Divorce and Separation Harm Reduction

by W.F. Price on October 30, 2012

There’s been a rash of domestic killings in my region recently, mainly of the murder-suicide variety, most involving obviously ineffective restraining orders. People still seem to hope that restraining orders can actually prevent these sorts of things rather than exacerbate them, but I don’t think it’s because they are being deliberately obtuse in most cases. Actually, I’m pretty sure it’s because people don’t realize that there are other options.

Restraining orders, which are handed out like halloween candy, are de riguer in contentious divorces, and there’s some evidence that they may contribute to homicide. However, we should take care to point out that it isn’t only restraining orders that contribute to rage, despair and homicidal/suicidal ideation, but rather the entire package.

When young or otherwise naïve men go through a contentious divorce or separation, they usually are not prepared for the lowering of the boom that accompanies these things. On paper, a man can go from middle-class respectable citizen to destitute criminal suspect very rapidly after being served papers. The shock is very, very severe for those unprepared for it. Adding to this, of course, is the fact that most of these men actually love their wives/partners. The sense of betrayal is profound. It’s the kind of blow people might reasonably expect never to recover from, and can result in an overwhelming feeling of hopelessness.

This feeling of hopelessness and desperation can be very dangerous. Men who have nothing to look forward to – who can see no light at the end of the tunnel – are far more likely to kill. In most cases they merely kill themselves and we hear nothing of it unless they commit suicide by cop. However, in a small minority of cases they kill those they feel betrayed them.

How can we prevent this while still allowing separation? First, I think there needs to be some restraint on the part of courts and attorneys when it comes to both financial and custodial issues. If you hit guys with loss of loved ones, throw them out of their houses, and immediately set the customary level of child support/alimony all in one fell blow, a lot of them are going to crack. It takes time for men to get used to the new situation, and depriving them of their entire support system and the ability to feed themselves doesn’t hurry that process along.

Perhaps one measure that might be helpful would be to delay any support orders for some time after an initial separation decree. Perhaps a few months, so the man can pick himself back up and start to get to work on a new life. If a man is to be removed from his house and children against his will, it should not be accompanied at the same time by financial ruin. It may seem like a small step, but it could save lives and make the situation less destructive in the long run.

So, I’d propose that one part of family law reform should be preventing courts from levying any financial obligations on spouses who are removed from their houses for a period of some 90 days, unless they filed for divorce themselves. This could not only prevent violence, but might also lead to a decline in the number of frivolous divorces. It would provide an important cooling off period, and allow a man to seek representation and defend himself from spurious accusations that often accompany the initial filings. It might also increase the number of collaborative divorces, as spouses would have some motivation to come to a financial settlement by themselves. Although I’m sure feminists would object to such a rule, it would still allow for restraining orders, so their objections would be entirely about money, and wouldn’t carry as much weight.

Much more could be done along these lines, but we have to start somewhere, and this would be a good first step.

{ 43 comments… read them below or add one }

bruno October 30, 2012 at 15:12

Change regulation about restraining orders, yeah, that’s a good start.

But all of family law is one big conspiracy against men.

All of family law is specially designed to force the money out of men’s pocket’s, into women’s pockets.

From marriage, divorce, alimony, parenthood, cohabitation, domestic violence, sexual harrassment, to all about procreation, abortion, child support, etc,….
All laws are especially designed to hurt and destroy the man, just because he’s a man.

And then i’m not even mentioning social security en retirement, which is also a total rip off of men.
Guess who’s always profiteering?
Women.
And who’s always paying the bill?
Men.

And then there’s the whole of criminal law, where only bad things that men do are punished, while all the vicious things women do go unpunished.

The list of dicriminations against men is just endless.
There is no equality before the law for men and women at all, and they are even proud about it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Steve October 30, 2012 at 15:15

I think the divorce industry tries to provoke fathers so they can generate the most billable hours from the resulting conflict, all the while telling themselves it’s for the children.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
keyster October 30, 2012 at 15:52

The laws will only get worse if anything.
Anytime you get Republicans and Democrats to vehemently agree on legislation, such as for the protection of women and children – there will be anti-male bias and violation of the Equal Protection clause.

What needs to happen is that before a man is issued an RO or support decree, he should have counseling/support services made available to him. Women have access to all manner of support systems, while men are left alone to stew with rage. The state or county should assess his vulnerability before cops or a server knocks at his door. Right now a woman goes to the court house and within minutes she has RO in hand. It’s then used as a weapon by nefarious women to threaten the man IF he gives her a bad time in court or about seeing the kids.

