The Seattle Weekly, a middle-brow, usually liberal Seattle publication, has come out with a long article about the abuses men are subject to in family court. Those of us who have been through it are already all too familiar with what happens, but people are still surprised by the blatant anti-male bias. After you learn about it first-hand, it’s hard to understand how it could possibly not be common knowledge that men face something akin to a medieval inquisition during a custody dispute, but I think it’s because divorce is a bit like death — people just don’t want to think about these things. It’s taboo. The “it will never happen to me” mentality is pervasive, and for good reason: one’s mental health might depend on it.
Nevertheless, it’s an issue that can’t be swept under the rug forever, because the price is too high. The current system is creating a class of children who will grow up traumatized by the fact that one of their parents, almost always the father, has been arbitrarily branded a social deviant and forced out of their lives. It is also turning a number of productive, otherwise healthy men into impoverished emotional wrecks whose ability to contribute to society, not to mention their children’s welfare, is severely compromised.
So it’s with some guarded optimism that I see a local publication publish a hard-hitting piece that reveals not only the deplorable tactics, but some of the people who profit from them. Because states and counties have jurisdiction over the courts, a great deal of the fight to rectify family law will have to occur at the local level. This is why grassroots effort is just as important as any national attention, and why I’m just as happy when I see local media addressing the problem as when national media takes it up.
In the Weekly’s article a couple characters are exposed to the light, including Doug Bartholomew, a man who runs one of the state certified domestic violence programs. Here is a picture of Doug. If you are a married or cohabiting man in King County Washington, especially if you have children, this man is not your friend. If at all possible, avoid him.
Page four of the article explains why:
Given their extremely rushed proceedings, family-law commissioners often punt to such “expert” evaluations to make recommendations that can be heard in later hearings. Smith did that in Richard’s case, ordering a “risk assessment” from a counselor who specializes in domestic violence.
Richard says he welcomed the assessment. “OK, great,” he says he thought. “Now I’m going to go to somebody whose job it is to ferret out the truth.” He says he didn’t even mind paying the $1,000-plus fee.
But when counselor Doug Bartholomew came out with his report a month later, Richard was even further in the hole. The counselor did say that he couldn’t determine whether Richard had assaulted his wife. Yet Bartholomew still recommended that Richard attend a domestic-violence treatment program, as well as a class called “DV Dads.”
Why? For one thing, he held out the possibility that Richard was dangerous. He attached extreme importance to the engineer’s attempt to have the counselor look at a mental-health self-evaluation his wife had done. “Since submitting someone’s private records against their will is so inherently antisocial, it raises the question of whether or not he’s capable of similar ‘stop at nothing’ behavior,” Bartholomew wrote.
Richard’s personality and background were also suspect, according to Bartholomew. For one thing, he was successful. “The downside of success, and he’s been very successful, is that we tend not to learn compassion, empathy, or insight.” Richard, he wrote, “has never experienced tragedy.”
Richard suffered from a “Puer complex,” the condition of being an “eternal boy,” in Bartholomew’s estimation. The engineer was unable to describe his son in an “I-Thou manner,” an apparent reference to philosopher Martin Buber’s description of seeing other people as possessing distinct wants and needs. This seemed to account for Bartholomew’s finding that Richard posed “some risk of further psychological abuse.” As the counselor put it a year and a half later at trial, “the most conspicuous feature” of his evaluation was Richard’s “indifference” to his wife’s “feelings and needs.”
Too many men still believe that the state cares about truth, justice, etc. Richard was one of them. Unfortunately, he learned the hard way that the state does not care about these things — it simply wants results consistent with its mandate. Any tool that can be “legally” used will be brought to bear. When you allow yourself to be examined by any state agent, the state will simply use this to achieve its goals — what’s fair to you, personally, is irrelevant. If the court orders you go through an evaluation, hire your own evaluator. Do not under any circumstances use the state service if you can avoid it. If it’s optional, decline. In the majority of cases, the report will harm you much more than it will help.
However, Richard had the resources to eventually take the case to trial, where he won. Bartholomew, apparently so used to simply destroying men’s chances and pocketing the money, had been sloppy in his methods. He didn’t proofread the report, his logic was found to be faulty, and his claims contradicted the law.
Bartholomew, for his part, whines that he is being targeted by a “hate group:”
In an interview and follow-up e-mail, Bartholomew says that dads like Richard aren’t the only ones being targeted, but that he too is a victim, calling his persecutors a “homegrown hate group of men . . . whose stated intention is to destroy the [domestic-violence] intervention system.”
Turning to Richard’s case, Bartholomew claims his report was misconstrued: “First of all, I said the guy didn’t do any domestic violence.” No matter that those words aren’t in his report, that he referred to further psychological “abuse,” and that the judge and the attorneys understood the exact opposite—the counselor points to his line saying that he couldn’t determine whether Richard had assaulted his wife. Although at trial Bartholomew argued that assault is not a necessary component of domestic violence, he now says that it is.
