Dr Stephen Baskerville has two videos on the dangers of (Anti-)Family Courts:
Feb 142013
Jan 222013
Infowars.com is a website run by Alex Jones, a well known conspiracy theorist. Some people think Alex Jones is against feminism. This is incorrect. He is no more against feminism than Mark Driscoll is. Recently Infowars.com published a list of 22 things that are wrong with men these days demonstrating their misandry:
#3 The average American girl spends 5 hours a week playing video games. The average American boy spends 13 hours a week playing video games.
#4 The average young American will spend 10,000 hours playing video games before the age of 21.
#5 One study discovered that 88 percent of all Americans between the ages of 8 and 18 play video games, and that video game addiction is approximately four times as common among boys as it is among girls.
Infowars.com thinks that there is something wrong with video games yet they can’t actually come up with anything other than video games are a popular hobby. (For all we know “video game addiction” being more common in boys may be nothing but misandry against men and a predominately male hobby.) What is the problem Infowars.com has with video games? It has been proven that there is no link between video games and violence. (Infowars.com didn’t even try to say this.) The only reason Infowars.com can have a problem with American men and boys playing video games is misandry.
#12 Pornography addiction is a major problem among our young men. An astounding 30 percent of all Internet traffic now goes to pornography websites, and one survey found that 25 percent of all employees that have Internet access in the United States even visit sex websites while they are at work.
While visiting porn websites at work is a bad idea, what is the problem here? So what if men look at porn? Infowars.com hasn’t come up with an actual problem here except that more men than women are interested in porn. Again, the only reason Infowars.com has a problem with this is misandry.
#14 The United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate on the entire planet. If our young men behaved differently this would not be happening.
#15 In the United States today, one out of every four teen girls has at least one sexually transmitted disease. If our young men were not sex-obsessed idiots running around constantly looking to “score” these diseases would not be spreading like this.
Now, we’re getting into some heavy duty misandry. Anyone who understands the 80/20 rule, and how women ride the cock carousel knows why this is wrong. This is misandry in its most pure form since there is only a tiny fraction of men involved in these things but lots of women.
#16 Right now, approximately 53 percent of all Americans in the 18 to 24 year old age bracket are living at home with their parents.
#17 According to one survey, 29 percent of all Americans in the 25 to 34 year old age bracket are still living with their parents.
#18 Young men are nearly twice as likely to live with their parents as young women the same age are.
#19 Overall, approximately 25 million American adults are living with their parents in the United States right now according to Time Magazine.
Why is this the fault of young men? Young men go through a massively misandrist education system, and when they get to working age they are discriminated against in jobs with policies like affirmative action. I’m sure most of these young men would like to have their own place, but they can’t because they are actively being discriminated against. Why blame young men for this? Misandry.
#20 Today, an all-time low 44.2% of Americans between the ages of 25 and 34 are married.
#21 Back in 1950, 78 percent of all households in the United States contained a married couple. Today, that number has declined to 48 percent.
MAN UP AND MARRY THOSE SLUTS!!!!!!! If you don’t the Rockefellers/Rothschilds/bankers/Jews/NWO/demons/reptile aliens win. This gets blamed on young men, and there is no talk about anti-family courts, fathers losing the children in divorce, and how marriage is an all around bad deal for men (if not dangerous). Young men refusing to get married is rational, and I’m glad to see it happening. Alex Jones should be happy about this development, but he isn’t because he is a misandrist.
After reading this, it’s clear to me that there’s no difference between Alex Jones and someone like Mark Driscoll except that Mark Driscoll doesn’t rant about the (non-existent) NWO. Take Mark Driscoll’s “how dare you” rant of misandry.
Add some ranting about the NWO to Driscoll’s rant, and it could have come from Alex Jones. Alex Jones is nothing but Mark Driscoll plus conspiracy theory.
Oct 212012
Whenever a politician is supportive of mens rights, even just a little bit, we should support that politician. Gary Johnson, the former Republican governor of New Mexico is one such politician. He is running on the Libertarian party ticket with Judge Jim Gray as his running mate. Gov. Johnson is the only presidential candidate this year (including those candidates who didn’t make it past the primaries) to come out in support of any aspect of mens rights. Here is a video of Gov. Johnson talking to Fathers and Families about fathers rights issues:
Gov. Johnson gets it when it comes to fathers rights. In the video he doesn’t talk about other aspects of mens rights, but even if he is unaware of them, Gov. Johnson is likely to understand the issues and support mens rights. For president this year I am going to be voting for the Johnson/Gray ticket. Even though he has only talked about fathers rights, that puts him far ahead of anyone else running for president.
For what it’s worth (and it isn’t worth that much), I am endorsing Gov. Johnson for President of the U.S.
Oct 212012
My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.
