Back to Court Soon

by W.F. Price on July 17, 2011

I don’t usually get into personal issues, but I thought it might be illuminating for some of the younger, never-married guys out there to hear about various aspects of family law from time to time. I’d also like to let readers know what I was dealing with last week.

People tend not to think of all the messy details that go along with divorce, instead focusing on the most obvious fact of the separation, new partners, etc. However, when children are involved a divorce is never final. It goes on, and on, and on…

So, although my divorce was finalized over two years ago, and I’m pretty much over the emotional and psychological stress that accompanies such an event, it still presents problems on an ongoing basis.

On Monday, I was served with a “notice of intent to relocate,” which is required when a parent (usually the mother) wants to move the children away from the other parent (usually the father) for whatever reason. In my case, it’s because my ex hitched up with a foreigner, so she wants to move the kids to another country.

I’ve been expecting this for some time, but it’s still a source of some stress to think that one’s children might be going away pretty much permanently. When a parent is served with this notice in Washington state, the burden to object is on the parent with less physical custody, so it’s up to him to go to court to argue against the move if he opposes it. That is, the presumption is that the mother will get her way, so it’s an uphill battle from the beginning.

In relatively close moves (e.g. to a neighboring state), a man might as well simply give up, because he will routinely lose his objection, but when the issues become more complex, as in international cases, the bar is set considerably higher. However, this doesn’t so much mean that a father has an advantage in these cases as it does that he will have to shell out a lot of money to an attorney to work through the complexities of international law to either prevent the move or draw up an enforceable, acceptable parenting plan.

Men often complain about how difficult it is to get their ex-wives to comply with visitation even when they live in the same county, so think of how much more difficult it is when she is in another country. It’s a logistical nightmare, and for guys with a working or lower-middle class income (i.e. most young fathers) an international move often simply removes them from their children’s lives permanently.

The rising numbers of international moves are having one positive effect: they are exposing the problems inherent in the feminist extremist position in child custody cases. That women are presumed to have the right to permanently remove children from blameless fathers is morally appalling, and this system does not hold up to the kind of scrutiny that accompanies international treaties, such as the Hague Convention on international child abduction.

No fault divorce opened up a huge can of worms that has global implications, and is turning out to be an obvious failure. My hunch is that the problems it has introduced will fundamentally weaken the practice of civil marriage, perhaps eventually leading to its disappearance and setting the stage for a new, more functional form of marriage based on mutual responsibility rather than female supremacy.

{ 134 comments… read them below or add one }

Quartermain July 17, 2011 at 13:11

Man, don’t know what to say but my heart goes out to you.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 112 Thumb down 2
3DShooter July 17, 2011 at 13:16

My thoughts are with you, this has to be more stressful than most trips back to the kangaroo family courts.

I don’t know your circumstances, but in your position I’d be asking for a change in custody with the ‘move away’ parent becoming responsible for all costs associated with visitations. But that’s just me and yeah, it’ll cost a small ransom if you can find a predator practitioner (atty) willing to pursue it. However, on the plus side I’d think in a ‘blue state’ you might stand a chance to prevail. Also, from what I’ve read I’d object very strongly if the destination is country like Mexico or Japan where dad’s getting kids back is next to impossible.

Just my $0.02 . . .

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 0
Opus July 17, 2011 at 13:18

In some ways I think Welmer, that having an overseas daughter (if it comes to that) will make it eaiser for you, because when you see her she would have to fly to Seattle and clearly (out of term time) there will be no parental objection to your daughter staying with you for a reasonable time – it won’t just be a couple of hours snatched on an alternate weekend.

Having said that (in the best interests of the child) the former Mrs Price is showing no consideration for her daughter. I attended boarding school from a young age and hated it, and one of the reasons for that was because, (in my view) it is impossible to live in two places. One needs a settled existance as a child, and coming and going creates confusion and anxiety and longing. I recall a friend of mine, in the same situation as yourself – divorced – who when his young son flew for the first time to see his father described it as ‘like a dream’. I don’t think it right that that is the proper reaction to seeing ones own Father, happy though the child may be. In my friend’s case a situation created entirely by his wife – who is now, incidentally, unhappily married – again.

Lawyers do cases like this all the time and become immune to the human misery behind what they do. That is only natural and of course a lawyer who becomes emotionally involved in his case loses the necessary objectivity. Having said that, I should be perfectly happy for you to repeat (should you so see fit) any part of this comment to your Washington State Court. Pro Bono. ;)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 2
SingleDad July 17, 2011 at 13:21

Sorry to hear about it Welmer. I was in the same boat and that’s one of the reason’s I fought so hard for shared custody, at least 50%. Luckily my ex met a rich guy and started traveling alot. Using simple emails, I made sure she emailed me about every travel date, I could demonstrate that she had my son only 42% of the time.

Another thing that helped me was the La Musga Calfornia Supreme Court ruling that makes move aways, if you have significant contact with you child, difficult.

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/lamusga/ncfcj.html

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/california/ca_art09

Find out how you can document your time with your children. Research LaMusga and see if there are any similar cases in your state. Ask your attorney about possibly citing LaMusga anyway, California is often a precident state.

Check with Glenn Sacks, he helped me directly with all this.

Even with documentation, knowledge and a good attorney, I didn’t think I would win, but I fought anyway. I was shocked when I won. It took many years and 100′s of thousands. My son is glad I did and thats enough for me.

If I had lost I would have moved near him, thats not a decision for everyone, and there are up and down sides, but that was the only decision I could live with.

My ex left and when she did she was so angry she signed over full custody and didn’t even want to share legal custody. Very strange.

Remember, whatever happens they will always be your children and you their father. Time passes quickly sometimes.

Good luck.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 64 Thumb down 0
Anonymous July 17, 2011 at 13:21

> more functional form of marriage based on mutual
> responsibility rather than female supremacy.
The history of humanity *has been* female privilege without responsibility.

You, like most writers in the manosphere still don’t get it. Women simply don’t care what men think. They get what they want simply because they use their sexuality as an instrument of control. This will continue until men:
- wake up and smell the coffee: Women are the most sexist sexists.
- start working together on all fronts.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 81 Thumb down 5
Shawn July 17, 2011 at 13:33

I want women to read this heartbreaking story by W.F. Price, I mean really read it, as see what their selfish actions have done to men/boys. It is disgusting when a woman uses her children as pawns in family court to gain power. It is disgusting when a mother says “I don’t NEED a man” just so she can feel empowered, even though her sons suffer the consequences. It is disgusting when women fill their sons heads with lies about their father as a way to hurt the father because the woman is a vindictive bitch. It is disgusting when a woman shacks up with some random guy and the sons are told to forget their “old” daddy and love their “new” daddy. I hope all of you women out there who destroyed the lives of your ex-husbands and the lives of your sons are extremely proud of yourselves.

Women, you need to remember one thing: your sons will end up hating you.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 82 Thumb down 2
gender-raunch community July 17, 2011 at 14:08

This sucks whelmer, for you and the children who need to be around their father.
Im working on efforts to broaden yer readership here (passing out fliers with web site addresses on them), so society can have an honest debate about what we are doing to men and our nations children.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1
gender-raunch community July 17, 2011 at 14:09

Check in with Glenn Sacks, as he might have some advice for you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
Taqman July 17, 2011 at 14:12

What happens to child support enforcement when the mother leaves the country?

I wouldn’t be surprised if their was draconian international treaties to enforce that one.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
gender-raunch community July 17, 2011 at 14:14

Courts should tell her that moving the children away from their father, is a selfish act on her part, and if she wants indulge in her “extreme selfishness”, (at the expense of the childrens basic right to have a meaningfull relationship with their father), then she will no longer be the primary custodial parent.
Then the judge can look at her in a stern manner and say…any questions??

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1
Rebel July 17, 2011 at 15:32

…..Remember, whatever happens they will always be your children and you their father. Time passes quickly sometimes.

I second wholeheartely with what Singledad said.

+10

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1
AfOR July 17, 2011 at 15:38

Almost on topic, certainly related to secret family court…

http://wimminz.wordpress.com/religious-fervour/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4
keyster July 17, 2011 at 15:45

I hope…

…you’re managing to stay at least one move ahead of her, like SingleDad appears to have done.

…you have an astute family law attorney with direct experience with this type of situation.

…if you need help, you’ll reach out to a few of us here that can provide it.

…you make her life a living hell for even thinking she could ask such a thing. (I mean legally and non-violently)

Once she goes global she gives up a ton of rights. Do you know what they are? The reason she’s even asking, under the pretext of “fairness”, is to retain child support payments.

Again, if you need advice or help, I know people.
So ask.
Email me the rundown and I’ll get a second legal opinion back to you (free), assuming you have a lawyer at all. Be aware I’m extremely vicious, conniving and heavy handed, as are the people I run with. In essence be prepared to be an unrepentant asshole towards the gestational carrier of your children. If you “just can’t be that way”, then I’m not your guy.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 3
SingleDad July 17, 2011 at 16:14

When my ex finally gave up she said it was because of my “theatrics”….for the life of me I can’t imagine what she means… ;-)

If you guys want me to spell it out I will.

Remember: Thomas Ball’s immolation, he gave his life for your children.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 2
Will Lawman July 17, 2011 at 16:50

Aren’t these the same women who claim it’s the father who doesn’t want to take care of his kids/ see his kids? As usual, women’s projection. As long as men don’t put their foot down and say enough is enough with actions, these government sponsored child abductions will continue. The feminist government is like the sexual pervert across the street -except 10 times worse – because there is no one to challenge the abuse of the government.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Will Lawman July 17, 2011 at 16:54

Shawn, did you miss the memo on women? They simply lack the ability to put others before themselves. When was the last time you heard of a woman risking her life to save a man? Compassion is about the least feminine quality that one can think of.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2
Doug1 July 17, 2011 at 16:58

Single Dad–

You should file for and get child support.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
ranji July 17, 2011 at 17:12

welmer,

i appreciate you conveying your personal experiences to better illuminate such family law issues for the rest of us. however, i was wondering- can you comment on some of the circumstances that led to your divorce?

i ask this because you appear extraordinarily knowledgeable on a myriad of issues in life. you seem quite high functioning and appear to possess good coping skills to stress. i glean such info from your writing. so, i’m wondering how you found yourself in a position whereby your marriage dissolved and in apparently such an acrimonious fashion?

what advice would you give to other guys, especially other guys without kids or a wife? don’t get married? choose a mate better? were there any deficiencies in hindsight with your ex-wife? are there things you could have done to have prevented your personal situation from deteriorating, like read roissy and learn better game to strengthen the long term relationship? were you more of a beta male then compared to how you come across now?

welmer, i ask because i think a lot of guys read your writing and this blog to evade a myriad of problems, from extreme feminism to bad women, and i strongly suspect they’d be influenced by further intimate details of your narrative…

if these questions are too personal, then ignore them. if you’ve already answered these questions in another post, simply point that one out to me, please.

thanks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
Matlock July 17, 2011 at 17:55

Young man here,

I appreciate the personal story. These stories remind me why I should stay single and just hook up. But it takes a lot of temerity to share a personal story, like yours. Thank you very much – I’ll spread the word.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 2
dragnet July 17, 2011 at 17:58

“No fault divorce opened up a huge can of worms that has global implications, and is turning out to be an obvious failure.”