Doug Bartholomew is a very typical representative of what is termed the “domestic violence industry.” The man is the domestic equivalent of the arms dealer who profits from third world conflicts. Rather than ameliorate family conflicts, he introduces weapons that escalate them and then, when all that remains is ruinous misery and despair, pockets a check.
{ 72 comments… read them below or add one }
Note to self:
MGTOW & Ghost
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
47 
2
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
27 
55
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
71
Well, I can objectively see your point, and it has some merit, but where do we draw the line where personal responsibility is concerned?
I wouldn’t suggest Bartholomew be sent to the gallows for what he’s done, but given what has happened to so many men under his watch, losing state funding seems entirely appropriate. Politics can be rough here — many, many innocent men are victimized because some people have pushed a certain agenda. When you get involved in that, I think you’re taking a certain risk, and shouldn’t be surprised if you incur some personal costs as a result.
Know another guy who was ordered to pay 150/month for his three children. He ignored the court and the court did nothing to him. Every time he gets the children he threatens to take the mother to court and have the children removed from her. He refuses to work, managed to get his current gf knocked up (has a child by her now), and she took his dumb ass to court for child support. He’s probably got some other kids of his running around.
_______________
You’re wrong. He’s not the dumb ass, he’s the man. If all men had the balls to fight and disobey the corrupt system this way, these kangaroo courts wouldn’t exist in the first place, they’d be replaced by decency and respect for mens’ civil liberties. Justice only prevails when men like him fight back.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
63 
5
“Whatever his personal failings, he has a part to play (apparently) in the Democratically mandated system of Family Law in your State.”
A part taken from the Second Set of Books.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
0
We’ve got to take care of the children we have with women. If we’re not willing to take care of the children then we need to refrain from having unprotected sex with a woman since sexual intercourse sometimes makes babies. Women, the man who pays you child support money every month needs, if he wants to, visitation. Yanking around a guy over visitation can have you back in court explaining to the judge why you are being an ass.
______________________________
As a feminist troll and mangina, not only do you give out terrible advice, but you also expect men to bear the entire burden of sexual responsibility. Isn’t it hilarious how state manginas like you give women 101 different ways to abort their parental responsibilities without penalty until she FEELS she’s ready to be a mother. Contrast that with how you force men, who have no reproductive rights besides relying on a little plastic sheath around their penis, are forced to pay the entire cost of any child that may result. Funny how you that works.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
76 
3
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
62
You are wasting your breath Welmer.
Opus, a practising legal representative in family matters, is himself employed and implicated, in the sytem of which he asks you to be fair and objective when speaking.
Opus lives by this vile system, whoms female parasites in collusion with State and professionaly licensed grieviance hucksters, are abusing mine and your kids for profit.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
59 
0
@ OPUS
He’s still a parasite. I’ve called lawyers and CS workers here in Oz parasites and told them how they’re destroying families and therefore their country.
They usually just go silent.
They may have began with best of intentions but that soon dissapates. They know something’s wrong but have too much invested in it to change.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
44 
0
‘Ripped-Apart’ was an outstanding article. I hope it gets shared far and wide, especially in those parts of the manosphere that bash on MRAs from time to time.
Like or Dislike:
13 
0
Anon-e-mous: Address the point you goofy clown. The point is women can get rid of their parental AND financial responsibilities with full blessing of society and no social judgement. They have all of the reproductive rights, so they should bear the costs and responsibilities of raising a child, especially if the man never intended to become a father in the first place (eg. drunk sex with a slut he met at the club). Rights come with responsibilites, since men have none in this area (child custody/fatherhood/) and women can get rid of their pregnancies or even live children for any reason what so ever (she doesn’t FEEL like being a mother) she should bear the burden of those special rights which men do not have. Learn to read, bitch.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
46 
2
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
31
Well, I read the whole thing.
This is the truth.
Everybody hides behind everybody else, everyone is making 300.00 plus an hour and every bodies getting rich off families falling apart because the same “experts” drum up propaganda in state required “diversity” classes, every TV show…..and don’t forget the good old girls network…..the beauty parlor.
This is a rare case of a judge calling out an expert.
This is where the feminist politicians, beaurocrats and judges, all radical feminists with extreme agenda’s just as Kyle revealed is going on in Australia and represents corruption.
This is the Pink Mafia and they have the judges, the experts and the social workers in their pockets for money and votes.
These people all belong in jail.
And to you anon, if you care so much you support all the kids ameriskanks push out.
If you and your fellow americans want to push promiscuity in young women then have the PTB pay for you to buy their vote….
I advise young men here to not even go near women, and this article shows why.
