Latest Posts
Showing posts with label Divorce. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Divorce. Show all posts



Richard (MGTOW) requested that I do an article about divorce court settlements and divorce in general, as the amounts being paid out to women, in most cases, just for being there. Having had no active involvement in the making of the money that she scoops up after the divorce. It is a well known fact already,  that women's claim fame for being gold-diggers, they are even now looking for some DNA markers to see whether or not it is that deeply ingrained in their nature..

Once again though I resist coming across as making the generalities accusation, but how can one not generalise when we have the endless line waiting outside the courts and the final judgment demonstrating that marriage for women is indeed a very, very lucrative proposition. Ask the former Mrs McCarthy, someone worked out that she was paid $ 4000.00 per hour for the disadvantage of being married to a wealthy man for a few years. It must have been really hard, downright awful, poor thing..

Kobe Bryant Divorce: Vanessa Gets $75M in Property Settlement

Heather Mills wins £24.3m Paul McCartney divorce payout

Cleese's $23m divorce 'unfair' - leaves me poorer than her

So we have over 120 Million plus dollars paid out to three females who would, of their own accord, not stood a hope in hell of generating even a fraction of that money, using their own "talents". On the face of it it can only be seen as thievery, daylight robbery in the first degree. Those "partners" have no right to those fortunes as they do not possess an ounce of ability or talents that the three men above have already clearly demonstrated they possess. It has always been stated that the feminist hegemony is responsible for these ludicrous payout via intrusion into the legislation pertaining to divorce, one that it is designed to transfer money from Men to Women via their interference via jurisprudence, knowing full well they would stand a better chance of fleecing some funds from a deluded female than any expert or talented businessman. It is Men who have that ability of making money by persistence, hard work and taking risks, from minor to extreme amounts and it's easy to see where the majority of the richest women in the world got their money from and it was not because they were talented enough to procure it..

The other side of the coin is why there's not any action or lobby group actively trying to change the laws that have been instituted solely against them. Why have these wealthy Men shied away from committing any or some dollars to their own cause or to the Men's Movement cause beggars believe..

It almost appears that they enjoy the reaming they received at their own expense and probably too stunned to do something, anything about it. Anyway, that's what I am hoping anyway.






This comment I found rather interesting as it describes what it takes to make a relationship work plus demonstrates how feminism's endless intrusion via government and laws, just guarantees that it won't. Take out the main factors from a relationship or marriage, something or somebody has to pay and it's generally the relationship itself..
 The endless hand-wringing that we read in the "Dear Joyce" columns use to be about finding a mate, but now it more about everything else. Primarily the search for the "Soul Mate" has been thrown into the bin as a waste of time while reality drags the dreamers back into reality. Some eventually realise that a relationship/partnership is not always about them and certain compromises are demanded whether you like it or not.
If you don't then it just a matter of going your own way and either adhering to that or repositioning yourself back onto the "dating" market in pursuit of the next mistake..

The main issue being that women have changed, they changed to suit themselves without any consideration on their part about what men want or would like in a female. They in turn have responded with "Here I am, take me as I am, take it or leave it" and now they are finding a response they never expected. That response being "No Thanks". This is what all that complaining is about..

Sometimes the obvious lessons are the hardest to learn, while blame can be redirected very easily. Many a time have I spoken to ex partners who live in the regret that they screwed up a good working relationship because they felt it was not a working proposition or could have been better or it just was not what they expected. Rather than take the hard road by fixing it, they take the easy road and end it as   that can always justify it in their own minds..
Taking anything for granted is not a lesson learnt until it's gone and after that eventuation, it becomes an all consuming problem, that just won't let go. Continual self scrutiny and continual reminders mixed with thoughts of regret stay with you for a long time. Many have been there and many more will end up there as well.. 

The song "You don't what you've got until it's gone" is a lot more meaningful and ironic when it applies to some past relationship that went the way of the dodo and did so without any effort on your part. It can turn into an unrelenting cycle as it's pursuit appears to be more important than the end result..

So here is a response to the view of replacing the "patriarchy" with the "Matriarchy" and then living in denial about replacing one level of control with another. A bit like "Welcome the new boss who is just like the old boss"..




 Why Not Matriarchy? 
Women can raise families communally without men, but it’s a bad idea.
By Lea Halim

This response it the above article..