A recent aquaintance of mine is currently on 3 years probation for misdemeanor DV because he dialed her cellphone by accident, hung up before she answered, and then she called 911 and had him taken to jail. He’s having difficulty finding work because of this – and behind on CS payments. Ironically he could pay a $2500 fine and have the charge expunged, but he can’t get a job because of the charge os he has no money.

A man in utter despair, with nothing left to lose, is the most dangerous animal on the planet.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
greyghost October 30, 2012 at 15:57

Keyster
What murder suicides are made of. He and she are alive because he thought he lived under the rule of law he was taught as a child in school. Thomas Ball thought the same thing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer October 30, 2012 at 16:20

Well written and a reasonable suggestion for improving a bad situation.

What again was the reason you can’t your essays linked in google news and other venues? Atlantic always gets their gender puff pieces a lot of traffic through those sites.

Speaking of Google News, I just found this beauty (it”s an old link though) :

The Gap Between Rich and Poor Widens

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-11/the-gap-between-rich-and-poor-widens

elmer inquires :

The black\white face is a horrifying graphic, everything Edward Tufte railed against. How with the graphic software we have in 2012 can you produce such an abomination? Or were you trying for a retro “70s” piece of chart junk? If so you could have at least put an “Afro” on the black dude and maybe a “porn star” moustache on the white guy. Can someone splain it to me? Does the white guy’s apparent smaller cranial volume correspond somehow to lower unemployment rate? And the faces are not evenly divided. I feel nauseous.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
"The One" October 30, 2012 at 16:34

Republican Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin was just bragging about how he’s cracking down on domestic violence, and how it’s a non-partisan issue.

On the other hand, Mitt Romney had the audacity not to kowtow to the pay gap myth, which actually surprised me.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think a series of incremental steps sounds very achievable. A married father should have full custody by default. Also, there should be no presumed transference of wealth in the event of a divorce.

Working for such an insignificant step as a 90 day delay before robbing the ex-husband and father, just for the purpose of harm reduction would be misdirecting resources.

That’s like asking a mugger to please permit you to keep your pocket change so you can afford a bus fare. This is war, not a friendly debate over tea and scones.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price October 30, 2012 at 16:51

What again was the reason you can’t your essays linked in google news and other venues? Atlantic always gets their gender puff pieces a lot of traffic through those sites.

-Elmer

You know, I’ve never looked into it. However, I’m just one man, and not exactly in the position to assemble a pressure group to make the kinds of demands necessary for that. As far as I see it, I’m lucky if I can get a few thousand people to read what I write every day and keep my head above water. If there’s anything I value, it’s being able to speak openly and honestly, and I actually see it as a win when I can do so without being violently shut down by thought control thugs. Sad what we’ve sunk to here in the USA.

Wilson October 30, 2012 at 17:03

Your proposal doesn’t benefit women enough. What will probably happen, and I believe such proposals are already in motion, is to force men to wear GPS tracking cuffs if a woman petitions. If he gets within a mile of her or cuts it off her surrogate daddy/husband sends strong men to protect her. Women’s age-old problem of how to punish and control men while continuing to receive cash is thus solved. Better living through technology.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer October 30, 2012 at 17:39

I think you can approach them through this link :

http://support.google.com/news/publisher/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=40787

Based on what they typically link, keep it topical and have a catchy title, such as Will Romney be Our First MadMen President?, which explores women voters spurning Obama’s overtures of chocolates and flowers for Romney’s Alpha business persona, in effect, trading promises of lifetime government support (boring) for the high tingles of entrepreneurial risk taking (orgasms). Five minutes of alpha they say…

As for this essay retitle as : Helping Women by Softening Divorce’s Impact on Men

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Stallywood October 30, 2012 at 18:00

I have wondered about this type of violence for a while. But if you mention it and even hint that women and/ or the anti-male laws help bring about these crimes, no one wants to hear it. Your dismissed as a woman hater, just another man trying to shirk his responsibilities. How many screwed over men are out there and can’t wait to get revenge on a woman…any woman? I’ve known a few, but society wise, No one cares, and I would think that the prevailing wisdom of these idiots, is to crack down on men more. After all, we have the nerve to get upset when our lives are stolen, and then we are forced to pay for the privilege. So what you have, is some poor guy who is face with life on the streets, while his ex, is shacked up with his car, his kid, and living in what used to be their home. Society expects him to suck it up, and do the “right thing”. to hell with his whining. Anyways, I agree, the laws will get a lot worse, the crimes will get worse, and where it ends, I hope I am not around to see.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Stallywood October 30, 2012 at 18:12

The fact that I am just now reading about the tragic story of Thomas Ball, and what the court did to him, further proves to me, that this society does not give a shit about men. Nothing has changed, and for the grace of who ever, I could have been in his position.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
TheBiboSez October 30, 2012 at 18:18

A man in this situation SHOULD get a private ankle monitor and wire himself up with video/audio so that he can absolutely defend himself against false accusations of DV or whatever. Positive proof that his wife’s claims are fucking lies are a better revenge than physical violence.