No fault divorce has been a mixed bag for sure, but I don’t believe it is as strong a driver behind the demise of marriage as default mother physical custody. Leaving no fault divorce intact but mandating joint physical custody would solve most of the problems right there because it would shatter the economic incentives women wold have to break apart their marriages, in addition to giving father equal access to their own children.

I believe it was Heather MacDonald that penned a piece a few years back about the nexus of marriage, no-fault divorce and custody. Apparently, the most reliable predictor of divorce rates by state & county is…how easy it is for the mother to get custody, not how liberal the divorce laws are.

If you make joint physical custody the law of the land, divorce rates plummet. Frankly, no fault divorce doesn’t seem all that bad to me—I wouldn’t want to continue to be married to someone who didn’t also want to be married to me. But being able to take away my family is another matter entirely.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 1
anonymous July 17, 2011 at 18:14

@dragnet
I agree. default mother custody is the big driver, rather than no-fault. There are several solutions, joint custody, father custody, or “equal” custody, where the odds of father custody are 50/50, via affirmative action. Most women get very attached to their own children, and won’t leave their husbands if there is even a 50/50 chances of losing custody, except under extreme circumstances.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
anonymous July 17, 2011 at 18:16

in the case above, if mother moves overseas with child, does the state still continue to garnish husbands wages for child support?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
economics9698 July 17, 2011 at 18:21

I do not understand why more women do not end up 6 feet under.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 4
Rebel July 17, 2011 at 18:33

@Keyster
“If you “just can’t be that way”, then I’m not your guy.”

As a realist, you know very well that you can’t fight a T-Rex by being fair.

In a street fight (which is what courts are now), the one who hits the hardest has better chances of winning: one of the two opponents gets destroyed: winner takes all. It’s a jungle out there

It’s the will of your government that parents be at each other’s throats.
It brings them a steady revenue stream. They need that money badly.

Being merciful means to lose.

Sad thing to say but I think the husband must destroy the ex-wife.
Or he is destroyed. It’s how the game gets played.
The wonder of love in today’s world..

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 1
Bob Smith July 17, 2011 at 18:43

There’s no such thing as an enforceable parenting plan when the mother leaves the country. She can agree to give up the sun, moon, and sky, and it’s all worthless so long as she’s beyond the reach of American courts. Anything she agrees to is solely for manipulating the judge.

The only thing that’s enforceable is your money obligation to her.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 0
Avenger July 17, 2011 at 18:49

When a parent is served with this notice in Washington state, the burden to object is on the parent with less physical custody, so it’s up to him to go to court to argue against the move if he opposes it

You immediately file a Motion opposing her’s. Do you have a lawyer or know how to write them? Request oral argument on the motion as well and prepare a legal argument. You want to make it as difficult for the former wife as possible and make her spend money on lawyers. Never be Mr Nice Guy with females because it only makes you look weak and they’ll take advantage. And as you said, you lmow that her Motion will pass so I suggest that you have a Notice of Appeal ready and file it with the Court Clerk(have her log it in with the time stamp and get a copy) You’re appealing the Order of the judge to the civil division of the appellate court over the one where the Motion was heard ,assuming that the Motion is passed. Now, you’ve tied her up for months. there are certain time periods in which certain things have to be submitted and you’re going to go the limit to draw this out and wear her down. Then you write a brief and send it to the Clerk of the appellate division(btw, make sure you also send a copy of any notices etc to the opposing party be regular and certified mail and file an affadavit of service along with your papers)
You say that your former is leaving the country. How did she get a passport for the child? Did you give her permission? If you foolishly did then rescind that permission. If you didn’t then notify the US Dept. of State that she obtained it fraudulently and that you want the passport revoked because the former intends to abscond the jurisdiction of the US with your child. Also, file a complaint in the Superior Court-civil division (or whatever it’s called in Wash.) of your county for an Order to impound the passport. You’re also going to send a subpoena to the US Secretary of State( I believe that’s Hillary Clinton) to appear in court.Of course, she won’t appear but they’ll have to send one of the lawyers. I can assure you that they won’t want to get involved in all of this and will probably just revoke or hold your child’s passport. Now, your former won’t be able to take the kid out of the country.And btw, this side passport case can also be appealed if you lost. Same procedure with the Notice of Appeal etc etc
If your former wife wants to leave the country with her new boyfriend then she’s going to have to do it on your terms. She permanently gives up custody as well as any alimony, child support etc
Another thing you may want to do is that some countries that are not on the list of exempt countries that the US has a reciprocal agreement with require a visa to enter and stay. You’ll go to the embassy or consulate of that country (in Seattle?) and make a complaint that your former wife is in violation of a court order and try to get them to deny your daughter a visa. They may err on the side of caution and just refuse her one.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 3
dragnet July 17, 2011 at 18:50

“Most women get very attached to their own children, and won’t leave their husbands if there is even a 50/50 chances of losing custody, except under extreme circumstances.”

While no doubt true, I don’t think the mother-child bond is what would prevent divorce under this regime (for most women) so much as a lack of economic incentives. Joint physical custody all but eliminates the rationale for child support payments, or at the very least makes it apparent that both parents should be subject to payment. Also witness how divorces decline precipitously during recessions…only to pick up again during periods of economic growth.

It really is all about the cash. Even after all these thousands of years and various incarnations, marriage remains primarily an economic institution—the courts, legislation, and feminist ideologues certainly treat it as such.

Just follow the money and you can’t go wrong.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 0
Evolved Ape July 17, 2011 at 18:58

I love how it starts with the “best interests of the children” and ends with them being removed from nearly their entire family, their country, possibly their culture, and their way of life all because their mother wants to fuck some stranger.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 54 Thumb down 1
Avenger July 17, 2011 at 18:59

P.S.

When a parent is served with this notice in Washington state, the burden to object is on the parent with less physical custody, so it’s up to him to go to court to argue against the move if he opposes it

That applies to all court Motions. If they are unopposed you lose by default.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0
dragnet July 17, 2011 at 19:01

@ Welmer

“I don’t usually get into personal issues, but I thought it might be illuminating for some of the younger, never-married guys out there to hear about various aspects of family law from time to time.”

I’m one of those younger guys—I turned 28 recently. I can’t express how much I’ve benefited from hearing about the travails of guys like you, Single Dad and others who have gone through the divorce/family meat grinder. Over the last few years I’ve introduced a few of my friends to the manosphere. Believe me, a lot of other young guys are benefiting from hearing your voice—your sacrifice isn’t in vain.

I wish you strength and good fortune in the battle to hold onto your children.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 1
W.F. Price July 17, 2011 at 19:12

No fault divorce has been a mixed bag for sure, but I don’t believe it is as strong a driver behind the demise of marriage as default mother physical custody. Leaving no fault divorce intact but mandating joint physical custody would solve most of the problems right there because it would shatter the economic incentives women wold have to break apart their marriages, in addition to giving father equal access to their own children.

-dragnet

It’s true. Custody is the determinant factor. Women never would have supported no fault divorce without default mother custody, and their support was crucial. Default mother custody laid the rails for no fault, and the two issues cannot be separated. Therefore, I’d say that no fault actually started with default mother custody, and a return to normative marriage will require the rejection of mother custody in cases where the female unilaterally breaks the marriage contract. The two issues are interconnected in that way, so I’m not sure we can say that the situation could be remedied by a presumption of joint custody, which would necessarily be undermined by feminist interest groups (e.g. lesbian social workers and male feminists, including certain judges and rogue police officers, who may have a sexual interest in the delinquent female).

Avenger July 17, 2011 at 19:15

economics writes that he doesn’t understand why more females aren’t 6′ under.

She accused her stepfather of abuse . He hammered her :o )

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2011/07/16/2011-07-16_stepfather_says_he_beat_brooklyn_high_school_girl_to_death_because_she_lied_abou.html

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3
W.F. Price July 17, 2011 at 19:23

welmer,

i appreciate you conveying your personal experiences to better illuminate such family law issues for the rest of us. however, i was wondering- can you comment on some of the circumstances that led to your divorce?

i ask this because you appear extraordinarily knowledgeable on a myriad of issues in life. you seem quite high functioning and appear to possess good coping skills to stress. i glean such info from your writing. so, i’m wondering how you found yourself in a position whereby your marriage dissolved and in apparently such an acrimonious fashion?

-ranji

Ranji, I’d be happy to share my thoughts on this matter. It will take me some time, because it requires a lot of careful thought to explain, but it’s something I’d like to address.

For now, I can say that one of the biggest problems for me was being raised in the tumultuous post-60s environment where I received so many mixed messages about my role as a man that I wasn’t equipped to make a good choice until it was too late. Men of my generation were let down by every institution, including the church, schools, government, etc. It was a sort of social carnage that I witnessed first hand, but was too young to make sense of as it happened.

Quartermain July 17, 2011 at 20:09

“For now, I can say that one of the biggest problems for me was being raised in the tumultuous post-60s environment where I received so many mixed messages about my role as a man that I wasn’t equipped to make a good choice until it was too late. Men of my generation were let down by every institution, including the church, schools, government, etc. It was a sort of social carnage that I witnessed first hand, but was too young to make sense of as it happened.”

Almost the same for me but I was born and grew up in the ’60′s. They feed kids contradictory information and wonder why they are confused.

Probably because their parents were confused as well.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0
Attila July 17, 2011 at 20:11

None of this would be happening under Islamic, or for that matter, Orthodox Jewish law – no matter how farfetched the interpretation. It’s a sorry state when a father is left with no legal options.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 2
SingleDad July 17, 2011 at 20:22

Welmer, men of your generation were lied to very extensively and thoroughly. One of the reasons I take the very personal risk of posting at a few sites is to dispel these lies.

Did you really think it was safe to get married? I did, but I was raised before the women of my generation came into power, they, in my judgement are truley the worst.