For anyone who cares about mens rights, voting can be problematic. For a particular office the choices are often a feminist vs. a conservative female supremacist who is anti-feminist in name only. As a result it is understandable that many MRAs would decide that voting is pointless. However, for MRAs in the U.S. should vote this November for two reasons.
The first reason is that judges at the state level are often elected unlike federal judges who are appointed. As was said by Dean Esmay at A Voice For Men, anti-family courts operate at the state level, and the courts that falsely imprison men for rape, abuse, or other crimes at state courts. This means it is possible (depending on the state) to vote misandrist judges out of office. Even if judges in a particular state aren’t elected, your vote for state offices can have a greater impact than your vote at the federal level. In addition, in many states district attorneys and prosecutors are elected as well. This provides the opportunity for MRAs to vote out misandrist prosecutors. This will need to be a strategy used across multiple election cycles to make it work so the best thing is to get started in November’s election. (A good place to start is with the information that Dean Esmay provided at A Voice For Men.)
The second reason to vote this November is to put a stop to the “war on women” myth. As liberal politicians have become more dependent on the women’s vote, their pandering to women has reached a fever pitch with the myth of the “war on women”. The only way to put a stop to this level of pandering to women is by voting against any and all politicians who say there is a “war on women”. Vote for a conservative politician or a third party politician. If there are no candidates for a particular office other than a politician invoking the mythical “war on women”, then write in “the war on women is a myth”. It doesn’t matter which one you pick, as long as you register a vote that is not for a politician who says there is a “war on women”. This will also need to be a strategy used across multiple election cycles so again it is best to start by voting this November.
If MRAs vote this November for these two reasons (and continue to vote with the same goals over the next several elections), then this strategy can have a real impact to roll back feminism and help men who would otherwise be in the cross hairs of feminist policies.
Feb 252012
I made some updates to The Truth About (Anti-)Family Courts page. I made some minor tweaks, added a link for Brendan’s recommendation of Stephen Baskerville’s book, “Taken Into Custody”. I also added this comment from Brendan:
The way that the system is set up currently actively punishes men who make this decision. As bad as it can be for other guys, the guys who get it the level absolute worst in divorces are the guys who have SAHMs for wives. If you have a SAHM and get divorced, you’re in for one hell of an ass-fucking by the courts financially. Asset division will be skewed in her favor (considered “equitable” because she has lower earning capacity to replace these in the future) and alimony will be high and long in many states — and don’t even think about fighting a SAHM to take away her sole custody unless she’s a drug addict. This is the hi/lo bet for guys who the have “traditional Chistian” marriages. If it doesn’t work, you’re fucked even worse than the guys who married the career feminists are, because if you have nearly equal incomes, things like asset division are more likely to be closer to equal, and alimony is in most states out of the picture.
Link to that page as much as possible. Use it as a resource whenever needed. It has vital information that all men need to know.
I’m disabling comments on this post because I want to keep all discussion on that page. Follow the link or click on the tab at the top of the blog to read the page and comment on it.
Feb 232012
I added a new page called The Truth About (Anti-)Family Courts. It has some really important information that needs to be read and disseminated. I’m disabling comments on this post because all of the content is on the new page. Follow the link or click on the tab at the top of the blog to read the page and comment on it.
Feb 122012
There’s a new show on the Discovery channel called Bering Sea Gold. It’s one of those reality TV shows that show blue collar men working in remote regions of the world. In this case, it’s about men from Nome, Alaska who are mining the seafloor of the Bering Sea for gold.
I’m not that interested in that type of show, but I usually like to catch an episode or two of these shows to confirm a theory I have about them. That theory is that there will never be more than one woman who is a regular on this kind of TV show. The reason for that is because when there’s real (and hard) work to be done, women are nowhere to be found. It’s men who get real work done. Sometimes, you will see one woman on this type of show, but no more because she’s the token chick. This is probably because the producers didn’t want to feature men exclusively.
My theory held with Bering Sea Gold. There’s only one woman who is mining gold, and she clearly is the token chick. This chick is trying to earn money so she can pay to get a Masters degree in opera in Europe. Apparently, she thought gold mining would be a good way to get cash. Her main purpose seems to be showing cleavage to the camera (which she has done a few times) and screwing up. To mine gold from the seafloor or the Bering Sea someone dives down from their boat and takes a massive vacuum to suck the top of the seafloor into a machine that sorts the gold from the dirt. This works because the gold is in tiny pieces and on the top of the seafloor due to various natural processes. The first time the token chick dived down, she wasn’t careful, and her arm got sucked into the vacuum. She was able to get her arm out and was fine, but right before it happened anyone watching could tell she wasn’t being careful and was going to get her arm sucked into the vacuum. Later she said that she is absent minded and not very safety conscious. In other words, she an a direct encounter with reality that slapped her in the face. The gold mining boat she is on is just her and the captain/owner of the boat. The captain even said that her contribution to his gold mining operation was pretty minimal.
Beyond the token chick, there were some very interesting metaphors in this show. The captain/owner of the boat that the token chick works on seems like a he could be a MGHOW. At one point he talked about how he doesn’t have a girlfriend (the token chick isn’t his girlfriend and there is nothing going on between them at all), and how gold is really his girlfriend right now. He also does things like live in a Mongolian yurt on the beach, etc. Given the size of his boat and mining operation, he is also the one making the most money so far. (There is a boat that is making more money than him, but it’s much bigger and has more overhead so this guy is coming out ahead so far.) Of course the token chick is working for the possible MGHOW. He has the gold (literally) while everyone else is tapped out.
On one of the other boats, the captain of that boat owes a lot in child support payments. He has talked about how if he doesn’t get some money to pay child support, he’s going to jail. In other words, he is practically mining gold to hand over to his ex-wife and her increasing demands. That’s a real good metaphor for the feminist anti-family court system.
Even in Nome, Alaska, you can’t get away from feminism.
Jul 042011
“As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.”-Donald Rumsfeld
There has been a lot of criticism of MRAs speaking out about Thomas Ball from other MRAs and our supporters (such as this) because Mr. Ball isn’t the perfect victim of anti-family courts. Mr. Ball did slap his daughter and wrote things in his manifesto that could be used against MRAs. While all of that are good points, remember what Rumsfeld has said. You go to war with what you got, not what you want or would wish to have later. The reaction to Mr. Ball has given us several unique opportunities to strike back at feminists despite all the negatives so we must use them. We can ask questions like, why does Wikipedia not want to talk about him if he’s just an abusive man? We can point out how feminists like Amanda Marcotte are saying crazy things like male suicide is abuse of women. Remember she didn’t say it just applied to Mr. Ball. It applied to men committing suicide in general. We can also point out how feminists like Amanda Marcotte casually throw out the word, “terrorist”, to describe men who commit suicide, not just Mr. Ball.
Bigger than all of that is the potential for MRM exposure. Many conservatives hate Amanda Marcotte with a passion so they have run with what we had to say about Mr. Ball and given a platform for exposing the misandry of feminists. We could not have left that opportunity on the table because Mr. Ball wasn’t perfect. As Rumsfeld said, sometimes you have to go to war with what you got and not what you wish you had. This was one of those times.
Jun 302011
(I have started a new category for these posts called Amanda Marcotte’s Misandry.)
Amanda Marcotte and other feminists are continuing to dig a hole all the way to the core of the Earth when it comes to Thomas Ball. She wrote a piece on Thomas Ball for Pandagon saying the following:
Ball luckily didn’t hurt anyone but himself, but his is just another story in what is a growing list of acts of violence and domestic terrorism from the unhinged element on the right.
Since when did suicide become an act of violence against other people? Since when did suicide become an act of TERRORISM? Mr. Ball went out of his way to make sure no one else got hurt in his suicide. He can not be compared to a suicide bomber. There is no way a rational person can consider this man a terrorist. Mr. Ball didn’t terrorize anyone which is a fundamental part of the definition of terrorism. On the other hand, an anti-family court terrorized Mr. Ball so that court could be considered “terrorist”.
The feminists commenting at Pandagon are just as insane as Amanda Marcotte. Here is an example:
I was caught off guard by Ball’s statement that the Klan is a hate group in his rambling manifesto. I wasn’t expecting that because of the intersections between MRA’s, tea baggers and hate groups.
What intersection between MRAs, the Tea Party, and hate groups? The Tea Party hasn’t done anything for mens rights issues and there’s no link between the MRM and hate groups. White Supremacists are really feminists. The ideology of the WKKK (Women’s KKK, the female section of the KKK) was almost the same as modern feminism. It’s not surprising that Mr. Ball would want nothing to do with hate groups that are filled with white knights for women. Maybe Mr. Ball also remembered that the false rape industry started with white women in the South falsely accusing black men of rape and realized the connection between that and the modern false rape industry.
If you thought that last comment was insane, take a look at this:
Suicide threats are an extremely typical Nice Guy tactic. I have had so many guys say something like “Oh, I guess I should just kill myself then” if I turned them down for a date or broke up with them.
I have always been of the opinion that the “nice guy” doesn’t really exist except as a caricature and a straw man. This confirms it for me. The idea that there’s a group of men seriously threatening women with suicide if they don’t date them is so far from reality that I can’t believe that it’s taken seriously by other commentors at Pandagon.
Another commentor go farther into the realm of absurdity:
Guys like him are narcissistic assholes. He doesn’t “like” anyone; they only exist for him. For guys like him, kids aren’t there for him to love and care for, they’re there as a display of the might power of his penis and the fact that he’s had sex with a woman.
This is just proof that feminists don’t consider men to be human beings. What other possible reason is there for writing something so absurd?
Dr. Helen has written about this subject again, this time at Pajamas Media. A lot of the comments were from white knights who kept accusing Mr. Ball of taking away his kids’ father. They didn’t realize that the anti-family courts had already done this. Regardless Dr. Helen made an interesting point:
As one of my commenters pointed out in a post I put up on the case, when a woman burns her husband to death in his sleep, it’s seen as a major wake-up call regarding violence against women, and is immortalized in an award-winning movie starring Farah Fawcett titled The Burning Bed.
But somehow, when a man like Thomas Ball burns himself up, it is not seen as a wake-up call for how men are treated unjustly by the court system. Instead, some “compassionate souls” see his death as yet another wake-up call regarding the needs of women. Do men ever matter to these “feminists,” or do they get pleasure out of men’s pain? I am thinking the latter.
Jun 262011
(I have started a new category for these posts called Amanda Marcotte’s Misandry.)
It’s time for the daily Amanda Marcotte insanity update. But before we get to that, I would like the thank those of you over the weekend who made a donation to help cover blog expenses. It’s much appreciated. For those of you wishing to donate the link is in the top right corner of the blog or below:
You will want to read the updates from American Power, Robert Stacy McCain, Snark and Snark again. Chuck has found a picture of Maureen Lafontane, the social worker involved with Mr. Ball’s case.
Since yesterday’s post, Amanda Marcotte is digging a deeper hole trying to claim that men committing suicide are abusing women. Yesterday, she tried to claim that a man who attempted suicide to avoid being arrested by the police actually shot himself to abuse a woman. Here is what we have today:
Re: Stories of men abusing wives by killing themselves. Scroll down to the “threats” section. http://bit.ly/h8on5v It’s a common tactic.
@LosTheSkald Oh, for sure. But experts agree that abusers—both male and female, of course—use suicide and threats to hurt their victims.
The link from the first tweet doesn’t even say that men committing suicide is abuse. It says “threats of suicide“. That’s a massive difference. On top of that the link is from an (obviously feminist) organization called Women’s Aid so it’s not like it’s that trustworthy in the first place. Despite her claim in the second tweet, Amanda Marcotte has not shown that “experts” (whoever said experts are supposed to be) have shown that men commit suicide as a way to abuse women.
Even the “threats of suicide” as a form of abuse of women doesn’t really hold water. Men actually commit suicide at a rate of around four times of that of women. Women talk more about committing suicide than actually doing it. With men it’s the reverse. If men are actually using threats of suicide as abuse, then those men are actually more “feminine” than the general population of men. What is most likely the case is that no one in that “Women’s Aid” feminist organization has ever actually talked to a man or has any clue about how men think or the male experience.
Our own Chuck had a couple of good responses:
@AmandaMarcotte what nuance was there in saying that men often kill selves for revenge? do you nuance all suicides?
@amandamarcotte and how about your duke lacrosse nuance? what about nuance in cases of alleged rapes? you aren’t consistent in your nuance.
The more Amanda Marcotte talks about this subject, the more it’s clear that I was right to call her writings, “pure feminist evil”. I predict in the not too distant future that Amanda Marcotte will claim that dead men are abusing women and that men who go ghost, men who have minimal contact (or no contact if possible) with women, are actually abusing women.
Jun 252011
(I have started a new category for these posts called Amanda Marcotte’s Misandry.)
My last post on Amanda Marcotte has generated a lot of hits. First Snark sent it to the mens rights reddit. Then TFH sent it to Instapundit/Glenn Reynolds. My thanks to the both of you. Since then that post has been linked at Dr. Helen, American Power, and elsewhere. The daily hitcount for yesterday and especially today has been far beyond anything I have ever had. That being said there have been some interesting reactions.
The first is from Mara who commented here on the blog. (There was some question whether Mara was Maura from this post who was obsessed with my genitalia. I checked the IP addresses and they are clearly two different people.) She tried to use the fact that Mr. Ball once slapped his daughter as an excuse to justify the feminist totalitarianism used against him in anti-family court. Here is what Mr. Ball had to say about that:
When I got the Court Complaint form the box was checked that said Domestic Violence Related. I could not believe that slapping your child was domestic violence. So I looked up the law. Minor custodial children are exempted. Apparently, 93% of American parents still spank, slap or pinch their children. To this day I still wonder if Freyer would have made this arrest if it had been the mother that had slapped the child.
This site I pulled that quote from is thomasjamesball.com, a website recording all of the facts about what happened to Mr. Ball. If this was as simple as Mr. Ball being a violent man, then why is there an attempt to erase all knowledge about him at places like wikipedia?
Worse than Mara, we have a conservative who responded to Glenn Reynolds defending the anti-family court system:
Assistant Village Idiot here. People who have a hair across their ass in general about the family court system are trying to keep the Thomas Ball story alive as if he is some kind of victim. In his efforts to have unsupervised visits with his daughter, he was told to have his visits supervised by Monadnock Family Services. He refused because he blames them for his problems.
I deal with that agency all the time, though not the children’s services – I have for 30 years. They are entirely reasonable people who make adjustments and accommodations for people who don’t like them or are suspicious of them all the time. Hell, they are a mental health center, so most of their clients are difficult and suspicious. They are not some Orwellian controlling agency. Ball decided that being pissy and proving that he was right about one incident ten years ago was more important than seeing his daughter. He’s no victim.
Family courts may indeed be prejudiced against fathers – I hear that, but I don’t know. I’ve certainly dealt with many cases of NH courts ruling in favor of fathers in custody disputes, though, and I don’t see a massive trend here. It pays to remember that MFS cannot tell its side of the story because of confidentiality, and that some pathological people hide by trying to tie themselves to legitimate causes. Wolves hide in sheep’s clothing, because it doesn’t do any good to hide in wolves’ clothing, does it?
Here is the blog of the guy that wrote that.
Again, the question has to be asked, if it’s this simple then why is there an attempt to hide what Mr. Ball did from places like wikipedia? This guy says he has had no dealings with children’s services and really doesn’t know if anti-family courts are prejudiced against fathers. Those of us who do know, know that anti-family courts are prejudiced against men. We have decades of evidence proving that fact.
Amanda Marcotte has finally responded to this on her twitter:
@AmPowerBlog Yep. It’s not uncommon for abusers to turn to self-harm to continue exerting control over their victims. http://chzb.gr/lLvaEz
Glenn Reyonds asked (most likely rhetorically) if Amanda Marcotte said the original quote from manboobz. Since she is now defending it, there should be no question it was Amanda Marcotte.
Take a look at her link. It’s about a criminal who barricaded himself in a hotel room with a woman. At the end of the standoff, the man decided to shoot himself in the chest in an attempt to not be arrested by police. The woman he was with was completely unharmed. In Amanda Marcotte’s deluded mind, this man was shooting himself to screw a woman over. What Amanda Marcotte said makes about as much sense as saying that UFOs were involved in this incident.
When it comes to committing suicide what group is doing it the most? Men. Divorce radically increases the chances that a man will commit suicide. Rather than recognize this as the tragedy it is and recognize the part that anti-family courts are playing in ending these men’s lives, Amanda Marcotte is claiming that men who commit suicide are doing it to screw over a woman. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from this is that Amanda Marcotte does not think men are human beings.
Jun 242011
(I have started a new category for these posts called Amanda Marcotte’s Misandry.)
When it comes to dealing with the reality of Thomas Ball, who committed suicide by setting himself on fire due to feminist anti-family courts, feminists and their magina sycophants have been trying to find ways to avoid dealing with that reality. Some are trying to cover up what Thomas Ball did. Amanda Marcotte used a different tactic on the manboobz blog:
I’ll point out that setting yourself on fire is an extremely effective tool if your goal is to make your ex-wife’s life a living hell, and if your anger at losing control over her overwhelms all other desires. Which is common enough with abusers, who will ruin their own lives and their own shit and turn their children against them in an effort to hurt the woman they’ve fixated on.
Words can not express my disgust with this. It’s pure feminist evil. A man gets severely abused by feminist anti-family courts to the point where he thinks he has no hope left and only has the choice to end his own life, but Amanda Marcotte thinks the “real victim” is his ex-wife. A man whose life was destroyed by anti-family courts burns himself to death, but Marcotte thinks a woman is the hardest hit.
There’s so many more things I could say about this, but why? Marcotte’s remark and its crass and feminist nature speaks for itself.
Jun 192011
The Fifth Horseman posted this idea:
That is why church would be a great place for a PUA to run Game, and instead of complain about the feminization of church, use the church as a Sunday morning nightclub.
1) There is a built-in structure to meet women that takes out the difficulty of doing a cold approach.
2) All other men there are so pedestalizing, that the competition to a man who actually runs moderate Game is nil.
3) Sunday morning = where else would you Game at that time?
4) Once you have slept with a couple women in that church, simply move on to another church. Who cares if one is Baptist and the other is Episcopalian and the third is Lutheran? Just use up the desirable women and move on.I’m not Christian, and could not easily blend in there, but I encourage white guys to do this every Sunday. Make the church implode on itself.
Oh, and remember to post flyers in the Church’s bathrooms, under the URLs @ Urinals campaign.
I think this is a great idea. The churches for the most part are feminized and filled with white knights. They also push men into getting married acting as a one-two punch with the anti-family court system. One way or another this will force churches to defeminize or destroy them. Either outcome is preferable to what we have now.
All you need to do to use the “Sunday Morning Nightclub” is find a church with single women. Some churches are pretty much all families so avoid them. Other churches are supertraditional where everyone gets married before 20. Unless you’re in the middle of nowhere in a rural area, you aren’t going to encounter those. I would also avoid Eastern Orthodox churches. I only say that since the Eastern Orthodox churches tend to attract more men than women. Supposedly they aren’t that feminized either, but I don’t know if that’s really the case or that’s temporary because the Orthodox churches haven’t been on the radar screen since they aren’t very visible in North America. (I would think that the lack of feminization would not apply to the Greek Orthodox church. This is something Novaseeker if he was still around could tell us about.)
When it comes to meeting the women there, you already have built in openers to use such as how “you have been looking for a church”. These women will put out for you. You aren’t going to find any virgins waiting for marriage (with the exception of a few outliers with very unusual issues). The women there are better described as “sluts for Jesus”.
If you a member of a religion other than Christianity or familiar with non-Christian religions than I assume it would work the same in those places as well.
And as The Fifth Horseman reminds us: PUT UP SOME FLYERS.
I’m sure this post will get criticism from the socon/tradcon set for encouraging the defilement of virgins (even though there are basically no virgins in church anymore) and preying on “innocent women” (despite the fact that there aren’t any innocent women in church either.
May 072011
Novaseeker wrote about how child support really works. It’s something every man needs to read:
The main problem with the CS regime is that people are generally unaware how it really works. They assume it works one way, but really don’t understand the disparate impact of how it actually works. In effect, it is an additional tax, full stop, on the father which is paid to the mother on a tax-free basis. It really doesn’t matter how much you make, the tax rate is basically the same, the way the statutory formulas/guidelines generally work. People think it’s based on “income share”, because that’s how the statute is worded, and that’s how it was peddled when the CS rules were changed, but as you’ll see below, it’s really a flat tax on the father’s income regardless of income share.
Here are some examples, just to clarify. Let’s assume a child support calculator that is 15% of pre-tax income for one child.
Example One
=========
H income = 100k
W income = 100k
Total household income = 200k
Total support amount is 15% of 200k, which is 30k. H’s share of total income is 50%, so H pays ex-W 15k, or 15% of his pre-tax income.Let’s look at what happens when we change the income levels.
Example Two
=========
H income = 100k
W income = 50k
Total household income = 150k
Total support amount is 15% of 150k, which is 22,500. H’s share of income is 66.67%, so H pays ex-W 66.67% of 22,500, which is …. 15k, or 15% of his pre-tax income.Ok. What happens when ex-W earns a lot more than H?
Example Three
H income = 50k
W income = 100k
Total household income = 150k
Total support amount is 15% of 150k, which is 22,500. H’s share of income is 33.34%, so H pays ex-W 33.34% of 22,500, which is 7500. 7500 is, you guessed it, 15% of H’s pre-tax income.The way it works is that the father pays a flat rate of his income to the mother no matter what. The actual amount of dollars that flow depends on income share, which means that a guy in example three pays less actual dollars, but the dollars that he does pay are the same % of his pre-tax income as the guys earning twice as much in examples one and two. It’s the same percentage of income no matter what. It’s a flat tax, plain and simple, which is then paid to Mom on a tax-free basis.
CS payments are invisible from the tax perspective, which, in effect, means that the tax impact is terribly disproportionate. Dad doesn’t get any deduction for CS payments. They’re treated as if they were rent or gasoline (except they are not variable — you can’t reduce the cost as you can with rent or gasoline by moving or driving less). And Mom receives them tax free — these payments are not reported on her tax return and are generally invisible. And, as the original post points out, they are made with after-tax dollars, so the actual “effect on income” is much, much higher than 15% — i.e., it’s much more than 15% of the take-home pay of Dad. If Dad in example one has take home pay of, say 60k, 15k of that goes to CS, which is 25% of his take-home pay being transferred to his ex-wife on a tax-free basis to her on an ongoing basis. And, again, that doesn’t even take into account the health care premiums, the college savings account requirements, the life insurance premiums, and so on, that one is required to maintain in the typical decree. At the end of the day, this is a huge, huge wealth transfer from men to women, and it takes place on a completely unreported basis because, again, these payments don’t count for tax purposes, so they are not figured in Mom’s income. Flatly put, it’s a big, big scam, but if you complain about it, you’re instantly denigrated as a deadbeat supporting jackass who hates women and children. It’s a system that has been well designed by feminists to enslave men to their ex-wives, in practice.
Apr 032011
This was originally written by Paul Elam at The Spearhead. It is reprinted here as he requested it to be reprinted by as many bloggers as possible
There are often times that we shake our heads at injustices in the world. Sometimes it seems to be all we can do. And with so many problems in modern life, and their often systemic, intractable nature, it can be difficult to choose what battles to fight and when. Because of this we have increasingly become a nation of head shakers, concerned about an array of injustices but often not knowing where to turn or what to do to solve them.
With that in mind we have an opportunity, right here and now, to face down and fight against a terrible injustice, an absolute evil, going on in the state of Maine.
Vladek Filler is about to face trial for a second time on the charge of raping his wife, Ligia. He was brought to trial the first time by Bar Harbor prosecutor Mary N. Kellett, who has sought to imprison Mr. Filler despite the fact that she knows that there is no physical evidence that he ever committed a crime, and despite the fact that his accuser Ligia Filler, has proven to be a violent criminal, a liar who has been caught in false allegations against her husband, and a physical and emotional abuser of her husband and children with a history of severe psychiatric problems.
Ligia Filler has been referred to as “certifiable” by sheriff’s department personnel who she repeatedly threatened to kill.
Mary Kellett’s professional conduct in this case breeches virtually all canons of legal ethics where it concerns prosecutors, from intentionally misleading jurors to avoiding pretrial discovery to actually asking a law enforcement officer to refuse to comply with a valid subpoena in order to help her conceal exculpatory evidence.
All of this, and many other similar cases, have been conducted under the supervision of Bar Harbor, Maine, District Attorney Carletta Bassano, leading to the almost unavoidable conclusion that the problem is not just one rogue prosecutor, but one in which District Attorney Bassano is an enabling accomplice.
Additionally, all of these events have transpired without so much as raising an eyebrow in local news media.
Given the complicity of her supervisor and the lack of attention by local media, Kellet appears emboldened to continue this reign of terror on the life of Vladek Filler, his children, and other innocents who reside in the community Kellett is supposed to protect.
After having Filler’s first conviction overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct by the Maine Supreme Court, she is coming after him again, putting him through another trial on the same slipshod evidence.
Kellett is not pursuing justice; she is making a mockery of it in ways that border on criminality. She is out of control and no one with authority over her is doing anything about it.
And given the hubris demonstrated by her actions, it is clear she feels free to proceed with impunity.
We cannot, must not, allow this to happen.
This is a battle worth choosing to fight, and A Voice for Men is not the only place that is happening. Glenn Sacks at Father’s and Families, the nation’s leader in father’s rights advocacy is speaking out about this story. You can also read about it at The False Rape Society. This article will also be running at the-spearhead.com, with thanks to our good friend Mr. W.F. Price.
The organization Stop Abusive and Violent Environments(S.A.V.E.) has taken the even more significant action, sending a Complaint for the Disbarment of Prosecutor Mary Kellett to the Maine Board of Overseers for the Bar.
They have also authored a letter to Paul LePage, the Governor of Maine, referencing the disbarment complaint and making an appeal for an intervention on Mary Kellett on behalf of Vladek Filler and the people of Maine.
And you can do your part.
Write Governor LePage here and respectfully insist on an investigation to the practices of Mary N. Kellett. The message can be as simple as. “For the sake of justice, please assure that Mary Kellett is relieved of her prosecutorial duties and disbarred from the practice of law.”
Write the Board of overseers for the Bar here, and insist that they respond to the allegations against Kellett with an investigation.
Lastly, try to get the media involved. Bill Trotter does crime reporting for the Bangor Daily News. You can write email him at btrotter@bangordailynews.com or phone him at 207-460-6318 and ask him to consider investigating this story.
Don’t wait for others to do this, please, or think that just one person calling and writing is enough. That would be a fatal mistake.
When you have done one or all the suggestions listed here, please come back to this thread and simply put the word “done” in the comments, wherever you are reading this.
What is happening in Maine is only a microcosm of what is happening across the western world. So regardless of where you live, your insistent message to one or all of these people can help force them to consider looking in to Kellett’s activities. And make no mistake about it, Kellett’s actions, if unchecked, are a forecast of own future. We know this is a witch hunt, but because most are ignoring it, it will spread. If we take this silently, we have lost in the most tragic and disgraceful of ways.
This is a fight worth fighting, people. If you are reading this, you could be another Vladek Filler, or someone who cares about him. Your children could be hurt the same way his children have And your freedom, even if seemingly secure today, cannot be assured for tomorrow. As long as the likes of Mary Kellett are allowed to practice predatory prosecutions against innocent human beings no one is safe.
And If she is allowed to build a career on doing this, there will be nothing to stop the same from happening where you live.
It is your future, and your move.
Feb 232011
Over the last several days we have heard the usual litany of complaints about The Spearhead and MRAs with respect to the “language” we use. The (Not) Thinking Housewife complained about our “evil” profanity and from other places came the usual nonsense about how “scary” our language is or how we’re “scaring away women and other moderates who support us”. (“Scary” language is code orange shaming language, and “scaring away moderates” is used so much it should become it’s own category of shaming language.)
Zed explained what this is really all about:
That wasn’t my actual experience, Mr. Billy Goat Gruff, I was using that as an analogy for what always happens on these boards. I wrote a post not long ago how men are demanded to act like robots and how no women and few men even acknowledge their humanity. We must follow the programming they are trying to shove down our throats at all times. Men’s pain is absolutely taboo to even speak of.
Peter Nolan has had everything he worked for for more than 20 years of his life stolen from him, been betrayed in the foulest possible manner and lied about by the woman who vowed to “cherish” him until “death do us part”, lost his children, and everyone just sort of skips over those inconvenient facts to tell him that he shouldn’t be so forceful when he talks about it, and should “tone it down.”
Men have no place to go to express their pain, anger, and anguish among other men who understand. Everyone wants to 2nd guess how he “should” be saying it, so that they don’t have to listen to or acknowledge what he is saying. It is just one subtle way that is used to suppress and silence men.
I likened it to someone who is seriously injured and in pain having that pain ignored and instead having everyone critique how he expresses it.
Zed is correct. All this talk about how a man should be speaking about these issues is a subtle attempt to silence men. If a man can’t communicate the severity of a problem, then he can’t communicate the real nature of that problem. On top of that it doesn’t matter what a man says or how severe he says it when it comes to mens rights issues. We could completely eliminate all profanity from our blog posts and comments and have them triple checked by lawyers to not offend anyone. It wouldn’t matter. No matter how good or bad our language is we would still get these accusations since it’s all about silencing men.
Talk about “scaring away moderates who support us” is similar in its attempt to silence men. If men don’t speak out about these issues, any “moderates” we might gain would be offset by the fact that they would have no knowledge of the real issues or their severity. And a lot of the “moderates” aren’t really moderates. They’re just hiding their misandry through triangulation. A real moderate who supports us wouldn’t spend years denouncing the “scary” language of The Spearhead and how it scares away moderates. A real moderate who supports us would look more like Glenn Sacks. If Sacks is aware of The Spearhead he may think it’s too extreme but that doesn’t stop him from his work in fathers rights, reforming the (anti-)family court system, ending false accusations, etc. He doesn’t complain on his blog over and over again about the “scary men on The Spearhead”. In fact these “moderates who support us” never say a word about men like Glenn Sacks much less try to work with them. This is just proof that the “moderates who support us” are neither moderate nor do they support us.
Attempting to silence men will not work. Pretending the problem doesn’t exist does not make it go away. In fact it will make the problem worse. If you’re worried about “scary” language now, you haven’t seen anything yet. Just wait until 2015 or 2020 when the current generation of boys start becoming adults. They have experienced the boot of feminism on their necks way worse than anyone reading this probably has. The Spearhead as it is now will seem tame in comparison.
Feb 012011
Yes, that’s billion with a B. Valerie Joyce Wilson Turks is suing P Diddy for $900 billion in child support and another $100 billion for “loss of income” for a grand total of $1 trillion dollars. Turks’ son, Cornelius Wilson, is 23 years old. She’s claims P Diddy is the father but she waited to sue until 5 years past the age of becoming an adult. It gets even better. She claims P Diddy date raped her 24 years ago then 18 years after that raped her again and sexually abused her children. In addition, Turks claims that P Diddy along with his ex-girlfriend Kim Porter and Rodney King are responsible for the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11. Read what this woman had to say in her own words:
[Diddy] went through Kim Porter and Rodney King and knocked down the WTC and then they all came and knocked my children down. Set me up to be on disability and disabled my baby. he put my baby in a wheelchair.
He date raped me 24 years ago and knocked me down him and Kim Porter and Wallace Wright, then Sean Combs and Kim and Wallace Wright came back 18 years later and raped and sexually abused my children and knocked my children down and crushed me and my children daily.
Those are her words exactly. While I doubt P Diddy will have to pay any child support, he is still going to have to pay for lawyers to deal with this woman. This lawsuit shouldn’t have been taken seriously at all. Turks should have been hauled away by guys in white coats instead of being allowed to waste the time of an actual court. Too often mental illness is women is regarded as normal female behavior and this seems to be a case of that. A man would not be able to take a lawsuit this crazy this far.
I have said half joking and half seriously that we will eventually see reptile alien conspiracy mythology become a part of the false rape industry. (A very minor part but a part none the less.) We’re not there yet but with this woman claiming that P Diddy was responsible for the WTC in a obviously nuts child support lawsuit, we’re getting closer. The reason why it will happen is because these things aren’t being immediately thrown out due to obvious insanity. Expect crazier and crazier lawsuits of this nature from women.
Even if you think I’m wrong about this, consider that these crazy lawsuits from crazy women allow other women to get away with slightly more crazy, immoral, and/or unethical behavior than they do now both in court and out. This happens because the standard of sanity for women gets defined down so more and more insane behavior from women gets considered normal and sane. Fifty years ago if I said that women would be using false claims of child abuse in divorce cases, for example, I would be regarded as nuts. But that has happened. One reason why it happened was that women weren’t held to the same standard as men when it came to the law. Sane behavior for women has been defined down far enough that a lawsuit like this against P Diddy where he gets accused of “knocking down the WTC” can go as far as it has. Every little bit makes the problem worse, and this lawsuit is a big bit.