Good grief! I suppose I've just grown old and apart from what's goofed up in this world. I don't understand it and I'm not sure I want to understand it. Having a good marriage has everything to do with love and sacrifice, and I feel it necessary to add, between a man and a woman.
Here's a little story that tells a tale. There once was a little four-year-old boy, whose mother dumped him on her parents after deciding her second marriage wasn't satisfactory and who decided to return to her first husband. He took her back for a little while, but not in marriage, just in sex. She'd had two children by him, but they, like the four she'd had by her second husband, ended up with her parents. She wandered about promiscuously until she happened upon her third husband, by whom she had another two children, who were also principally raised by other people. She married a fourth time at age sixty, but, for obvious reasons, had no children. This last marriage was annulled after six months. The mother barely participated in raising any of her eight children.
Now, this four-year-old became a five-year-old and was taken in by a saintly aunt, sister to his, by now, drunken, bumpkin father. She and her hard-working husband raised him until he was ten, teaching him good principles for living, training him in good behaviors, and instilling an understanding that such a thing as faith and a being called God existed.
At ten years of age, he wanted to go live with his drunken, bumpkin father, which didn't work out, so he ended up in a few other relative's homes until he was fourteen, at which time he and his sister went to live with their still drunken, bumpkin father.
Now, this was not a good time period in either of their lives. Many untoward experiences occurred, all of it laced with alcohol and other vices. Still, he'd had his saintly aunt's and her husband's influence, which wasn't easily doused, even in a debauched environment.
One day, he met a young girl, or, rather, she caught sight of him. She was twelve and he was fifteen. He had no interest in her, but she said many times througout her life that she never had an interest in any other man. A few years later, they were married. Being inspired by his love for a good woman, the boy became a man, changed his ways and they raised eight children together, and were the forbears of 35 grandchildren, more than 70 great-grandchildren and more than 20 great-great-grandchildren by the time he passed away after 71 years of happy, struggling, difficult, wonderful, joyful marriage.
They had four sons, who are all on their first marriage, the first having been married forty-six years, the second thirty-nine, the third thirty-six, and the fourth thirty-seven years. Their four daughters were not all as successful, yet, the oldest has been married to her only husband for forty-nine years, the second had two failed marriages, which were a result of poor choices fueled by rebelliousness, the third had one divorce that was later rectified when the two remarried, and the last has been married to her only husband twenty-eight years.
Much of the early part of this story took place during the period leading up to and into the Prohibition Era, which gave birth to a lot of "freedom" and "promiscuity" for women, as well as men, which all perhaps led to the Great Depression, and which may have played a part in these events and outcomes. It's also of interest to note that many of the grandchildren are experiencing some of the negative outcomes seen in the lives of the drunken, bumpkin father and his promiscuous ex-wife. This, all in a period not unlike the teens and twenties of the last century - unparalleled prosperity and leisure, woman screaming for more freedom and getting it, but this time with help of federal laws that tend to relegate males to the status of unimportant sidekicks, and much of a couple of generations expecting to do nothing while someone else does it for them. This generation, like their forbears, were raised by good parents, who taught them well. So why the trouble?
Since World War II, as in the early part of the twentieth century, women and men have been increasingly freed from hard, physical work. They have many hours of leisure to enjoy the benefits of a prosperity that is, at least in part, technologically enabled. There is a declining faith in him whose blessing it is. Gratitude is an increasingly scarce attribute, often supplanted by arrogance and self-centeredness. This is a seemingly inescapable result of extended prosperity.
Does a woman want a good man with whom to marry and have a family? I believe most do. Then, treat men like men and demand manhood. Stop trying to replace them with you. Stop trying to fill a man's role and try being a woman. It may work. It just may, but it must be a societal change and government must stop being a partner in demeaning manhood and womanhood. Yes, there are good men out there, but, I'm afraid, they're growing scarce. Feminism with the cooperation of government and socialists are doing their best to wipe them out. We need traditional roles. If you want a successful 71 years together, take my word for it, you won't get it by competing with your spouse, or with the opposite gender. You get it by lovingly cooperating and working together, sacrificing for one another and the family you create, filling roles for which each of you is divinely endowed with unique and wonderful traits.

It just gets more confusing does it not. The thing is that none of it is new. The is nothing new under the sun as the saying goes. It's all been tried before and it always changes back to what works the best. What was working best is what feminists have spent the last forty years trying to destroy. So it's just another cycle and another wasted effort tryig to force the population to change and a few elitists as usual are responsible for all the chaos. 

Welcome to the new/old world..

Hat tip to Elusive Wapiti for this article and the link..


As the laws are stacked against Fathers in favour of the Privileged Princesses, one does wonder how this mess will ever be corrected and if any political party or politicians, will have the courage to stand up against the vagina voters and actually apply some justice instead of introducing more ways for women to shirk their responsibilities and just keep screwing the Fathers for more and more money. The money they will never be held accountable for and can be spent at her whim on anything she fancies.

It has become a known fact that Fathers, in order to pay child support as well as paying vagina-money do so at the risk of going broke or having to reduce his own standard of living while the PP can just move in a BF and share costs while being paid cash in hand, that is not calculated into any formula..

Divorce for women with children is a win-win situation and in the majority of occasions, she is well aware of that fact as every possible service is made available only to her, while in most cases the Father cannot even afford standard legal representation..

