Sunday, July 11, 2010

The Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics


Pardon my oversight, but the Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics isn't part of the MGTOW Survival Guide.  Shame on me!  If anything should be part of this site's reading material, it would be the catalog of shaming tactics.  Men need to be aware of the manipulative tricks women use, and they need to know how to counter them.  Without any further ado, here's the Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics...


“Shaming tactics.”  This phrase is familiar to many Men’s Rights Activists.  It conjures up the histrionic behavior of female detractors who refuse to argue their points with logic.  Yet women are not the only ones guilty of using shaming tactics against men.  Male gynocentrists use them, too.

Shaming tactics are emotional devices meant to play on a man’s insecurities and shut down debate.  They are meant to elicit sympathy for women and to demonize men who ask hard questions.  Most, if not all, shaming tactics are basically ad homimem attacks. 

Anyway, it might be helpful to categorize the major shaming tactics that are used against men whenever a discussion arises about feminism, men’s issues, romance, etc.  The following list contains descriptions of shaming tactics, some examples of quotes employing the tactics, and even color-coded aliases for mnemonic purposes.  Enjoy.

Charge of Irascibility (Code Red)
Discussion: The target is accused of having anger management issues.  Whatever negative emotions he has are assumed to be unjustifiable.  Examples:
  • “You’re bitter!”
  • “You need to get over your anger at women.”
  • “You are so negative!”
Response: Anger is a legitimate emotion in the face of injustice.   It is important to remember that passive acceptance of evil is not a virtue.

Charge of Cowardice (Code Yellow)
Discussion: The target is accused of having an unjustifiable fear of interaction with women.  Examples:
  • “You need to get over your fear.”
  • “Step up and take a chance like a man!”
  • “You’re afraid of a strong woman!”
Response: It is important to remember that there is a difference between bravery and stupidity.  The only risks that reasonable people dare to take are calculated risks.  One weighs the likely costs and benefits of said risks.  As it is, some men are finding out that many women fail a cost-benefit analysis.

Charge of Hypersensitivity (Code Blue) – The Crybaby Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being hysterical or exaggerating the problems of men (i.e., he is accused of playing “Chicken Little”).  Examples:
  • “Stop whining!”
  • “Get over it!”
  • “Suck it up like a man!”
  • “You guys don’t have it as nearly as bad as us women!”
  • “You’re just afraid of losing your male privileges.”
  • “Your fragile male ego …”
  • “Wow!  You guys need to get a grip!”
Response: One who uses the Code Blue shaming tactic reveals a callous indifference to the humanity of men.  It may be constructive to confront such an accuser and ask if a certain problem men face needs to be addressed or not (“yes” or “no”), however small it may be seem to be.  If the accuser answers in the negative, it may constructive to ask why any man should care about the accuser’s welfare since the favor will obviously not be returned.  If the accuser claims to be unable to do anything about the said problem, one can ask the accuser why an attack is necessary against those who are doing something about it.

Charge of Puerility (Code Green) – The Peter Pan Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being immature and/or irresponsible in some manner that reflects badly on his status as an adult male.  Examples:
  • “Grow up!”
  • “You are so immature!”
  • “Do you live with your mother?”
  • “I’m not interested in boys.  I’m interested in real men.”
  • “Men are shirking their God-given responsibility to marry and bear children.”
Response: It should be remembered that one’s sexual history, marital status, parental status, etc. are not reliable indicators of maturity and accountability.  If they were, then we would not hear of white collar crime, divorce, teen sex, unplanned pregnancies, extramarital affairs, etc.

Charge of Endangerment (Code Orange) – The Elevated Threat Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being a menace in some undefined manner.  This charge may be coupled with some attempt to censor the target.  Examples:
  • “You guys are scary.”
  • “You make me feel afraid.”
Response: It may be constructive to point out that only bigots and tyrants are afraid of having the truth expressed to them.  One may also ask why some women think they can handle leadership roles if they are so threatened by a man’s legitimate freedom of expression.

Charge of Rationalization (Code Purple) – The Sour Grapes Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of explaining away his own failures and/or dissatisfaction by blaming women for his problems.  Example:
  • “You are just bitter because you can’t get laid.”
Response: In this case, it must be asked if it really matters how one arrives at the truth.  In other words, one may submit to the accuser, “What if the grapes really are sour?”  At any rate, the Code Purple shaming tactic is an example of what is called “circumstantial ad hominem.”

Charge of Fanaticism (Code Brown) – The Brown Shirts Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of subscribing to an intolerant, extremist ideology or of being devoted to an ignorant viewpoint.  Examples:
  • “You’re one of those right-wing wackos.”
  • “You’re an extremist”
  • “You sound like the KKK.”
  • “… more anti-feminist zaniness”
Response: One should remember that the truth is not decided by the number of people subscribing to it.  Whether or not certain ideas are “out of the mainstream” is besides the point.  A correct conclusion is also not necessarily reached by embracing some middle ground between two opposing viewpoints (i.e., the logical fallacy of “False Compromise”).

Charge of Invirility (Code Lavender)
Discussion: The target’s sexual orientation or masculinity is called into question.  Examples:
  • “Are you gay?”
  • “I need a real man, not a sissy.”
  • “You’re such a wimp.”
Response: Unless one is working for religious conservatives, it is usually of little consequence if a straight man leaves his accusers guessing about his sexual orientation.

Charge of Overgeneralization (Code Gray)
Discussion: The target is accused of making generalizations or supporting unwarranted stereotypes about women.  Examples:
  • “I’m not like that!”
  • “Stop generalizing!”
  • “That’s a sexist stereotype!”
Response: One may point out that feminists and many other women make generalizations about men.  Quotations from feminists, for example, can be easily obtained to prove this point.  Also, one should note that pointing to a trend is not the same as overgeneralizing.  Although not all women may have a certain characteristic, a significant amount of them might. 

Charge of Misogyny (Code Black)
Discussion: The target is accused of displaying some form of unwarranted malice to a particular woman or to women in general. Examples:
  • “You misogynist creep!”
  • “Why do you hate women?”
  • “Do you love your mother?”
  • “You are insensitive to the plight of women.”
  • “You are mean-spirited.”
  • “You view women as doormats.”
  • “You want to roll back the rights of women!!”
  • “You are going to make me cry.”
Response: One may ask the accuser how does a pro-male agenda become inherently anti-female (especially since feminists often claim that gains for men and women are “not a zero-sum game”).  One may also ask the accuser how do they account for women who agree with the target’s viewpoints. The Code Black shaming tactic often integrates the logical fallacies of “argumentum ad misericordiam” (viz., argumentation based on pity for women) and/or “argumentum in terrorem” (viz., arousing fear about what the target wants to do to women).

Charge of Instability (Code White) – The White Padded Room Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being emotionally or mentally unstable.  Examples:
  • “You’re unstable.”
  • “You have issues.”
  • “You need therapy.”
  • “Weirdo!”
Response: In response to this attack, one may point to peer-reviewed literature and then ask the accuser if the target’s mental and/or emotional condition can explain the existence of valid research on the matter.

Charge of Selfishness (Code Silver)
Discussion: This attack is self-explanatory.  It is a common charge hurled at men who do not want to be bothered with romantic pursuits.  Examples:
  • “You are so materialistic.”
  • “You are so greedy.”
Response: It may be beneficial to turn the accusation back on the one pressing the charge.  For instance, one may retort, “So you are saying I shouldn’t spend my money on myself, but should instead spend it on a woman like you —and you accuse me of being selfish?? Just what were you planning to do for me anyway?”

Charge of Superficiality (Code Gold) – The All-That-Glitters Charge
Discussion: The charge of superficiality is usually hurled at men with regard to their mating preferences.  Examples:
  • “If you didn’t go after bimbos, then …”
  • “How can you be so shallow and turn down a single mother?”
Response: Average-looking women can be just as problematic in their behavior as beautiful, “high-maintanence” women. Regarding the shallowness of women, popular media furnishes plenty of examples where petty demands are made of men by females (viz., those notorious laundry lists of things a man should/should not do for his girlfriend or wife). 

Charge of Unattractiveness (Code Tan) – The Ugly Tan Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of having no romantic potential as far as women are concerned.  Examples:
  • “I bet you are fat and ugly.”
  • “You can’t get laid!”
  • “Creep!”
  • “Loser!”
  • “Have you thought about the problem being you?”
Response: This is another example of “circumstantial ad hominem.”  The target’s romantic potential ultimately does not reflect on the merit of his arguments.

Charge of Defeatism (Code Maroon)
Discussion: This shaming tactic is akin to the Charge of Irascibility and the Charge of Cowardice in that the accuser attacks the target’s negative or guarded attitude about a situation.  However, the focus is not so much on the target’s anger or fear, but on the target’s supposed attitude of resignation.  Examples:
  • “Stop being so negative.”
  • “You are so cynical.”
  • “If you refuse to have relationships with women, then you are admitting defeat.”
  • “C’mon! Men are doers, not quitters.”
Response: The charge of defeatism can be diffused by explaining that one is merely being realistic about a situation.  Also, one can point out that asking men to just accept their mistreatment at the hands of women and society is the real attitude that is defeatist.  Many men have not lost their resolve; many have lost their patience.