Additionally, for the newly single PUA, Chateau Heartiste has lots of posts about “Criminal Game” – the ‘gina tingles hotties get from “dangerous” men – and showing off one’s ankle monitor has got to be a great tool to unlocking thongs. She doesn’t have to know you did it voluntarily, of course. Ankle monitors cost about $7-10 per day, but can save your life and get you laid.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
John David Galt October 30, 2012 at 18:40

We need a lot greater reform than that. Start by bringing back at least something approaching probable cause, by raising the standard for issuance of restraining orders from the mere assertion “I’m afraid of him” to an actual accusation of assault — with the full criminal penalty being applied to HER if he isn’t convicted. Then have the law recognize some politically incorrect facts, such as that there is such a thing as just cause for violence in the home, just as there is outside it.

In fact, we can do all of this in one fell swoop by repealing VAWA today. And get at least part of our constitutional form of government back.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
numnut October 30, 2012 at 18:52

Police officers are not served ex-parte RO’s.
They have a LEO “Bill of Rights” that allows them to keep the rights ordinary citizens used to have.
Namely, the right to a hearing of the evidence BEFORE a person’s civil rights are taken away.

In my area over half of the RO’s are thrown out on appeal/hearing.
Considering many inner city thugs are best served by avoiding the law,this means that the false accusation rate is far in excess of %50.
My guess is the false DV claims are around %75-%80.
The ‘justice’ system knows all this and cares not.
Their job is to MANUFACTURE criminals.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
GT66 October 30, 2012 at 19:02

None of this will change. The government’s thirst for power is unquenchable and women are the perfect vector for male enslavement. Hoping the government will back off and women will suddenly regain some sense of empathy are pipe dreams. The ONLY solution is publicizing the destruction and outing marriage as a contract with the devil and educating young men of the perils of this voluntary enslavement.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Lyn87 October 30, 2012 at 19:20

Wilson October 30, 2012 at 17:03

What will probably happen, and I believe such proposals are already in motion, is to force men to wear GPS tracking cuffs if a woman petitions. If he gets within a mile of her or cuts it off her surrogate daddy/husband sends strong men to protect her.

The piece I wrote a few days ago contained a link to a CNN program talking about that very thing. The CNN “journalist” and the Harvard Law “expert” discussed the idea of putting GPS monitors on men when they had Restraining Orders on them, so the cops would be automatically notified whenever he goes near certain locations (like his own house). Of course to be effective BOTH parties would have to wear them so that an alarm would go off if the two units were in close proximity, but they never even suggested that (as it would require something of the woman) – which proves that they are willing to accept a few more dead women as long as it generally tightens the screws on men.

Considering the ridiculous ease with which a woman can get some daffy judge to issue a Restraining Order against a man, this is positively Orwellian.

They push, penalize, and humiliate millions of men as much as they possibly can, then complain when a microscopic percentage of them snap, and then they pretend that it is a widespread problem. Not to worry, though: the occasional death of an estranged wife, girlfriend, or baby-momma keeps their narrative alive and in the news. Even corpses have uses – and if she’s pretty it’s even better.

As it becomes increasingly obvious that feminism is an unsustainable fantasy it will need more such “martyrs” to retain relevance, not fewer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Rebel October 30, 2012 at 19:28

Hetero males are the slaves of women. I’m sorry to say that the only men who are free in our society are the gay males.

I never thought I would hear myself say that.

Glad for the homosexuals but sad as hell for hetero males.

It’s no exaggeration to say that this society has been put upside down.

That’s why I will not have any regrets to see it go down..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Josh October 30, 2012 at 19:37

Women don’t even try to hide their greed anymore. They walk around, with their heads held high, as if destroying men is the most honorable thing in the world. They never really cared about you in the first place. You were always just a disposable putz to them; the only one who really cared was you. You were just a step in the ladder she used for status whoring and wealth accumulation purposes.