It's Criminal..

Divorce Civil Rights

Joseph E. Cordell





As a society, we find profiling -- painting a group of people with such a broad brush -- to be wholly unacceptable.
Except when it applies to men in family courts.
Quite frankly, men's rights has become a civil rights issue. When you think of the progress we've made in civil rights, men's rights as it pertains to the family have been neglected.
Profiling of different groups based on skin color, age, disabilities, etc., is not permissible. We regard these generalizations as being deplorable in virtually every sphere of civil rights, but for some reason these generalizations and assumptions are permissible as they pertain to men in domestic scenarios.
There is an institutional family court bias, but we can't simply blame judges. Sure, they are human beings and have preconceptions like everyone else, but it goes much further than that.
The family law industry as a whole -- from attorneys to social workers -- makes presumptions about men and fathers.
Historically, women have usually been the primary nurturers. Judges and opposing counsel can quite persuasively argue that statistically moms more often than not are the ones that are the primary caregivers.
Yet the problem with stereotyping, as civil rights leaders pointed out, is that stereotypes are built on probabilities that do not give fair opportunity to others, to the innocent in that group.
Ironically, the feminist movement, which was largely in response to men's cultural and economic dominance, cast aside men whose roles in family courts were already tenuous. Dads were victims of being male at a time when the movement was not sympathetic to their position.
Men generally were less the subject of the civil rights movement than the obstacle, and for that reason there weren't many sympathetic ears turned toward men, particularly in family court.
As a result, a group think has emerged that has unfortunately elevated the interest of women above the interest of men.
A case we are handling at Cordell & Cordell is a classic example of the lopsided fight dads must face: Our client has three kids in elementary school. He and his wife are equal on all common factors.
How equal? They work for the same company in similar positions. They earn the same amount of money and even have essentially the same retirement benefits. They are both involved with their children's extracurricular activities; he coaches soccer, she helps with choir. Prior to the divorce, they often drove together to drop off the kids at school, went to work, picked up the kids together after work and went home for dinner.
If ever there is a textbook example of granting 50-50 shared parenting time, this is it. Yet the case has waged on for almost a year with no resolution because we have had to fight at every turn to overcome the presumption that Mom should have more time with the kids than Dad because, well, she's Mom.
This systematic discrimination happens every day but goes largely unnoticed. The impact of the obscurity of this issue is that there is not the attention, inclination or support necessary in order for men's rights to receive the political, social and economic momentum that is required to correct this prejudice.
The millions of men and fathers who find themselves in family law courtrooms across America feel as though they are in the dark corner of the room.
It's time a light is shone on the injustice and there be the same sort of concern of fair play that is given other individuals.
Joseph Cordell is the Principal Partner of Cordell & Cordell, a nationwide domestic litigation firm focused on men's family law matters.

Hang on, I haven't finished laughing yet....................


I did read a couple of years back when someone made the comment that "in order to get rid of alimony payments, all you to do is to make women pay it". Never a truer word spoken. Watch now, as they howl and scream about the unfairness of a system that actually demands (gulp) women pay their way. I know, it's a first, but they had better get use to it.
The fact that men get stripped of their assets on a daily basis and reamed by a "female friendly" family court is apparently totally irrelevant again. We are apparently not following the "women are more equal" rule and changes will have to be made to readjust everyone's "misogynistic" misogyny, as well as attitude..

Everyone already knows that a woman's money is her own and that a man's money is a women's money because if a man's money was already the woman's money then there would be no issue at all, so there is no confusion at all. See, logical..

The rise of manimony: Meet the women making huge sacrifices to pay thousands in alimony to their former husbands.


Wait, let me get the tissues first - The ever reliable, consistently lying feminists come to the party once again with their usual hypocritical commentary as they ramp up the "women are such victims" hysteria once again. I thought the "Gravity Affects Women the Most" was funnier, but stay with me here..

When novelist Milly Johnson divorced her  husband it was an apparently straightforward split. She kept the family home, got custody of their young sons and her maintenance payments came to about £1,000 a month.A fairly modest sum, you might think, when you factor in the expense of clothing, feeding and raising two boys.Except this was not money Milly received from her husband, but financial support she was paying to him. The 47-year-old mother of two found herself in the unexpected, but increasingly common, position of having to pay alimony — or ‘manimony’ as it has been dubbed — to her cash-strapped ex-husband after their marriage broke down.
I won't bore you with the rest as I will leave it up to you to check it out further if you like. But the surprising response here is that I actually could not give a damn about the entire issue, to be perfectly honest. I am so sick to death about "women having it hard" that my "don't give a stuff" meter is buzzing and amazingly enough, I would think that society in general has had a gut-full of it as well. Well the more intelligent one's that is. Those magazines are filled with this type of rubbish and they will still be purchased, sold and read..


