women don’t sue for bullshit crap. Who could blame them?
Market forces win.
Manufacturing has already been offshored, so these men have little left to lose. But low-end service jobs that women work in are the next to go, so these women will get what is coming to them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Feminism is a problem, but the bigger problem concerns something else…
How do you adapt to a system (of plenty) that makes a lot of ancient behaviors (conflict) counterproductive. Our whole system of thought was created in a time of scarcity and poverty, and the behaviors it fosters are worse than useless for a system that has no real scarcity and need for poverty. Thrift, conservatism, obedience to authority, tribalism and many other old concepts create negative feedback loops with consequences far exceeding your worst nightmares.
The secondary problem is that we cannot go back to any system that existed as dynamic equilibria in evolving systems cannot be retraced and the ‘loser’ in the rigged game can scorch the earth far better than the ‘winner’. You cannot make a baby devolve into a embryo.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Puma said:
“The age of stay at home baby making factories is over.”
Right, and consequently the existence of white people in America (although you might find that a feature rather than a bug. If so, you should say so)
” Also keep in mind that in our hunter/gatherer past, that is 150,000 of our 160,000 years in existence as a species, women did indeed work work work outside the home.”
Yes, but they worked in COOPERATION with men in family-scale enterprises, not in COMPETITION with men in external, impersonal megacorporations and academia. The more women compete with men, and with ever greater intensity and the force of public policy to favor them, the faster we go extinct.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Yet, these societies are not known for misandry.”
Maybe not known for it….but a guy I know married a japanese chick..same problem…
Also, the statutes were recently changed that said a woman got half of a retired mans pension….no work from the woman needed…and japanese men are being encouraged to take classes on ‘how to make their wife happy’ so they will not divorce them…..this sounds like misandry to me…
Aren’t women grown ups? Aren’t they responsible for their own happiness? Nope…not even in Japan….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Globalman
Democracy needs to be stopped THROUGH ANY MEANS NECESSARY.
[*Read war crime.]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Fifth Horseman October 11, 2009 at 3:18 pm
“Globalman,
Would you be able to elaborate how a man who *works at a corporation* can establish trusts and other structures to avoid getting killed in child support, etc? Even if he has a pre-nup?”
Sure.
If you are ‘working for a corporation’ it depends on the corporation and it’s willingness to pay you as an ‘employee’ or a sub contractor and your local statutes.
Of course, these things change state by state in variuous countries. Some states require that all corporations deduct income tax and child support etc prior to payment to the employee. You have consented to this by signing the employee application form and the employment contract. Some states allow the employee to be responsible for his own taxes etc. Guvments make it the companies responsibility because companies are easier to penalise.
Now. If you go watch Rober Menards ‘Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception’ you will learn that you are not a person, you have a person, and that person is a corporation owned by your guvment and it has what you think is your name. The most imoprtant thing to learn is you are not a ‘person’ in the legal sense, you are a human being that is the sureity for a bond created for a corporation that is the ‘person’. Whenever you see in legislation ‘person(s)’ they don’t mean ‘human beings’ they mean their corporations they created that they have fooled you into thinking you are. It’s very clever…just diabolical..LOL!!
So, if you want to refuse income tax, child support etc the simplest way to do this is to work as a ‘contract for hire’ to a corporation. Your employer may allow you to do this. Or you may have to create a company of which you are a director and you then create a contract between your company and your employer. Your company bills your client. Your company pays you as a contract for hire. And no income tax is payable since your person meaning your corporation was not paid any ‘money’. That is one way. In my opinion it is the most ‘fool proof way’.
Another way is to refuse to pay income tax. Then, when they send you a notice for arrears ask them to prove there is any money in circulation by which the alleged arrears can be paid. There isn’t. This takes a little more moxy. All countries are in bankruptcy and there is no money. The guvment knows this but you don’t. In bankruptcy the alleged creditor must bring the remedy. Since you don’t know this, you think you have to give them debt notes which you think is money.
The most complicated way, and by far the most bullet proof way, is to ‘capture your strawman’ which is your government corporation created from your ‘berth certificate’. Create a security agreement between your strawman and yourself and create yourself as the primary creditor and secured party against the strawman. This places you the human being as the primary creditor to the strawman meaning that anyone else who claims a debt must get in line. You also create a hold harmless agreement between the strawman and your human being.
This is what I did. My strawman ‘MR GLOBAL MAN’ owes a debt of 10M troy ounces of gold to ‘global: man’ human being. The legal system can only act on GLOBAL MAN and I am not GLOBAL MAN I am global: man and I have a hold harmless agreement between myself and GLOBAL MAN. Therefore I can not be acted on by any legal system in the western world operating under Uniform Commercial Code. Took me about 3 months to figure this one out.
There are no trusts or anything else like that to consider. It is all about common law and UCC and how the two interact in the former british world.
I got the skeletons for all these from here. http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6169
Instructions for completion from here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6168
Let me say this is not something to just dive into..it takes some time to learn. This book has a lot of good links in it.
http://www.tnsradio.com/freemanguide.pdf
Those of you in the US might want to look up Winston Shrouts site http://www.winstonshroutsolutionsincommerce.com/
There is also a redemption site in the US. http://www.redemptionservice.com
One other novel way was documented in the first book from this side http://www.theclassifiedfiles.com Because there is no money in circulation you actually don’t get ‘paid’ therefore there is no equitable exchange of mutually agreed value therefore there can be no tax due. Thomas Anderson wrote a letter to the Australian Tax Office to ask for proof it had the right to tax people. Since they didn’t respond a default judgment and permanent estopple occured and the ATO can never ask for income tax again. Basically, one letter and he was done. Not bad really.
The first book also contains all you need to know to zero out your mortgage as well. Your mortgages are fraudulent so you don’t have to pay them. Just thought you’d like to know.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Sean,
at last!! Someone else who knows democracy is the road to socialism…Karl Marx said that by the way..
And if you trip on over to the Communist Party for the USA you will read they encourage their members to ‘fight for democracy’.
Democracy is the road to a totalitarian communist state. That is why our leaders are telling its a good thing so often.
@Doug1
“I can tell you as an elite high end law school and BigLaw trained lawyer, who admittedly (proudly) didn’t practice law that long and hasn’t for a long time, that your notion of “not accepting jurisdiction” is complete crap.”
Gee Doug, we have court cases that disagree with you. Indeed, we have even had judges fleeing the court room in humilation, anger and frustration when a well informed person refuses the jurisdiction of the private run for profit company known as a ‘court’. You do know that ‘courts’ are just private run for profit companies like McDonalds don’t you?
By the way. You didn’t study law. You studied Uniform Commercial Code masquerading as ‘law’.
Your education was obviously lacking. Go do your research on Common Law, Admiralty Law and Uniform Commercial Code and see what they really taught you. Uniform Commercial Code and all courts in all former british colonies can not operate on human beings. They can only operate on corporations. They can only operate on human beings who have consented to enjoin with the corporation and thereby waive all rights as human being.
You, my dear Doug, are part of the problem, not part of the solution…
I think I shall ignore you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Fifth Horseman October 11, 2009 at 3:18 pm
I replied…and it said I replied but it is not visible. ??
I tried again and it said ‘duplicate post’?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Okay. So what do you do when the bailiff arrests you and puts you in jail for contempt of court?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I can see the comment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“I am not GLOBAL MAN I am global: man” — so I guess if GLOBAL MAN is in jail, global: man is free! It’s just his strawman in the pokey.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Chris October 11, 2009 at 6:28 pm
“Can you elaborate on the not paying taxes and especially the ability to tell a cop to leave on a DV call? The claims of common law are always interesting but they seem to only exist in a fantasy world rather than the real world. They sound nice but when applied in the real world they don’t work. Do you not pay income tax at all?”
Chris. Sure. Common Law is a body of law that has been created over a period of about 5,000 years. It is very well established and forms the foundation for all laws and guvments in former british colonies today. For other places it is ‘civil law’. Because it is so well established it does not create conflict it resolves conflict peacefully. There are specific processes to go through such as affidavits, notices etc. For example, the US Constituion must always be in harmony with common law but not many people know that.
It all hinges on you knowing who you are. You are not a ‘person’ you do not have a name. You are a human being and you have a calling. The Illuminati brainwash you into thinking you have a name and that you need to carry ID. This is why the first thing any guvment official asks you is “What is your name?” As soon as you answer that you have waived all your rights. Not many people know that.
No. I do not pay income tax. Now I know it is voluntary I no longer volunteer. It is amazing how many people try and ‘shame’ me for not paying something that is voluntary. I don’t pay child support or alimony either for the same reason. I was prepared to before I knew this…but since it is voluntary I exercise my right to say no. You do not have to volunteer to do anything that is a ‘law’ passed by a ‘guvment’.
On that site we have 6,000 members. Some more expert than others. Yes, you will find lots of people coming and asked questions. There are some books on this stuff coming out now. It’s not so easy to learn all this stuff. It does take some time.
So..a DV call:
Officer: What is your name?
Chris: I don’t have a name officer, why do you ask?
Officer: Ok turkey, I don’t want any trouble with you, what is your name?
Chris: I have told you, I do not have a name. Names are for corporations. I have a calling.
Officer: Well, what is your calling?
Chris: My calling is Chris. You may call me Chris. Sir, I’d really like to help you, you seem all aggitated. In order to help you, can you please tell me, are you operating in the role of a peace officer or are you operating in the role of a policy enforcement officer for a private run for profit company called the United States of America?
Officer: Look buddy, one more smart arse comment from you and I will run you in!!
Chris: Well, I would not do that if I were you. I have noticed the Attourney General that if any of his policy enforcement officers for a private run for profit company called the United States of America detain me that I will charge them 1,000 ounces of gold per every hour or part thereof. He’s not going to want to pay that bill for you. I am noticing you that under common law, if you kidnap me or incarcerate me you will be billed 1,000 ounces of gold for every hour or part thereof.
Officer: What the hell are you talking about boy?
Chris: Well, I am talking about common law sir, it is the law of the land, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. You are subject to common law, just like I am. You swore an oath to uphold the law of the land which is common law. Now are you operating as a peace officer or policy enforcement officer?
Officer: Ok….I am operating as a police officer.
Chris: Great, thanks for telling me. So, I don’t consent to the jurisdiction of the private run for profit company called the United States. I am not a corporation, I am a human being, and your statutes do not create an obligation on me without my consent. I’m really glad we sorted that out. I wish you a good day sir.
Officer: What are you talking about boy?
Chris: While you are acting as police officer you are acting under statutes and acts. These are not law. To apply them to me you need my consent. You don’t have it. So we are done here.
Officer: Ok. Ok…what if I said I was operating as a ‘peace officer’.
Chris: Well, that’s great too. As a peace officer you have sworn an oath to uphold the law, catch the bad guys, all that stuff. And I applaud you for that and I think that’s great. But for you to detain me under common law you must have witnessed me breach the peace or commit a crime. Which you have not. Alternatively. If you can find a witness who is willing to sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury and full commercial liability that I have committed a crime then I would be more than pleased to accompany you to the station to file my rebuttal of such an affidavit because I have not committed any such crime.
Officer: What the hell are you talking about boy?
Chris: Sir, I am talking about common law. You are not allowed to arrest anyone unless you have a witness to the crime that is prepared to make a statement under oath. That’s the law. Have you ever read the Magna Carta? You should you know.
So, I refuse to give my consent to your private company jurisdiction and I have not committed any crime. If you arrest me falsely I will bill you and if you do not pay I will put a personal lien against you for 1,000 ounces of gold per hour or part thereof. Now, I really think we are done here. I think you need to talk to your boss and ask him for training on common law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse…especially for a peace officer who is sworn to uphold it.
That would be about it……
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And then he arrests you and takes you down to the pokey anyway.
Lemme guess: you deliberately misspell “guvment” because “government” would imply they had a right to govern you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Novaseeker October 12, 2009 at 10:01 am
“Okay. So what do you do when the bailiff arrests you and puts you in jail for contempt of court?”
Well ‘contempt of court’ in an interesting one. You may not know it but in 2000 the UN ruled on an Australian case that under ‘contempt of court’ any government could incarcerate anyone they like for any reason they like as long as the GUVMENT said it was ok. Can anyone say POLICE STATE? .
However, they STILL need to establish jurisdiction and that STILL means you need to act in such a way as they can claim jurisdiction. And they claim it on the flimsiest of evidence. For example. They will do things like pass the bailiff a document and say “Please give this to MR GLOBAL MAN”. If I react and take the document they CLAIM voluntary consent to jurisdiction. It’s THAT bad nowadays. Judges ROUTINELY threaten men with incarceration for ‘contempt of court’ for not giving their ‘name’. It’s all a ruse. Indeed, there is no need to go to court. A summons is an invitation to a place of business. Just like McDonalds asking you along to try a burger. No difference.
When the judge says “Bailiff, arrest this man for contempt of court.” The appropriate response to the bailiff is something like:
“Sir, for and on the record. I am operating under common law jurisdiction. You do not have my consent to touch me. I have noticed the Attourney General that any unlawful incarceration will be billed at 1,000 ounces of gold for every hour or part thereof. In this case, that bill will come to you because it is you who is acting unlawfully in incarcerating me. If you fail to pay your bill I will place a personal lien against you. I will make every effort to take your house off you and all your belongings. I have a very good shot at doing that. Please remember, ignorance of the law is no excsue. Now, if you want to take a chance on losing everything you will ever work for, assualt me and kidnap me. Apart from that, I wouldn’t touch me if I were you. Indeed, if I were you, I’d let the judge do his own unlawful kidnapping and incarceration. If the judge is acting lawfully then he is welcome to come down here, arrest me himself and take me himself to the cells. Then the bill goes to him. Now, Sir, do as you will. I am a peaceful man. I will not harm you, but I will bill you.”
Most bailiffs are balking at this point. Some are incarcerating men and then getting liens against them. We haven’t got a million dollars out of a bailiff yet but we are getting cases of police officers paying small fees like USD2,000 out of their own pocket for the bill for handing out a ticket. Most times this is the end of it. In most cases it does not come to this because it is advisable to put the court into common law if the judge starts talking about ‘contempt of court’. There is no ‘contempt of court’ under common law.
This book was just published and I have ordered my copy. The AntiTerrorist also has a youtube channel where he gives examples of standing in court and how to deal with the police. I’d recommend Robert-Arthur: Menards videos as well as the AntiTerrorist videos. There is lots of stuff out there.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/TheAntiTerrorist-Handbook/dp/190560517X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255369424&sr=8-1
Lukobe October 12, 2009 at 10:04 am
The corporation is represented by the berth certificate. In some cases when the cops come to arrest the straw man they are giving a copy of the berth certificate and saying “Crack on, lock him up for as long as you like!” This is also happening in courts. “You want to speak to MR GLOBAL MAN? Here he is.” And hand over a copy of the bert cert. I am not MR GLOBAL MAN. I am the secured party and primary creditor for the corporation known as MR GLOBAL MAN. Yes, we have had men in court refusing Jurisdiction of the courts for all sorts of things. Only recently for FC.
What does this have to do with MRAs and why do I bother? If a man learns how to use Common Law and UCC then he can pretty much avoid most of the issues of ‘statutes enshrining feminism’. You can run companies, retain clients, bill for services rendered or products sold, and not have to employ women who won’t do as you ask them to. You still have to pay company tax as it is their company because you register it.
I remember the days when you could just sit a guy down and tell him he was doing a crap job and tell him how to improve and give him a choice as to whether he wanted to keep working around here. Most of the time that was enough to ‘shake guys up’. Some left for easier jobs. Sure. This approach is simply impossible with women. You will have a sexual harassment charge on your plate quick smart. We have all seen women running from offices crying because someone said something ‘bad’ about them and their poor little ‘feewings’ were ‘hurt’.
Since my day 1 in the office in 1982 it has been patently clear to me women are freeloaders in the main. But if you say that you are ‘woman-hater’, ‘misogynist’, ‘sexist pig’ and you probably have a small penis too. Sigh. I’ve met some women who do a good job but they are few and far between. Women in the work force has done more to destroy the economy than anything else. Men finding a way to refuse to employ women who will not do as they are told in a company will help that company and the economy. This is one way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I say ‘guvment’ to point out that it is all a bit retarded and a bit of a joke.
Even the bible says that no christian man is subject to any laws of man without his consent. It is in Romans I believe. Something about laws of man bring death and laws of god bring life therefore let no man obey laws created by man…someone else can look it up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In many states the local Family Court can establish jurisdiction overy you if a) If the “heft” of the marriage has occured there ii) Either you and/or your spouse currently have your domicile there. I guess you can delay the inevitable by ditching the court summons messenger for a while. But eventually your spouse can just put a newspaper ad announcing the divorce filing, and the court will see the case without you (default divorce). They will decide a bunch of things about your money and your future income without you being there. A few weeks after the decision, if you still haven’t shown up and complied with or appealed the decision, then your ex can motion the court for “Contempt of Court”. Once the judge agrees that contempt has occured, they will issue a Bench Warrant for your arrest. After that if a state trooper, local police, or border control agent runs a check on you, it’s off to the Pokey for you. With a bench warrant against you, they sometimes even directly come for you to your last known residence.
Your only options are to change jurisdictions. Moving to another State only helps temporarily. Many states dont extradite you for civil contempt, but I heard some may have started to do so. Wost case your ex or her lawyer can simply re-file the divorce decree in your new state, and then the law enforcement of your new state can directly come for you for direct enforcement.
The only real solution at that point is to move to a new country permanently. Even then you can get dragged back in about 10 years time once your current passport expires, if you haven’t received citizenship or refugee-status in your new country. The outstandig bench warrant will mean that the US Consulate in your new country will NOT renew your passport if you apply. This actually happened to a former NBL baseball player who had set up a new life in some Pacific island. After 10 years he was left passportless, and had to return, and they arrested him upon re-entry at the Los Angeles International airport.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I posted this on FM blog, but I wanted to see what you all thought.
What amazes me is how some men believe that women shouldn’t be part of the workforce, yet they complain about their wives spending their money or about alimony.
I think that if a married woman worked, she would have her own finances to spend or on her own bank account and wouldn’t rely so much on her husband’s.
Just something that I’ve thought about. And I admit that this is pretty generalized as well and that there are special cases.
————————-
Doug1,
As well just because both work outside the home doesn’t mean they work equal hours outside or that their jobs are equally stressful or tiring. Men typically work a lot more hours, and statistics show that. As well they typically work a much more money maximizing rather than job satisfaction providing jobs as women do…..
In those circumstances even if the hours are equal then yes the man should have some more relaxation time when he isn’t working his stressful job where his first priority is to bring home the family bacon.
So you’re saying that as a father and husband, his contribution ends at his paycheck? Like Elusive Wapiti said, being a father means more than “bringing home the bacon”. For the most part, I agree with your post, but I really don’t think that one spouse should necessarily have more relaxation time than the other. I mean, should couples base this on typical cases and not solely their own?
“And shouldn’t a father also be expected to perhaps take time off to take care of a sick child?”
As a general cultural rule, no. It should be the woman who does. He job one is to take care of the infants or young kids, and manage other people’s taking care of them. His job one is to bring home the bacon
What…you say no but then you say that his job one is to take care of the infants/young kids, etc. etc. Then you say his job one is to bring home the bacon……
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Puma October 12, 2009 at 11:41 am
“In many states the local Family Court can establish jurisdiction overy you if”
Puma, this is FALSE. They CLAIM jurisdiction over you and they only get it if you CONSENT. It is all about consent and contracts. Nothing else. If they invite you to court with a summons and you turn up and respond to your name THEY say you have consented to their jurisdiction.
Now, the banks are also criminals and the courts will issue an ex-parte order to steal your money from the bank because it’s not your money it is their money because it is in the NAME of the corporation created from your berth certificate. So, the answer to that is to get your ‘money’ into a different jurisdiction or into a form that cannot be stolen by the criminal bankers…like gold.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
True … Gold has no master.
Also, I was half kidding when I posted that Panama Law link earlier. It appears that purely civil-judgements do lose their power across country borders. Does the Think Free Society have any experience with that type of situation amongst its members re: civil matters?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
…. also the recent case of the American Dad (who did have custody) getting arrested in Japan is proof of this. I.e. Japan’s courts didn’t give a hoots about the US family court’s decision. He was the abductor as far as they were concerned. I guess even though a poor man got shafted, I assume this state of affairs usually benefit most men, since women usually win in Western courts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
japanese men are being encouraged to take classes on ‘how to make their wife happy’ so they will not divorce them…..this sounds like misandry to me…
I see. No wonder Japanese men are feverishly working on a variety of replacement technologies, from video games with 3-D holograms to sexbots.
Women think that such technologies cannot replace them. They fail to consider that the artificial woman will be engineered to be a 10, while the real women usually fall in the 4-7 range.
Real 10 > Artificial 10 > Real 7.
So when an artificial 10 canbe manufactured, guess what happens to real 7s? They get treated like 3s. It won’t even be a conscious choice by the men, but rather they will just drift into an addiction that is more fun than bothering with greatly flawed, average looking real women.
Sure, a sexbot cannot provide love. But neither can most women. Those who know know to be loving towards their men will get men. The others will not. Women who nag will quickly find that men have other things that can better occupy their time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
””””’Well considering that there are other intelligent women who post on this site, this pathetic comment is completely pointless and only shows how delusional you are. And based on other posts from you, since you’re single and such a since you’re SUCH a “capable†guy, make your own sandwich….oh excuse me, sammich.
Renee October 11, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Oh and the quote starting with “And by the way†is by GM while the one above it is by Elusive Wapiti.
””””””’
oh god a personal attack on spelling from renee. Noooooo
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The best answer for self preservation is to make your money and save it but do not get married or have kids in a place where you lose your manhood in regards to your kids. Then you don’t have to worry so much about jurisdictions. Or what I shoulf have done and just have kids with all 32 chicks I had in high school to beat the system either way go full go. Once you have a kid might as well keep poppin em out like pringles.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If you already have a couple kids then your basically free of worry your already fucked. So yea you get to not use condoms and do what you want your already paying the consequences.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
5th
You’ve repeated this argument ad nauseam, but it has a huge, gaping hole. Specificially, you’re assuming that this “sexbot technology” will develop independently of actual women, and will overtake them in the sex department while they sit back helplessly and wring their hands.
This is utterly ridiculous. It’s like saying we’re going to go straight from live computer repairmen to completely automated robotic tech support, WITHOUT developing intermediate technologies (i.e., tech support via email, or via automated systems in which you can still get a human by pressing zero enough times).
What will obviously happen first is the development of VR technology INVOLVING A REAL FEMALE PARTNER. I.e., in which you can fuck your aging and/or increasingly plump wife, but feel the visual and tactile sensations of fucking a 21-year-old ten.
This technology will have an effect that is exactly the opposite of what you’re predicting.
* It will RAISE the market value of less attractive (but not hideous) women who are not intolerable.
* It will also decimate the market value of 10′s, who will for the first time in history be placed on par with 6′s and 7′s. (An infinitude of VR tens will be better than one real-life ten.)
Think.
This, on the other hand, is absolutely dead on.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“And by the way. Men do MUCH more work around the home. I renovated two houses and my ex never lifted a finger to help me…would not even bother to make me a sandwhich to keep me working longer.”…Globalman
I jumped waaaay ahead to make this comment, so I don’t if the point was made above, but when women are allowed to define what “Housework” is, then is it any wonder that they can then claim that men do so little of it?
We men must insist that “Housework” be defined broadly enough to include such things as maintaining and repairing the computers that wifey or junior fucked up, maintaining and repairing the family vehicles (and typically giving to wifey his own car and taking the bus or train to work when hers needs repair), being the family carpenter, plumber, electrician, paper hanger, rabbit cage shit cleaner, assistant Little-League coach, as well as just being Dad…
Men need to grasp control of other terminology as well.
We’ve given our homes over to our women, and you’d never guess by the way that most American homes are decorated that a man even lives there…Very little guy stuff. Most husbands no longer have a haven in their own homes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Epoxy 87,
Specificially, you’re assuming that this “sexbot technology†will develop independently of actual women
First of all, I have stated repeatedly that software (3-D/VR) will happen sooner than robots. So lets get that straight first before claiming that I have repeated something ad nauseum.
in which you can fuck your aging and/or increasingly plump wife, but feel the visual and tactile sensations of fucking a 21-year-old ten.
There will be extreme resistance from the wife on this, whereas the other technologies bypass the roadblock of female approval. Why do you think men don’t tell their wives that they took their clients to a strip club?
At any rate, regarding this ‘intermediate’ stage that you think will happen, show me articles about prototypes, etc. The 3-D/VR technologies already have prototypes demonstrated (check out the nVidia goggles), as do female robots.
That is why the intermediate stage you are talking about will not happen, nor is there even enough time for such an era to take hold. The technologies I am talking about will happen by 2020 (Moore’s Law), so there isn’t much of an interval for your intermediate step, at any rate. Show me any articles about technologies in the lab that would do what you claim in the, say, 2012-18 interval.
This, on the other hand, is absolutely dead on.
Now you see why the existence of such technologies helps even those men who have no intention of buying these technologies.
Remember that in the old days, a fair percentage of young men (say, 20%) died on the battlefield or during occupational accidents. Thus, there were always more adult women than men, and quite a few widows. That is one of the underappreciated factors about why women were more commited to marriage in the old days vs. now, even without polygamy. The two decades after the civil war had a substantial surplus of women. The young men who were still alive and uncrippled when the Civil War ended were in a sexual paradise.
These technologies could restore and exceed the old ratios that make women behave. That benefits everyone (including women).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If women are in fact the delicate, trembling creatures who are unable to excel outside the home and need to be constantly mollycoddled, then how would being a homemaker be any easier on them? Furthermore, why would we as a society want women raising children if they’re so incompetent?
Taking care of children around the clock and maintaining a household is, far and away, much more difficult than excelling in a professional capacity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Taking care of children around the clock and maintaining a household is, far and away, much more difficult than excelling in a professional capacity.
Really? Then the fact that feminists have devalued the harder job, and pushed women into the easier job, means that feminists have a low opinion of women’s abilities, no?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
‘Now, countries like Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan do have women in the workforce, and are generally good contributors. None of the drama that American women undertake in. Yet, these societies are not known for misandry.
Yet, these societies have far lower fertility rates than the US. Even if you just take White Americans, whites have a much higher fertility rate than Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Japan.
So ‘feminism’ in (developed) East Asia is much more about true equality. Women are productive, yet misandry is not there. This results in better women, but a much lower fertility rate.’
I have great respect for Koreans and Japanese.
But Taiwanese are really, ethnically, racially, and in every possible way *very* different from Koreans and Japanese. I would argue that the Taiwanese are an extremely distinct race, even showing great genetic differences with Mainland Chinese.
I suspect that the highly evolved Mongoloid genes developed subspecies greater capacities for self-control than most human subspecies. Unfortunately, this leads to strongly dysgenic effects in certain highly civilized circumstances. I am not a biologist, so I will leave that issue to learned men like Kevin MacDonald.
However, Taiwan does have hundreds of thousands of abortions every year – mostly given to impressionable girls who should have been shamed into marriage.
Taiwan is, sadly, suffering from 人å£æ¸›å°‘, also known as å°‘å化 – known to you in English as “population decline” and “reduction of total children.” The nearly superhuman mental self-discipline – which so recently made Taiwan a great economic and manufacturing power, an “Asian Tiger” – threatens to implode in on itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Asian_Tigers
Condom companies rate Taiwan as a country with one of the lowest, if not the lowest, levels of sexual ambition in the world. This is not just economic: it is racial.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By Jingo~! I forgot the gender-related comment that spurred me to reply in the first place.
‘countries like Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan do have women in the workforce, and are generally good contributors. None of the drama that American women undertake in.’
Asian women’s drama is vastly different from Western women’s drama, but Asian women are capable of unleashing ruinous typhoons of drama when they are so inclined. One moderating factor is that most Asian women, if they have children, tend to throw their ambitions and egotism into the cause of their children, not their personal egotism.
Another difference is that in Chinese culture, The Thirty-Six Stratagems are considered to be wholesome children’s literature. Westerners have Macchiavelli, but teenage boys have to discover tattered copies of “The Prince” on dusty library shelves, shelved together with National Geographic photo-essays on bare-breasted Africans under “Scandalous Facts.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-Six_Stratagems
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Taking care of children around the clock and maintaining a household is, far and away, much more difficult than excelling in a professional capacity.
I always love this one. It’s not based in any sort of reality but yet exclaimed as such. Sorry but it’s not difficult at all. The most obvious is that for most of the children’s lives there is no “around the clock”. Kids are in school most of the day. During which a woman will stay at home and do unbelievably difficult things like the laundry: put stuff in, press button, take an hour off, put stuff in dryer, press button, take another hour off, get clothes and fold them while watching Oprah tell you how hard you have it.
Working a real job then coming home taking care of the kids, making sure your wife is emotionally coddled enough so she feels good about herself while claiming she does everything and then doing all the real housework as in fixing everything, maintaining everything outside as well as the cars etc is where the actual work is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Chris,
You are right. See what I wrote here :
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/10/11/feminism-and-the-economy/#comment-2468
According to their logic, then why did feminists prioritize the easy work, and devalue the hard work?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Japanese women still stay home…they take care of the kids, go back to work once they youngest gets into junior high, then take care of the elderly. They are responsible for budgeting the family income, keeping a ledger of expenses. It’s the wife’s responsibility to save the money for a sizable cash deposit on a house, and to budget for lessons and school expenses for the kids. I don’t know if I’d knock it ….outside of Tokyo the divorce rate is still very low. Many Japanese women still make their kids’ clothes….women’s magazines aren’t all about being sexier, how to look 20 years younger, but how to save money, sew school bags, make knock-out school lunches, how to dress well on a budget, and things like that. They see being a wife and mother as a job, and strive to do it well. Of their own volition. No one oppressed around these parts….
Oh the hue and cry in the western press about how Japanese divorces were going through the roof now that the pension laws had changed….it’s been two years and still not much but chirping crickets. The huge rush of divorces never materialized.
The ‘classes’ are one location in Kyushu. They are not widespread nor are they representative of the general attitude of the Japanese. Again an example of the western press exaggerating the situation here to “prove” that feminism has come to Japan. Do we really want Japan to follow in our footsteps??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Clarence:
«I suppose it passed completely over your head that globalization forces everyone to work as capital tends to go to the cheapest wage areas? »
I suppose it passed completely over your head that globalization is not an obligation? We just have to CLOSE the border as it was in the time where america enjoyed prosperty!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We just have to CLOSE the border as it was in the time where america enjoyed prosperty!
So the Internet stops if the border is closed?
Is Canada tremendously prosperous just because it does not border Mexico?
A lot of commenters here are from outside the US, you know…
Get a clue, dude.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is a very interesting subject.
I think their have been two economic trends that are linked but not the same and have both occured under feminism.
1. Houshold productivity has risen more rapidly than industrial productivity. Dishwashers and microwaves mean that housework is no longer a full time job.
2. The state has grown faster than real incomes so that it is no longer possible to support a family on one income due to tax increases.
Many of these extra state services only exist because of working women. (After school clubs ext) they therefore cancel one another out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
>>The most important reason I oppose the notion of making the sexes genuinely equal, leaving women to support themselves, is that children need to be raised.
This is pretty much the only reason I’d support gender inequality, at least on prinicple, as well. I don’t understand why our society thinks it’s okay for women to chase “fulfilling” jobs, or to make finding a new relationship partner (given the dynamics of the dating scene, that’s a HUGE lol) when they have kids to support. It’s utterly selfish and… goddamn it, solipsistic.
The love one gets from a partner, or the fulfillment one gets from a job are things that can be put off for a few years. But those same things from a parent can never be gotten back. It’s the only dose of parental love those kids will ever get, and they’re going to enter the world disaffected and with a feeling of emptiness that can’t be erased by anything. Really the whole situation is just sad. Why can’t people put aside their own desires for one second just to do right by someone else? WTF man?
I don’t believe it’s only women who are like this, but besides big business and shit like that, it’s the most insidious form of selfishness that exists right now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
{ 2 trackbacks }