This form of justice, preponderance of evidence with no due process started with the Mondale act for children, then morphed into family court procedure and now has been extended to the “forever adolecent” women of the academy.
Where will it stop? If you read the entire article it’s clear. If your not “broken” in spirit by the system they see you as a threat.
Starve this monster, go your own way.
But if you intend to do a one night stand, there is no need to share all your personal info like name, address and phone……there are alot of crazy women out there….protect yourself..
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
52 
1
It’s interesting to note that the public radio station in Seattle has a fairly new sponsor; divorcelaywersformen.com.
Awareness of the need for self-defense may be coming out of the closet.
Either you spend your money on these guys — or your ex spends your money.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
0
“where do we draw the line where personal responsibility is concerned?”
The man is a henchman of the cruel elite. So what that others wrote the laws that are unjust? Without the support of people like him the rulers could not condemn the innocent. ‘I’m simply trying to earn a living and pay my bills’ is not an excuse to participate in an immoral and unethical governance when the laws hurt and oppress innocent people. He could have walked away. Somewhere before I read the attempted excuse that ‘I was just following orders’.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
3
How about a public debate on what does or does not constitute domestic violence rather than a bunch of paid off flunkies like Bartholemew fellow who will lie for whish ever side pays him more as is evidenced by his lying in the article…..because, either he lied in his report or the article because he contradicts himself.
These people need to be investigated and prosecuted under the RICO statuates that punishes these complex conspiratorial criminal enterprises.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
2
Note to self:
Boycott Marriage
Boycott Marriage
Boycott Marriage
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
57 
3
From the article you link:
This paper goes through this in detail: Domestic Abuse Assessment in Child Custody Disputes: Beware the Domestic Violence Research Paradigm
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Flab.drdondutton.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F02%2FDUTTON-2006-DOMESTIC-ABUSE-ASSESSMENT-IN-CHILD-CUSTODY-DISPUTES.pdf&ei=sDHtTqGCL6WssQKJ4_mxCQ&usg=AFQjCNGvI5iGxmnqdB7oLJLUqhQZGaTl1A
Like or Dislike:
14 
0
@ Dalrock
Excellent article. The last thing family court is about is the safety of children, it’s about getting dad out of the picture ASAP so mom can find a new dad for them…..she’s not getting any younger.
But of course the romance is paid for by the old dad and it is imperative that the old dad is hated by the children……as even some posters here seem to think is fair and correct.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
13 
40
Wow, that psych assessment reads like total BS.
Screw this Bartholemew guy.
He should make it onto a register-him.com site where white knighting profiteers get listed. Let no man who gives a fuck about the future sell him any goods or services, or offer any help to this bugger. Let him be outcaste. Certainly until he resigns and recants.
Non serviam!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
1
@ Anon
Have you children ripped away and then tell me about personal responsiblity.
Do you know what the best predictor of men paying the mom her ransom so you get to see your kids is?
That’s right….how much a guy see’s their kids.
Do you know what women want more than money? Control.
So go pedal your “man up” bullshit elsewhere, as far as I’m concerned.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
42 
3
Without having the full scope and understanding of DV automatically disqualifies those counselling “experts” including those displaying “anti-male bias” from being state assigned to “consult” the court as an “expert witness”.
Bartholomew is not an ‘expert’ when ‘consulting’ the court as a ‘witness’ when he was not present during an alleged domestic incident and while explaining family violence within the context of a fatally flawed feminist model which clearly demonstrates an ‘anti-male bias’. Presumption of guilt may be standard procedure for dictators but even they get what they practice in due time.
An “expert” on family violence would have knowledge of the already-for-decades known preponderance of female-on-male violence. Bartholomew and those within the intellectual company he keeps are experts only to those who do not know otherwise. With our presence, those who don’t know soon will.
A charlatan keeps company with his or her equals as bottom feeders. The State, however, openly aligns itself with such types while agreeing with said feeding practices by using the fruit of the public’s combined labour to incur more harm upon the hand that feeds them all. All clearly have to be shown the door out.
IMO, the newspaper which ran the story of Richard and his ‘keepers’ did so full well knowing of the raw deals men commonly receive and speak about from ‘family’ courts and the popularity for its deserved exposure. (IMO) In no small count has men’s issue blogs and sites contributed to making it safer for the paper to go public with such stories. People know injustice when they see it.
The same will be true for when more men commence to utilize what is available to replace the current feminist led malaise that passes for government. Jail time for willing fraudulence would only be a fitting start.
Like or Dislike:
13 
0
Not so OT: I would love to read an article about the whole “going ghost” concept. MGTOW I think I have figured out (we just check out of the “get married, have kids, buy a house and then get FUCKED in divorce court” paradigm).
But ghosting I’m a little shaky on.
Anyway, great article!
Like or Dislike:
11 
0
I repost from an earlier thread :
This essay from divorce industry guru “Jeff Landers” is notable not for his words but the blowback from commentators :
Alimony Reforms Continue to Create More Uncertainty for Divorcing Women
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2012/01/18/alimony-reforms-continue-to-create-more-uncertainty-for-divorcing-women
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
9 
30
Richard’s personality and background were also suspect, according to Bartholomew. For one thing, he was successful. “The downside of success, and he’s been very successful, is that we tend not to learn compassion, empathy, or insight.” Richard, he wrote, “has never experienced tragedy.”
And if Richard was unsuccessful? What would be the assessment then?
Many successful people have made sacrifices and put in a lot of hard work to get where they are. Wait a minute he’s a white male, obviously he won his success using violence or had it handed to him on a plate. The mind boggles.
And…..
Richard suffered from a “Puer complex,” the condition of being an “eternal boy,” in Bartholomew’s estimation. The engineer was unable to describe his son in an “I-Thou manner,” an apparent reference to philosopher Martin Buber’s description of seeing other people as possessing distinct wants and needs.
This describes many western females.
Bart gets paid to write this crap?
Sociopath comes to mind.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
1
@ universe
Well said, I wish you were correct but I don’t think so. Isn’t this feminism using it’s muscle to thwart the legislative changes that favor shared custody in Washingto state?
They tried it in LA first. About 8-9 years ago a bunch of feminists from the local NOW chapter pulled family court cases and published in the LA Times that the family court judges were letting men guilty of domestic violence have custody…..what evidence…….the ex wifes allegation alone.
The LA judges didn’t take the bait, the judges here have alot of experience with unscrupulous ex-wives.
No, change will only come with an out cry by the public…..someone needs to make noise and, I say, let’s atart right here.
But what about the children? What about a generation of children bastardized, taught that their father is no good? How will that affect them? How about the boys and the next generation? And how about the actual conditions this power grab by women and destruction of men leaves children in with two broke and broken parents.
A generation of children is being taught that you can manipulate relationships in a court room….how about that?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
1
“The problem with Bartholomew seems to be that Institutionalised Misandry has affected him, which I find to be rife within law enforcement agencies, Female Counsel etc.”
It’s also possible he’s a sociopath Opus.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
1
Opus, what you wrote about this turd Bartholemew is very, very close to “He was just following orders”, you know. History teaches me that such an excuse may work in the short run, but in the long run … not so much.
During the Texas revolt from Mexico, the Mexican army killed men who had surrendered at Goliad, and every single man within the Alamo. The Mexican Army then was sent on what we would now call a mission of “ethnic cleansing”, burning out every Anglo settlement or homestead that could be found. On April 21, 1836, at the battle of San Jacinto, as the Texans surprise attack charged into the Mexican army encampment they bellowed “Remember the Alamo! Remember Goliad!”. They carved a bloody path through the scattered Mexican soldiers, who had no chance to form ranks and fight as they had been trained. As the individual fights raged on, some soldiers dropped their arms and ran. Others fell to the ground, begging for mercy, screaming “Me no Alamo!” and “Me no Goliad!”.
It made no difference, no difference at all. Anyone wearing the uniform of the Army of Mexico was a target that day of the full, anger fueled fury of the Texans, whether they were at the Alamo or Goliad or not. It was far too late for that excuse to work.
Bartholemew is trying to say “Me no Alamo! Me no Goliad”. Guess what? It doesn’t matter. He chose a side, he’s benefited from that side. He is the enemy. Period. If he goes to prison, that won’t bother me one bit – there is no doubt in my mind he’s done his part to send innocent fathers to various forms of prison.
I’m not suggesting violence in any way. But the anti-family court system has been openly attacking fathers for over a generation. No one associated with that system should expect any man to trust them “just because”, or give them any benefit of the doubt at all.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
49 
3
“A generation of children is being taught that you can manipulate relationships in a court room….how about that?”
Boys will learn to boycott marriage, not become a father, ghost, and distrust the courts. Girls will learn to trust the courts as their allies (though courts may change in the future), some girls will be bitter knowing their dads were screwed over and hurt badly, etc. An MRA once wrote that adult women are quickly using up the last reserves of the mostly good credit that women once had with men prior to feminism. The younger girls and women will be the ones paying the price of misandry with men who do not want a relationships and who are often feminized metrosexuals.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
2
OT
While men wonder why fatherhood has been revoked by our society and why half of us, men, were never told, and certainly never told that blocking blows from a female was DV or being successful was DV our sisters are making sure that the term “Cougar”is reseved for them.
I suppose they want to keep their cred with the H.S. boys, Ameriskanks favorites by making a big noise because the school voted to name their team “Cougars”.