I have seen too many loving fathers and husbands left out in the cold, holding their dicks, while being mocked. They never saw it coming because they actually took their wedding vows seriously. The ex-wives, on the other hand, spend 24/7 trying to scheme their way to bigger and better deals. Meanwhile, men like me see all this going on, all this injustice.

Women and their white knight henchmen walk around with shit-eating grins on their faces, as if they actually accomplished something. Well, the only things they really accomplished were to destroy a lot of loving fathers/husbands, shortchange their male children of much needed father figures, and at the same time they have the audacity to carry on with their “independent” smoke and mirrors sideshow, as if men like me are too dumb to see through their bullshit.

The well has been poisoned, the crops destroyed, and the once prosperous soil has now become barren. Awesome job, whores.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
freebird October 30, 2012 at 21:21

The only way to reduce the risk is to not have anything to do with women.
This is why the gamers are preaching the wrong message.
Deny them sperm,wallet and company.
Protect yourself,no one is going to do it for you.
Do not allow a woman into your home for any reason at any time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rebel October 30, 2012 at 22:22

“The ONLY solution is publicizing the destruction and outing marriage as a contract with the devil and educating young men of the perils of this voluntary enslavement.”

GT66, you are absolutely right!

The ombilical cord must be cut off and thrown away.

But will men ever learn?

I doubt that very much.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Rebel October 30, 2012 at 22:38

“TheBiboSez
Ankle monitors cost about $7-10 per day, but can save your life and get you laid.”

Still want to get laid even if you think the woman you are “making love to” is intent on destroying you?

This is at the very heart of the problem. Men appear to me like the male preying manthis.
Still loving the creature whose only purpose in life is to exterminate you. This is hopeless.

Men will be slaves forever.

All resistance is futile. Surrender: your fate has been determined at the moment of conception. It’s genetic: no-way-out!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mask October 30, 2012 at 22:39
Anonnymouse October 30, 2012 at 23:38

Why, even Nazism could have been reformed if it only minimized the impacts of its aggressive wars and the atrocities of genocide. Same too with international communism which could also have been improved with moderation of its murderous policies.

Or no ?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Pugs Fugly October 31, 2012 at 02:20

I’d agree with your 90-day idea, except I’d say it should stand even if the husband files for divorce. When I left and filed, I voluntarily left my wife with 90% of our collective belongings (furniture, flat-screen, appliances, etc.) and took only the collectible/irreplacable things I originally moved in with some years prior.

I did this for several reasons. One, I didn’t want our home to be jarringly different for our children; I didn’t want my sudden absence to be any worse than it already would be for them because the TV or the washer/dryer were now missing. Two, I didn’t want my ex to be in any more of a position to play victim than she already would be. Say what she might, she can’t say “I left and took everything.” Three, she picked out most of that stuff anyway. I knew that if I were to start over, I’d be happier going about it from scratch.

I’d also opted to pay for the entire legal process, in an attempt to be nice and make things easier for her. She happily went along with this, meeting with my lawyer from time to time, having him essentially represent both of us, right up to the point where moving across the country to be with an old boyfriend suddenly became an option.

So for me, financially, those first few months were tough. I had the expense of renting and furnishing a new place for me and my daughter, legal expenses, and on top of it all, I was still insisting on covering whatever expenses I could for my ex, in an attempt to make things go smoothly. So I’d suggest that even if the male is the petitioner, a 90 or even 180 moratorium on child-support would benefit everyone in the long run.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
cooterbee October 31, 2012 at 06:40

The 90 day rule proposed rests on at least two flawed assumptions:

murder/suicide is a bad thing and

that anyone (in this case the courts) can interfere with a man’s private affairs for any reason.

Before I proceed with my points, I acknowledge of such the intent of such a rule is to reduce human suffering. Laudable but ineffectual. Trading murder/suicide for a two-step process to drive a man to suicide only helps the woman. Also, imposing such a rule implies that some men should follow it because it is a rule. Nobody — no cop, no judge, no president — should be afforded any legitimacy in interfering with a man’s family affairs. Conceding that to any degree is tantamount to self-imposed slavery.

At this point, loving fathers and devoted husbands are suited up and in the starting lineup of Team Vagina. In essence, a murder/suicide is a BOGO for our side. Why would we want to stop it? Assuming that married men are fully men (I don’t believe it but that’s another thread) how does it benefit us, in a war of attrition, to save the enemy but still destroy then man but this time, in two increments?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rebel October 31, 2012 at 08:16

The more there are men in jail the more tyey will provide free labor.
Follow the money if you wonder why men are persecuted.