All they need to do now is to "Woman Up"..


I rest my case..

This would be a prime opportunity for any Father facing the endless possibility of receiving a reaming in the family court by his vengeful and avenging ex. Fathers fail to comprehend that when he is served with the divorce papers his ex. has already sought the best legal advice available, mostly free to women only, and she has already spent the previous year, scheming and planning her move.

Men are fooled into thinking and believing that the woman who is demanding the action is still that same little sweetheart he met years earlier and tied the knot with..That concept has to be thrown out the door, broken into little pieces, piled on high and torched as that woman will now make sure that she will rape you mentally, monetarily and physically and spit you out when she is finished, she will take everything you have without so much as a backward glance or a moments hesitation..
If your believe otherwise, you are in for a major education as you will be dragged through the wringers in a court system that is specifically designed to favour women and women only..Word to the wise, go armed with the knowledge required to win, these courses are designed to do exactly that..


Self-represented litigant family law training courses


self-represented-litigant, family law, divorce, child custody, child supportThe Men’s Rights Agency periodically runs a course of weekly family law seminars, over 2 to 3 weeks, designed specifically to assist men who wish to represent themselves in Family Court, the Federal Magistrates Court or State Magistrates Court, on matters ranging from divorce tochild custody issues..
Everyone needs to understand the current family law legislation. Other topics covered include domestic violence, child support and defacto property law.
The seminars are conducted by specialist MRA lawyers in Brisbane, the Bethania Community Centre or at Southport.
Previous seminars have proven successful as evidenced by the number of fathers who have successfully represented themselves in court and in their negotiations with the other party after attending our courses.

The endless "Hits Women Hardest" prank we have been assaulted with over the last few years is definitely wearing thin. When feminists state that wars hit women the hardest, one does wonder if those that died in it would rise up and bitch slap the moron who made that statement in this case I do believe it was Hitlary Clinton, feminist and lying sycophant member of that hate movement..

Everything hits women hardest.
I have been waiting for them to state that prostate cancer hurts women the most or husbands having heart attacks hit women the hardest as that would make just as much sense. It would also make as much sense as ensuring the majority of teachers are females even though statistics clearly states that women are the greater child abusers at double the ratio to men. How is that for hypocrisy and double standards. One hell of a great example of the PC "women only" employment policy introduced by feminists into the workplace over ten years ago, each and every job coming at the expense of men. Not aware of it, check your local government department under something women department or similar..

Living hits Women Hardest.
One mustn't forget the endless privileges women have derived from promoting that movement. One of the many benefits is the "no fault divorce" which some claim was installed for other ulterior motives but it does inevitably benefit women the most as they can and do decide when to toss in the the contract and rip off whatever they can in the process. Here is another few words explaining it a little differently..

Srila Prabhupada’s teachings on women and anti-feminism



First, the number of anti-feminism and men’s rights websites has increased dramatically over the past few years. Second, we see an increasing number of men who refuse to get married. As one man put it, “Why should I get married when it is such a bad business deal for men? Marriage has over a 50 percent chance of failure, and my wife can divorce me for no reason at all due to the no-fault divorce laws, and ruin me financially by taking at least half of my assets and income through the anti-male divorce courts. She can also destroy me emotionally by taking my children from me and not allowing me to ever see them again”.
Just think about it- right now , at this very moment, millions of men’s lives are being destroyed by women who have filed false domestic violence (DV) charges against them, or filed false rape accusations against them, or by their ex-wives who are destroy the man’s life financially through the feminist divorce courts and are destroying the man emotionally by not allowing their fathers to see their own children! Who in their right mind would want to get married in such a system?
Also, over 50 percent of American women are single, without a husband or boyfriend. I’m sure the statistics in other western countries are similar. So the vast amounts of single women is more evidence that a very large percent of men are refusing to get married.
Third, an increasing number of western men are going to traditional non-feminist countries in Asia and marrying traditional asian women. I think it is this third trend towards totally opting out of modern western marriage that is the biggest slap in the face to feminist western women. I’ve heard many bitter and angry western women criticizing asian women and the western men who marry them, but it’s clear that western women are simply jealous of asian women and cannot compete with them. In case you haven’t noticed by now, asian women tend to be a lot more feminine, petite, and humble than masculine arrogant western women.
And the majority of western men who are married to asian women testify that they are very happy, much happier than they ever were with western or American women.
And ofcourse, let's not forget the divorce angle and how women are hit hardest...
Here, Srila Prabhupada states the fact that most marriages end because of the woman, not the man. Statistics prove this fact, as 70 percent of divorces in America are initiated by women, not by men. We also see that in most marriages, the men are not the ones that are constantly trying to create fights, arguing, abusing the spouse, etc. Feminism has brainwashed modern women with man-hating attitudes, which is why modern women are constantly abusing their husbands, both verbally and even physically. It’s rarely spoken about in the mainstream media, but domestic violence where women are the ones physically assaulting the man are quite common. And in contrast, modern women can call the police and have her husband arrested due to the zero tolerance abuse laws, even if the accusation is false. As many men have found out the hard way, there’s a massive epidemic of false domestic violence (DV) charges all over the world right now, where women falsely charge men. This has destroyed the lives of millions of men, many of them who were completely innocent. And you wonder why more and more men are simply refusing to get married to modern women, or choosing to marry a woman from Asia or other non-feminist areas of the world?