I grew up hearing what they had to say. My first wife wanted half my income for life because when I married her I was still in school. As it turns out the law says she’s entitled to half the money she paid to my school. Because she’s a very intelligent leach, she didn’t work or contribute when I was in school, I took loans for her to sit on the couch and to pay for my school, and I worked all through a lengthy post college professional school training. I just paid off the loans two years ago and I’m old.

Maybe men today will get the message, I have my doubts. The urge to merge is just too great. I am heartened that in Russia men eschew women. In Mexico the old balance seems in place. But here, we have a corperate attack on the family in the form of feminism and our women have taken to their new harem husbands, the sheiks of the child support beaurocracy.

These women never loved their husbands and so I think we’re better off without them.

The only long term solution is default joint physical custody. Men and women who truley love their children will fight to maintain this 50/50 arrangement and those that don’t will slack off and it will be easy to prove in court who the children belong with.

All of the above is in place. I have proven that a man can be treated fairly in one of the worst environments for men, Los Angeles.

Now we need to get default joint custody passed like in Australia.

Proof that it creates fair outcomees is the feminist hatred of it in Australia and the constant attempts to role it back.

Why hasn’t it been rolled back yet? I think the fathers know what gold they posses in this law for them and the children.

Canada is considering this right now and justice, fairness and love of children says this must be the law.

Without that, and considering the financial issues, I think men are best served by surrogacy.

Look at me guys, look at Welmer, look at Peter, this is what happens to you if you love your children in the US. Love of your children, to me, is the most basic human emotion next to self preservation.

How will we be judged when historians review this odious slice of human history?

Do you think women care? The love causing pain, that is another reason for default joint custody, don’t leave the children to these monsters. Entire generations are going down the tubes.

Remember: Thomas Ball’s immolation, he gave his life for your children.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 3
AndrewV July 17, 2011 at 20:50

@W.F. Price July 17, 2011 at 19:23

As someone who has been involved in a situation where the ex-Wife and kids are in a different country I can assure you that is very difficult on the kids and the father.

Not to mention enormously expensive. I would get them for their summer holidays and fly back with them and stay for a month. At Christmas I would fly back down and stay another month. One year, I spent as much as seven months out of the country, and let me assure you that money goes while you are not working.

On multiple occasions, the only thing that kept me from giving in to my rage, was my repeating the phrase “how would this affect the kids” over and over again.

One word of advise fellows. Stay away from a married woman. The life you save may be your own.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
TFH July 17, 2011 at 21:04

This is terrible, Welmer.

But I ask again : *Why* does the new man want *your* kids? I would think most men would not want to take up the previous man’s kids – which is why single mothers have low SMV.

Is he being armtwisted into this by your ex-wife (his present girlfriend)? If so, he actually wants the same thing as you – your kids with you and NOT him.

I wonder if there is some way you can form a discreet, temporarily alliance with him if he actually is not hell-bent on raising your kids as his own. If both men want the same outcome………

Apologies if this question has been answered elsewhere.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0
TFH July 17, 2011 at 21:05

AndrewV,

Stay away from a married woman. The life you save may be your own.

Do you mean in terms of a false rape accusation, so that she can deny having an affair with you.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0
TFH July 17, 2011 at 21:10

I will say that any society where default custody is/was to the father has a very LOW divorce rate.

Any society where default custody is to the mother has a HIGH divorce rate.

This says it all, in terms of which gender puts the child’s well-being ahead of their own.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 0
SingleDad July 17, 2011 at 21:22

@ THF

Precisley, if women cared about children, women’s groups would be stumping for laws that said the person filing gets the kids, but they know the truth, woman want choices….choices to screw over their childrens lives.

When it comes to shared custody the method of choice for the feminists is to create a “high conflict divorce”. High conflict is defined as one in which the father wants to see the kids.

To feminists, high conflict divorces are not ones in which shared parenting should be considered.

Sound crazy, look into it, this is exacly the case.

http://www.kmarshack.com/High-Conflict-Divorce/Recognizing-High-Conflict-Divorce.html

The “high conflict” divorce is certified by the custody evaluator and once labelled, kiss your chances of shared custody goodbye.

Read the reference above, that is a custody evaluator who is advertising that she can rig a custody fight by labelling it “high conflict” and trump he judge, the lawyers, the law itself.

This is the insanity your subjecting your children to in modern marriage.

Don’t do it.

Remember: Thomas Ball’s immolation, he gave his life for your children.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1
SingleDad July 17, 2011 at 21:27

I mean the person filing doesn’t get the kids.

Sorry.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Beltain July 17, 2011 at 21:31

I think Avenger is giving some good advice. Obviously if your ex is so self centered as to go after her own lust and drag your kids along she more than likely lacks other virtues. Like patience for starters and empathy for another. Not to mention foreign guys are usually less willing to wait around and cater to self absorbed American Fem-skanks.

Drag this thing out. Bleed her Ass dry. The longer the wait the more chance of circumstances changing. I used those tactics and it worked for me. Now if the State would just make the bitch pay the 36K she owes me I would be more satisfied that I at least made her pay more than I did :)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
SingleDad July 17, 2011 at 21:35

Talking about father custody, here’s an article in a mag that was the first fathers rights mag I read when I was going through the divorce.

http://www.fathermag.com/9607/father-custody/

Interestingly, the author says there are two reasons for mother custody. One is biology, women know their the mother, the father is a guess.

Well, not anymore, the courts have accepted DNA….win men.

Secondly, women and children are dependent. I suspect this was writting over 15 years ago. Women are far from being dependent today.

There is, therefore no reason other than bigotry for the 85% female custody rate.

Remember: Thomas Ball’s immolation, he gave his life for your children.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2
John Boy July 17, 2011 at 21:54

In one sense, blogging became my therapy for all the outrage I had from my divorce and endless custody battle. My advice to all me in a similar situation is to get involved. I send a little money to Fathers & Families each month. Even if you can not do anything for yourself you might make it easier for the next guy, and surely there will be one, who follows.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0
Mister Grumpus July 17, 2011 at 22:27

I’m so sorry. This is horrible.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price July 17, 2011 at 22:35

When it comes to shared custody the method of choice for the feminists is to create a “high conflict divorce”. High conflict is defined as one in which the father wants to see the kids.

To feminists, high conflict divorces are not ones in which shared parenting should be considered.

-SingleDad

Yeah, I’m totally familiar with this tactic. The feminist scumbags will say that if there’s any conflict, no matter who caused it, the father should be marginalized. It’s a win-win situation for them, because a woman can attack a guy all she wants to create conflict and then use it as an excuse to take total control. This is exactly what I faced.

Actually, this is why I advocate the “wuwei” approach to divorce. Less is more. If communication is futile, don’t try. If she is being difficult, avoid her — run away from it. Let her attack and attack and attack and give her nothing but open air to shoot at. A woman who does not attack will come to a reasonable settlement, so it’s the best path for men to take.

It’s all men can do these days. The judge will never reward a man for being proactive in fighting for his children, but rather use it as an opportunity to punish him.

Let the aggressive woman screw up. She always will — privilege and entitlement breeds hubris.

AndrewV July 17, 2011 at 22:56

@W.F. Price July 17, 2011 at 22:35
This is sound advise.

Actually, this is why I advocate the “wuwei” approach to divorce. Less is more. If communication is futile, don’t try. If she is being difficult, avoid her — run away from it.

Better heed it guys.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
anonymous July 17, 2011 at 22:56

@dragnet … it’s really about the cash

I disagree. The trump card is the children. Father custody or a 50/50 chance of father custody will strongly encourage the old lady to stick around, even if husband is “beta”, boring, etc. Nobody plays russian roulette for 50/50 chance, and women won’t either.

Notice that you can sort of customize a marriage contract in advance with a pre-nup, but the elephant in the room, the children, cannot be negotiated. Politics being what they are, that is probably not a coincidence.

So father custody make divorce rates fall off a cliff. But I doubt women would accept such terms, and just have babies outside of marriage. They always have the fallback plan of generous government welfare.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
anonymous July 17, 2011 at 23:16

it’s ironic that courts award default mother custody as “in the best interest of the children”.

It’s quite intuitive ( to me at least ) that parades of boyfriends and / or step-fathers are much more dangerous to children than vice verca. Women will tolerate an incredible amount of abuse to both themselves and their children if they think their stud is “alpha”, or in women speak “in love with him”. In contrast, a man can easily tell a wayward shack-up girlfriend/ step-mother to “get the f*ck out my house.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1
SingleDad July 17, 2011 at 23:49

@ Welmer

I saw this “High conflict” business for the scam it was.

I never, not for a minute gave the impression I was backing down. The crooked feminist custody evaluator was afraid to give my ex full because she knew I would fight and win but this was right at the preliminary phases, the most important phase and my ex had fiegned depression to get out of working.

When I got full at the prelim, boy you should have seen how fast she improved. Giving lie that she was actually sick.

Then I made a big noise about how, you can’t give a depressed woman all that responsiblilty. The evaluator told us there was no way she could give my ex full.

Then, with 50/50, all I had to do was love my son and treat him well and there was no way he was going to be happy about her moving….something that didn’t come up till he was 8….although I’d been preparing for it from when she left when he was 9 months old.

High conflict is a way to scare men into not fighting for their children.

When asked what men could do to obtain fair custody settlements, a custody expert told Canada, all men had to do was excersize their rights. Most men are so scared they don’t.

Still, 15 years later, the fems come up with new scare tactics like “high conflict”. High conflict my behind. And don’t think the Judges don’t see through it, they do. This term was invented in the 1990′s because of men starting to demand the right to know their children.

I don’t want to appear aggresive Welmer but seriously, how did “low conflict” work for you?

High conflict is yelling, taunting, taking to court. Just don’t talk to her, communicate by email, keep it scrupulously civil, don’t talk to her in public and bring a video camera to games in case she tries to start a fight, video tape it.

Just the presense of a video maching shut my ex up.

My ex then wanted to poison my son by not allowing me to go to games on her time. He was to little to know, I said no way, I was going…of course I didn’t “say” anything…it could be used against me, I just went. Then she stopped taking him and he didn’t like that very much. So, when he asked me not to go I stopped going, but she wouldn’t take him anyway.

My advice, avoid all this and use a surrogate. It’s best for the kids.

Remember: Thomas Ball’s immolation, he gave his life for your children.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
AndrewV July 17, 2011 at 23:52

@TFH July 17, 2011 at 21:05

Do you mean in terms of a false rape accusation, so that she can deny having an affair with you.

OK. I am going to come clean. I mean that someone like me might kill you.

I have found that in certain circumstances, I act, without any sort of conscious though or reflection.

Lets leave it at that. It is not something I can explain. Except, If you live long enough, you may find out some truths about yourself you never expected.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Avenger July 18, 2011 at 00:28

Dad writes,’The “high conflict” divorce is certified by the custody evaluator and once labelled, kiss your chances of shared custody goodbye.’