When the majority of men will rot in jail, then it will be women’s turn.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
numnut October 31, 2012 at 08:26

Heading:
Domestic violence laws vs civil rights
A must read.

http://www.dvmen.org/dv-47.htm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 31, 2012 at 08:36

Considering the ridiculous ease with which a woman can get some daffy judge to issue a Restraining Order against a man, this is positively Orwellian.

“We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.”

They push, penalize, and humiliate millions of men as much as they possibly can, then complain when a microscopic percentage of them snap, and then they pretend that it is a widespread problem. Not to worry, though: the occasional death of an estranged wife, girlfriend, or baby-momma keeps their narrative alive and in the news. Even corpses have uses – and if she’s pretty it’s even better.

And, speaking of Orwell…

What if the harm caused to men by the current regime is not really a bug, but a feature? What if the “daffy judge” is crazy like a fox and counting on a steady stream of excuses coming into his courtroom for him sending business to his law-enforcement friends?

I have often wondered if winning the cold war has turned out to be to our benefit. It does seem that hostility, animosity, and bellicosity are just part of the human race and unless there is a common target for them, men seem to have a tendency to turn on each other.

What is one of the most bizarre aspects of the current situation is that while is often a woman who points at a man and says “sick him”, the wolf pack which goes after him is mostly or entirely male.

I wonder if this entire scenario would make more sense if it was viewed not as stupid men jumping to be white knights for women, but as a corrupt legal system using women as an excuse to burn and steal from other men – much like the “cash for kids” judge who used his legal power to sentence boys to juvenile prisons run by his cronies.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Rebel October 31, 2012 at 09:55

In times of war, a large number of men get killed. In times of peace, feminism will do the job, at a somewhat reduced pace.

Maybe with the eventuality of another major war, things will ease a bit: one must keep some cannon fodder alive for the slaughter.

It may all turn out to be some resource allocation of resources.

The same results could be obtained through positive selective abortion.

In a barnyard, there are always many more chickens than roosters: maybe the same thing is done to humans.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
walking in hell October 31, 2012 at 11:08

Great article Price. Very well written.

What needs to happen is that the forces that are driving men to these crazy acts need to be ceased.

In the old days, children were the mans property by default. It needs to be like this again. Women and their enablers have created an unnatural order, and the violence we see is one of the symptoms.

Judges, lawyers, and all the evildoers that torment men and children, and destroy families need to be brought to justice. America is a failed nation. One way to begin to build it again is to start by bringing the parasites that destroyed it to justice through normal criminal proceedings.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hans Laven October 31, 2012 at 13:06
JFinn October 31, 2012 at 18:13

Women murder their spouses at a similar rate, if not at a higher one. They are far better at covering it up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
3DShooter October 31, 2012 at 18:18

@Welmer

I agree that the incidents of violence that seem to be hitting the news lately are the direct result of a very anti father/male bias in the kangaroo family kourts, but I think the MRM should set it’s sight’s higher than a simple 90 day moratorium on picking dad’s wallet. Myself, I’d like to see an outright abolition of the practice of family law – period.

Abolition of family law is not impractical, as such matters would be reverted to civil law courts where all constitutional protections are (nominally) adhered to. The whole body of family law is fundamentally flawed, that is why it flies under the radar in relative secrecy. Don’t expect the parasites (lawyers, judges, social workers) to go along with it without a fight. Abolition must be the goal – and “it’s little dog” child $upport too!

Law and family (any interpersonal relationship) don’t mix.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JFinn October 31, 2012 at 18:19

Furthermore, the common cause of murder by a male spouse: she turned him into her slave. The common cause of murder by a female spouse: he wasn’t a good enough slave. Women use the term ‘abuse’ when you don’t break your back hard enough to produce what they feel they’re entitled for. Also women often summon men to commit their violence for them. They promote a lot of violence among men, where men do no such thing to women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
BigRed October 31, 2012 at 20:37

How about this? If a woman wants a TRO against her husband and alleges abuse to get it, require them to file criminal charges as well. With the caveat, of course, that if the charges are false, she gets prosecuted for perjury. That should cut down on the false accusation that seem to be regularly used to obtain TROs. Unless, of course, perjury prosecution is prohibited by VAWA or some such nonsense.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Avenger November 1, 2012 at 07:41

@zed

“And, speaking of Orwell… ”

http://orwelltoday.com/

You may find this interesting.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
numnut November 1, 2012 at 07:44

There are not going to be any changes in the law except to double down on the misandry,witness the “Letter to Colleagues” mandate to diminished standard of proof in the colleges.

There is only one way to both protect yourself and starve the beast:
To keep women out of your home and avoid interaction in public.
Anything else is “abuse.”
Don’t be abusive!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Avenger November 1, 2012 at 07:51

http://kdvr.com/2012/10/19/man-working-2-jobs-wins-30-5-million-after-getting-dumped-by-girlfriend/

:)

She’ll probably claim she bought the ticket or gave him the dollar to buy it. Or that they were engaged and she’s entitled to 1/2 haha

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Glenn November 1, 2012 at 13:49

Like the old joke goes, what if they held a war and nobody showed up? Men are simply unplugging from the matrix and refusing to marry.

For the monent, this results in a striation between disparate groups of women. Women that manage to hornswaggle a gullible man into mnarriage reap great rewards in the form of alimony and child support for children that are, 33% of the time, not even from the putative father.

The other group of women are the ones that fail to get in under the wire, and due to the rapidly evolving event horizon, are likely to accumulate multiple cats as opposed to ex-husbands. This group is by far outpacing the former. In the end it is a simple matter of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Females being what they are, do not expect an epiphany at any point in the future.

On a good note, I hear that Brazil is beautiful this time of year, with 7 ladies for each man in cities like Florianapolis. Do the math.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed November 1, 2012 at 15:49

@Avenger

“You may find this interesting.
http://orwelltoday.com/

I did – quite interesting – particularly this part –

Part of how Orwell emphasizes the horror of life under Big Brother is to contrast it with the warmth of normal human relationships. Winston longed for someone to communicate with and he found that with Julia. He likes the way she thinks and he actually does quote quite a bit of what she says.

For example, Winston was impressed with how Julia had grasped the inner meaning of the Party’s hatred of meaningful relationships and how they tried to prevent men and women from forming loyalties. The way Julia put it was: “When you make love you’re using up energy; and afterwards you feel happy and don’t give a damn for anything… if you’re happy inside yourself, why should you get excited about Big Brother and the Three-Year-Plans and the Two Minutes Hate and all the rest of their bloody rot?”.

She understood how the Party was trying to distort and dirty sexual attraction.

“Rape Culture”, anyone? Susan Brownmiller, anyone? “Sexual Politics”, anyone?

The two biggest dystopian novels as I was growing up – “1984″ and “Brave New World” – both had as significant parts of their plots the destruction of normal human mating relationships. In Brave New World, in one scene someone was trying to describe the reproduction process before artificial wombs – gestating children in jars – and used the word “viviparous.” The person using it was uncomfortable and the scene was described as “Sometimes it is difficult to discern the line between science and pure smut.”

The most fundamental attachment of the human race – the pair bond between mates – has been torn apart by feminism. To fill the emptiness, consumer culture has offered an endless array of addictions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Attila November 1, 2012 at 18:01

Would be a more beautiful world if most women simply had their mouths wired shut. One can dream after all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Tom Smith November 2, 2012 at 14:27

Mr. Price- you really should do some legal research before putting up such a post. At least one state that I know of- notably Iowa- does have the type of “waiting period” you discussed. I believe it is a 90 day cooling off period once a divorce is filed. Other states likely have similar waiting periods (Minnesota doesn’t).

What needs to be done is raise the bar for the granting of the “domestic abuse” restraining orders. If the court had to apply a civil injunction standard (as opposed to a preponderance of the evidence standard), then they would not be handed out like candy.

While some lawyers consider calling “domestic violence” (following a divorce filing) good advocacy, I disagree. It may be a temporary victory- but if the court calls bullshite to it- then you’re going to be in the weeds for a later custody battle.

What needs to be done is not just to revise the family laws. What really must be done is reform the domestic violence system- where any allegation (no matter how small) will get a woman a restraining order. But I doubt many in the MRM have the courage to say that publicly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader November 3, 2012 at 11:47

Welmer, there will be no such reform. It would benefit men, therefore no one cares. Instead there will be a doubling down on men, as others in this comment stream have stated. There will be more efforts made to control men, at all costs, to corner us and cage us. Because to the feminine imperative, we are totally expendable sperm-machines and nothing more. And the White Knight socon/tradcon gang agrees.

No change that would benefit men will be allowed. The feminist Dems and the White Knight Repubs will always agree on that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: