Well, I hinted about this earlier today, but those nice fools at the Southern Law Group (gotta love US liberals, for their stupidity is so predictable) have decided that the manosphere is evil. Well, this is what they say.
The so-called “manosphere” is peopled with hundreds of websites, blogs and forums dedicated to savaging feminists in particular and women, very typically American women, in general. Although some of the sites make an attempt at civility and try to back their arguments with facts, they are almost all thick with misogynistic attacks that can be astounding for the guttural hatred they express
Absolutely correct.
But there is a reason. It is very simple. The laws around families and men… are at times evil. This evil is concentrated in the USA. This is from Dalrock, who is a little annoyed he did not make the “list of haters”, but it is not an atypical story.
I went through a divorce two years ago, although I did nothing “wrong” so to speak, but rather because my wife was bored. Under my questioning, she said there was nothing I could have done to have prevented the divorce, which I believe to be true. I was not really lacking “game” (hadn’t heard of the term until recently, but I was manly and attractive), but she was very tired of the routine and banalities of married life, and wanted to, in her words, “find herself”, whatever that means.
As is typical, she did very well in the divorce and got the house, car, most of our assets (she cleaned out our bank accounts and savings and stripped the house bare while I was on a camping trip with a friend which she encouraged me to take – I should have been suspicious as it was the first time she had ever wanted me to do something like that, but I was overjoyed, and of course, completely taken by surprise when I returned to a house empty save for the divorce papers; I was never able to recover any of the things she took preemptively), full custody of both children, alimony until remarriage, and I got a disproportionate amount of debt and had to pay for the entire divorce, both lawyers. I have very restrictive visitation, usually I only get to see my children two days per month. I knew women usually were favored in divorce, but had no idea how unjust it was until it happened to me. In addition, I was completely blindsided. She was still very affectionate and sex had not dropped off at all. I never saw it coming.
I am a traditional Christian man, and had always looked forward to fatherhood and raising my children. In fact, I would say having a family was my dream ever since I was little (I never felt “defined” by my career or that it was anything other than a means to an end, but I am not a CEO or doctor). Now I am watching my children grow up in fast-forward, without any say in how they are raised. I have missed all of the birthdays and Christmases (and other holidays) for the past two years, not by choice. It is truly devastating to spend a month not hearing my children’s voice, or even touching them (let alone any human being) for weeks at a time, to say nothing of losing (who I thought to be) my soulmate after 15 years of marriage.
What is the most painful realization is that I have lost my future. I make $70,000 a year, but have to live on $15,000 after the payments (which I pay the taxes for, can you believe it? – I am in the $70,000 bracket!). I went from a decent house to a $500/month apartment in a bad part of town, and now live alone. I realize that I am becoming estranged from my children (I don’t really know anything about them).
Now, this poor bastard lives in the US, where the laws are simply misandrist. I live in New Zealand, and I am not estranged from my children. But it took a very good lawyer (guys, hire a girl lawyer. She will see through your ex in ten seconds) to get something that worked for the kids. And we have laws that are strictly equal. There is no assumption that a man will provide, or a woman will care. The courts are supposed (and are beginning now to change so this happens ) to work for the children’s interests — and that does not necessarily mean the mother or father.
If children are suffering, and removal of a decent parent from a child will cause that child to suffer, then evil is systematic. It is a cause for anger. It is best to see feminism — as an ideology — as something that is actively destructive to families, to men, and to our children. Now, the fact that the legal apparatus of the liberal (read stupidly, destructively, evil) branch of US politics disapproves of this is as expected as the KKK disapproving of me loving and marrying a woman of another race, staying with her for 20 years, and then bleeding when the marriage was killed.
Ah, you say, this is not systematic. Well here, I am going to quote Novaseeker.
By the way, if anyone reading thinks that John’s story quoted in the post is atypical or odd for the US, you’re quite wrong.
Be aware that, in many US states at least:
(1) Your spouse can clean out the bank accounts (and in many cases the movable assets) without any real accounting at the time of the finalization of the divorce, because you weren’t separated at the time of said cleaning out, and the cash, which was a marital asset at the time, has now simply been consumed, as in “poof, there it goes”. This is why so many people do it, by the way. Feel vindicated and that the judge will view this poorly? Guess again (unless you’re the guy, of course).
(2) Once your spouse leaves with the kids, or you are removed by your spouse from the spouse and the kids, your likelihood of getting custody is quite small, because a temporary custody order will generally come into effect (if she is being advised properly), and the final custody determination, which typically comes quite some time later, gives heavy weight to this “de facto” custody situation — in effect, the way the system works is that in everything other than outlier cases, you lose custody almost immediately upon separation, and even though this is “temporary”, technically, de facto it generally becomes permanent.
(3) If the situation described in (2) happens, you’re very unlikely to get the house, either. The house normally goes to the parent with the custody. In some states, the court will make that spouse “buy out” the other spouse’s portion of the equity value of the property by selling or refinancing, but in situations where there are significantly unequal incomes, the asset distribution can be quite unequal, too (in favor of the lower income spouse), resulting in this simply not being distributed, or being greatly reduced.
(4) Your ability to enforce visitation “rights” is almost nil in most places. Technically, your spouse is violating the law by violating the court’s decree, but other than issuing a new decree reiterating , the visitation order, courts generally won’t do much else to enforce these. They almost never are willing to accept this as a basis to revise the custody order, either. In fact, custody orders are very hard to revise under almost any circumstances, barring a truly awful situation involving the custodial parent — it’s more likely that the kids get referred to CPS than that your custody order gets revised, to be honest. So, your ability to see your kids depends largely on the goodwill of the custodial parent. If you find yourself in this situation, and she is of relative goodwill, maintaining this is the best option, if you want to see your kids regularly. If you have a war-like relationship with your ex, your likelihood of having regular visitation decreases, as she has incentives to block and no real enforcement. Once a lover/boyfriend/second husband comes into the picture, it complicates things even further around visitation, because you start to have a step-Dad in the picture who spends more time with your kids than you do, and has more of an influence on them than you do, whether he actively does that or not. Also, keep in mind that quite a few states won’t prevent a custodial parent from moving very far away with your kids simply on the basis of a visitation order — in these states you’ll be expected to lump it and figure it out, or move yourself to where your kids now live if you want to see them more often (but don’t expect your support obligations to go down if your new job pays less).
Now, I know of no part of scripture that tells me that I cannot hate. Instead, I am told to hate evil.
And the US court system is simply evil.
It destroys women by making marriage something that is easily dissolved. This means that men are much less likely to commit (for every may has heard stories of what goes wrong). Having a live in relationship, in current law, is a recipe for poverty. It is more rational to be a cad or an otaku. But no society can live like this, and most women do not want to be enemies with their lover. They want to have peace… but they are instead told that any male behaviour is violent.
(Not all power issues are violence. Hatred is not violent. Assault is violence — and that is a crime everywhere. To have an additional crime based on a persons fear is to make all people slaves. It is the same as Massa beating Jim because he may be thinking of escaping. Now, if you try to enslave me, I’ll fight.
But if you try to enslave my two sons, or my two grandsons (or my daughter or granddaughter, I’m an equal opportunity misanthrope) I will fight. Preferably using the courts, because that will hurt you more.)
It destroys children by opening them to neglect and abuse. The man a child is safest with is their father. They are most at risk from their mother’s new lover, particularly if he has a history of violence and aggression against women.
And it destroys men directly. The rate of suicide, for men, increases following divorce. If you are bloody minded enough to survive, you are left with financial and familial consequences.
The current system is more evil than Jim Crow. Racist laws are oppressive and wrong, true. But they did not destroy the family and damage the soul. This does.
So the manosphere is not the “Hate Crime”. Feminism is.
Like this:
Like Loading...