Well, of course the city caved to the feminsts.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/19/school-scraps-cougars-as-mascot-after-complaints-of-it-being-derogatory/?hpt=us_t2
99% of people who voted in the CNN poll on this thought it was wrong….that’s how out of touch our SCUM feminists are.
Like or Dislike:
13 
2
‘He is doing his job, badly perhaps, with anti-male prejudice, quite possibly but it is his living, and probably the only one he has. ‘
That’s unacceptable.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
4
This POS evaluator thinks success makes you less emapthetic huh? Well, that’s the bull their trying and succeeding in selling women.
Based on that, this American Idol candidate who is 23 and lives with her boyfriend in the woods in a tent has found the perfect man.
Check out the embedded video to see what I mean.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/01/19/american-idol-tent-girl-amy-brumfield-has-boozy-criminal-past/?intcmp=features
That’s why I say, women want a small place to live and no control over their behavior……marriage is a fools errend.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
Fifteen years ago, I too went through a divorce in King County, Washington State (and so have a couple dozen of my friends), so I am well aware of the anti-male bias shown by Family Court and the entire corrupt system.
Based upon the outcomes I’ve witnessed (nearly 100% of the fathers were served bogus restraining orders as part and parcel of the divorce), I submit that this story only shows the tip of the iceberg. It is really much worse than the article illustrates. These men had some money to fight, most of us don’t and are simply “run over” by the court commissioners and the opposing lawyers because we can’t afford legal council.
The hearings before the commissioners are a joke – as the article states, you are each allowed five minutes and there is absolutely NO real attempt to find out which parent might be best, just a rubber stamp in the female’s favor.
The standard “State Approved” visitation schedule for Washington is every other weekend and a dinner visit on Wednesdays, amounting to four days a month and perhaps a few hours on the Wednesday nights. And this, assuming the mother doesn’t practice gate keeping.
The judge in my case said “I don’t know any judge who would grant custody of a small child to the father.” even though I had been more of the primary parent than my ex-wife (who had BPD).
Do not get married, do not have kids. It is just too hard to have them taken away from you and be forced into twenty years of servitude to your ex-wife…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
46 
1
Counselor Doug Bartholomew knows which side his bread is buttered on. His feminist overseers and their political operatives EXPECT him to be biased against the male half. If he were to even hint at favoring men in his “analysis”, he’d be out of a job.
He’s a cog in a large wheel that depends on “male violence” for their funding. It’s the business of characterizing men as villians. Besides his sister-in-law or a “close associate” probably teaches the “DV Dads” class. Men who exhibit anger or frustration are “statistically” the new domestic violence perpetrators. The machine must be fed.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
8
33% of women admitted in a survey that if they wanted a child and their lover or husband did not, they would consider secretly sabotaging the birth control. Note to self:
Get a vasectomy.
Get a vasectomy.
Get a vasectomy.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
2
@keyster: “Counselor Doug Bartholomew knows which side his bread is buttered on.”
FWIW- so do most private family/marriage counselors. The presumption is that the woman is dragging the man into couple’s counseling and the first several sessions are typically the counselor joining with the woman to kick the stuffing out of the man. Any hint of protest on his part will be met with accusations that he’s not committed to changing/improving, etc. (i.e., shaming language). After several sessions, the man often starts to sense that the system is rigged, particularly if he’s done all the assigned homework and made all the concessions and changes, as per her demands, and nothing has gotten better for him. It’s typical that, when he brings this up and asks when his wife will be asked to change any of her behaviors or comments that his concessions and changes haven’t made a fart’s worth of difference in their relationship (other than to embolden the woman to keep cranking up her demands), the woman storms off and the counselor’s income stream ceases.
There are some marriage counselors that will be balanced and challenge the woman as much as the man, but they’re rare as hen’s teeth. I doubt the industry /racket is sufficiently honest with itself to address this issue or to see which approach is most effective. Maybe it is. I’d love to stand corrected on this. Many counselors will admit that marriage counseling is often a massive waste of time and money, just an expensive stepping stone on the path to dissolution. That’s not difficult to understand if most women choose the former type of counselor to vindicate themselves, rather than the second type to resolve reciprocal issues for improving their marriage.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
1
>>Changing attitudes, and court rulings, led to the notion that you can’t leave one party in poverty after a divorce and another in wealth.
I am not sure where that quote on my text editor came from, but I am posting it here. What you can do is leave the dearies in poverty and yourself in wealth BEFORE marriage.
>>But ghosting I’m a little shaky on.
It means finding a hole to live in, and pulling the top down. Figuratively speaking.
It means establishing a life style which minimizes your contact with women, even society, to the maximum possible.
If you must work, as most must, you try to find a job with men to the degree possible. You go to work; you speak to women only if absolutely necessary; you go home and stay there at night. You! Do! Not! Ever! invite women into your home. You do not spend money on women. You do not give your genetic materials to any woman.
On DGM-2 was a man who actually worked as an attorney. After work he went home to his small acreage, and took care of his animals and plants. He enjoyed his life alone with his animals and plants. That is ghosting.
On my board, I call it inpatting, to distinguish from expatting.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
2
Never let a marriage counsellor or anyone else interfere in your marriage, particularly a woman. They have no authority. Nosy bitches should be shown the door. I have done this myself.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
6
And Opus, I can understand yours. A good friend of mine is a defense/family law attorney (the two often go hand in hand over here), and I don’t hold it against him that he does what he does. Far be it from me to impugn an attorney for doing his/her job in our adversarial legal system.
However, if the two of you had a talk, I think you might find that American attorneys hold social workers (like Bartholomew) every bit as responsible as judges. There is nothing quite so frustrating, according to what I’ve heard, as having your best efforts frustrated by some mediocrity with an MSS. They work for the judges, in fact. It’s how the court commissioners wash their hands of the blood they spatter around with their hatchet jobs.
I think this is why you’ll find even female lawyers complaining about it over here — they want to win too, and half their potential client base is male. Read between the lines in the article. This is really about female attorneys pissed off that their efforts are stymied by their competition with this gender equality sham.
@Opus,
Bullshit. You could care less about perspective. That was a low blow to William — no pun intended whatsoever. If you are going to criticize a piece written by this site’s host then focus on objectively criticizing issues, facts, and ideas. You attempted to use feminist type shaming tactics, intimidation, and psycho-babble to discredit William’s reasoning essentially stating that he isn’t being objective and fair because of his anger and pain.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
3
MSNBC makes it official:
Study: Women more at risk of mental illness than men
http://health.newsvine.com/_news/2012/01/19/10190853-study-women-more-at-risk-of-mental-illness-than-men#comments
Maybe this is a prelude to some women’s group wanting more tax payer money given to them.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
Something you guys should check out:
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/we-need-a-strong-constitution-to-tackle-racism/
The article is trying (and failing, but still) to drum up support for changing the constitution of Australia to
“prohibit racial discrimination, but allow positive discrimination ‘for the purpose of overcoming disadvantage, ameliorating the effects of past discrimination or protecting the cultures, languages or heritage of any group’”
Now it might just be me, but doesn’t that sound an awful lot like a feminist policy trying to worm its way into our constitution on the back of a change supposed to help out aborigines?
overcoming disadvantage – women have been disadvantaged FOR EVER (just ask them)
meliorating the effects of past discrimination – women have been discriminated against FOR EVER! (just ask them)
This could be a huge step backwards for us.
(mods, feel free to remove if this doesn’t belong here. I thought people should know)
Like or Dislike:
13 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0 
21
@Steve_85, it’s not feminist policy, but the usual socialist crap that these people come out with.
If you listen to aboriginal activists (Robbie Thorpe springs to mind), they sound just like the feminists who sound just like the unionists who sound just like [name your minority group du jour].
We have more racial discrimination legislation than you can poke a stick at with the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act in Vic, and the Racial Discrimination Act.
Trust me, we don’t need more.
It’s just a tool for the statists to use against the most productive class of the population, which happens to be men, and the feminists will be happy to co-opt it if it does get pushed through.
Of course, with the Red Dalek sitting on the throne, anything is possible, and as our economy tightens up there will be more of a push for women to find ways to get money from men.
I work in an almost exclusively male workplace, and late last year we had to let some of the blokes go. Some of our competitors have also cut back on their own people, as have our clients.
In an effort to look after our workers, hours have been cut back and we’ve had to re-arrange rosters which has meant a few men have lost money. At least one had to find himself a second job so he can make his mortgage payments, and another has just had to suck it up because the work is drying up.
Crap like this push for a new Constitution is just the surface of what’s going on.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
Bartholomew is simply a state enabled spiv; vermin to be eradicated if justice is to be had for men and their families.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
Hi Steve_85,
I thought of this too and posted a comment exactly to that effect on the article – that adding a constitutional clause for positive discrimination in favour of Aboriginals would create a precedent for any other group who see themselves as disadvantaged (ie. women) to get their very own clause in the constitution.
It was up for a couple of hours before it was suddenly deleted…
I’m not a fan of Tory Shepherd right now I can tell you.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
This is a site with many of Doug Bartholew’s evils posted on. Just search it. Wadvpress.org
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
Indeed. That was the best $158 I ever spent… way back in 1989.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
“From some of the comments here one sometimes gets the impression that ‘The Wild West’ never really died – ‘Give him a fair trial and then a good hanging’ stuff.”
In considering how the male sex is now treated by the police and courts in modern England, when falsely accused of rape or domestic violence, one sometimes gets the impression that England has done away with trials.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
“Indeed. That was the best $158 I ever spent… way back in 1989″.
Lyn87,
Good for you. There are probably large numbers of men who hold back on the operation for mostly unfounded emotional reasons when it is a relatively simple, fast, inexpensive, and life preserving action to take in more ways than one. Other men should take note of your example.
Even if the operation today is a couple thousand dollars or more, what is that in comparison to being financially enslaved to some bitch with 33% of your income going to her for 18 long years?
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
This Bartholomew guy is right out of a Solzhenytsin, Kundera or Havel book.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
OT: political correctness and over-sensitivity to women run amok.
Utah high school decided not to use the ‘Cougar’ as its mascot partially because it might offend middle-aged women. School claims many parents and patrons called in not to use name. I think it’s so stupid that I’m not posting a link to the whole story.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
“On my board, I call it inpatting, to distinguish from expatting.”
It’s a difficult and lonely path to take, because a man wants to be needed and loved…and show love in return. But you have to be realistic too; that it’s more often than not, with few exceptions, going to end up as an untenable situation fraught with betrayal and grief. And the kinds of sacrifice that go way beyond simple compromise.
It’s filling that hole with something other than just yourself; that’s the challenge. I don’t know that tending to animals and a garden on some acreage is enough, but then what other choice is there?
Like or Dislike:
8 
8
the world would be better off without lawyers, psychologist and others who use words to earn a living
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Would love to see a few more cases come out of the woodwork and a move to get Daly disbarred. Small victory but worth fighting.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Rocco (in italics)
My apologies to you for the late reply. All my replies are opinion.
“Isn’t this feminism using it’s muscle to thwart the legislative changes that favor shared custody in Washingto state?”
– Yes, feminism definately has infected every county, state, province in the Western nations with their groundless maligning. Mostly because they have organized and have entered the process.
“No, change will only come with an out cry by the public…..someone needs to make noise and, I say, let’s atart right here.”
– Yes yes, and I believe that’s why most of us are writing here and at other men’s sites. All this purposeful chatter is being noticed. Purposeful in that in the least something has to start somewhere sometime.
Every irrefutable fact displayed contributes to a silent motion of assurance. When the common man’s narrative is agreed enough upon to be solidified individuals who are so inclined to do so start entering what’s left of the process, interject the soundly based man’s perspective and deal with the results. But more than 12 people are required for this.
One reason why feminist non-sense continues unabated is the result of not enough people opposing their presense where it counts. Even though these whores have made it such that they receive public money to lobby on behalf of themselves with weak data and more money for themselves they can still be easily defeated. That will happen soon when more interested men start entering the inclusive meetings, the boardrooms, the legislative halls, the public perception…the process.
“But what about the children? What about a generation of children bastardized, taught that their father is no good? How will that affect them? How about the boys and the next generation? And how about the actual conditions this power grab by women and destruction of men leaves children in with two broke and broken parents.
A generation of children is being taught that you can manipulate relationships in a court room….how about that?”
– The children will learn by watching us work setting the record straight. Expose feminism, their works (those behind the scenes supporting them) and that will occur either through us alive in the here and now and others inspired by what we do.
Huge amounts of money are not required to become part of the social landscape. Showing up informed and ready, and in larger numbers, is. I’m confident that it will happen (one just needs to observe the varying talent on display in men’s sites). [I count myself fortunate for being among it all].
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
@ universe
While hoping not to sound I’m exaggerating things but the MRM owes you and your early pioneering MRA’s who helped to deliniate the problems we are facing and pointing the MRM in the proper direction.
I think you see the strides we have made in a few short years.
You and other early MRA inspired the current generation, thanks.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
similar has happened to me and others that I know. Thank you for having the courage to bring this to the public. The culture needs to be changed immediately.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Rocco, I am and was a small bit player in it all while recognizing the important works of others. And there is a lot of talent emerging today as more guys have spoken out and are, better still, joining the ranks, as it were.
And yes, there have been some longer strides made evident in the mrm as of late. It shows through the web traffic to mens’ sites either as readers or contributors. And I’m inspired as well by the many good writers found on here, thanks be to you as well, and other places.
I pale vastly to the efforts of the earlier MRAs from yesterday and the many of today. My earlier influences were from Rich Doyle’s Men’s Defense Association and many within the NCFM. Today with the net, or webs, there’s so much more to read and consider. A veritable intellectual smorgasborg for the young men in their teens to their 40′s. Good writing/reading is found in AVfM, The No-Nonsense Man’s Marc Rudov, here in the SH with Anon@69, Keyster, Zed, EW, W.F., and a whole lot of newer guys too numerous to mention as well. All with their own window on the world and each one valuable to the whole. It’s getting done Rocco and it’s great to see.
As for my doings, they were limited and done regionally with relatively minor outcomes. I don’t wish to make a great deal over what I wanted to do anyway at a time when nothing really prevented me from making some ripples. I just happened to come around regionally during a time when anything related to men’s concerns was an anomoly and novel. I wish I could have done better and more. The world was waiting for such a presence then as it still does for us here today.
Cheers, Rocco.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Aharon: “33% of women admitted in a survey that if they wanted a child and their lover or husband did not, they would consider secretly sabotaging the birth control. ”
Its worse in the UK. In a survey of 6000 UK women 42% ADMITTED they would lie about being on the pill if they wanted a child and their partner did not. I suspect the true figure is even higher.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
And the west is doing so well siphoning off mens hard earned money and then improsoning us that they have excess to send to Africa in the name of “helping the children”. In the article they admit the money is there, it’s just that, had the press been more “sensitive to their cause” or published on their schedule, less children would have suffered, which is a good thing.
But look at this from a statement from UNICEF:
“UNICEF has been working in Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia for decades, providing children and women with life-saving supplies and, as the world’s leading children’s charity, we have always stressed that early warnings need to be followed by early action. Our response in East Africa began as far back as November 2010 and we were saving lives well before the world took interest.”
Notice how aid is not given to families but to women (who we assume don’t waste it on drugs, alcohol, entertaining her male friends).
Eroding the third world from the first world….it’s a plan.
Plus start to factor in the women that would “get lucky” on ladies night out if you told her you didn’t want a kid…..I think 20% of children in intact families are born that way.
And they say men are the less sensitive sex.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
Sorry, link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/david-bull/african-food-crisis-media-coverage_b_1219163.html?ref=uk
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
This “I-thou manner” left me totally puzzled. But I think I figured it out.
What I think happened is Richard, talking about his son, said something like “We went to the zoo, and then we did yadda yadda whatever”. And that innocuous word “we” fitted into Bartholomew’s crazy “I-thou manner” theory, and bingo, Richard’s guilty of some sort of psychological sin.
I can imagine what came next. Probably this Bartholomew confronts him about this sin, and of course Richard can’t make head or tail of it, because really, it’s crazy talk. Trying to explain himself and the innocuous thing that he meant, Richard’s saying “we” again. And so Bartholomew diagnoses him as an incorrigable repeat offender, “unable to see other people as possessing distinct wants and needs”.
That’s my guess.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
And if calling yourself and your child “we” is wrong, the average woman has a lot to answer for before we ever look at men.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
Well — here is something that cheers me up when I look at the decline of the family in this cuntry:
Sharia law according to the BBC (there are variations among the 4 main schools of law)
Under sharia law:
The testimony of a woman in court only has half the weight of a man’s;
A man may unilaterally divorce his wife and may only need to ‘declare’ the divorce three times in private to do so. By contrast, a woman faces more stringent conditions, perhaps including permission from her husband, payment of money and an application to a Sharia ‘court’. Moreover, a divorced man is entitled to re-marry. A divorced woman is not;
Regarding inheritance law, men and boys are entitled to receive twice what women and girls receive;
In cases of rape, four male witnesses are required by a sharia court to substantiate a woman’s complaint;
No female evidence is admissible in the case of rape in a sharia court;
Upon divorce, custody of any children passes automatically to the man once the children have attained the age of seven and the mother has no rights of access; and
All jurists, court officials and judges must be muslims; non-muslims are not allowed to take part in any way, shape or form, and no woman may become a judge.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
@ Attila
Ever notice how Sharia is the opposite of “feminist justice”
I don’t think this is an accident.
Western feminist justice is simply reverse Sharia.
Who then, is the friend of men?
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
quote: “Its hard to understand how it could not be common knowledge”
Nope, not hard to understand at all when, for the last 40 years, most men have paid attention to little else than watching other (grown men) play “games”.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
The taxpayer funded domestic violence industry is a misandrist hate movement as shown in “Witch-Hunting Males,” and “Los Misandry” at Youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/user/ManAmongOaks#p/a/u/0/B-SC0a1_Vjs
and
http://www.youtube.com/user/ManAmongOaks#p/u/4/SAmOxvudpF8
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Quit whining guys, and attack the system in the courts, and by sending them direct letters quoting laws, and show the corrupt bastards just who corrupt they are, and that we know how corrupt they are, and how we are going to charge them with “obstruction of justice” and “contempt of court” for not following their own laws of the land, and by following politically motivated policies that favour feminists. It is time we studied the charter, criminal code, CFS legislation, etc, and start beating them at their own game..I have found, these spineless and incompetent politicians, bureaucrats, court officials, run for cover when someone actually starts quoting the law to them, and showthem just how corrupt they are, and that we are aware of it..time for direct action like this instead of beating your heads against the wall on blogs..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
{ 2 trackbacks }