Threat of Withheld Affection (Code Pink) – The Pink Whip
Discussion: The target is admonished that his viewpoints or behavior will cause women to reject him as a mate.  Examples:
  • “No woman will marry you with that attitude.”
  • “Creeps like you will never get laid!”
Response: This is an example of the logical fallacy “argumentum ad baculum” (the “appeal to force”).  The accuser attempts to negate the validity of a position by pointing to some undesirable circumstance that will befall anyone who takes said position.  Really, the only way to deal with the “Pink Whip” is to realize that a man’s happiness and worth is not based on his romantic conquests (including marriage).


This is knowledge that EVERY MGHOW must have.  I feel better now that I have this precious knowledge here as well.  Thank you, and good day...


Wednesday, June 30, 2010

The Wife Whisperer, by Laura Grace Robins


I'm able to hit a local wireless network, so I'm striking while the iron's hot.  I'm posting Laura Grace Robins' shot heard round the world; I'm posting the post that has women worldwide in a tizzy; I'm talkin' about the post that's got everyone talking.  I'm talkin' about The Wife Whisperer, folks!  Without any further ado, here's the post everyone is talking about...

This is also a worthy addition to the MGTOW Survival Guide, which is why I'm including it here. MGTOW means exactly what it says: men going their own way. For some, that may include a relationship with a woman. For a rare few, this will include marriage also. For those of my fellow MGTOW who fall into either of the two categories, here is the "Reader's Digest condensed version" of how to have a successful relationship with a woman. As such, it's worthy of inclusion here. Thank you.


Well, I'm going to get some heat for this one, but the analogy is worth pointing out. I can't help watching the Dog Whisperer show without seeing that a husband can also apply the same techniques to his wife. The major theme that Cesar Millan tries to get across is that as a dog owner you need to show that you are the leader of the pack and that you want your dog to be in a "calm and submissive" state. Hmmmmm, sounds familiar, huh? Discussions from my post, Submitting Love, got me to thinking if only there was a 'wife whisperer' who could come in and teach husbands how to get a handle on their wives. Below, I will offer some suggestions that are adapted from Cesar Millan's techniques.

If you are offended by my woman/dog analogies, please don't start barking at me. It only proves my point. Afterall, how did women get referred to as 'bitches' in the first place.

Here is a clip where Cesar discusses how to give affection to a dog. As you watch, every time he says "dog", put in "wife" instead. I think you will notice some curious similarities. 

If you are only giving "heart and body" in your affection, you will be "dragged all over the place and she won't care". Sound familiar? Therefore, you also have to give "mind". Notice the dog at the 1:53 mark. He says in that state, you can shower on all the affection you want, because she is being "calm and submissive". He says most people share affection when the mind is, "excited, aggressive, tense, fearful, panicky, unstable; people unfortunately have a tendency to share affection in order to calm the mind down--that only intensifies the behavior. It says "I agree with that behavior". So, in other words, when your wife is excited, aggressive, tense, fearful, unstable, etc., don't share affection, it only intensifies the behavior.

The best thing to do may be just be to walk away and let the unstable moment pass until she then assumes the 'calm and submissive' state. At that point, lay on the affection. It's positive reinforcement. The current cultural assumption is that when a woman is exhibiting any of those unstable traits, that you are suppose to console and comfort her. A man would be considered heartless if he walks away. Usually he is also considered heartless if he stays and says the wrong thing. So, what is a man to do? Often you just can't win with either and unstable dog or woman.

I think it also depends on whether she is throwing a hissy-fit over something trivial or whether there is some tragedy going on such as: a death in the family, loss of job, etc. In those cases, affection is appropriate and timely. I am not saying that men should never give affection to their wives; I'm saying, "only at the right time".

Here I found an article called, "How to Control Your Dog's Behavior by Being a Pack Leader". Below, I took some parts from that article and everywhere they wrote "dog", I swapped in "wife/woman". Some parts don't apply, like "How to Put on a Choke Chain". Believe it or not, I am NOT advocating that. Regardless, give it a read and you will see that it eerily makes sense. My extra thoughts are put in parentheses.

How to Control Your Wife's Behavior by Being a Pack Leader

Is your wife doing a behavior that you don't approve of? Does she pull you around? Do you feel that you can't control her? Is it hard to take items (pretty things) away from her without being bitten (not literally of course)?To solve all the symptoms, we must get to the root of the matter. Your wife is most likely thinking that she is the pack leader, or at least she is confused about who is the pack leader. When you claim leadership, the wife is free and content to be a happy willing follower.

1. Good Reasons to be a Pack Leader
Your wife will remain well-behaved, even around other women who may or may not be.
Your wife will learn to respect your possessions.
Reduces constant barking (or whining).
Your wife will be less anxious and nervous.
Your wife will be happier and more content.

2. Learn to Think like a Woman
Realize that there are some areas where women do think like men, and some areas where they do not. This is important because often men will reinforce negative behavior without knowing it.
Realize that women live in the present much more than men do. Just because a woman has done something for a while, doesn't mean that she can't change. In the same way, just because a woman has had a tough upbringing, or might have been abused, doesn't mean that she can't be rehabilitated into a loving, calm wife.
Women do not have guilt or pity in their mindsets/thinking. If a man expresses these emotions, a woman will interpret them as weakness.
Women can be given affection without being touched. A look can also convey affection.
Women have different levels of excitability that they progress through. A problem woman that goes into a frenzy in certain situations cannot be corrected when she has reached her highest level of intensity. You must correct at the lower levels to prevent her from becoming out of control.

3. Learn the Pack Mentality
Women have a pack mentality (or herd mentality). If you have a wife, you are a member of the same pack that she is.
If a husband shows weakness when he first brings her into their pack, the wife will often try to become the pack leader herself.
There will always be a pack leader. If you make sure that it is you, then you'll be able to control your wife in any situation because they will look to you to see how they should react.
A woman will try to become the pack leader if no one else is.
Consider women in a pack (think women and their girlfriend cliques; think how one woman in that group always tends to be the leader and the other women follow whatever she does). Women are happier when they know their place in the pack. Your wife will be more content and happy when you consistently behave like a pack leader. If you allow your wife to be leader in the home, but want to be the leader in other areas, you will frustrate your wife. (The trick, as a husband, is becoming that one popular woman in the girlfriend clique who she will follow around).
A pack leader ... (I recognize some of these are more a wife's realm, deciding about dinner, etc.)
Decides where the pack will go.
Decides when the pack will eat.
Decides who gets what food.
Decides who is allowed to bark (whine) and when (if at all).
Decides when the pack is allowed to play (decides when to separate business from pleasure).
Decides what the pack is allowed to play with (decides who are appropriate friends that will exert good influences).
Decides how other members of the pack must behave (decides how the family should behave).
Decides who owns what.
The rest of the pack is not resentful of how this works. To them, it is normal. If you modify your behavior to fit to this model (when relating to your wife), your wife will be content because her pack is working the way her instincts say it should. ( I think that is particularly interesting, about how her instincts say it should work, NOT how society says it should).
When pack leaders correct children in their pack, they are rarely aggressive, but just assertive. Men must learn this combination of calm assertiveness to master their role as the pack leader

4. Be Calm and Assertive When Dealing with Your Wife
Assertive is different than aggressive.
If your wife knows voice commands, use them:
Only in firm tones.
Don't use a high-pitched voice.
Don't speak in a cutesy voice, like you would to a baby.
Do not speak in anger.
Don't say it as if you are asking the wife a question.
If you give a command and you know your wife is purposefully ignoring you, stop giving the command, you're just making it worse.
If you have seen Star Wars, the "Jedi mind trick" is a good example of calm assertiveness. Not the waving of hands, but the firmness and calmness of the tone of voice.

5. Be the Pack Leader
A less dominant man can become the leader of many much larger and stronger woman. It is a matter of attitude, not physical power or strength.
Ways you can convey to your wife that you are the pack leader:
Exit the house first when you go out. Enter first when you go in.
Sit at the head of the table.
Let your wife know what behaviors you, as the pack leader, don't like.
Be consistent to correct any behavior that you don't want. Your wife will be confused if sometimes you correct her, and sometimes you don't.

Other Tips
Be assertive, but not aggressive.
Do not yell at your wife. If you think you have to, you are doing something wrong.
Share affection as much as you want, but only when your wife is in a calm, submissive state of mind.
Women usually want to please men. Be consistent, so they understand what you expect of them.
Be consistent. It will help your wife learn more quickly, and help them to trust you.

The last thing I want to bring up is that Cesar will often give a dog a little pinch when it is misbehaving. So perhaps a little pinch or squeeze of the hand will also do the wife good. Out in public, if she is getting too loud or annoying, or simply just not being respectful, give her a little sign that that sort of behavior is not acceptable. Works for me, and has caused me to bite my tongue. Sometimes it is also just a look. Come to think of it, don't pinch---that will get you a DV charge--ha! 


Thank you, Laura.  That's great stuff!  Until next time...


Tuesday, April 20, 2010

How to Be A Zero Tolerance Man, by ZTM


I was over @ ZTM's blog when I came across this. I thought it would be an excellent addition to the MGTOW Survival Guide...


What are the rules for being a “zero tolerance man” ?
What must you do to live the zero tolerance lifestyle?
Here are the rules and they should improve your life as a man dramatically:
* Do not even consider the possibility of marriage to any women. No marriage, period. The chances are good that it won’t work out and you will lose money in the process. Women only view men as human ATMs and sperm donors. They just want your money and will leave you as soon as the money is gone!. NO MARRIAGE.
* Put your own needs and desires first. Do not let anyone get you off the track of your own goals. Women are dream killers and time wasters. The most you should do with women is fuck them and then dump them when you are done. Be very careful to use DOUBLE birth control. When these women cannot prove they are using something, I stick an Encare Oval spermicide deep into her pussy and use a condom too. If she get’s pregnant, it could possibly ruin your life. Kids are a nightmare and a huge expense. No pregnancies.
* The most you should ever pay for is a drink or 2 to get her drunk enough to screw. Do NOT pay for dinners, concerts, travel, or movies. You should only be spending time with women if you are screwing them or preparing them with alcohol for sex. Otherwise, you should not be with them at all.
* Do NOT give women any attention in public. Ignore them like they don’t exist in the supermarket, gym, etc. Do not look at them at all. Otherwise, you will be feeding the ego of these attention whores. Don’t give these cunts what they want. No eye contact!!!! Walk past them like the are garbage on the ground. If they speak to you do not answer in any more than 1 word answers. Walk away as quickly as possible.
* Live alone. Never share your living space with women. You will be sorry if you do. this applies to roommates as well as “romantic” relationships
* Pursue hobbies, sports, and work on self improvement. Make physical and emotional health your top priority. Women will tear your health down by making you work to death to pay for their crap. So, don’t do it!
* Do not buy a car or clothes to attract women. It will only attract high maintenance bitches. Buy and drive the car you like.
* Remember that women are a disposable commodity no matter where they are from. Use them, dump them, and then get a hotter one each time. Rebuke “relationships” or girlfriends. Avoid single mothers completely. They are the absolute bottom of the barrel. Many of these bitches will try to trap you for child support. A woman has nothing to offer except that ugly smelly stinkhole that we call her cunt. She has nothing else to offer. Stupid guys are fooled into believing they have to buy it to use it.
* Focus on your career and making money. Try to become financially independent so you don’t ever have to take any shit from anyone. Consider living abroad for periods of time and fuck as many hot women as you can. Try scuba diving and just enjoy your life. Lots of material possessions just weigh your life down. Don’t buy more than you need.
I hope these life rules will help all the men who read this blog to have a great life!


That was good stuff, a worthy addition to the MGTOW Survival Guide...


Friday, April 2, 2010

My Take on All Women Aren't Like That, by Outcastsuperstar


When Outcastsuperstar had his blog, he wrote a piece that I've long wanted to run on here.  Unfortunately, by the time I was ready to do so, he'd already deleted his blog.  Thankfully, he saved this most powerful piece of writing, and he posted it on Happy Bachelors.  I've taken the liberty to copy & paste a post for the ages.  Enjoy, Fellas...


I wrote this back in 2008 and it's probably one of the best pieces I have ever written


I have heard the arguments on both sides, one from people like Christopher in Oregon that all women are back stabbing bitches and I heard from many others that there are indeed good women out there and NOT all women are like this. I see a much bigger picture rather than proving all women are like this or aren’t like this.

I’m going to breakdown four possible scenarios which can happen and analyze the type of life a man can live under each scenario.

Scenario #1 you believe people like Christopher in Oregon that all women are like this and have adapted accordingly. Indeed Christopher in Oregon is right.

Scenario #2 you believe people like Christopher in Oregon that all women are like this and have adapted accordingly. However, Christopher in Oregon is wrong with his assessment that all women will betray you.

Scenario #3 you believe NOT all women are like this and will get married to that special person. Indeed you are right that you found a winner.

Scenario #4 you believe NOT all women are like this and will get married to that special person. However, that special person turned into a witch and will make your life a living hell.

Under scenario #1 you believe all women are like this and have adapted accordingly. You are indeed right.

Well as a result of not getting taken to the cleaners or having to support anyone but yourself, you can find the right balance between work and life. In other words you won’t have to work yourself in an early grave.

Not only that but you will have more discretionary income by staying single.

You can take yourself to ball games all the time.

You can take yourself to the best restaurants while being served by liberated waitresses.

You can engage in fun hobbies all the time. Examples would be hikes, golfing, playing video games, playing pool, going bowling, going to the gym etc.

Eventually, you can take yourself on Bachelor Vacations, or buy yourself expensive toys like Harley Davidson’s etc.

So in other words when it’s all said and done your going to have life full of luxuries and less stress by avoiding American Women and focusing on fun Bachelor Hobbies and taking fun Bachelor vacations.

Under scenario #2 you believe all women are like this and have adapted accordingly. However, you are wrong and there are indeed women who are loyal and won’t betray you.

The life a man can have can be read under scenario #1. The result is there are no consequences for being wrong and you can afford to be wrong here and still live a quality bachelor life.

Under scenario #3 you believe NOT all women are like this and will get married to that special person. You are indeed right and you found a winner.

In terms of being married you lucked out that the woman you married decided not to cash out on you but this doesn’t mean it’s necessarily going to be a happy marriage.

For starters you will be working yourself into an early grave. Meaning you will have to be working long hours for year after year until you fall over dead.

This means you will have no time for fun hobbies or have any money to finance them. This is because you will working for the rest of your life to pay the Mortgage, pay for all the family vehicles, pay for all of the children’s expenses which will include college in many cases, as well as paying for wife’s shopping sprees which she will be entitled to since she is the mother of your children. Also, there will be many doses of constant nagging where you won’t be able to enjoy any peace and quiet time to yourself.

In the end if all goes well on your death bed you’re grown up children may tell you that they love you as well as your wife. This doesn’t change the fact you had to slave away year after year in order to keep things a float and you will have a very difficult time planning for retirement. At least you lucked out that your girl wasn’t like that and you didn’t have to go through the Feminazi Court System.

Scenario # 4 you believe NOT all women are like this, my girl is different and will get married to this special person. However, you were wrong and that special person after marriage turned into a witch who will make your life a living well and will see to it that she is going to get here ‘due’ through the Feminazi Court System.

Ouch! This is going to hurt! It’s because of this scenario why I tell my readers there better off jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge than signing a Marriage Contract.

You can expect to get hit with a false domestic violence abuse charge, which means you will get arrested and you will be kicked out of your own home. You will have to pay for your attorney fees and her attorney fees for a divorce you never initiated in the first place. You will have to pay a high amount of Alimony and Child Support payments. You will lose your house but will have to keep paying the mortgage payments. Your ex-wife will manipulate your children where you are seen as the villain and will hate you. Also there is something called imputed income. A judge bases the percentage of child support payments and alimony payments based on ‘potential earnings’, NOT how much you actually make. Many times you will owe more money than you actually make! If you fail to make the payments your licenses will get revoked and you will get thrown in jail.

Do I agree with Christopher in Oregon’s analysis that every single woman in the planet will cash out on her husband if given the opportunity? The answer is NO! I have a mother who grew up in the pre-feminist era who is a wonderful traditional lady, also I have two extremely religious older sisters who believed sex before marriage is a deadly sin and divorce is very bad. Do I recommend that it worth taking a shot at scenario #3 just because every single woman in the planet is not like that? The answer is a big fucking NO! Even if all women aren’t like this, you will have a hard time determining between a good woman and a witch until it’s too late. This is because when a witch is on the prowl she is going to act like a very sweet woman who would never consider betraying you. It’s not until after you got married whether you know you got yourself a good woman or a witch. Because once a witch knows she got you by the balls her true colors will come out but by then it’s too late. When a woman argues that we're not all like this, as of today she may be right. However, the key word is TODAY. That doesn’t mean 5-7 years later she will be a virtuous woman. Women do change and it’s not for the better especially when they know they will get a big divorce settlement if the marriage doesn’t go the way she wants it to go.

My view is a man would have to be clinically insane to get married in the United States or in the Anglo sphere. The fact is since radical feminism has taken hold the vast majority of women aren’t suited for marriage and no longer have the qualities which would be desirable for men, all they have to offer is sex and that is no longer appealing once they start aging (Mid 20’s and beyond). Now there have been multiple news articles which states 60% of American/Western wives have sex with men who are NOT their husbands. It’s very rare for modern women these days to provide their husbands with home cooked meals and keeping a clean house. The divorce rate is well over 50% with 70% being initiated by women. In my home state California the divorce rate is between 70-80%.

If a man is scarred about living alone and is in need of a loyal companion, he should go adopt a dog. It’s not by accident that dogs are called a man’s best friend.

Having analyzed all four possible scenarios I have concluded that scenarios 1&2 are much better than 3&4. Given the times we are living in today although I personally may not agree with Christopher in Oregon’s thesis that all women are like this, however I have no choice but to assume that all women are indeed like the way Christopher in Oregon describes them to be. Now is it fair to assume Christopher’s thesis is the correct one while deep down knowing it could be wrong? The answer is NO! Just like it’s not fair good hard working get treated like shit by 21 century modern day American Women, a man can get booted from his home on false allegations or get booted because his wife filed for no fault divorce, have to pay alimony, child support, his and her attorney fees on a divorce he never initiated, and have his children taken away from him with the children’s mother training his children that he is the villain and she is the victim. As a result, even if Christopher’s thesis is proven wrong a man can still live a quality bachelor life (scenario #2) where there are no consequences for being wrong with this assessment. Even if all women aren’t like this and a man believes his girl is different (scenario #3), he will still be working himself into an early grave. However, if he is wrong and his girl was indeed like the majority of the 21 Century Modern Day American Women, he will end up in scenario #4 where life as he knows it will be over. There will be no second chances for being wrong, you are finished! As radical as Christopher’s thesis may seem, at least if a man believes Christopher's thesis he won’t ever have to live life under scenario #4. As men get older many will realize scenario #2 is better than scenario #3.

It’s pointless to argue this with Women because they don’t seem to get it (at least they pretend not to get it). They think all they have to do is argue all women aren’t like this and men will still get married but they are missing the bigger picture. Many of us bachelors are perfectly content with letting women declare victory while they now have to support themselves where they too will get to see what it’s like working themselves into an early grave. At the same time we bachelors won’t have to work as many hours long term since we won’t have to support a family or financially support a divorce. We understand it’s much more economical not to marry, but rather indulge in fun hobbies take bachelor vacations and don’t have to put up with any more bullshit with women where we can enjoy our peace.


OS is a wise, young man.  The Force is STRONG with that one!  His approach has been mine too; I dare say that it's the approach of a number of men.  While we know that there are decent women out there, the safe & prudent course of action is to assume that they're all like Christopher in Oregon says they are; the safe course is to assume that a woman is your enemy until proven otherwise, and to govern one's self accordingly.  Have a good night now...


Sunday, March 28, 2010

Women Are Like Hand Grenades, by Happy Ghost


Happy Ghost was a regular on DGM 2.0. Since DGM was discontinued, he's become a member of the new, MGTOW forum. It was on there that HG posted THIS beauty...


I attended my pal's kid's birthday party today. One of my pal's friends was there, and he has a new girl. They mentioned to this chick that I'm a ghost... didn't use the word, but described the idea. She immediately started questioning me... why?

I mentioned that marriage is a bad risk. She trotted out the "not all girls are like that" line, which I nicely handled with the hand grenade analogy (here's a box of hand grenades, choose one you think is a dud, then hold it and pull the pin and see if you were right or not). There's no way to know WHAT kind of girl you have until you're committed and it's too late to avoid being destroyed. Therefore, there can be women who are "not like that", but unfortunately it's irrelevant. Not all hand grenades are "like that" (meaning they explode), and there ARE duds... but because the duds can look just like the live ones, you'd have to be crazy to pick one and commit to finding out.

She rolled her eyes and basically said that if you don't know the girl by THEN (marriage time), then you're clueless. I replied that women can be master actresses, and you can only get to know the "real them" if they allow you to see it before the wedding, which many do not. And girls acting good look identical, in all respects, to girls who are REALLY good. So, there's just no way to know until it's too late.

I then explained that Marriage 2.0 is far different from Marriage 1.0 (and yes, I did use the numbers, maybe their usage will spread), and that in Marriage 2.0, the woman holds almost all the cards, and the guy holds almost none.

She immediately trotted out the "bitter" shaming tactic, but she did it subtly. "Were you married before?" I said no. "Were you in a relationship that went bad?" I again said no. "Then how do you know all this?" I smiled and said, "By observing all my male friends suffering and being destroyed because of this, and by reading all the changes in marriage and divorce laws over the last 40 years, straight out of the law books, and by watching precedent be set in courtrooms. I learned by observing, instead of by personal experience, thank god."

Silence. "They're not all like that" was blown out of the water. So was "you're just bitter". She had nothing much left in her arsenal.

Then she inquired how long I've been like this, and indicated that surely it's not a sustainable choice. Then my friends told her how long it's been since I dated or had a relationship... which is many, many years now. I grinned right at her, smoking a big cigar, drinking a microbrew, and looking happy as hell with myself and my life. Not sustainable, my ass, dearie.

This seemed to really freak her out. She mentioned how she had a female friend who couldn't find a good man, and complained about it all the time... a single mother! I stayed quiet on that one (didn't want to get too confrontational, after all).

What really seemed to spook her is that her boyfriend was sitting right next to her when I said all this, absorbing this unique perspective of mine (he already knew about me, but she probably didn't know he knew). I'm sure she wasn't too happy with me speaking such ideas with him sitting there, because I'll bet she's going to try to get his head in the marriage noose soon.

That was fun. She asked if I'd ever consider dating and getting married, and I told her that if the social and legal systems reverted to how they used to be in the 1950's and before, when a man had a fair chance at a good marriage and the laws were much more equal, only then would I consider it. Returning to the hand grenade analogy, I said that back then, unwittingly choosing a live one that looked like a dud might've gotten you a badly bruised hand, but today, it destroys you. I then said that I was quite sure that fairness would never be restored in my lifetime, therefore I will simply not participate, and many other men won't, either.

She didn't have a lot to say after that. It was pretty beautiful.

If more of them hear this, while their girlfriends (and perhaps they themselves) are whining about not being able to find a man, perhaps they'll put two and two together.


That's a good analogy, isn't it? A live hand grenade and a dud look exactly alike one another, but you cannot differentiate them without doing damage to yourself. Women are the same way; the bad ones look the same as the good ones do, act like they do, talk like they do, etc. From where we men sit, how can we tell them apart? Well, that's easy; since 99.999999% of the women out there are feminazi skanks, one can operate under the assumption that ALL women are bad, and he'll probably be right! The few women who aren't like that got snapped up years ago, so it's pointless to look for one. Until next time...


Irlandes on Child Support Laws in the USSA


I was reading some posts over on the DGM forum, because I hadn't been there in a while. My time is limited, and I'm a moderator over on Mancoat. Therefore, I spend most of my time on Mancoat. Still, I like to visit HB and DGM when I can. Anyway, Irlandes had this EXCELLENT post on child support in modern Amerika. He discusses what it means, and it means slavery for men. If the definition of slavery is compulsory labor for somene else's economic benefit, then we truly do have slavery in Amerika today. Read this, and remember-DO NOT GET MARRIED!


Here is some training on child support law for Valerie, and perhaps for her dad.

Child support laws are based on the legal requirement for all parents to support their children. If you or your dad don't know this, get a good Law Review. I did.

Sounds good in theory, but in practice it doesn't work like that. And, it works so unlike that, that child support law is essentially slavery in the US.

Here is why.

A married man can make decisions on how to spend money. If he gives his wife money for the kids, he can demand proof the money was spent on the kids, and he can decide what to pay for. Child support payers cannot do this, nor do women have to prove the money was spent on the kids.

No, it's worse than that. She can openly and proudly admit she uses the money on herself or on children that are not his, and he has no legal recourse. Thus, legally, child support is alimony, and if the mother wishes to use it on the kids, she can. Likewise, if she tells the kids they have to get a job to buy their own clothes for school, she can, and can spend the money on Victoria's Secret, and he has no recourse.

Next, a married man, if he loses his job, the family has to cut back to try to get by. The married man is not responsible for toys and cell phones and gas money for kid's cars when he is unemployed. And, cutting back means he has less debt when he does find work. No new bicycles for now. No trips to Aruba now. If necessary, no candy bars for now. No new shoes. No new clothes. Shop at Salvation Army Thrift shop.

A child support payer gets no relief for being unemployed. The bill goes on with interest in some states, even while he is lying in the hospital with both legs cut off with a chain saw. The married man has no accumulated debt.

A married man can choose not to pay for his kids college education. It matters not that most folks do. A married man has a choice. He can say he is tired of supporting the kid who now is an adult. He can say he does not approve of the kid's behavior and thinks it's good for him to earn his way, or get a job. Or, he can say he has been working too hard and at his age, he wants to cut back on hours worked, or move to a different job that he would like to try, but which will make less money. Or, he can say he doesn't believe in college.

Or, also he can say he simply doesn't want to pay for college, and no one can do a thing to him.

I know this personally, because when my daughter finished high school I told her I was not going to help her unless she absolutely needed it. She had to work and pay her own way. She did, and finished her college degree in 1991 with no debt as well as no help from me.

So, this is a case where child support laws do not merely reflect the obligation of all parents to support their kids.

I knew a cop who was divorced, and since he had to pay considerable child support, took a second job to try to make a decent income after c/s. His ex- immediately took him back to court, to receive her share of his second job. So, he took a third job to try to have a substantial income. She took him back to court and the court ordered a part of that second job to be paid as c/s

After a year or so, he was exhausted from 80 or 90 hour weeks, and wanted to cut back those two jobs. Nope the judge told him. You cannot reduce your income voluntarily, or better said, you can increase your income voluntarily, in which case your c/s payments go up, but no matter what, you cannot cut back your child support payments once they have gone up.

A married man can change jobs as he wishes. He can move his family to a cheaper place to get by on less money when he voluntarily changes to a lower paying job. He can also reduce his hours if he wants, with no explanation to anyone.

If a married man becomes unemployed, and falls behind on goodies for the kids, he does not have to repay it later when he goes to work. That is, he can cut back and they have to accept it. Child support payments based on school trips and luxuries and new bicycles that kids of unemployed dads have to forego, for a child support payer become a blood debt, and there is no relief ever.

Gosh, how could I forget the big one? The basis of child support payments is that all parents are obliged to support their kids. But, millions of women sit on their fat rear ends, make no attempt to support their kids at all, while the taxpayers give her lots of money in cash and benefits, then tell the father he not only must support those kids, but must pay the taxpayers back for their payments to Ms. Lazy Arse. And, toss him in jail if he loses his job and can't keep up.

Wait. There' s more. No mentally healthy married man will deliberately neglect one of his kids while buying luxuries for another. Yet, child support laws do not make provisions for a man to support his new kids while he owes child support for the older ones. In fact, not even necessities for newer kids.

How about Mommy? Um, she can split her income between all her kids. She can use his child support money for kids that aren't even his. If custodial mothers were treated like c/s payers, she would have to put new kids by other men in unheated rooms, and feed them nothing, with his c/s money.

Another big one I forgot. If a married man is unemployed and accumulates a big debt, he can file bankruptcy, and in many cases today, he will perhaps still be required to pay what he can, based on his income. Child support payers get no relief at all. There are a lot of men who had periods of unemployment, and fell behind due to failure to reduce their orders. Today, in their 60's and beyond, just the accumulated interest is all that can be taken out of their income, they will be forced to pay unto death. That would never happen to a married man.

Child support is slavery in the US.


Fellas, that is reason ENOUGH to avoid women and marriage! Don't do it! For that matter, don't cohabit, either; cohabiting women, thanks to changes in the law, are being given the same 'rights' as married women. Translation: now, your live-in girlfriend can fuck you over the same as if she were married to you!

Whatever you do, Gentlemen, do NOT sire children! Do not have sex with women, because having sex means that there's a chance she can have a baby; that's a byproduct of sex, remember? For that matter, don't be on women's radar, period; avoid ANY AND ALL ABSOLUTELY UNNECESSARY INTERACTIONS WITH WOMEN! I can't emphasize that enough! Why? Give me a minute, and I'll explain...

A woman can have sex. She can get knocked up by her bad boy lover. Then, knowing that her boyfriend, Lenny the Meth Chemist, doesn't have a legitimate, documented income stream, she'll put YOUR name down as the father. Guess what?! The state's going to come after YOU for the money! Thanks to 'welfare reform', a woman applying for benefits must put down the father's name, so the state can take the money out of his ass.
They don't care if they get the wrong guy, either; they just want their money, and they want it now. Well, if a woman doesn't know who you are, then your name won't come to mind when she's filling out the welfare forms. She'll put some other sucker's name down. That sucks for him, but your whole objective here is to remain unscathed by the system; you can best do that by staying off women's radar screens.

I'd like to thank Irlandes for sharing his thoughts on DGM. He's been around, and he knows what's what. Remember guys, if you're thinking of getting married, DON'T! Read this post repeatedly until you get it through your thick heads that: 1) you don't get married to a woman; 2) you don't live with them; 3) don't have sex with them; 4) do NOT, under any circimstances, have children with her; and 5) don't be visible to women at all! Let them do their thing, and you do yours. Let some other schlub be her victim, not you. Have a good day now...


Don't Cohabit, by Eternal Bachelor


This is the one Eternal Bachelor classic I've been looking for! I was copying from the .pdf file I have of his old blog, but that was a pain in the ass; for many reasons, it was a huge PITA. Now that I have bookmarked the URL to his archives, it's a lot easier to find, read, and copy his old posts. Yes, I have a link on my list, so you can visit this precious, valuable resource for yourself.

Anyway, I've been sick the last couple of days, so I've been staying in. I've been drinking lots of hot tea with NATURAL honey; I'm talkin' about the REAL stuff straight from the hive! There is something in the natural honey that's almost miraculous in its healing power. One, my bad knees are hardly sore or stiff anymore; I can actually think about lacing up my skates, and indulge in a passion that I thought I'd have to leave forever. Secondly, when I fall ill with a cold, the natural honey helps heal me quicker and better than ANY medicine ever had-all without a doctor's visit and the associated copays-yeah, Baby!

So, if you're wondering about my increased, above normal output of posts, that's why. I simply haven't been able to do much else. That's okay though; I've had the time to find posts that spoke to me, and share them with my readers. Eternal Bachelor's original blog was chock full of great posts, and I think that my boys would not only enjoy them, but benefit from them too.

This post here is about how cohabitation, aka shacking up or living together without the 'benefit' of marriage (gag!), will no longer protect a man and his assets. You see, over in Britain they've passed laws allowing women to take a man to the cleaners WITHOUT being married; IOW, the preventative measure that men have taken to avoid getting butt fucked in divorce court will no longer work, because live-in girlfriends now have the SAME RIGHTS AS WIVES! Did you get that? Do you understand the enormity of this development?

But MarkyMark, that's Britain, not America. That may be true, but there are some small details you overlooked. One, the English speaking countries share common traditions and laws; what happens in one will often happen in another English speaking country. Two, because men are boycotting marriage in ever greater numbers, the divorce industry has to find another revenue stream; they have to find a way to screw men out of their money. What to do? Well, you expand the laws, of course; you write them to apply to unmarried people as well. What does this all mean? Look for these laws to arrive on American shores in the near future; either that, or a key court case will be adjudicated in such a way as to allow this sort of thing. Without further ado, here's another EB classic...


Don’t co-habit

16 October 2006
Cohabiting couples to win legal rights if relations break down
Britain’s two million cohabiting couples are to be given legal rights to claim a share of property and income when the relationship breaks down.
Unmarried couples could be ordered to sell their homes, pay lump sums to each other or share pensions if they split under controversial Government reforms.
There was no doubt that this would go through. Women are whining that few men will marry, meaning it’s harder for them to orchestrate a legal theft of a man’s property and future earnings, and when women whine, governments swiftly act. Plus the family lawyers are panicking as their revenue falls.
Opposition MPs and family campaigners said the sweeping changes - expected to apply to those who have lived together for as little as two years - would further undermine the institution of marriage.
Plus it’ll undermine co-habiting of course. This is what happened in Australia when they introduced similar laws; co-habitation has plummeted and more than a quarter of women are living alone or with parents, and moaning about it the whole time. “Boo-hoo, men are afraid of being financially raped…I mean, er, committment and intimacy.” The same thing will happen here.
The important thing is that as many men are made aware of this law as possible to save them from foolishly letting a woman move in and thinking that, so long as they don’t marry, they’ll be okay. They need to konw that that’s not the case.
But constitutional affairs minister Harriet Harman said the number of people living together outside marriage would double in the next 25 years - and insisted yesterday they needed a new set of legal rights.
I wonder whether these politicians are actually aware of the fact that the dropping marriage rates are because men are avoiding the risk of financial ruin, and that we’ll avoid co-habiting as well now, but are just deliberately refusing to acknowledge this, or are they genuinely that thick that they don’t realise.
Oh well, sensible men could see this coming a few years off and have avoided co-habitation as well as marriage, whilst other men will have booted their girlfriends out. More men will follow. A few women may enrich themselves with this law if they’ve lived with a boyfriend for more than two-years, but most women will lose out and face a future of living alone. So will us men, of course, but we can handle that. We kinda prefer it anyway. Women, on the other hand, seem to freak out at the idea of growing old without anyone. Plus us men, even in our forties and beyond, can go out and score with a younger woman for a quick fling, whilst women past forty generally can’t, and will struggle to do so past thirty in many cases. That’s assuming they’ll be happy with just being used for sex, which many don’t seem to be. Oh dear. Tough shit. They should have thought about that before supporting - or, at the very least, not speaking out against - all these divorce and co-habitation laws.
Financially supporting a cohabiting partner is not a legal duty, while each married partner has a legal duty to support the other, including after a split.
In other words:
Financially supporting a cohabiting girlfriend is not a legal duty, while husband has a legal duty to support his wife, including after a split.
Seriously, why do they even bother with this gender-neutral language? Oh yeah, it’s so us men might think there’s some chance we’ll get a fair hearing and some justice when Big Mother government gets involved in private relationships when they end.
Unmarried fathers also have no automatic rights or duties to their children, unlike in marriage.
And what automatic rights to our children do we have in marriage? Fuck all. Maybe visitation, bu that’s neither automatic, good enough or even enforced. We have duties - i.e. to provide mummy/child support - but not rights.
Miss Harman revealed that Government actuaries forecast that by 2031, 7.6 million people will cohabit and less than 20 million people will be married. ‘Cohabiting couples will constitute more than a third of the total,’ she said.
Wrong. The cohabitation rate will plummet as fast as marriage has. There’ll still be men foolish enough to cohabit, just as there’ll be men foolish enough to marry, but more and more will wake up and avoid both.
Settlements designed to give couples a ‘clean break’ would be favoured. A girlfriend left on her own with a man’s children, for instance, would get a cash sum and be likely to keep their house outright, rather than being awarded regular payments.
With “a man’s children”?! WTF? So now children are our’s then? Strange how they’re women’s when it comes to custody, or who gets the final (and only) say in aborting them, but when it comes to supporting them, they’re a man’s, and he must pay to support their mother…I mean, them. Also, what about a girlfriend who steals a man’s children by ditching him on a whim? Oh, wait, I guess she’ll still be counted as being “left on her own” and will get the house and a nice big lump sum of his cash.
Couples are also likely to be given the chance to sign an opt-out from the laws, though these could be overruled by the courts.
Typical. Opt-outs need to be signed by both the man and woman, and women ain’t gonna sign them, and if they do, the court can just throw it out like they do pre-nuptials. So make sure every man about to cohabit knows about this. Too many guys get married with pre-nups thinking they’re legally binding when they’re not. We don’t want more of our brothers foolishly thinking the same thing about opt-outs.
One dissenting voice makes a sensible point:
‘The inevitable result will be more people living alone. We already have one of the largest proportions of one-person households.’
A woman in the comments section echoes this:
Far from being desperate to have the same ‘rights’ as married couples, when people realise that cohabiting means signing away your property,they will just stop living together.
Of course, next men will be obliged to support a woman they dated for a few months, even without living together, so we’ll avoid that too. The more laws introduced to make it easier for women to take our assets, the more we’ll avoid them. Even just having consensual sex with one who happens to have had a drink - or later claims in court she had had a drink - will soon make you guilty of rape by default and thus eligible for a long prison sentence.
Women are going to be very, very lonely in decades to come. Oh well, their problem, not ours.
posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:30 PM
At 6:07 PM, Loki on the run said…
When a society has lots of unattached (unburdened) young males, you have lots of potential for trouble.
These young males organize into groups and start causing trouble and generating violence …
Women and children often get hurt and die in such violence …
Sometimes you have to be careful how you bend and twist the rules that a society has developed over time …
At 6:41 PM, ColdHammer said…
I think it’s hilarious that the gov’t is going to appropriate this kind of “money making-law” onto the people, er, I mean men, excuse me, without the realization of ‘what will happen.” No wonder marriage rates continue to plummet down to nothingness when its all for nothing in the end. Why get raped? What’s the whole point?
What’s funnier is that governments enact such retarded measures because “they” don’t like how well-off single men are currently doing w/o marriage. Of course, men know! Men always will counter-attack! Every time! Men will always adapt to the situation and time it will be by staying single which results in more women living alone for the rest of their lives.
Just look at the article’s COMMENTS section - men of all types stating, NO, announcing their claim to bachelorhood! It’s funny how the gov’t has failed to stop meddling into peoples’ relationships and personal affairs is long overdue.
At 7:38 PM, Anonymous said…
You analyzed the consequences well, let be say some words about it.
When men avoid marriage and cohabit more frequently, obviously children may be born.
At the moment fathers pay and have no rights to those children, but at least they retain their property.
From a conservative point of view, the fact that usually the mother will leave the house poses a problem: she is not married, she lacks protection.
Marriage used to protect the interests of both wife and husband. The husband was sure to have a caring wife, who did her duty, brought up his children and did the housework. The wife had a husband who worked and got money.
This system serves the interest of father, mother and children best and we know that many women do not want to work even so they could do it.
Divorce laws have destroyed the sense of duty of women, thus men avoid marriage.
From a conservative point of view a pregnant woman should marry and remain married her whole life.
This simple solution is not practised, instead they decide that cohabiting equals marriage.
They do not see, that the problem with marriage is the lack of sense of duty of women and security of a man’s interest.
They try to transform cohabiting into marriage, not seeing that marriage itself is destroyed and the root of the problem.
What will be the consequences?
Despite divorce laws many men still marry, because most do not know the law, they believe in justice and fidelity.
For this reason there are still many men who do marry.
Cohabitation ist not regarded as a commitment by men. Young men will warn each other quickly not to cohabit too long.
The “Cohabitation-Strike” will come much faster than the marriage strike.
And together with the cohabitation Strike the awareness of the injustices in marriage will grow and it will enhance the marriage strike, too.
The legislation heightens the burden on men’s shoulders so much, that the system itself strikes back.
These are those ugly things men have to endure:
“A girlfriend left on her own with a man’s children, for instance, would get a cash sum and be likely to keep their house outright, rather than being awarded regular payments.”
Duncan, you are so used to it, you did not comment it: she will keep his house.
The girlfriend keeps his house. In this case she has children, but of course the same applies if she does not have any children.
This is gross discrimination of men: why does she have the children, why does she have the house and not he?
We get used to it and the system will not bear itself for long.
It ist typical: a law (divorce) is introduced that seems fanciful in the beginning. Women are still treated as victims and as someone who needs protection, so they get alimony.
Then people avoid marriage and its pitfalls, because they realise that divorce laws promote divorce.
Then cohabitation increases and needs to be treated as divorce.
Now hopefully it will accelerate and soon, less people will cohabit.
New laws will be introduced until it becomes obvious that the divorce itself is the root of the problem.
Sadly I doubt that people will make divorce illegal fast enough and marriage mandatory for all pregnant women.
Even in this case, one problem will remain: women who do not work or do not get enough children in comparison to a man who works his whole life.
One thing is sure: people will stop cohabiting and will stop marriage faster.
It might not raise the awareness of flagrant discrimination during divorce in the media and legislation but it will certainly raise it among men.
At 7:41 PM, Hutch said…
Duncan Idaho, brings the bare knuckles truth to your doorstep, but why does government insist on making fighting and stealing so rewarding to couples? (and now gays too).
If you could get, say half of what the typical court orders stated, then couples would have the incentive to make relationships work and not the otherway around!
I am writing from my mountain cabin, where my expenses are low, and thank-god, I own this place. Sure I have no running water electricity etc.., but I have distanced myself from the femimatrix which wants to financially ass-rape me every second of the day. In five minutes I will be working on my storage shed, preparing my roof. This shed is where I will put all my tools and important things that I have managed to hang on to since the femimatrix took away my family, two years ago.
Thanks to Duncan Idaho, he Ought to be the next Prime Minister.
At 7:42 PM, Anonymous said…
The loneliness is not just a female problem. They need children and want a husband to stop working, but men, too, wish a caring wife who works dutifully and wish children.
The problem is much bigger.
The whole malaise is just due to the legalization of divorce. It makes marriage unsafe and unpredictable.
At 7:48 PM, Anonymous said…
At the moment so many men are unaware of the dangers of marriage and children born to non married men.
They are unaware they laugh at men like me.
And then some get divorced and are surprised, they say they could not believe it, they did not know. But then it is too late.
Many men take marriage as a lifelong commitment, women can opt out and they know it or learn it fast.
Cohabitation is not seen as a lifelong commitment, so the new laws will raise awareness on the pitfalls of marriage itself.
Some people will still think that it is just to take away, pension, money, children and house (!) of a man, so that his girlfriend gets all, but these people will become a powerless minority.
At 8:19 PM, nevo said…
I’m glad you brought up this subject.
Earlier today I was reading about “Breach of Promise” as suggested by one blogger.
I think I understood it correctly. If a man/woman break or bail out (use as appropiate), from this engagement, either party has a claim for compensation, which can extend to personal property.
In real terms it means that nobody has to go through the marriage charade to be able to have a claim on someone else property.
If the British government already has a law addressing unmarried couples, why on earth they bother with it?
Unless, they want to make sure of maximizing the havoc they want to create in a presently stable unmarried families.
Maximizing the effectiveness of the gold-digger’s charter by exacerbating the greedness in a break-up, more or less guarantee a country of single households in the future.
With the “Civil Partnership 2004″ Law, no one can afford even to have a lodger without a legal contract. Lest he’ll or she’ll be sued for his property claiming breakdown of their relationship when they leave.
The unending insanity of the modern politician will turn present society into a lone anthood colonies.
At 9:39 PM, Mamonaku187 said…
Men will avoid cohabiting like the plague.
Not to mention all the wimmin who will be at risk, being single and living alone.
With the way these relationship laws are going, a woman will be lucky to have any form of long term commitment in her lifetime.
But as you said, their problem, not ours.
At 9:41 PM, Anonymous said…
ColdHammer said…
I think it’s hilarious that the gov’t is going to appropriate this kind of “money making-law” onto the people, er, I mean men, excuse me, without the realization of ‘what will happen.”
What’s funnier is that governments enact such retarded measures because “they” don’t like how well-off single men are currently doing w/o marriage.
Yep, this is it guys. The imminent “PENIS” tax in disguise.
At 11:16 PM, Anonymous said…
On a personal level, i recently told my girlfriend that i didn’t want to buy a house together so she bought her own. We still had a relationship until i told her that i would never marry, have children or live with a woman because of the potential problems i could face if it all goes wrong.
I’m single again!!!
Would i rather be in a relationship…yes. Would she like to settle down, have a home with a husband and have children….yes.
It’s not likely to happen and as much as she resents me for it, it’s the government and feminism that has created this situation. It was ignorance that allowed me to get married, its knowledge that keeps me single.
Womens Aid have been going into schools to preach about domestic violence. Could you mens rights activists please go into schools and teach boys about the fate that awaits them?
At 12:04 AM, mfsob said…
This just goes to show - women are stupid. They’re the ones pushing this load of bullshit, and once cohabitation laws have made a beachhead in jolly old England, it’s only a matter of time before they migrate over to the States. Sigh …
But then - they reap what they sow, and what an interesting crop it is going to be!
At 12:24 AM, Anonymous said…
The Government wants to breed white Brits out.
You heard me right boys. They want whites, and those minorities who are Westernized, to be bred out by 1.0 per female birth rates.
If you have 100 people on an island, 50 men and 50 women, and they all couple up and have one kid apiece………………thats just 50 children in the next generation.
If the kids do it again…….25
If they 25 do it again……..12.5
100 makes 50
50 makes 25
25 makes 12.5
This math works in the millions.
The pinko/Godless/commie/Western Civilization government of England and the overclass HATE intelligent Westerners, and are trying to put enmity between the sexes to get you guys to breed yourselves out over the next 50-70 years. You must explain this to your women over there. That its all an ugly plot to destroy the British race and hand the Island over to a multi-culti menagerie led by the elite like the wage-slaves they will be.
These laws are EVIL. Evil people who hate the British have devised them. I hope you lads resist as best you can, but whatever you do………………explain to women patiently and in writing exactly what the consequences will be in 40 years or so when they are REALLY outnumbered by the Muslims.
Good luck
At 12:28 AM, Anonymous said…
One possible solution I am thinking of is to only cohabit/marry a woman who is richer than me.
If the woman can bring assets and income to the table, it could be the woman taking the financial risk by getting married.
I know a lot of woman have worthless degrees (women’s studies and other such shit), and their “pink collar” jobs.
But there are plenty of women, at least that I know of, who have real degrees and decent careers.
So maybe us bachelors should become like women: demand that potential mates have a certain amount of wealth.
At 12:43 AM, Playboy said…
RE: “Cohabitation is not seen as a lifelong commitment, so the new laws will raise awareness on the pitfalls of marriage itself.”
True. A guy who let his girlfriend move-in and then ended up in court when they broke-up is going to get a small taste of what divorce is like and likely will be less inclined to make that mistake again.
Then again, even wealthy men seen to dumb to figure it out after several divorces… how many wives have Trump and Hefner had?
At 3:35 AM, Anonymous said…
There is going to be a whole new Extortion Industry cropping up out of this.
What is cohabiting? If she sleeps over 4 nights a week, but still gets her mail at her place is she cohabiting? The courts might rule yes.
Since there is not necessarily any public record of them living together what is to keep her from making up a story that she was “cohabiting” with a man? Litigate it until he settles on a support amount. And then repeat the process with another male.
This might turn into a whole new serial plunder occupation for females aided and abetted by the wheels of justice.
Sounds like you can’t even let them in your residence at any time else they will claim they were living there and describe the interior of your residence to “prove it”. May even find a way around that if they never set foot in your residence, but claim to have lived there they will insist the male changed the interior decoration after they broke up thereby “proving” her argument of cohabitation without a shred of proof.
The only way I can see around that is to never paint, recarpet, or otherwise improve the inside of your residence. That way if the little dear insists she lived with you, concocts some phony description of your residence since her description won’t match your residence it will be impossible for cupcake to assert that you remodeled to “defraud her” because you will still have the same 10 year old carpet, furniture, and unpainted walls. It’s very hard to remodel something to make it look rundown.
This also gets into the whole art of asset protection. For example, list your address as living with your parents, but have a condo or other residence owned by a corporation or trust where your name does not show up. If she claims she slept with you she would have to convince the court that your mother allowed some tramp to sleep with her son under the parent’s roof. Would pit female against female in the courtroom. Not very pretty. Hiss! Hiss!
At 7:47 AM, unpleasant bitter git said…
Anonymous 9:41 PM said… “Yep, this is it guys. The imminent “PENIS” tax in disguise.”
If they bring in a “penis” tax then I want a rebate!
Mines only 2 inches long, at least thats what feminists keep telling me anyway.
At 8:13 AM, Captain Zarmband said…
Have you thought about the government’s real agenda here. They know that the more divorce laws they pass the less men marry and they also know that this will apply to cohabitation once these new laws are passed. I sure that this is the whole point. This government has overseen an explosion in the number of single-mothers since they took office. Fewer and fewer children are being raised in the traditional family (i.e. husband and wife) and more are born into chaotic, single-mother households which are dependent on state support. These people are easily controllable by the government, since they are totally dependent on state benefits. The result is that the government is increasing its influence and power as fewer families are independent. When you get down to it these laws are all about the government controlling people’s lives.
At 9:27 AM, Thunderchild said…
You should ‘de-construct’ the embedded rape article too. You would have a field day !
At 9:34 AM, Thunderchild said…
To Nevo
Apologies Nevo, deeper investigation indicated that ‘Breach of Promise’ was abolished in an obscure clause of an Act of Parliament in 1970. It appears, however, with this set of rights that the concept has returned - with a vengeance !
At 12:15 PM, evil woman said…
1 - Get a pre-nup
2 - Alway use a condom
That should stop things getting out of hand. It’s easy!
At 12:56 PM, Anonymous said…
RE: “Since there is not necessarily any public record of them living together what is to keep her from making up a story that she was “cohabiting” with a man? Litigate it until he settles on a support amount. And then repeat the process with another male.”
That is true. At the moment legislators wish to achieve protection of mothers.
But mothers should be married and forced to honour the marriage.
This law does not just apply to cohabiting couple with children but to all of them.
Let’s compare it to false rape accusations: in most of the cases people believe the woman, because she ist weaker and needs protection.
Will most judges believe that a woman was cohabiting?
Certainly there is good chance.
Still it should be difficult for a woman to claim cohabitation if she still owns a home of her own.
What strikes me, is that she gets the house. It is argued that cohabiting couples buying a house together should have rights to it.
But this has always been so: if a group of people buy an asset, the asset is divided depending on the money that was brought in.
Certainly this law aims at women, the single mother that gets the children and the house is mentioned as if it was the normal case.
Certainly the child birth rate will fall even deeper.
Most people learn through experience:
a divorced man usually has children and is old.
A cohabiting man is young and without children. He will learn and tell his friends fast of the dangers of cohabiting and subsequently of marriage.
Discussions will go like this: “Why aren’t you living with your girlfriend in a house?”
“Don’t you know the new laws on cohabitation?”
“What new laws?”
“She gets your house, if you let her in.”
Some guys might use the looser bond between non-cohabiting couples for their own good through getting the girlfriend, but most good friends will hear and listen and take care of themselves.
And some will begin to talk of marriage because both begin to resemble strongly.
So young men will know the injustices of marriage in younger years.
It is sad, they do not want to abolish the main problem: divorce.
Divorce needs to be made illegal, because it is a breach of contract.
Divorce laws and benefits for people who do not want to work, for single mothers etc. make the birth rate plummet.
The effect of divorce laws is obvious: men get robbed of their assets, women do not get as many children as in long lasting marriages.
Social benefits make people lazy and take one major incentive for children: children guaranteed protection in old age.
Take away benefits, take away divorce and see marriage rate and birth rate climbing.
To avoid married women who do not get children and live off the husbands money it is necessary to make it her duty to work on her own or become pregnant.
One pregnancy is not enough, like the man who works until retirement she, too, would have to get more children.
I wouldn’t stand it to work full time and see my wife with just one child and not working on her own.
At 1:34 PM, MS said…
“Of course, next men will be obliged to support a woman they dated for a few months, even without living together, so we’ll avoid that too.”
Then it’ll be a woman we dated for a couple of months, then ones we dated for a month, then ones we went for a few dates with and before you know it, the whole thing starts to look an awful lot like prostitution.
If the feminists continue this bs much longer, I can see it getting to a point where large numbers of guys become so pissed off they either emigrate or join with the Muslims and vote for Sharia …or both. Just desserts indeed!
At 2:38 PM, HAWKEYE said…
yes! we have had these laws in Australia for some time now and yes! all the things you predict have come to pass,however one thing that did come out of it that is not mentioned is that pre nups became legally binding .
At 2:43 PM, HAWKEYE said…
anonymous 11.16pm
i hope you went her for your 1/2 of her house
At 3:17 PM, Anonymous said…
This new law is a victory for men. It’s proof that the marriage strike is working. The divorce courts and lawyers are starting to panic as more men refuse to expose themselves to the scam they have turned marriage into. Now they have to cast their nets out a little farther each time to catch more unsuspecting men. This law will be the followed by more acts of legislative desperation along with increased howling that all men are evil for refusing to cooperate in their own destruction. This going to be so much fun to watch.
At 4:31 PM, byrdeye said…
Why can’t we just keep relationships and financial mergers SEPARATE?!!!
They are NOT synonymous! And what happens if you room with a male friend for 2 years - he gets half too? WTF?!
Most women these days are lying opportunists - so the LAST thing we need is yet another golddigga law that rapes men over the coals! EFF THIS! EFF YOU BIG MAMA!!!
At 4:45 PM, Davout said…
loki on the run said:
“When a society has lots of unattached (unburdened) young males, you have lots of potential for trouble.”
On a related tangent, India and China are going to be great test cases to analyze how countries adapt to accommodate lots of unmarried men.
At 5:56 PM, Anonymous said…
Let me think a bit. What could we do to improve the situation of women?
Take a woman who is dating a guy. Isn’t the date a reason to expect his support?
Didn’t she stopped her career?
She hopes to get married, so if he does not he disappoints her.
The guy is abusing her patience. And so on.
They won’t make a law defining cohabitation as just dating.
But maybe they could make a tax for men to fight “inequalities”.
At 7:39 PM, Viking said…
“A girlfriend left on her own with a man’s children, for instance, would get a cash sum and be likely to keep their house outright, rather than being awarded regular payments.”
I’m calling bulls&!# on this one. If there are no kids involved, maybe he won’t get hit with an alimony like payment, maybe he will just be lucky enough to only loose his house and all his savings. On the other hand if there are kids he is going to be paying at least child support, in addition to all the above.
“it’s only a matter of time before they migrate over to the States. Sigh …”
It is already here if you count the common law marriage laws of a lot of states. Here in Texas all you have to do is be living together and present yourself as married to an outsider in some way. Example, if, after moving your girlfriend in, early that week, she introduces you to a friend, at a party that weekend, as her husband and you simply shrug an mumble, like most guys do in an awkward situation, and don’t directly challenge the claim, your married. That’s it. Done. Technically there is a third part. There has to be at least a verbal agreement between you and her that you are married but of course the “presenting yourself as married” acts as evidence for that agreement. Another way you can “present yourselves” is if she signs anything using your her first name and your last and, again, you don’t dispute it as soon as you find out. Of course it could be tricky to prove that you didn’t know about it. Also putting any bills in both names or giving her access to any of your bank accounts. Even setting up a shared “food fund”.
Pretty soon just speaking to a single woman in public is go to be enough to make you married.
Be strong, stay single.
At 8:09 PM, Viking said…
“This might turn into a whole new serial plunder occupation for females aided and abetted by the wheels of justice.”
It just dawned on my why they would favor a single payout. If a woman gets remarried she looses her alimony. What is the equivalent when you are just living together. It doesn’t do her any good to get a $1000 a month if she is going to loose it as soon as she shacks up with someone else. But if you get a lump sum you can move on to your next victem right away and not loose a cent. And here the polits are trying to convince the guys that this is a good thing, a way of limiting the damage. Bullsh!#
Be Strong, Stay Single!
At 8:28 PM, Viking said…
evil woman said…
1 - Get a pre-nup - easily overruled and completely useless if you do have kids.
2 - Alway use a condom - sometimes fail and she can still cry rape.
Be Strong, Stay Single!
At 8:51 PM, pete said…
Both women and men are going to be very lonely in decades to come. Its time to start pushing men to overcome society’s view that men hanging out together is gay while women hanging out together is empowering.
The double standard (I don’t know if you have it in the US) is that a party without any women in it is a failure, even if it is about manly things that a woman would not be interested in. So you have boys bribing females to attend LAN parties with attention, money and alcohol - all in order to not appear to be a “loser”.
Its very telling that a geeky girl is placed on a pedestal by most guys (who are “normal” and thus geeky) while no girl wants to have anything to do with a nerdy boy.
At 10:17 PM, Viking said…
“The double standard (I don’t know if you have it in the US) is that a party without any women in it is a failure”
A party on Friday or Saturday night, sure, it would be the same. A party on Sunday afternoon or Monday night during football season, not at all. Unfortunately football season doesn’t last all year. I am seeing a lot more lan or console gameing nights though. Still mostly just among the nerds. The non-nerds? More common to work on something together, like putting up a shed or rebuilding a car engine. I try to do a bit of both to keep a balance though lately I have been wasting a lot of time in the World of Warcraft.
After three years in an absolutely miserable marriage and not even making it out with so much as a TV let alone a computer, I have only in the last month gotten a new computer to call my own and not an office laptop loner. For the first time in 4 and half years I am playing one of the MMO and man they have come a long way. I use to feel like I was wasting the opportunity to find a nice girl to settle down with and start a family. You know, the whole, why are you wasting your time on a virtual world and a vicarious life, you should live in the real world. I just done feel guilty anymore. I have no desire to marry again and I don’t even want to take a chance with dating and getting accused of something. I am single and celibate and that’s just fine. I do what I enjoy when I want too. Maybe the money ain’t real but at least that slinky looking dark elf isn’t going to take it all when she is ready to move on. :)
At 12:10 AM, Youngbuck said…
Hey Viking, some of the best times in my life were at LAN parties fragging away at UT2K4. It ain’t just nerds man, although I am one.
I’m just happy to be able to do what I want, when I want. A friend of mine wanted to get the PS3, but his girlfriend found out it was $600 and said she forbids him from spending his money on it. He’s not even supposed to hang out with me and the rest of us, because we are a bad influence, according to her.
That’s what happens when you cohabitate with a woman, they control your life and takeover your stuff. His 24″ widescreen lcd monitor? Gone. It was too wide for her. Oh, keep in mind, this is a girl that buys $800 designer purses, but she forbids him from spending his own money on what he wants.
If this is happiness, I want no part of it.
At 1:18 PM, NYMOM said…
I think the approach England is taking is very very fair.
An earlier article regarding this clearly stated it was mainly going to be used to level the playing field for live-in couples with children. AND that two people living together with no kids, both working, even if one was making less then the other wouldn’t really be impacted under the law. Unless one half of the live-in couple could show where they left their job to help the other person’s career in some way.
Men brought this upon themselves by insisting never-married men be given the same rights to children as married ones, once paternity is established. So you know what: this is womens’ response. That we will then be given the same rights as wives to your financial assets…as two can play that game.
In spite of all your complaining, millions of never-married men have custody of children…here in the US they comprise 30% of the custodial fathers pool…and I assume, since England is very similar to the US, that it’s the same thing there…
So you shot yourselves in the foot by trying to get more advantage for men then you deserve and this is the result.
I’m going to put a post on my blog this weekend celebrating this victory as an example of the state leveling the playing field finally after allowing greedy men to run amuck in society for decades…
People finally got fed up with their brothers all working the system as usual, and, btw, it was probably other men who were mainly fed up with you and took these steps…as most of your legislative bodies (again just like the US) are probably composed of men. So don’t kid yourself that this was just women doing this…
Again, good.
At 1:25 PM, NYMOM said…
“Women are going to be very, very lonely in decades to come…”
Somehow I doubt that.
I actually found that my dog (deceased about two years now) was a far better, loyal, friendlier and more trusting companion to me then my ex-husband…
So you see, you are very easily replaced.
At 3:03 PM, Anonymous said…
You know, the whole, why are you wasting your time on a virtual world and a vicarious life, you should live in the real world.
Of course that’s the whole point. The “real world”, at least that co-opted by the Gynosphere is a fraud. You’re sold a bill of goods and enticed to marry a “nice girl” (***Oxymoron Alert***) then after 30 days of gestation her inner demon is released. At least in virtual worlds you can find enjoyment absent in the Gynosphere. Why venture into areas where everyone is set up to fuck you over? Where is the possible shred of logic in that??
At 5:47 PM, Pete Patriarch said…
I guess nymom has never heard of child support, which DOES give women a license to breed on someone else’s dime.
Anyway, your colors are showing - you think that anything men do to somewhat equalize the playing field is somehow “seeking advantage.”
You’re a hypocrite, a liar and a proper cunt, and I can safely say that you are cut from the same cloth as your feminist sisters.
At 6:37 PM, Anonymous said…
“NYMOM blabbed…”
I thought you promised to crawl back into your dumpster??
At 9:51 PM, voodoojock said…
Shit, the only way you’re going to get the Walmart Walrus to leave is if you threaten to post her personal information and relevant information in a public forum. She’s piss and moan to the contrary, alas, she isn’t a legal scholar, but a two-bit coffee-pot jockey at a university in New York.
Men brought this upon themselves? Guess you never heard of Helen Gurley Brown, who (after taking the helm of Cosmopolitan Magazine in the mid-60’s) espoused the virtues of the pill, free love, and using your sexuality to obtain the things you want in life. All under the guise of ‘femininity’ I might add.
Go on, Walrus, keep thinking it. We’ll keep posting evidence to the contrary. Unlike you, however, men are fixers, and while the question of who started it is debatable, there shall be no question of who’s going to finish it: Men.
At 12:31 AM, HAWKEYE said…
i must admit i feel sorry for wymon like nymom,
they have been brainwashed by the feminists lies,
the poor dears cant see the grave they are making for themselves ,
we try to warn them but thet are just to far gone .
At 11:31 PM, Christopher in Oregon said…
Oh, heavens, NY Mom. I’m sure men (have) been replaced in your life. But, remember if they actually CATCH you having carnal relations with your dog, you will probably be arrested- for cruelty to animals if nothing else.
At 12:56 AM, NYMOM said…
Christopher in Oregon:
You really are a useless idiot…
At 8:53 AM, Anonymous said…
This is not really anon..the gov’t already know everything that goes online!
Point 1..yes this is a ’state-ist’ agenda to control procreation, production and everything else too..(control=feminista,anti-male stooges)
It will, eventually, self limit…other countries will soon need to capitalise on ‘old’ values and encourage intelligent ‘real’ males-and aware females, of course, to migrate to there.
Point 2..No such thing as pre-nup in UK.
Point 3…condoms split (or ‘perish’ the thought)can be sabotaged.
‘Fem’ birth control suspect..too tempting a scenario under these rules!
Wake up girls -we men may be soft hearted to self destruction…but not ALL eternally stupid !!
I’m an old ‘git’ now..learned the hard way…..and sorry for future men and women of good intention -including my kids.
At 6:27 AM, Anonymous said…
NYMOM I feel sorry for the Dog. Heck, at least we can leave, animals dont have that option. I live next door to a feminist who used to yell and scream at her husband on a daily bases. So he left the biatch and she did the same thing as the troll here did. She got a dog. Now instead of yelling at her husband she yells at this little dog. A MALE dog obviously as a female wouldn’t do it for her. Tiny thing gets shamed, berated and generally serves as her witless companion so that she can feel “empowered” I should call animal cruelty. I guess they’d be out here in a moment. You see, you can torment men, but not animals in this country. She makes me SICK as do all there kind. IT always puts on the “sweet me” voice when IT needs the lawn cut or something fixed, SCREW her. Like I am too dumb to hear It’s vile and nasty mouth the rest of the time?
I am a powerful feminist woman. “Until” something goes wrong that I cant handle, which generally means “everything”
FOOTNOTE: When the Chinese or Russians or whatever army comes and they WILL eventually come as they have throughout our ENTIRE history! I’ll watch these sniveling fembots trying to rally the men to fight them and it will be tough SHIT sweetness. Go service them like the WHORES that you have become and you might live. I on the other hand will be welcoming them KNOWING that we are being LIBERATED from our western prisons. DONT fall for it guys, what is left to DEFEND in a matriarchy? The Wimmins rights and privileges and the ELITES way of life: nothing more. OH; They WILL be nice and act all weak and feminine until the threat has been neutralized, then the same plate of warm shit will be served up for us to eat again. SAD SHORT SIGHTED CREATURES THAT THEY ARE!