Society has daddy issues
How to screw hubby by organising a staged situation to benefit the woman..


In the latest bit of news highlighting the disgusting nature of American family law, Christopher Butler, a Californian PI, has come under investigation for using honey traps and DUI setups to give wives the edge in custody disputes. Setups are very common in divorce, and are usually aimed at guileless husbands. Manufacturing domestic violence “incidents” is very common, and quite easy when emotions run high. I’ve spoken with men who have noticed strangers staking out their houses when their wives came over, and I’ve personally been subject to provocation while being taped by third parties (it didn’t work). People get dirty in divorce.
However, in most cases setups are carried out by the individuals involved (and often their friends and family). Where this story is different is that a man was running a business and making good money by setting men up during divorces. Although it sounds shocking, I find it difficult to believe that this is an isolated case. Evidently, Mr. Butler would hire attractive women to ply men with drinks and then encourage them to drive somewhere, upon which he would tip off the police and have the men arrested for DUI.
Butler worked not only with the women, but their attorneys as well. His services proved effective in giving wives the advantages they sought in custody cases, which is where the real money comes into play:
Reporting from Martinez, Calif.— David Dutcher met Sharon on Match.com in late 2008, a few months after separating from his wife. “We had a lot in common,” he recalled. Sharon loved four-wheel-drive trucks and sports.
They met for coffee, then dinner. Sharon was tall, slender, blond and beautiful. She moaned that she had not had sex in a long time. She told him he had large, strong hands and wondered if that portended other things. She described his kisses as “yummy.”
[...]
On their second date, Sharon suggested they join one of her friends “who was partying because she had closed a real estate deal,” Dutcher said. They drove to an Italian restaurant in a suburb near San Francisco. Sharon’s friend, “Tash,” was a loud and raucous brunet who was pounding down shots.
[...]
Sharon had trouble finishing her tequila shots and asked Dutcher to help, he said. When the women went to the bathroom, two men at the other end of the bar peppered Dutcher with questions.
“Are you a celebrity?” they wanted to know.
The women suggested going to a house with a hot tub that Tash was housesitting, Dutcher said. He followed them in his truck. Within a few minutes, a flashing red light appeared in his rearview mirror. The officer said he had been swerving.
Three months later, Dutcher’s wife filed a motion in their divorce case, telling the court that her soon-to-be former husband had been arrested on suspicion of drunk driving and that she feared for their children’s safety. The judge ordered that Dutcher’s visits be supervised.
Yes, it is that easy for a man to lose normal access to his children. One mistake during a night out and he will be ordered to have “supervised custody,” which means the children are not allowed to be alone with their father, who is judged too dangerous to be around his own children.
Fortunately, a man who had previously worked for Butler cried foul and an investigation was opened. The FBI got involved, and it emerged that some cops had been taking bribes to arrest the hapless husbands. The women Butler hired were often prostitutes, so the cops may have been receiving sexual services as well.
Butler was flying high — even Dr. Phil promoted him:
In May, the FBI took over the probe, interviewing Dutcher and other ex-husbands arrested on suspicion of drunk driving. A federal grand jury indicted Butler and two of the officers in August and September. The charges included drug dealing, running a prostitution business and illegal possession of a weapon.
More indictments are expected. A third officer, implicated by Butler in the DUIs, faces state charges of accepting bribes to make arrests.
Stunned prosecutors combed through pending criminal cases and eventually dismissed charges in at least 20 DUI and vice crimes, tainted by the involvement of the accused officers. Two of them had once worked with Butler on the police force of the East Bay city of Antioch.
Butler also apparently hoodwinked reporters. His agency received national attention for employing gumshoe “housewives” who juggled soccer games with undercover spying. People magazine and Dr. Phil did stories. An East Bay magazine reporter who went on a ride-along with Butler later discovered that everything he had witnessed had been staged.
It would be hard to imagine a sleazier line of work than separating children from their fathers, but amazingly, in today’s America one can actually be celebrated for such efforts.
As the evidence is collected in the Butler case, hopefully people will become aware of the deep sickness that has come to characterize American family law.

As I have on several occasions mentioned previously, the options men have are restricted if one doesn't shut down the brow beaters and female apologists. Those people are of the opinion that women are blameless and quite a catch for any delusional blue pill inhaler who has been trained by his single mom or his white knight dad to wallow in it's shadow. Abeyance to any female can and will definitely bring you pain and suffering without fail. It's guaranteed in the stats as women do toss out the love of their life with the same ease as changing underwear, replaced after maximum of five years, implant another sucker overnight on the promise that pussy will be forthcoming. Many a sucker has been lured by that little head appeal and they still line up like lemmings to a cliff's edge, waiting their turn.

If you were told that your parachute had a fifty percent chance of opening when you went skydiving, would you take that chance, I don't think so and you would be an idiot if you played against those odds. That is exactly the odds in the marriage game as women divorce 70% of the suckers they coerced into tying the knot so you have a 2 to 1 chance of celebrating a fifth anniversary or maybe longer only if she allowed you to be still be around. You must be doing something right or you are not worth reaming yet as there is more money on the whorizon..

May just as well tick off that calender now and face up to the inevitable. At least you cannot claim that you were not told..

MGTOW

Where have all the men gone?

It’s a question posed today by both social conservatives and liberals alike.  And yet all the “great minds” of academia and political punditry combined, heard spewing forth from their ivory Towers of Babel, seem to be utterly vexed by the answer.  From William Bennett, George Will and Kathleen Parker, to Michael Kimmel, Kay Hymowitz and Hannah Rosin they all agree the modern male is broken and somehow needs to be fixed, but how exactly they can’t say.
In her natural biological state an adolescent girl is given a rite of passage into womanhood, signaling she’s now an adult woman, whether she wants to be one right away or not.  If she later becomes pregnant and gives birth she becomes a mother.  For the male of the species the transition to adulthood is not so readily apparent.
He can join the military and transition to a sort of manhood, which also offers the distinct possibility of transitioning him to a flag draped coffin or a cripple for life, thus making the rather expedient transition from “man” to “hero”.  Or he can begin to work, find himself a willing and fertile female to pair bond with and begin the creation of a good old fashion nuclear family, only to have her go all “Eat, Pray, Love” on his sorry ass 5 years later, (because she’s bored) finding himself indentured to the local family court system for 10 years hence, and the part-time joy of part-time involvement with his kids lives.  Who said men don’t have choices?!

A Tale of Two Worlds

In speaking with my brother the other day at our annual catch-up phone call I asked him how his daughter was fairing out in the big cruel world.  (I refer to her as “his daughter” and not “my niece” because despite my efforts to reach out to her, she can’t be bothered to reciprocate.)
“Oh she’s doing great!”, he says.  She just finished her master’s degree in something called “Enviro-catastrophe Studies” and got a cushy little government job with a state agency.”
“What about your chance of being a grandfather anytime soon?” I ask.
“Well she likes guys and she’s had a few boyfriends, but she makes her position on anything long term very clear, she will NOT be controlled by a man.”
“You mean like her mother, your ex-wife, claimed you used to do?”
Now you know why we only talk annually.
A couple of years ago I was asked to help a young man of about 24 years of age out with some “failure to launch” issues.  He was just getting off probation for dealing weed, as a little side business to supplement his career in pizza delivery.  (At least he understood the dynamics of synergistic market demand)  He was the quintessential “lost man in the promised land,” sleeping late, getting high and playing Xbox.  Eventually our relationship came down to an ultimatum, “Either get a job by the end of the month or live in your car.”  The very last day of the month he got a job as a dishwasher paying $10 an hour.  He was ecstatic that he somehow passed the drug test and background check.
Along our path of living together in my humble little dojo, I asked him one day what he thought about women, having a girlfriend, getting married and having children…and he says to me in a way only the modern high school graduate might, “No way, women are bitches man!  I mean some of them are OK but most of them really suck!  I’m never gonna get married!”
And here my dear reader in lies the essence of the problem, albeit in anecdotal form; the modern sassy girl on the go; little Ms. Independent, “refuses to be controlled by a man,” (although he BETTER allow himself to be controlled by her) and the “lowly slacker” is left with little inspiration to make himself part of such an arrangement, other than perhaps the hope it would somehow work out better for him than every other adult male he’s ever known, including his own father.  What’s the point of all this ambition nonsense when he has nothing to prove to anyone but himself?

To Answer the Question

Wouldn’t it be grand if young men, shamed into compliance, would spontaneously “man-up” and start families with young women?  “Finally they took heed of all our combined scolding!” – the elites would exclaim.   If only men would dump their video games and weed, GROW UP and start marrying young women all would be groovy again.  Men are the problem that needs to be fixed; women are simply marvelous examples of human existence, as always.  Everyone knows this.  It’s on TV.
But who exactly does he marry if all these fantastic women are busy being men; toiling in the hard scrabble world of cubicles, meetings and text messaging?  They might “settle down” in their mid-thirties and pop out a designer baby conceived from sperm purchased at the “genius bank”, or they might not.  She has choices.  She’d prefer a man, but as Maureen Dowd quipped in her condescending pop art lit tone of commentary, “Are men really necessary”?



“For whatever reason, adolescence seems to be the young man’s default state.”, concluded Kay Hymowitz.  “For whatever reason…,”  In other words what she means to say is that if a man consciously decides to not marry and have children, (ostensibly his “duty” as a ”man” to society and to women) he’s chosen a state of perpetual adolescence.  “Shame on you guys!”  But did it ever occur to the highbrow illuminati that perhaps he doesn’t have a choice, that there simply aren’t any viable FEMALE candidates for marriage; at least ones that don’t defiantly declare they “won’t be controlled by a man”.  Can you imagine a single young man claiming he refuses to marry because he “won’t be controlled by a woman”?  Cue the accusations of sexism from the sexist police!
So by today’s standards, if “manning up” means committing to a lovely young wife who gladly presupposes motherhood and commitment to said young husband and father of their children, then “woman-ing-up” is defined as getting a degree, dedicating her efforts to her career and delaying child birth until she finally quits hitting the snooze button on her biological clock; and that’s if she has children at all.  In other words, women have made the transition to manhood rather nicely, while men are transitioning to womanhood while kicking and screaming (with a bunch of “whining” as they say).  Women want to be like men, but men don’t want to be like women.  Womanhood has never been so unpopular.  Imagine that!
If the combined Ivy League sheepskin of social scientists and cultural prognosticators have to have someone who barely graduated from high school, (yours truly), answer the simple question, “Where have all the men gone?” one must wonder about either the usefulness of a degree or the blind devotion to either chivalry or the power of feminist orthodoxy within the collective conscious of our “best intellectuals thinkers.”   They stink, therefore they’re feminists.
“Where are they?” you ask.  They’ve disengaged and disconnected faster than you can say “herbivore” because after all the ridicule, shaming, condemnation, discrimination and legal abuse society has inflicted on them as a group. They’ve simply decided to retreat and stop contributing.  Call that “adolescent” if you’d like, (they really don’t care anymore, as they’ve been called worse).  I call it a very natural reaction that’s long overdue.  Because if the threat of “control” is the problem, he’ll gladly let go of the reigns and the horse that came with them without a shamed or regretful bone in his body.
When I was in 8th grade there was a tough girl that hung out with the tough guys who had it out for me.  She would provoke me with insults, kicking and one time a hard whack across my face.  She wanted to fight me, “call me out.”  Had I agreed I would have been ridiculed for beating up a girl, (and beaten up by her enforcement crew as well).  Had I said “no” I would have been ridiculed for being a coward (or ironically a “pussy”) to not agree to fight a girl.
Eventually I had to “man-up” and make a decision one way or the other or the taunting would continue, so I decided NOT agreeing to fight was the best choice of two evils.  I disengaged from the proposed battle because either way I was gonna lose; it was just a matter of deciding by how much.  By that time I was numb to the pain shaming brings with it anyway, the emotional nerve endings scarred over as it were, so I didn’t care what they had to say, I just ignored them and eventually they began to ignore me.  I declared the game over and conceded, much to their disappointment.
Such is the plight of the modern young man.  If he fights/competes against woman (and her enforcers) he loses and if he turns his back to her (and her enforcers) he loses.  The difference now is that he’s shamed and ridiculed to the point of being impervious to it.  He’s declared the game over (Hannah Rosin would agree), and he’s conceded because while he might meet the definition of being a “man,” HE knows WHO he is, and that’s someone who won’t be taken for a TOOL…
…much to their disappointment.

Written by keyster

This really is a turn up in the adventures relating to Russian Roulette of child Support. How much affect would this law have if it was passed everywhere in the world. There would be a reduced level of fighting over who would own the kids and the moms would not be that ready to lie or make false abuse accusations just to insure they receive endless child support payments along with their vaginamony. I would imagine that they would gladly hand the child/ren over as their worth in gold just deteriorated..

It would indeed be interesting to see the response if this law was ever introduced in the USA..


High court puts pressure on divorced parents to work
Father holding child
Germany's Federal Court of Justice has put more pressure on divorced single parents to work full time and place their children in daycare, ruling they have no right to child support after the child's third birthday.

Divorced single parents in Germany have no legal right to child support after their child turns three if the parent is capable of working full time, Germany's supreme court ruled on Tuesday.
The Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe found that the right to financial support from an ex-partner only exists when the parent's concrete circumstances prevent him or her from holding a full-time job.
Taking care of the child was also found not to be a full-time job when child care services are available after the primary school day, which in Germany usually ends at lunch time.
The Federal Justice Ministry said it was reviewing the ruling.
Daycare a good optionThe case was brought by a single mother whose daughter was entering the third grade. The mother was working part-time and receiving monthly payments of 440 euros from her ex-husband. The man filed a complaint, saying that because of a change in divorce law he no longer was obliged to pay child support.Supreme court buildingThe high court ruling overturned lower court rulings in favor of the motherAn appellate court in Dusseldorf ruled against the ex-husband, saying that it would be too burdensome for the mother to have to work full-time and take care of the child. The child had lived with a foster family for two years, and forcing the mother to switch from part-time to full-time work would overwhelm the family, the court said.
The high court reversed that ruling, saying that there was no convincing reason why the mother could not place her daughter in child care in the afternoon, or why a full-time job would be a "greater-than-necessary burden" for the mother. If she has no evidence why she cannot work full-time, then she must work as much as her ex-husband who does not take care of the child.
Ingeborg Rakete-Dombek, chairwoman of the family law working group in the German Bar Association, said the decision means that parents who want more than three years of child support will have to prove their child has a psychological need for the parent to take care of him or her.
She added that the ruling could be problematic because it gives courts the power to judge a parent's "cheapness."
"What comes out in individual cases, or what is determined to be "fair and cheap," is difficult to predict," she said.
Author: Andrew Bowen (dapd, dpa)
Editor: Michael Lawton

As far as I am aware, every state and country has generated their own interpretations of the child support and divorce laws, commonly known as man's wealth reducing method that in most cases favour women only especially when there is vaginamony involved as well..

There are many instances as most of us have read where men are ripped and screwed just to ensure that the poor little female "victim"(who mostly instigate divorce) receives a payout and an income that she would not be incapable of producing herself even if she lived an extra thousand years. Paul McCarthy would be a prime example and so would John Cleese..


Ms. Mills now whines that most of the $47.5-million she received in her bitter divorce from Sir Paul has already been spent — in just 22 months.
The ill-matched couple married in 2002 but became legally separated in 2006. A caustic [and often deliberately public] divorce battle followed, which reached its conclusion in 2008 when their train-wreck of a marriage was finally dissolved.
The court ordered Sir Paul to pay Mills $47.5-million, plus an annual payment of $56,000 to help raise their 6-year old daughter, Beatrice.
But Ms. Mills, 42, now admits most of that haul has already gone.
The total assets this free loader got was more like this amount is you include the mansion she stole as well..
Paul McCartney and estranged wife Heather Mills, have reportedly agreed to a record divorce settlement that'll eventually pay out $110 million. 
One of the most expensive bits of pussy anyone could ever afford..

Cleese's $23m divorce 'unfair' - leaves me poorer than her.

Fawlty Towers star John Cleese claims a reported $23 million divorce settlement with this third wife will leave him poorer than her and bound to work well into his 70s.
The renowned comedy actor is giving his American former wife of 16 years, Alyce Faye Eichelberger, $15.8 million in cash and assets as well as $1.1 million a year for seven years under the terms of their divorce settlement, Britain's Daily Telegraph reported.
The papers to finalise the settlement were lodged in a Californian court last week.
I do find it difficult to feign any type of sympathy for one of my favourite actors as he goes down for the THIRD time. The learning curve is obviously too big..
  From the Father's Rights Dallas Attorney..

Hers, His, Ours: Marriage – Divorce – Remarriage
Today’s family unit is often in a state of flux. After a divorce, most people remarry and often there are children involved. In the new, blended family, one or both spouses may be paying child support. Newly-born or adopted children may also enter into the picture.
Sometimes, the cycle continues: marriage, divorce, remarriage, divorce.
Now, mom or dad has children in multiple households.
Do the additional children change the amount of child support to be paid? Not without a court order.
In Texas, child support may be reduced when an obligor (person paying child support) has additional children that the obligor is legally required to support. These children may be new biological children, or legally adopted children. Generally, Texas courts do not consider stepchildren as a factor in reducing child support.
Texas courts follow statutory guidelines in determining amount of child support. Many people are familiar with the following basic formula: 20% of net income for one child; 25% of net income for two children; 30% of net income for three children; and so on.
However, under the legal guidelines, the court also considers whether the obligor has a legal obligation to support other children, either under another child support order or because the obligor has legal custody of the child. In cases involving the children in multiple households, the court may consult the following chart from Section 154.129 of the Texas Family Code: 
CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES BASED ON THE MONTHLY NET RESOURCES OF THE OBLIGOR 
1 child 20% of Obligor’s Net Resources
2 children 25% of Obligor’s Net Resources
3 children 30% of Obligor’s Net Resources
4 children 35% of Obligor’s Net Resources
5 children 40% of Obligor’s Net Resources
6+ children Not less than the amount for 5 children