I’ve never been involved with any of this family court stuff and have no intention of ever getting involved in anything that could lead me there (like marriage, kids etc) so I can look at these things in a very cold blooded manner unlike some man who is very emotionally involved. You say a “custody evaluator”. That means nothing to me and I ‘d deal with this person the same way I deal with everyone else in life who either gets in my way or becomes a nuisance. This “evaluator” can be sued in Fed Court for violating your civil rights. I’d also demand that my evaluator, who of course is working for me, submit his own report and of course that report would state that the former wife is a trouble maker and is causing all of the problems.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
anonymous July 18, 2011 at 00:35

@TFH
most ex’s will take their lumps, but there is a minority out there with flash tempers, or an ability to react to a conflict much more aggressively than you might imagine.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Avenger July 18, 2011 at 00:36

Welmer writes ‘Let her attack and attack and attack and give her nothing but open air to shoot at. ‘

Yes, do not get into any confrontations with her or even be in her vacinity but do everything on the papers. When she starts receiving copies of Motions that you filed in court, and I’d make these as vicious as possible while still remaining within the bounds of what is acceptable in court. She’ll blow her top when she reads them and since the new boyfriend is the one around or the one she’ll talk to he’ll see what an irrational and nasty bitch she is and perhaps dump her. End of your problem about her leaving the country :o )

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0
anonymous July 18, 2011 at 00:44

@SingleDad
surrogate might make a good separate thread. It solves some problems, but introduces others. I imagine the most well adjusted children are those raised by two parents, with a solid extended family in the same city. And surrogate children might suffer heavy stigma by their peers starting in first grade, or even earlier. Also, babies really should be breast fed for many months.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
SingleDad July 18, 2011 at 00:45

The evaluator is an officer of the court an extension of the judge in essence the judge doesn’t want to “judge” anything. If things aren’t super simple, they sub it out to a psychologist. The psychologists have all the power and their ruling is taken 99% of the time. You can fight it but you will lose.

The fight is over who will be the evaluator. In my first evaluation, I essentially lost because I didn’t do my homework and relied on my very experienced expensive attorney.

The second time I won because I knew the evaluator, I fought to keep away from the bad one and when the judge ordered a fair one,within two weeks my ex folded.

The link I put above is your typical psycho evaluator, every word is a lie. High conflict is low, mediation means court. It drives men crazy. Don’t let it.

Obviously there’s no formula to “win”. Winning is luck in these type cases. I got lucky, but I also never showed a weakness, no ever, I was in it to win it and still am. I don’t give her one extra day, if I do she’ll take it for weekness and attack, it will never end. The last time she attacked was one year ago, she wrote a letter about me to the school.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
SingleDad July 18, 2011 at 00:49

Everybody is afraid of something new. Kids today can’t make fun of any one, and a surrogate is just an only child of a single parent…who would know?

40% of children today are raised by single mothers.

The reason I didn’t go surrogate is because like you said, a child needs two parents.

Well face facts, look at my sons life. And we’re the lucky ones. Very very lucky ask Welmer, I bet he’d kill to be in my shoes.

Men need to learn, this is why men don’t succeed. A woman would use a surrogate in a heatbeat. Men are too romantic, IMO.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
anonymous July 18, 2011 at 01:08

I haven’t research the surrogate topic to any great degree, but from what I have read the laws vary state by state. Some states will allow for a surrogate to a single man, while others require a couple. One theoretical advantage to a surrogate is that you can select for a young mother (egg donor), which for many men is a major challenge. Although this could be bait and switch, similar to woman who thinks she’s getting PhD, movie star, NFL sperm, etc. Another problem is you can’t keep an eye on the mother for alcohol, tobacco, drugs, diet, etc. Although that may be over-rated. Good luck to the husband who tries to get his pregnant wife to quit smoking.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Robert July 18, 2011 at 01:32

OT; Marc Rudov punks an undercover feminist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO9RWx659fU

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
john thames July 18, 2011 at 01:33

Mr. Price surely has his problems. He has my sincerist sympathies. Here is the kind of problem women should be having, if equal justice existed.

http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2011/07/13/husband-cuts-off-wifes-clitoris-throws-in-garbage-disposal/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) July 18, 2011 at 01:51

Welmer. I know what you are going through and you have my sympathy.

You also know my position on this subject. And that is that men who go back into the courts to ‘fight for their child’ are only prolonging the process and supporting the system with their hard earned dollars.

My position is very, very clear. Any man who has had his right to be the father he chooses to be violated is well advised to stop being that father until his rights are respected and the violation is remedied. Alas. Very few fathers have the balls to do this.

Just imagine what would happen every single current non-custodial father said and acted on:

“I refuse to pay income tax, alimony, child support, which are unlawful and extortionate payments, while my rights are violated. Should any criminal man posing as the policy enforcement officer of a criminal cartel called a ‘guvment’ attempt to voliate my right to my liberty or enjoyment of my property I will publish ALL DETAILS to the Crimes Against Fathers site. Perhaps someone reading it will do me a favour just like I am willing to do some other man a favour should criminals violate his rights.”

If fathers are not willing to form courts to lawfully defend themselves in places like the US? Then fathers have every right to band together to defend themselves against criminals who are robbing them blind. And no man can any longer be in any doubt that your cops are criminals as are your lawyers and politicians.

I have produced the lawful notice that I have issued to all police in Australia and another one in Ireland. In those two lands men are well advised to hand those lawful notices out to the cops and tell them that they will be held accountable for their crimes.

As in my cases? I take the position that the criminals that are robbing men blind must be publicly and openly be given EVERY OPPORTUNITY to remedy their crimes.

But if they don’t? What happens to them is no concern of mine. Nor should it be the concern of anyone else.

I insist that ANYTHING published on CAF is published under oath. But what happens after the truth of any matter is published is not the concern of the publisher.

Gentlemen. If a crack head tried to steal your child while you are walking up the street you are expected to defend the child with your life.

If a criminal wearing a blue clown suit steals your child you are supposed to comply.

And so far fathers comply.

Whimps.

Men keep ‘talking tough’ while acting like children. Time to grow up. Create court or be prepared to take justice back into your OWN hands. Because there is no justice in the courts. And every man here knows that.

By the way? They are TRYING to provoke men. That’s the point! And they will be successful if you men in other lands do not follow our lead in Australia and proclaim your own courts.

No courts = men defend themselves as best they can. And that will mean bloodshed.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 13
Ken July 18, 2011 at 05:09

I think (and pray) YOU will win this W.F.!
I remember seeing that pic you posted here awhile back of yourself with your little daughter and this news gives me a heavy heart even though I don’t know you personally brother.

-Ken

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2
continent July 18, 2011 at 05:14

W.F. Price,
After reading your previous article “Respite” I assumed you’re enjoying rare sunshine in Seattle. But after reading that you’re served a summons on Monday, it seems more like”Sleepless in Seattle”.
You had earlier alluded a while ago about possible move abroad by your ex and her new partner, but I was not familiar with the laws involved.
How can working stiffs afford lawyers who are experts in this area? Just because a person’s name has “lawyer” in it doesn’t mean they are familiar with the family law. I was stunned years ago how little a lawyer knew about the area. At that time I had finished Para legal training and perhaps I’m bragging, but in some areas I knew more than he did. Yet in front of a judge, it’s the lawyer who does the talking.
I hope you can reach some sort of settlement or court ruling that will give you and child continuing contact.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Brook July 18, 2011 at 05:59

I hope you are going to fight for those kids and not use the lame excuse men use and say attorneys are too expensive,or guys never win anyways. I personally think thats the lamest excuse ever, a man that doesnt fight for his kid is either worthless or selfish. They forget the point is the children. Things suck, yes, but lots of stuff does. Those babies (children) are worth fighting for even if you have to starve to win. I am sorry your crappy ex is even having the thought of taking the children to live at an international area. I’m sorry you will probably go into debt for the fight. Not sure how she can justify taking the kids from their dad and making it even more difficult for them to maintain a relationship with thier father. I hope all goes well for you and you at least put up the biggest fight ever. Hopefully you can get a couple continuances to prolong thier move and make things some what difficult for them too. The best luck ever, I hope all goes in your favor. Too bad you cant find, or think of some way to have her passport, or even his (the boyfriends) revoked at least for a while.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7
crella July 18, 2011 at 06:33

I sure as hell hope there is some way for you to get custody!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
AntZ July 18, 2011 at 07:09

“In relatively close moves (e.g. to a neighboring state), a man might as well simply give up …”

Price, I know the last thing you want is advice, but I have to throw two cents at this one.

ALWAYS FIGHT, even if you know you will lose. Children need to know that their fathers did everything to remain a part of their lives. When you fight and lose, as all men lose in civil court, you at least expose the system of feminist bigotry for what it is.

FIGHT, FIGHT TO THE LAST. When your children are older, they will know that you stood alone against feminist hatred. They will contrast the cowardice of a mother who abused a system that entitles her to unlimited privilege, with the courage of a father who stood alone, against an unspeakable feminist beast and the civil courts that serve that beast.

Fight to the last. Fight for your children. ESPECIALLY if you know that you cannot win!

Just my two cents. Good luck, Price, whatever you do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2
SingleDad July 18, 2011 at 07:21

@ Peter

Maybe it’s because you don’t live in the US but it really is a prison state here. We have lost all industry the fear is not that children won’t see their fathers, it’s that unemployed men will turn violoent. Our societal answer to a question like that is a reflex: Build more prisons.

With men we already have betweed 250,000 to 400,000 men incarcerated for not paying child support a year with another 15,0000 to 18,000 committing suicide due to not being able to see their children or being asked to pay so much they are broken.

http://www.fathers4kids.com/html/ChildSupport.htm?article_id=71

Look at the numbers here, we have maybe 50 guys willing to click a box and then only on the most obvious of posts, anything the slightest bit controversial gets 80/20, 60/40….there is no consensus and this is 40 years into the MRM according to anon 69 and 15 years into an internet one that I’m aware of.

Even is another 5 million a year followed your advice, in the US, that would just make a dent in the unemployment…currently.

The future, if we go the way of Europe and Japan, unemployment will get much worse and we will have street violence.

In the US the solution would be to employ those street thugs to guard the civil disobediance guys like us.

I’m just saying, this is the breadth of the problem and Peter, I don’t think “just say no” will work. It might, but not in the US, IMO.

Welmer, concentrate on positive things, the risk of feeling hopeless is very real. If my ex moved I would have moved with her or moved on.

I hate that I had to make that decision but I did. My son has been “acting up” the few years and I had to decide to send him to his mom if he didn’t straighten out. The threat was enough and he’s back to straight A’s from F’s.

But keep your life going, your kids will be fine.

But whatever you do, I don’t recommend meeting someone new and having kids to replace, that is an old method that doesn’t work. Your just setting yourself up IMO.

My ex moved, my son lives with me and loves to visit his mom. He can’t wait to get back but he anticipates her visit, thinks about what they will do and can’t wait to go. This makes me happy. I’m sure it does her.

Maintain your relationship and love them, that’s what they will always remember. And before you know it, they’ll be in their 20′s and calling you to ask if you can buy them a car, Dad.

Remember: Thomas Ball’s immolation, he gave his life for your children.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Ken July 18, 2011 at 07:25

“I love how it starts with the “best interests of the children” and ends with them being removed from nearly their entire family, their country, possibly their culture, and their way of life all because their mother wants to fuck some stranger”>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

*Flip-side example: I know a couple who has “stayed together” only to avoid the train-wreck of divorce and custody battle (while the wife has affairs on the side, which is what she wanted to do all along!) Can you say Cuckold?

Clearly, it should be AGAINST THE LAW to move an American child out of the USA unless both parents agree to such a move.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
John Norman Howard July 18, 2011 at 07:34

Things are not going to change until men learn to TRULY harden their hearts… and if that means walking away from the woman AND the children, then that’s the hard road we have to learn to take.

As long was we’re willing to “think of the children!”, this rotten society still has us by the balls.

If the woman doesn’t want us anymore, then the whole family is dead to us… and she has to live with all that that entails. If the children suffer, it is on her head, not ours.

Children eventually get older and go their own way anyhow… and a large majority of the time, all they really cared about, when young, is dad’s financial support to ensure their lifestyle and comfort (just like the woman)… what else do we actually have to offer them (in reality, not in the romanticism of our own delusions about a ‘father figure’) when the women moves away and has the children full-time?

Neither they nor the wife wanted our discipline or wisdom while we there… so who are we kidding about ‘needing a father figure’, besides ourselves?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
john thames July 18, 2011 at 07:57

I always like to make women feel better about sex discrimination. Here is one of my little parables they always choke on. The 19th amendment has just passed granting men the right to vote. The Dough Cunts are cohabiting with the rats in the trenches. Charles Chapman Cocksucker is passing out white feathers of cowardice to women who don’t want to fight the Germans. Male suffragettes still figure that that is “women’s work”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Joeb July 18, 2011 at 09:04

our arguments Only validate the present system. As long as we argue in the present system the system wins . We must figure out an alternative to the slavery regime that have hijacked American family’s .
Sounds like anarchy , Maybee. Slavery always comes at the cost of human life .But regardless ,The system always takes the short cut into slavery .

Come to america , Get a slave you can always go back to your country and Hold his children hostage for his check. With you Should be the advertisment in foreign country’s .

Men Im so sick of this fight . I can see why most of us will die drinking or simple end the misery . Its time to put the body back into the fight. Every step seems to be a step back even when we get a small victory the legal system turns it into a defeat.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
AfOR July 18, 2011 at 09:05

@ AntZ

SPot on, keep ALL the paperwork and contemporaneous notes, hand them to the kid when they are 18, they won’t be able to resist reading and there goes the skank’s planned old age pension and caring scheme, cats or nothing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
keyster July 18, 2011 at 09:22

“When my ex finally gave up she said it was because of my “theatrics”….for the life of me I can’t imagine what she means…”

Theatrics in the theatre of war…
It’s something women are prone to use in legal situations, because it works.
If the soon to be divorced dad adopted it as a tactic, he’d have a better chance. Courts are full of theatrics everyday, and judges and jurys soak it all into their decision making process. Their are “consultants” that even coach people how to “act”, although most women already know how.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
confused July 18, 2011 at 09:31

That this is even a subject for discussion is an indication of the immoral nature of your ex and implies to me she should not be allowed to parent.

That most women would agree with her right to do this makes life very difficult to accept at times.

Good luck with it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
keyster July 18, 2011 at 09:38

Like AntZ said “FIGHT!”.

You see if you were a REAL asshole, (and I don’t believe you are) you’d consider every angle to head this little charade of hers off full-stop.

You’d contact the local media and make a spectacle of her blatant selfishness for all to see. The newspaper and local TV news outlets. “Father Fights for His Children to Remain in US.” Believe me they’ll bite if its a slow news day there.

You can’t afford to be a docile, compliant, passive bystander who’ll simply “trust” the reasonable judgment of they family court system.
You have think like a vicious prick like you thought you never could before…because that’s EXACTLY how she’s thinking.

“Listen here you little cunt, unless you drop this whole thing by the end of the week, I’m going to the media with a BIG story about what you’re trying to do to me and the kids.” That’s the way I roll…
…but then I’m an asshole.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3
Firepower July 18, 2011 at 09:50

W.F. Price

I don’t usually get into personal issues, but I thought it might be illuminating for some of the younger, never-married guys out there to hear about various aspects of family law from time to time.

This is precisely the first-hand information young males need to hear to finally awaken them from their social induced PC blindness. You present your travails factually and rationally without whining.

Deluded mrm cheerleaders hyping “wished” for (but still nonexistent) victories and the habitual Greek chorus of whiners provide nothing better than a Mission Accomplished banner on the President’s carrier landing.

As much as the Wishers despise hearing the truth, our America is a country totally ruled by Liberals and feminists of the worse kind. The fact you tell of a legal system tilted so unfairly against males it routinely takes away his children only proves it once again. When a system can take away a man’s children – even when he wants them – is proof that we as men, control nothing.

Sadly, the current malaise and apathy of men indicates this trend of subjugation will continue unabated for several decades.

I’d wish you “good luck” but luck has nothing to do with it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4
SingleDad July 18, 2011 at 10:27

But as some mens rights fellows advised me, a public display can backfire.

Here is a current case study in extra judicial manuvers:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/BreastCancerCenter/north-carolina-mom-breast-cancer-loses-custody/story?id=13546870

The gist is that she has terminal stage IV breast cancer and a few months to live. The court heard all the arguments and after a lengthy fight decided the children should go with their father and not stay with the mother due to domestic violence, with jail time, cheating, was a lying and many other reasons, the least of which was cancer:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/09/alaina-giordano-custody_n_873936.html

She’s a writer and knows writers. She decided to go full public. She contacted the media and got a special earlier morning mention on national TV on the today show. The pink mafia was out in full force.

At the end of that article you can see that the press personally called the Judge…that’s very hard on a Judge, they’re elected some of the time.

Then she started a petition. On Change.org and started a social media campaign on Facebook:

http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/16/alaina-giordano-mom-with-cancer-issues-emergency-court-appeal-dont-take-my-kids/

Every move duly published and persued by her friends in the press.

As you can see she’s winning. Her husband has a full legal opinion saying he gets custody so his children don’t have to watch their mom die of late stage terminal cancer.

The judge caved.

Follow this case, it’s a study in extra-judicial manuvears. I study stuff like this and my case is over.

And at the end of the second article I linked, in her own words, it’s all about her:

“You know how kids are,” says Giordano. “They’re very demanding when they’re around so you don’t really have time to wallow.”

Remember: Thomas Ball’s immolation, he gave his life for your children.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
John Norman Howard July 18, 2011 at 10:52

If you’re still tied to your children, to the point that you’ll continue to fill the coffers of the lawyers and “play within the system”, then this corrupt society perpetuates itself.

Men need to harden their hearts… I mean REALLY harden their hearts… and be willing to let whatever happens to their children be on their mother’s head… the one who decided to break up the marriage and walk away.

We will never overcome the current malaise as long was we’re willing to “Think Of The Children!”… that’s merely the opposition’s battle-cry which keeps, us by the balls, enslaved to the status quo.

If we would be men… the kind that win revolutions… we must fight for future children… and be prepared to abandon our current generation, who themselves never really relished our discipline and wisdom and all-too-often treated us as an animated ATM… so that they will know, first-hand, what it means when a wife abandons her husband.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) July 18, 2011 at 11:02

OT…but he probably shot himself…..in the head……twice…..and that would not be ‘suspicious’ to any current cops.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016132/News-World-journalist-claimed-Coulson-encouraged-phone-hacking-dead-home.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Anonymous age 69 July 18, 2011 at 11:30

>>Remember, whatever happens they will always be your children and you their father.

A lot of people believe that myth. One of the hardest things for a man to experience is the realization they are NOT his kids anymore. It is good you can believe that,but then, you have your son, right?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
SingleDad July 18, 2011 at 11:31

@ Joeb

That is exactly what I think of foriegn marriage, nicely put. Men are seeking out foriegn masters, when I traveled and talked to women looking for American husbands they this is exactly how they thought.

The common comment was, whats the matter, you can’t get a local woman? Whats wrong with you?

Remember: Thomas Ball’s immolation, he gave his life for your children.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
SingleDad July 18, 2011 at 11:48

Well, Anon 69, my son loves his mother and she doesn’t live here, but I don’t bad mouth her and try to destroy their relationship.

My brother’s children grew up within 5 miles of him and hate him because their mother was determined to hurt my brother. He loves his children so the best way to hurt him was to destroy their relationship.

What should we tell men going through this? Ever think about what they might do with the information? Ever think about responsiblility?

These are all things to consider, guys.

Now is surragacy becoming more attractive?

Remember: Thomas Ball’s immolation, he gave his life for your children.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Firepower July 18, 2011 at 11:57

Serious discussion/topics such as this
have an ever diminishing affect on discussion – and males – today.

There is the naked truth right in front of you
and NO room for the typical empty platitudes that give small minds some degree of satisfaction in empty complaint
OF:

“wow, like, that totally like, kinda sucks, man!”
and
“The Outrage!”

I fear not only have we lost, but some actually believe we’re winning.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
Legion July 18, 2011 at 12:23

ranji July 17, 2011 at 17:12

christ and oden! Reason and women don’t mix.

The day after christmas my wife laid into me. Our son was with me at the time. I was upset she did this in front of him, but she ended up speaking such gibberish that my son (nearly 16 at the time) and I could only look at each other in stunned silence. That is the sum total of women’s reason. It had a benefit to me. We stopped talking for a month. A very low stress month for me, as most monthes have been since that day. I have probably added 10 years to my life with that divorce.

She later told me she contacted a lawyer to start the divorce going the next week.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Joeb July 18, 2011 at 12:30

Thomas Ball’s immolation Is sad , Ten years ago . I started writing what was considered anarchist statement like that on the Net , Wow. since then has things changed . I know some of you remember getting censored and kicked off of sites then Some are To young .

Im growing tiered , Iv got so many cognomen sometimes I argue with myself .Im glad for the spearhead , Although I still don’t understand why the government has not closed the site yet . All my sites always got closed back then .

It seems like with every word are freedoms get taken a little more . Thomas bell was just the sort of guy that was needed here . I was looking at a you tube video the other day with the names and occupation of all the CSA suicide case in England .
All these men could have been better served with some sort of action in stead of suicide . Sad, We have one life in witch we are made slaves.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Joeb July 18, 2011 at 12:41

Just want to say thank single Dad , I was in your shoes for a while , My wife was in prison . I was Caring for three children . Most people don’t get how gender bias the system really is, Just try being a single dad .
Since then they have taken my children and put them with a fellon drug dealer . There mom . Man slavery sucks .
I don’t know who said it but , But it rings true for me , My last breath will be my first breath of freedom.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
SocietyisCrap July 18, 2011 at 13:14

The men here are stupid. The very idea of some moron in a wig (a judge? lol, okaaaaay) dictating when you can or cannot have access to your own kids is insane. Let me repeat that: it’s INSANE. Got that? I doubt anyone has because they’re dumb f ucks. The state has no business in matters of the family, which is why only anarchy or a true libertarian form of government can save the day.

And seriously, this website should be encouraging the ABOLISHMENT of family court as an institution. That’s what a REAL libertarian or anarchist minded website would do.

Sorry to say, but it’s real hard to feel sorry for guys like Welmer when they REFUSE to use their website as a platform to wake the morons (thats the readers here) up from their slumber.

Unless family court is (rightly) deemed as a redundant and impractical instition, and with leading pro men’s websites reiterating this message, guys like Welmer are going to have to work within the system and waste thousands of dollars on court fees. Got that? You’re WASTING your cash on ‘pleading’ for access to your own kids. How brainwashed can you get lol.

Family court = big government (which is in itself fascist) and you idiots just LOVE your slavery! Good luck in ‘pleading’ for some fascist in a wig to give you the luxury of visitation 1 saturday in every fortnight morons. Hahaha. Pathetic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11
gender-raunch community July 18, 2011 at 14:14

Whelmer, turn yer anger into action, you could easily work to expand this site to a wider audience.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
woggy July 18, 2011 at 14:37

Way off topic,
but a writer for Newsweek is taking men to task as “buyers”

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/07/17/the-growing-demand-for-prostitution.html#comments

My take:
Ms Bennetts would like to see soliciting prostitutes be elevated to a hate crime.
JMO

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
Doug1 July 18, 2011 at 14:59

WF Price–

She did not have a right to half his wealth earned during the marriage. That only came in in the US in the 1970s. It wasn’t adopted in Britain until 2000, by a high court ruling.

May I ask how old your daughter is?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4
Doug1 July 18, 2011 at 14:59

Dragnet—

No fault divorce has been a mixed bag for sure, but I don’t believe it is as strong a driver behind the demise of marriage as default mother physical custody. Leaving no fault divorce intact but mandating joint physical custody would solve most of the problems right there because it would shatter the economic incentives women wold have to break apart their marriages, in addition to giving father equal access to their own children.

NOW and other feminist groups have lobbied against default joint physical custody, and even when it’s granted and time spent is shared 50/50 for their still to be child support=also stealth alimony from the more affluent parent (the father) to the less affluent one (the mother), albeit in somewhat reduced amount. Their argument is that the living conditions in each home should be equalized – really their concern is for the mother, not the child, obviously. Many states do follow this feminist lobbied approach. That of course is thoroughly unjust. When child support=also stealth alimony is still payable, women will have no less incentive to divorce. They probably make out better financially – free child care much of the time, and more opportunity to advance their careers.

Alimony should be abolished. Both alimony named as such and as stealthily included in way jacked up child support=also stealth alimony in the late 80’s, as a percentage of a man’s after tax income.

Few people know that before the late 19th century in Anglosphere countries, custody of children went by default to the father when he wasn’t an obviously unfit parent and wanted it. This was particularly true when the wife had committed adultery or wanted the divorce due to no compelling fault on the part of her husband. His occasional infidelity if he didn’t neglect his duties as a father and husband wasn’t necessarily considered a compelling reason. First wave feminism campaigned that male infidelity should be a compelling fault allowing women to get full freight alimony. Child support was way lower then as a percentage of a man’s income. She did not have a right to half his wealth earned during the marriage. That only came in in the US in the 1970s. It wasn’t adopted in Britain until 2000, by a high court ruling.

Yeah divorce back then was real rare. It mostly occurred when the man abandoned his family.

Then in the late 19th century the Tender Years doctrine came in under the influence of first wave feminism, whereby custody of pre adolescent children was normally given to the mother; but upon adolescence to the father if neither appeared to be an unfit parent. This had morphed by the second half of the 20th century into a very strong presumption of mother child custody.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2
Doug1 July 18, 2011 at 15:15

Anonymous—

I agree. default mother custody is the big driver, rather than no-fault.

Default mother custody combined with the feminist lobbied way jacked up percentage of pretax income child support=also stealth alimony that came in in the late 80s to early 90s under a federal mandate.

Her automatically getting half the wealth he earned during the marriage which feminist achieved during the 70s was another major driver. Then in the 90s, after having been in favor of alimony being eventually phased out or made only short term temporary during the 70s, feminists pushed again for lifetime alimony in the case of long (over ten years) marriages. They got that through at some point in California and New Jersey and a number of other states.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3
W.F. Price July 18, 2011 at 17:04

May I ask how old your daughter is?

-Doug1

My daughter is 5 next week and my son is 6 and 1/2. My kids are quite small.

Avenger July 18, 2011 at 17:31

Misandry at Brooks Brothers

I was looking to buy something and saw this “back to school” crap. You’ll notice that of the 8 students that 6 are female and 2 boys with one hidden in the rear.
Now BB has been around for 200 years and has always been known as a Men’s store. Over the years they have introduced women’s wear but this is just plain crazy here. I’ll speak to the CEO of the company about it.

http://www.brooksbrothers.com/

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
Paradoxotaur July 18, 2011 at 17:38

Doug1: “way jacked up percentage of pretax income child support=also stealth alimony”

The feminists in California are pushing for new CS guidelines that, basically, include the cost of health care/health insurance in determining the monthly wealth transfer (total typical montly expenses (not actual cost) based on income), and then double-dip by adding the cost of health care/health insurance on as a line item (again, going up with income).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Gx1080 July 18, 2011 at 18:38

I’m sorry to hear that, and it does suck.

Empty words aside, FIGHT!. Ignore the fatalists.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
AndrewV July 18, 2011 at 19:12

@W.F. Price July 18, 2011 at 17:04

My daughter is 5 next week and my son is 6 and 1/2. My kids are quite small.

They need you in their life. But you already know that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Auntie Pheminizm July 19, 2011 at 00:07

Just to clarify, since some feel free to jump down my throat based not on what I write, but my moniker. “Auntie Pheminizm” means “anti-feminism.” It’s a pun, albeit obviously weak.

I’ve been an MRA for over 40 years.

Just sayin’.

One solution to current shite would be to form a “bank for men.” It could be used to help individual men as well as to fight for new laws. Think about deep-pockets who could help, too: Tiger Woods, Mel Gibson, Alec Baldwin, Burt Reynolds and others who’ve felt the effects of misandric laws. They would probably do so “under the radar,” too.

Another source of money might be from government programs designed for men. Of course, we’d have to fight to create and fund them.

Both of the above are more to likely to occur if there is more pro-male, anti-feminism news created by an active men’s movement. Such news will rally men, attract new followers, and inform the public.

I know it seems unlikely. And, truth be told, I burned out trying to “hump the elephant” while too many so-called men’s rights advocates laid low or became white knights. I withdrew politically for the last 2 decades, too weary and wounded. Still, I DO note a change since the Internet. More and more men are acting both smart and ballsy these days. They are no longer worried about being called names if they stop traffic on bridges or make “scenes” outside Parliament.

The word IS getting out. So I have hope, albeit tempered.

The way things are now, each man is expected to fight his own battle against an entrenched feminist army. Not only do most men not know how to fight, the enemy has reinforced bunkers, nukes, national funding, powerful politicians, etc. It’s one flea fighting 10,000 dogs.

The deck is seriously stacked against guys today, mostly due to male inaction for 40-50 years (“Oh let the little ladies have their say and way. It can’t really hurt us men. After all, we have all-the-power.”)

Yet I do not underestimate the power men can unleash when they’ve had enough and made their minds up to act. America did not want WWII after experiencing WWI. It tried all sorts of ways to avoid more war. But when a line was crossed, the country united to kick ass.

Males are conditioned not to fight women. We’re called weak or cowards when we do. But this is not a battle against women. It’s a war against a political philosophy that harms us, that treats us with contempt.

Most bullies have to experience pushback to stop. Trying to reason with them or appealing to their humanity usually increases their abuse. So it is time to take off gloves and counterpunch. Hard. We need to muster an army, train new recruits, and most of all: put effective fighters in the field.

No father should lose his children due to lack of money. That is why I didn’t find the movie, “The Full Monty,” humorous. It was based on unemployed men having to make money to see their own flesh and blood. We don’t make women clean toilets to see their kids. Why force men to do ANYTHING to be with children they love?

Today, feminists think they “own” children (ironic since they bellyache about women being treated like chattel!). They have to unlearn that illusion.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
Robert July 19, 2011 at 00:09

OT; Well educated woman (person) kicked off train.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vau4EJqEJxo

She is also a princess of entitlement. I hope this made you and everyone laugh Mr. Price.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Robert July 19, 2011 at 00:15

She made it on “The Ridiculist”. LMAO!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Auntie Pheminizm July 19, 2011 at 00:16

I was thinking how custody issues are like life after a broken leg. Suddenly, everything that was once easy and taken for granted (tucking Junior in at night, reading a story to Missy) becomes a pain-in-the-ass. A huge Everest to climb in and out of courts.

The problem is men let feminists break millions of male legs with impunity for decades.

Still, I do not underestimate what an army of pissed-off limpers can do once they make up their minds to…ACT!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Robert July 19, 2011 at 00:17

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S92jaX7xXY&feature=related

Anderson Cooper burns on the Well Educated Woman (Person)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Auntie Pheminizm July 19, 2011 at 00:45

Sorry to be blabbing so much. It’s been a while since I’ve published per men’s issues and I’m liking the feeling. :>)

We need to find and fund a slew of savvy, energetic, Navy Seals-like pro-male lawyers. Most of us shlubs are just plain too scared, if not naive, about The Law.

Recently I have to vacate an apartment I’d lived in for YEARS. I was a great tenant. I was also at-will, thinking I had a good “marriage” with my landlord. Figured he’d treat me “justly.”

Hah!

Well, like feminists, he ran into money problems and wanted me out pronto. I had just 30 days to leave. I was nearly broke, having also counted on him to me “fair notice” since I’d been such a great tenant (never complained, did all repairs myself, etc.). Plus I always told him just to give me “enough” time to move if I had to.

Didn’t mean shit to a tree. He didn’t see me as human. All he wanted was me gone so he could do renovations to get more m-o-n-e-y. I didn’t begrudge him his financial need, just wanted him to see I had needs, too.

Of course I panicked and started packing. Didn’t know what to do. Started looking at food pantries and empty steam-grates to put an empty-refrigerator box “home.”

Alas, a friend put me in touch with a college-run legal aid group…at a top law school. Well, well, well. I ended up with the HEAD of that group… a seasoned, empathetic, elderly man who kicked ass. He’d chuckle as he wrote various motions, saying “What ’til your landlord sees these!”

Long story short: I “suddenly” had over a year to get out.

Plus when I left, well, just say all my “additions” to the apartment “disappeared.” Since I’d taken pictures moving in, and he had none of my improvements, tough titties for him. Asshole!

The point is: The law is a double-edged sword. And like the “men’s movement army” itself, we need legal beagles who are Army Rangers (just trying to include all the services) who can use the other side of the blade to cut-down arrogant enemies.

The problem is, most guys don’t know the law…and most lawyers are just out to make money. On the other hand, feminist lawyers take special glee in the feelings they generate in men (fear, anger, etc.), too.

So we need to create a corps of our army that ordinary Joes can avail themselves of…just like women do who call battered women’s shelters with false DV claims to get “free” (funded by male taxes) government lawyers.

The challenge is to get men to treat it like insurance: “Why wait until you have to shell out $100,000 of your own money and fight your own battle? Are you a Harvard lawyer? Instead, pay $50 a month into a fund that will provide a hard-hitting, effective advocate when you need one!”

Of course, we shall have to cull the shyster herd, finding lawyers who are MRAs, not ones trying to fleece hapless guys stunned by court notices.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
Auntie Pheminizm July 19, 2011 at 01:03

Okay, okay, okay. Don’t mean to monopolize the thread. Just feel personally on a roll…

“I’m one of those younger guys—I turned 28 recently. I can’t express how much I’ve benefited from hearing about the travails of guys like you…”

This is another area where the men’s movement has been blind: engaging college-aged men. Feminists ultimately got their “Women’s Studies” and female deans, etc….but FIRST got college females (with time, energy, passion) involved. That provided their movement with a HUGE unpaid activist army.

We need to get more MRA speaking on campus. More books for young males to read. More ideas for protests, demonstrations, etc. they can get involved with. More visits by male military vets talking about what “equality” really means. And so on.

The biggest challenge: How to make sure young guys don’t become monks against their wishes. Most young males will think (probably rightly) that they will never get laid again if they start openly questioning “womyn.”

How do we address that concern?

One thing might be cautionary tales. True stories of men reamed by impregnated women. I know some females who seek out sex with 3rd year law students…the better to get preggers and live the life of a rich lawyer’s wife without the complications of “marriage.”

I also know an MRA who always wore 2 condoms with a lady who swore up and down she didn’t want kids. Hah! She’d take his condoms and, instead of flushing them post-coitus, stuck them in herself. One, er, “stuck.” So then he was stuck with unwanted fatherhood. Over the years she’s taken particular relish in reaming him, knowing him to be a formerly VERY effective MRA (got laws passed, etc.). Of course, saddled with support order and court dates, he dropped out of the men’s movement.

Too true…and too sad.

Thoughts?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
Anonymous July 19, 2011 at 01:37

OT; More info on VAWA reauthorization

http://mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/2011/07/more-info-on-vawa-reauthorization.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Anonymous July 19, 2011 at 01:38

More info on VAWA reauthorization

http://mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Auntie Pheminizm July 19, 2011 at 02:18

Me again. Please indulge.

About fighting: It does no good to battle divorces unless you’re effective. Otherwise we are like gambling addicts, sure that just a few more hours at the casino will turn to victory.

Fight to win or retreat.

Besides, by urging guys to go on and on and on (often alone, words being all we offer from the safety of our own lives) neglects that father’s life and feelings.

Really, what good is it to fight-fight-fight if it’s not effective?

I watched the non-moving men’s movement “fight” (or what it thought was fighting) for decades. I most assuredly DON’T look back on their efforts wtih pride. Instead, I consider them buffoons.

I suspect their kids do, too.

Why? They did stupid, ineffective shite and didn’t get their kids.

So please: Don’t hector a man to keep fighting if his efforts will be in vain. There is no glory or even good in wasted energy.

Also, could it be that if he DOES give up WE’d have to feel his pain, too? And admit things are as bad as they are. That only luck and/or zillions of dollars can bring any sort of justice to men’s lives?

Could it be in that moment of admitting defeat we all realize going on as usual will change nothing, that more than an individual case has to be dealt with?

“contact the local media and make a spectacle of her blatant selfishness for all to see.”

That is key, but with a caveat most MRAs don’t get: Reporters cover “news”…NOT issues. They don’t give a crap about politics, justice, etc. It’s just not their job. It doesn’t make them immoral.

So….

You need to do something to draw reporters. That is, some act that will create “news.” Like standing on a street corner with a sign that draws attention (“Stop my wife from kidnapping my children!”). Or doing it in front of your local rep’s office. Or getting a few buddies to unfurl a banner over a busy highway.

Now, those may not be the best examples, but the point is to do something EFFECTIVE/creative/clever that draws attention. You can be right as rain, but if no media show up you might as well howl at the moon. Because only after effective media appearances does an issue become known….by other men, politicians, etc.

Another idea: wear a tee-shirt with a succinct message on it during a breast cancer walk. Etc. Make sure you walk around, especially in front of any reporters covering the event.

If a reporter DOES appear, be prepared. Talk in soundbites. Keep things simple and catchy. Don’t launch into a 5-hour litany of your suffering. Reporters have deadlines. They also appreciate help “framing” stories.

Act concerned, but not crazy.

Also have concise, bulleted, to-the-point flyers to hand out to reporters and passersby.

After the reporter goes, leave (unless others/guys want more info; then hand them your sheet). Also, make sure there is a way to contact you an the handout, phone or email. Don’t give your home address.

Hope the reporter has a photographer or videographer, too.

Once a story appears on TV or in print, post coverage on youtube, MRA sites, etc. Send copies to competing papers. Also contact local talk shows. If you are not as knowledgeable as you’d like to be, see about bring someone who is.

If you do TV, make sure you give on-air contact info. Same with radio. Arrange this with this host. It’s best to say, before break, that contact info will be given AFTER the break. That gives listeners time to get pen and paper.

Remember: You aren’t there to expel air. You want listeners to take action. So have a PO Box or other easy way to contact you to help with time, money, advice, etc.

MRAs need to get savvy about using media. It’s killing the movement not to be.

Also, even the most feminist-supporting media need stories. Who cares if they are for or against you? You are there not to sway feminists but to reach pro-male listeners/readers. Just make sure they spell your name right! :>)

And have a way to contact you. :>)

Now trust me: I watched tons of men’s groups die on-the-vine because, while well-intentioned, they were clueless when it came to marketing.

No judge wants his case followed by media. No judge wants hundreds of MRAs in his court, or outside, watching how s/he treats men/fathers. No politician want to alienate masses of male voters.

Using media requires judo. Learn to use it to YOUR advantage. It is powerful. It’s how feminism won. Who cared about their not having facts/truth? They cried on cue, engaged in drama, used slogans (“A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle”) and acronyms ( NOW…connoting a demand, immediacy. They repeated mantras “Men are pigs” and “Marriage is slavery” early and often until others, hearing no counter-argument from MRAs, both believed and repeated the misandry. It’s now laws get made, how socialization occurs. Martians don’t come down at night and program us. Feminists were active and we were not. It’s no mystery why they’ve prevailed.

The men’s movement presented a dry, 100-page nutritional guide to meat. Feminists filmed a steak on the grill, letting us hear the “sizzle.” Which sold?

The sad effing irony is men CREATED advertising. We are also the gender of great FEELING poets and effective military leaders. We are the gender that writes knowingly about rearing children, too. So why, when it came to fighting feminists and saving our families/children, did we come up with groups with lame names headed by guys who put people to sleep?

We are better than this!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) July 19, 2011 at 02:33

OT…
The man is dead but the newspapers label him ‘paranoid’ that someone wanted to kill him. That should tell you all you need to know about the press.

“The man who launched the entire phone hacking scandal had become a paranoid recluse who believed someone was out to get him, a friend has revealed.”

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016132/Sean-Hoare-News-World-phone-hacking-whistleblower-dead.html#ixzz1SXfsIjHs

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
continent July 19, 2011 at 06:00

@ Single Dad
I was not familiar with the link you listed. Stunning and sad. Even if the stats. are nearly 10 years ago, it’s something I was not aware of.
CHILD SUPPORT CASUALTIES

Ed Ward, MD

July 27, 2003

http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/w/ward/03/ward072703.htm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Firepower July 19, 2011 at 07:16

Gx1080

Empty words aside, FIGHT!. Ignore the fatalists.

…and embrace the fantasists.

Happy Thoughts
Accomplish so much

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Joeb July 19, 2011 at 09:58

Aunt P maybe right about a lot of things ,Being a little older Iv seen many Men’s groups in my life , We always pull out slogans as an easier way to convey a message .
Theirs is nothing like a heartfelt massage in advertising , A small Kitten on the lap of a seemingly depressed male . Then the state thugs in uniforms and guns take the kitten . Making the man pay to see his kitten.

His smiling face as he hands the money to the clerk . Then The fade out , Man up Its better for everyone .

Levity always nice , When the state holds your children hostage , Wow .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Joeb July 19, 2011 at 10:26

We can also take a lesson fro the gay pride community on advertising . Do you know the psychology behind gay parades . They are offensive , Yes .They are built That way , Their is no message its simply to desensitize you from your homophobia.
You see it once and turn your back , You see it twice and make a comment , You see it three times and say ” its just the gay pride people , Their not harming anyone.
Shirts , with slogans work . But we have none . I think we also have a revenue problem , Its not that men are broke Its can you trust another man.We size earth other up and Question each others Motives .Then come to the summation ” why so good money after bad .
For gods sake the feminist have football players waring pink it can’t be that hard.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) July 19, 2011 at 11:11

OT…..

And women wonder why we won’t trust them any more and we make the presumption they are liars.

When the opposite happened to a ‘granny’ and some young black guy from africa the black guy from africa was a ‘bastard’. Here the man is stupid….

Ladies. Thanks for telling us you hate us. We get it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016282/Charity-worker-paid-5-000-Jamaican-brides-visa-left-heartbroken-flees-UK-home-20-MINUTES.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) July 19, 2011 at 11:15

OT….
another one committing self harm to frame another women…..women are getting more psychotic by the month.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016499/Jealous-wife-Lyn-Kitching-threw-bleach-OWN-face-frame-husbands-lover.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
john thames July 19, 2011 at 11:28

Doug1 is absolutely correct about automatic father custody until the middle of the nineteenth century. The children were his by law and the mother had no claim upon them. This started to change after 1850 because of the tender years doctrine concocted by the courts about 1830. This is just one more example of the pribciple that if you give them an inch that they will take a mile.

If we returned to automatic custody for fathers, the scam artist female would lose both custody and the “mommy support” that goes with it. That would do more to stop mommy instigated divorces than any other procedure.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
SingleDad July 19, 2011 at 11:59

Here’s a nice graphic of parental custody distributions by country. The US, of course is way to the high side of single parent households, along with the UK.

Fathers represent a “sliver” of custody. Since the 1850′s and the rise of feminism, men have been effectively pushed out of families and we continue to lie to our young men about their prospects in marriage in the main stream press and at our government schools.

Remember: Thomas Ball’s immolation, he gave his life for your children.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
SingleDad July 19, 2011 at 12:00
SingleDad July 19, 2011 at 12:07

@ Joeb

What’s the message here? Desensitize you from looking at women?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2016157/Jessica-Simpson-pours-curves-VERY-clingy-dress.html

And thats Jessica Simpson at 31. Remind me again what sense it makes to tie your self permanently to the every widening butt of the Ameriskank?

Remember: Thomas Balls immolation, he gave his life for your children.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Anonymous age 69 July 19, 2011 at 12:22

A lot of talk here, and a lot of insults. So, Aunt P, just how much did you accomplish in your previous activism? Um, nothing? Exactly right which is exactly what all the great ideas the insulters here have, will accomplish.

The only thing that has worked is men avoiding women, and marriage, when possible, expat. The MGTOW movement is getting attention.

Someone has quoted Ghandi, I think it was. First, they ignore you. Then, they laugh at you. Then, they fight you. Then, you win.

The Men’s movement for most of the last 45 years was ignored. The last couple of years, people have been laughing at us. calling us Peter Pans. Now, they are pulling every trick to shut us up. Next, we win.

I was an FRA/MRA from 1984 till 1993, and I was not a buffoon. Another name for One Man Army is cadaver. Some of you have really good ideas, with only one fault. They did not work, they do not work, they will not work. The greatest effect in the last 45 years is the refusal of men to feed the marriage sharks. Once you sign away all your legal rights in marriage your are screwed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Anonymous age 69 July 19, 2011 at 12:25

@Single dad

>>Well, Anon 69, my son loves his mother and she doesn’t live here, but I don’t bad mouth her and try to destroy their relationship.

That is correct, but does not especially address my belief that in many cases, your kids are no longer your kids. That is one of those false platitudes. In my experience it runs about 50% of all divorce that the man loses his kids forever.

>>SocietyisCrap July 18, 2011 at 13:14
>> The men here are stupid.

There is someone stupid here, you are correct. If you want to know who that is,find a good mirror.

I note you have no more practical solutions than PAN does. Talk and name calling is cheap. They created SWAT teams for men who are apparently supposed to act like you suggest. So, I theorize you are a dearie, with no grasp of male reality.

After the water walking, perhaps you can take a couple hours and abolish the existing system as you suggest we should do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Jean Valjean July 19, 2011 at 12:41

more functional form of marriage based on mutual responsibility rather than female supremacy.

Don’t count on it. Women will always blame men and play the victim card and courts will always side with them first unless the man has a ton of money and a compelling case. The rest of us will just be fucked.

Good luck with your case. I sucks being property doesn’t it?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
SingleDad July 19, 2011 at 15:10

@ Anon 69

They can take your children away on paper, and they can turn them against you but, you can turn them against you, but as I’m sure you know, and even little children know…think Arnold Schwarzenger’s son…the children know who their daddy is.

Remember: Thomas Ball’s immolation, he have his life for your children.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Anonymous July 19, 2011 at 17:19

The “well educated” woman ejected from the train is hilarious. Maybe the “well educated” woman needs to go back to school.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Chevy Chase July 19, 2011 at 18:37

“When a parent is served with this notice in Washington state, the burden to object is on the parent with less physical custody, so it’s up to him to go to court to argue against the move if he opposes it. That is, the presumption is that the mother will get her way”

This is absurd. I feel despair for you, but somehow I’m not surprised. What if neither you nor the mother can afford to fly the children back and forth on a regular basis so that they can still spend time with you? Please keep us updated on this one Welmer.

@Anonymous age 69

You are as ever the voice of reason. I often wonder about this call to arms by certain elements of the MRA. The inciting of violence whilst we are woefully outnumbered and outarmed and the holding up of men who have committed suicide or murdered their families as martyrs of the cause is ultimately unhelpful. These are negative diversions. We don’t need any more desperate men dying or wasting their lives in prison.

We do need to contact and write our local representatives constantly about ridiculously inequitable cases like Welmers, and we do need to spread the MGTOW word, particularly to young men, and encourage them also to take positive action to change the status quo.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Avenger July 19, 2011 at 18:38

@society
‘guys like Welmer are going to have to work within the system and waste thousands of dollars on court fees.’

Not if he has little income or little income after certain deductions like child support and other things etc

Then he can file In forma pauperis and pay nothing. I suggested that he first file a complaint in the Civil Division so that the judge in the Family Division would not have knowledge that he filed a Motion (it’s really just an ex parte request on a form filed with the court where the complaint was filed, in this case the Civil Division and is just routinely signed by the judge there if you qualify from the info you gave) Now, you can file all papers without fee and it carries over to the appellate division in case you file an appeal on the complaint or even any motion made etc. If he has to pay any fees in the Family Division then they will be waived and if it’s set up in Wash. that you need the judge’s permission there (I don’t know this myself) that judge will have to also give you permission to proceed In forma pauperis since the Civil Division did. If you get some bitch there who won’t do it then you file an appeal and waste a few more months in the appellate division (you’ll win the case) and you also file a Motion with the Clerk requesting that the judge recuse herself based on (here you will give some reasons like she’s biased against you, would not conform to the Civil Court judges permission to proceed In forma pauperis etc etc) I gave this example but it would probably never happen because once you’ve been allowed to proceed In forma pauperis it usually carries over to all divisions.
If you don’t have a lawyer then I would also suggest that you find a Uni near you that has a legal clinic because for a small fee eg. $20 you can talk to a lawyer privately for an hour and get some advice and ideas on how to proceed.

Welmer, as far as that Motion I’d suggest that you file an opposing Motion and not just turn up in court that day and try to argue as a layman. You have to give some legal argument whether in the written Motion or oral argument opposing the motion.
What id the Motion for?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Robert July 19, 2011 at 21:22

Bill, here is a name to reasearch; Christopher Savoie.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-5351308-504083.html

http://www.4vf.net/dad-in-japan-custody-battle-thought-wife-would-take-kids/

His ex wife took their children to Japan after saying she would not. He went to Japan to get his children back. He was arrested then released. Many fathers around the world watched this case closely.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
continent July 20, 2011 at 08:30

@ Robert
You listed a link from NZ. It led to another link I had never heard of. Is it reliable or fantasy fiction like is moon made from cheese
?http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/5313274/Facebooks-Zuckerberg-meets-PM-John-Key

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
only known as Joshua July 20, 2011 at 08:40

take Casey Anthony for example. Women like her should never be alone with children. Women who raise children alone, produce children who are not up to standards. Hoodlums and those of the poverty line.

Speaking of marriage, it is safe to say that feminists are at war with heterosexual men. War on marriage since the 1800s, war on masculinity, war on heterosexuality and war on gender.

the reason why marriage is messed, feminists depend on big government. Second they fail to realized that the US government claimed ownership on the human DNA and the children.
Marriage worked in back before the 1800s, women were made accountable to men. When in fact that the women are the breeding vessels.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Robert July 20, 2011 at 22:26

continent July 20, 2011 at 08:30

Are you asking if NZ’s government’s interest in Google and Facebook is reliable or fantasy fiction?

“As a Government we are very focused on trying to lift New Zealand’s technological capability. Google and Facebook represent real opportunities to keep and grow our on-line connections to the rest of the world.”

Key’s stop at the online heavyweights’ headquarters was welcomed by Trade Me chief executive Jon MacDonald, who said “without doubt both Google and Facebook are very influential in shaping how we work and play”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
continent July 22, 2011 at 03:50

@ Robert,
I apologize not explaining myself well. I was cutious about the link’s reliability and only lited that story as an example leading to the link.
This legal precedent might offend some, but as False Raepe Society (FRS) has demonstrated the accused name is published, but alleged victim is not named even if the charge is proved false.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/5315328/Name-suppression-for-child-porn-man-criticised
quote
” In a decision released today, the appeal court ruled his name should be kept secret to protect his family members. “

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Avenger July 22, 2011 at 06:49

continent- I have no idea whether this guy is that 1 in a million putrid pervert with real child porn but I know that these cases are always exaggerated and rarely involve real children. You can call it teenage porn for the most part where a girl may be over the age of consent for sex but because the age for porn is 18 the guy is charged with “child porn”. But the question is how is he harming anyone by the mere posession of a picture that may have been made years ago when the cops, prosecutors etc are looking at these same pics? Many of these “child porn” pics don’t even involve anything remoting classified as porn and may just be some 17yo posing in a “sexually explicit way” (according to some anal retentive man hating fem prosecutor) in her bikini on the beach. And btw, nudity itself was never considered porn because if it were we’d have to remove most of the nudes we have in museums. We must not allow the crazy feminist dykes to make the rules on what is and what is not normal because if we do they’ll be no end to it. They’d probably want to ban pictures of angels and cupids next because they’re always depicted naked.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
continent July 22, 2011 at 08:57

@ Avenger,
Good expiation. The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled unconstitutional Florida law banning the publication of alleged victim. But the media still continues the policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_shield_law
quote

in Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524 (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court found a Florida statute which provided penalties for media outlets that publicized the name of an alleged rape victim unconstitutional.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Debbi August 19, 2012 at 18:14

What you write is absolute bullshit. Women do NOT automatically get their way as y9u would like your readers to believe, in situations like this. And this is from someone who has been through it and KNOWS.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: