Don’t Marry

Do you have a middle ground?
Post by freshy on Dec 16, 2005, 9:32pm

I stumbled across this site today and since reading it I was left wondering if any of you had any middle ground?

There were some parts I could totally agree with (unfairness in divorce laws and custody being the main part) and other that I don’t at all (liberal being a dirty word, mostly).

In my case I definitely consider myself a feminist but I also have a son and want the world to be as fair for him as for my daughter.

I am divorced, in the divorce I ended up much better off than my ex because I was working and had family who would help me if needed. He wasn’t working and so had nothing. We were renting, so no house, and with no job on his half I knew child support wasn’t happening. I gave him our rather meager savings straight out and we split custody as equally as we could, so that he has them two days a week after school and one overnight on the weekend. I have them the rest of the time. We both get along fairly well and I know he is barely making his bills so until he is in a better financial situation I will not be asking for any form of child support since it is not necessary at this time.

Now my beliefs as far as that goes seems fairly in line with the other ones here. I’ve had to fight and declare the entire topic off-limits to my friends since they wanted me to go after him for child support as soon as he was working and insisted that I should have taken as much of the savings as I was entitled too. Knowing I was in an overall better position it seemed cruel and unnecessary to me and disgusted me that my friends were so rabid about the entire process.

I don’t participate in nor want to hear general man-bashing. If their is a particular legitimate grievance that I can understand, but general bashing is cruel and ridiculous.

Personally, while I dislike chivalry I make no exceptions to this rule. I pay for myself when out with my boyfriend or occasionally he will pay for me but I make sure to return the favor and pay for him the next time, or slip money into his pocket when he isn’t looking. I think the only time a woman should hit a man is in self-defense, if a woman hits outside of that then she should expect to get hit back. I don’t believe in things being “equal” in my (female) favor.

But in all of your minds does that automatically go along with being right-wing and conservative? If it does, why? I’ve seen reference to it but no direct answer so I was wondering why you (generally you) believe the two to be related?
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by myachingback on Dec 16, 2005, 10:36pm

I respect the men here for their candor and for what many have endured; I don’t necessarily share their politics across the board. I am older than most here (55) and my third marriage (18 years) is going poorly.

I am, in some respects at least, both “liberal” and “conservative.” I believe in environmental protection, voting rights, and that if government is going to redistribute income, it’s better that the money should flow downhill.

On the other hand, I believe in the right to gun ownership, local rather than national government concerning most issues (we call that “states’ rights”) and, um, I am not a feminist and think few American women really value their husbands as men or as fathers.

I am not a libertarian down the line, but however odd or repellent one might find, say, homosexuality, I don’t feel threatened by gays and, well, we heterosexuals ain’t doing such a good job that I feel entitled to condemn them. And I think the “War on Drugs” is a huge scam — secret services are the biggest dope dealers on the planet — and a pretext to put young black men in prison. If you wanna get high, it’s not my business; I am not sure that I’m obligated to pay for a lifetime of drug treatment for you, either, but frankly I would rather pay for that than for jail.

I have no respect at all for Bush or for Cheney. Indeed, I think they are enemies of freedom and of the Constitution. I also believe they sponsored, or at least permitted, the 9-11 attacks. So me and the neo-cons indeed don’t get along.

So, no, you don’t have to be right-wing to be a sexual traditionalist, or to believe that men and women have fundamentally different life agendas and that children do best with two parents who mostly like each other.

——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by openeyes on Dec 17, 2005, 12:05am

I largely grew up among hippies, and most of the men in my family vote libertarian. As far as politics goes, it sounds like I largely agree with MyAchingBack.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by Simpson on Dec 17, 2005, 12:25am

So freshy, why are you divorced?

(Believe me, this is the first question I would ask you if we met).

On what planet did you get divorced, because on this one he would have been required to pay child support regardless if you could have a say in it. (first mistake in your post).

Declared feminist, aye (second mistake in your post).

Dislike men being men and women who know their place (third mistake in your post).

Trying to keep everything equal with your BF, bet that makes him feel like a man. (you already struck out, so the mistakes keep piling up).

Woman hits man, he gets to hit back – ummm . . . not likely, have you heard of VAWA – he goes to jail automatically without recourse. Your begging and pleading with the officer makes no difference.

Sounds like crappola that inside your head makes sense but Bovine Scat around here.

This isn’t a liberal vs. conservative issue, cupcake – so you are already out in left field – this is a system that eats men for lunch.

From experience, you sound like this is not the place for you. Middle ground? Ha, you have no clue – spend a week here and get some background first.

By the way, your son is screwed like the rest of us men – worse because you dumped his father and is destined to stealing hubcaps and making license plates for a career.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by johnyquest on Dec 17, 2005, 1:52am

Dec 16, 2005, 9:32pm, freshy wrote:
In my case I definitely consider myself a feminist but I also have a son and want the world to be as fair for him as for my daughter.

This is a contradiction. You’re adamant that you’re a feminist, which means you support feminist values. Feminists do NOT think the world should be as fair for men as it is for women. If they did, feminism in the western world would have died out long ago (because women already have MORE rights than men.) So in other words, you’re a typical female who supports the preferential treatment of women at the expense of men, until it concerns an immediate family member who happens to be male (son, father, brother). Sorry but the world is NOT going to be as fair to your son as it is for your daughter, so get used to it. Welcome to the feminist world.

Feminism = systematic destruction of society.

That’s the cause that you’re supporting.

——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by thechief on Dec 17, 2005, 10:43am

Dec 17, 2005, 12:25am, Simpson wrote: On what planet did you get divorced, because on this one he would have been required to pay child support regardless if you could have a say in it. (first mistake in your post).

Hate to be contrary here, but in the interest of accuracy I have to. If she was on TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), what we used to call AFDC or welfare, then yeah, she would have to get a child support order. But as long as she’s not on public cash aid, seeking child support or not is entirely the woman’s decision (or the man’s, in those few cases where he ends up with custody).
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by Simpson on Dec 17, 2005, 10:57am

I defer to you, Chief. If anybody knows the facts in this area it is you. Don’t worry about being contrary, I want the facts, and for this board to be accurate.

In the assumed circumstances here, could she later return to court and get an order – if say the ex becomes gainfully employed and starts making good money?
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by chrisvet on Dec 17, 2005, 11:47am

Dec 16, 2005, 9:32pm, freshy wrote: I stumbled across this site today and since reading it I was left wondering if any of you had any middle ground?

There were some parts I could totally agree with (unfairness in divorce laws and custody being the main part) and other that I don’t at all (liberal being a dirty word, mostly).

In my case I definitely consider myself a feminist but I also have a son and want the world to be as fair for him as for my daughter.

I am divorced, in the divorce I ended up much better off than my ex because I was working and had family who would help me if needed. He wasn’t working and so had nothing. We were renting, so no house, and with no job on his half I knew child support wasn’t happening. I gave him our rather meager savings straight out and we split custody as equally as we could, so that he has them two days a week after school and one overnight on the weekend. I have them the rest of the time. We both get along fairly well and I know he is barely making his bills so until he is in a better financial situation I will not be asking for any form of child support since it is not necessary at this time.

Now my beliefs as far as that goes seems fairly in line with the other ones here. I’ve had to fight and declare the entire topic off-limits to my friends since they wanted me to go after him for child support as soon as he was working and insisted that I should have taken as much of the savings as I was entitled too. Knowing I was in an overall better position it seemed cruel and unnecessary to me and disgusted me that my friends were so rabid about the entire process.

I don’t participate in nor want to hear general man-bashing. If their is a particular legitimate grievance that I can understand, but general bashing is cruel and ridiculous.

Personally, while I dislike chivalry I make no exceptions to this rule. I pay for myself when out with my boyfriend or occassionally he will pay for me but I make sure to return the favor and pay for him the next time, or slip money into his pocket when he isn’t looking. I think the only time a woman should hit a man is in self-defense, if a woman hits outside of that then she should expect to get hit back. I don’t believe in things being “equal” in my (female) favor.

But in all of your minds does that automatically go along with being right-wing and conservative? If it does, why? I’ve seen reference to it but no direct answer so I was wondering why you (generally you) believe the two to be related?

Alright, you gave him your savings, but kept the furnished apartment. Now that I straightened that out, men are not wanted, and their role as protector provider is no longer “correctly” indoctrinated (especially if they are from broken single mother homes.)

Women don’t need men, and their role as mother, “keeper of strong household” isn’t taught either. Men are taught to be the “enemy” and the “oppressor.”

The gov’t has replaced “Dads” with assraping laws and safety nets, and a mountain load of people earn their living (within gov’t) depend on your divorce and numerous conflicts that arise from it.

The direct / indirect goal of any socialist society is the complete breakdown of the family unit. Feminism flourishes in this environment and contributed to this. Great past prosperity in the US brought this about.

Any questions?
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by chrisvet on Dec 17, 2005, 11:51am

Oh, and when you move on to Mr. #2, and Mr. #1 gets a job, I guarantee you’ll be right there @ the courthouse demanding 70% of his income.

Women always seek to get the best deal possible.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by openeyes on Dec 17, 2005, 12:20pm

This piece did bring up something I’d thought about before: if one doesn’t want to lose his house in a divorce, rent.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by Jamie on Dec 17, 2005, 12:50pm

No middle ground here freshy. Doesn’t exist for these fellas. They don’t have hope.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by Richie Rich on Dec 17, 2005, 12:50pm

There is no middle ground in the USA.

Top: Female = Winner in majority of legal cases against men

Middle: basically void

Bottom: Men = losers in the legal system against women.

——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by knighterrant on Dec 17, 2005, 12:54pm

You’re right Jamie, I’ve given up hope for you

PS. There never WAS any hope for you
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by Richie Rich on Dec 17, 2005, 12:57pm

This piece did bring up something I’d thought about before: if one doesn’t want to lose his house in a divorce, rent.

-openeyes

This is so true. Many men scoff at this idea (rightfully so) because renting is only enriching the property owners but when they have been fully ass raped in court and lose the house then they see the logic behind it. Either way the man loses in this cruel system. I know quite a few guys who refuse to buy a house and pay expense rent to avoid there women from screwing them over. Of course these same guys lost homes in the past and learned how to not repeat that mistake again!!
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by Jamie on Dec 17, 2005, 12:59pm

It is just laughable that the men here think that they are at the bottom in this country. It’s actually quite amusing.

Here’s a woman (freshy) – who seems reasonable and fair – maybe new around here and not versed in the opinions of the men here about the legal system – but seemingly reasonable and not trying to rip her ex off – but nothing’s good enough for you guys. She still gets shredded. It’s just ridiculous.

It’s a man world we live in. Period.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by John Ross on Dec 17, 2005, 1:21pm

Freshy, use the “preview” key next time. Your post is often incomprehensible.

The political leanings on this board vary all over the map.

JR
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by travis on Dec 17, 2005, 1:25pm

Men are on top, but taken down, for stupid reasons, in the courtroom.

Jamie, for your sake, I hope this country never gets taken over by Islam fanatics.

By the way, nice shaming language in your 2nd post.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by Jamie wants to fight on Dec 17, 2005, 1:34pm

Meanwhile, nice weather outside, how about where you are?
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by John Ross on Dec 17, 2005, 1:50pm

Gorgeous, sunny and cold. I’m going flying.

JR
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by Simpson on Dec 17, 2005, 2:12pm

Nice where I am, too. I’ going to drive fast and take chances on my motorcycle.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by thechief on Dec 17, 2005, 4:18pm

Dec 17, 2005, 10:57am, Simpson wrote:
In the assumed circumstances here, could she later return to court and get an order – if say the ex becomes gainfully employed and starts making good money?

Yes. She can either go to the child support enforcement agency in her state and get an administrative order, or hire a lawyer and take it to court. If she goes the administrative route everything will pretty much be determined by a strict formula. If she does it in court, it’ll all depend on who has the best lawyer and what kind of mood the judge is in that day.

Oh, and weather. Cool, overcast, a little windy. Kind of dreary, but I’m probably seeing KONG tonight, so life is good.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by antiriad on Dec 17, 2005, 9:07pm

Dec 17, 2005, 1:52am, johnyquest wrote:
Dec 16, 2005, 9:32pm, freshy wrote:
In my case I definitely consider myself a feminist but I also have a son and want the world to be as fair for him as for my daughter.

This is a contradiction. You’re adamant that you’re a feminist, which means you support feminist values. Feminists do NOT think the world should be as fair for men as it is for women. If they did, feminism in the western world would have died out long ago (because women already have MORE rights than men.) So in other words, you’re a typical female who supports the preferential treatment of women at the expense of men, until it concerns an immediate family member who happens to be male (son, father, brother). Sorry but the world is NOT going to be as fair to your son as it is for your daughter, so get used to it. Welcome to the feminist world.
Feminism = systematic destruction of society. That’s the cause that you’re supporting.

“Fairness” to feminists = what’s mine is mine, what’s yours is mine. Let’s not make the mistake of expecting consistency and exactness from these people.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by Truthslayer on Dec 18, 2005, 12:26am

Words from my sensei:

The problem with America is the fact that we don’t distinguish between equal and fair.

Marriage is like a business. In business there IS no middle ground. Your partner either puts in their share or they don’t deserve any profits. You either are making the company money or costing the company money.

In a marriage, things are supposed to be 50/50 and most things will be split 50/50 at the divorce. That is equal.

However, if one spouse puts in 95% of the financial work and assets, they should be entitled to that much that they put in. That is fair.

Anyone care to guess what the reality is?

Jamie who sweats like pig
No middle ground here freshy. Doesn’t exist for these fellas. They don’t have hope.
*As always, you speak from YOUR opinion.

We hope more men wake up, count the cost of marriage and relationships, avoid women like you as MUCH as possible, find a good women they are compatible with and avoid bringing the government into their relationship.

I hope I get a shiny new computer that’s better than chrisvet’s .
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by uzername on Dec 18, 2005, 3:27am

freshy,

there’s a whole bunch of factors at work in this neck of the woods. Essentially, social factors, be they whatever they are made out to be, have rendered an attitude toward individualism in western societies. Some parallels to Ayn Rand’s idea of individualism, but significantly divergent from the idea of true self relianace and responsibility. We have a sort of cheap facsimile version of individualism, built on empty populist media messages, impotent political phylosophical rhetoric and the cheap fix of materialism/vanity/consumerism to give us that temporary high associated with a true sense of the individualist self.

What does it mean? Essentially, we have lost a lot of respect for each other in this world. People’s attitudes and behaviours toward one another can be seriously warped. The way folks talk to each other on net forums strikes my as indicative of a generalised backdrop of at least faint malevolence, resigned melancholy and outright malicious disdain.

Attitudes of mutual disregard feed into a dog-eat-dog mentality. And that attitude works its way into socio-political systems. Before long, whether you get eaten or do the eating depends on the law and/or personal discretion. You appear to have been quite reasonable and demonstrate an apparently laudible character. At face value that is highly commendable. Flipside, as the devils advocate, maybe the meager pickings of a strawman made such laudible conduct easy and inevitable. Then again, you seem to have been very reasonable about the kids. Good stuff. Be nice if there was more of it.

Point lm trying to make is that the system allows you a choice that has potentially onerous consequences on a man’s life and he must more or less defer exclusively to trust, he must make a leap of faith. We dont get the fall back that you get and the reasons really dont matter to us… consequences and outcomes matter more, much more than reasons. You can give us the faith and trust, but mostly you have the law on your side should it all go pear shaped. Its sort of easier for you to make the leap than it is for many men. At least that is how many men see it. Things like the divorce rate and custody arrangements tend to weigh on a man’s perspective.

Personally, l dont really buy into the blanket dismissals and stereotypes of western or other women nor men for that matter. It all a bit too convenient for my tastes and whilst it can be useful, interesting, entertaining, this, that and the other… it strikes me as the lazy way thru. lf its one thing l will not do it is live in an the absence of hope.

l think that men and women have fought the gender war for too long. We are where we are and l dont see the point of nostalgia induced social/political/economic reorganisation. l would prefer to learn to get along.

It gets tedious thinking in us and them terms all the time about so many friggin things in the world. It gets especially annoying when applied to something so basic, natural and essential as loving, respectful relationships between men and women. Sure we do it, all of us, but l think its out of hurt. Sure, the deck is stacked toward women in the private domain. Though l think that men have for the most part kept control of the public sphere. Men play the power game very, very hard indeed. We accept the consequences and we will pay the piper. Our eyes are mostly open.

l dunno, l suppose women get resentful about that public power and so exercise a sort of politically inspired transference of that perceived imbalance onto their relationships and families and the men in them. As a guy, that stuff gets annoying. It suggests a deep seated hostility which is ultimately damaging to a healthy relationship. Men and women need a fair amount of tolerence and understanding of each other to make a happy life. Politics just gets in the way. Sets up conflict, discontent, anxiety, tension. Not good for a relationship.

Anyway, we arent all at one extreme or the other. Some of us arent on a linear continuum and prefer to see ourselves inside a sphere, bouncing about, taking whatever serves, when we want it. Politics is all a lot of rot in the end and a great distrcation. A way to convince ourselves that we are doing something, rendering change by talking, talking, talking about it. From what l can see, people go their own way if so motivated. If enough people do it, then you get social change. If more people keep doing it, the politicians move in, make a lot of noise, pick up some votes and start ‘making changes’ to the laws.

Things have a way of sorting themselves out. l like to start with myself… hence dont marry. But, heck, dont stop lovin em.

Cheers.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by Freshy on Dec 18, 2005, 5:16pm

So freshy, why are you divorced?

A fair question. We were together for 7 years, in that time my ex never held a job for more than 3 months. I also put him through school which had me essentially being a single parent for over a year. After he graduated he chose not to seek employment that used his degree because he could not find a job related to his degree where he liked the type of work, he also refused to try doing an unpaid internship that could have led to the type of employment that he wished for. The final straw was when he quit yet another job (had finally been working a good full-time job for about 3 months) to pursue his band. Overnight the band fell completely apart and rather than get his old job back (which would have been easy, it was a small company and they didn’t want him to leave) he said he was just going to concentrate fully on his music and I was expected to support our entire family. There was no discussion involved in this decision, he just declared that was the way it was going to be.

Now, if I had a great job where I could easily support the family and he was doing his share while he was home I’m not sure if that would have been a deal-breaker, even though it still would have involved no discussion. That wasn’t the case though. I like working outside the home but I want a partner willing to put in as much effort as I am. Instead I was making money and taking care of the house and children, while he was playing his music and drinking everynight.

On what planet did you get divorced, because on this one he would have been required to pay child support regardless if you could have a say in it. (first mistake in your post).

That was answered, but to expand on it we waited 18 months for a no-fault divorce and went through a mediator instead of lawyers. We were able to basically make all of our own decisions.

Declared feminist, aye (second mistake in your post).

I call myself a feminist because I like to work outside of the home, I enjoy voting, and if you steer away from the more fringe elements the basis of feminism really is equality. The group of feminists I hangout with have a strict policy of no male-bashing because we all recognize that as unfair and just plain wrong.

Also, personally speaking, I always try to critically examine everything that I believe rather than just going along with the crowd. I use the term feminist but the truth is that their is no single word or group that defines me or fits within my beliefs.

Dislike men being men and women who know their place (third mistake in your post).

Trying to keep everything equal with your BF, bet that makes him feel like a man. (you already struck out, so the mistakes keep piling up).

So this leaves me to wonder, do you think there should be equality or do you believe all women should stay home and take care of the kids and house while the man works?

For me, I prefer a true 50/50 partnership. My boyfriend and I have been friends since our very early teens but we never dated until after I had divorced. He certainly knew my beliefs and personality by that point and had seen me go through all of my relationships. Heck, he’s friends (as am I) with a few of my ex’s so there were no surprises for him.

My boyfriend is a very hard worker and I respect him for that. He always gets a backrub after a long day at work . He has also told me that he has no interest being with a woman who doesn’t work outside the home and that he wants a partner who contributes as much as he does. His beliefs and mine fit together quite well.

I don’t think I take away his masculinity though. One small example: we are both tattooed. We always go to the same great artist and we know the guy very well. Still, when I was getting a back tattoo that required me to pretty much have my shirt off I asked my boyfriend to be there. I didn’t feel it was right to show that much skin around any other guy unless my boyfriend is there and okay with it. He appreciated that I was thinking of it in those terms.

He loves tattoos and thinks they are very sexy but has asked me not to tattoo my stomach because he likes the way it looks as it is. I have no problem with doing that for him. I have not even thought of giving him any such restrictions, but I am happy to comply with his because it makes him happy and when he is happy I am happy.

Woman hits man, he gets to hit back – ummm . . . not likely, have you heard of VAWA – he goes to jail automatically without recourse. Your begging and pleading with the officer makes no difference.

I said that is what I believe, not what is reality. I have a lot of beliefs of the way I would LIKE things run, which I think are fair to discuss. That doesn’t mean I think that is how it works in reality. It didn’t come across well, but by saying that I was more trying to convey that I believe a woman has absolutely no right to hit a man, just like I believe a man has no right to hit a woman (except in self-defense).

Sounds like crappola that inside your head makes sense but Bovine Scat around here.

This isn’t a liberal vs. conservative issue, cupcake – so you are already out in left field – this is a system that eats men for lunch.

From what I had read here I was unsure whether or not many people did consider it a liberal vs. conservative issue. Hence the reason for my question. It seemed to me that some might think of it in those terms.

From experience, you sound like this is not the place for you. Middle ground? Ha, you have no clue – spend a week here and get some background first.

Hmm, not really sure I was looking for a place for me. I think I was more just curious about some of your core beliefs. I’m always interested in seeing an issue from as many sides as posible.

By the way, your son is screwed like the rest of us men – worse because you dumped his father and is destined to stealing hubcaps and making license plates for a career.

I will never speak ill of my ex as a father. Since the divorce he is actually more involved in our children’s lives. He takes them as much as he is able to with work and I make sure they are always available for him when he has the time.

Is having a father who never held down a job and drank everynight a good role-model? Since the divorce the ex has been forced to keep a job and has slowed down his drinking considerably since I am not there to support him. I prefer to see it more as my son has many good role-models now. He sees my boyfriend quite often and watches him and I do work around the house and he sees my boyfriend put in a hard day’s work (for the record, my boyfriend and I do not live together but he is over most nights around dinnertime or a bit after), he sees his father holding down a job finally, and he has two very involved grandfathers who both have terrific ethics. Outside of political issues I think my son is very lucky to have the men involved in his life that he does and that he will do quite well as he grows.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by Freshy on Dec 18, 2005, 5:26pm

Dec 17, 2005, 11:47am, chrisvet wrote:
Alright, you gave him your savings, but kept the furnished apartment. Now that I straightened that out, men are not wanted, and their role as protector provider is no longer “correctly” indoctrinated (especially if they are from broken single mother homes.)

Women don’t need men, and their role as mother, “keeper of strong household” isn’t taught either. Men are taught to be the “enemy” and the “oppressor.”

The gov’t has replaced “Dads” with assraping laws and safety nets, and a mountain load of people earn their living (within gov’t) depend on your divorce and numerous conflicts that arise from it.

The direct / indirect goal of any socialist society is the complete breakdown of the family unit. Feminism flourishes in this environment and contributed to this. Great past prosperity in the US brought this about.
Any questions?

For the record we actually split everything in the apartment and I moved back in with my parents. Oh does that ever suck, but they are letting me and the kids stay here rent free while I go back to college to get my degree. The ex and I married and had kids very young and I supported him while he went to school but that was never returned so I am going to school now.

Actually I do have a question, what do you mean by men are taught to be the “enemy” and “opressor”?

P.S. My ex comes from a very traditional home as do I. My mother never worked outside of the house once I was born but did all the housework and my father worked as the provider and would spend his weekends taking my brother and I to our various activites so that we still got time to be together and bond.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by Freshy on Dec 18, 2005, 5:43pm

Dec 18, 2005, 3:27am, uzername wrote: freshy,

there’s a whole bunch of factors at work in this neck of the woods. Essentially, social factors, be they whatever they are made out to be, have rendered an attitude toward individualism in western societies. Some parallels to Ayn Rand’s idea of individualism, but significantly divergent from the idea of true self relianace and responsibility. We have a sort of cheap facsimile version of individualism, built on empty populist media messages, impotent political phylosophical rhetoric and the cheap fix of materialism/vanity/consumerism to give us that temporary high associated with a true sense of the individualist self.

What does it mean? Essentially, we have lost a lot of respect for each other in this world. People’s attitudes and behaviours toward one another can be seriously warped. The way folks talk to each other on net forums strikes my as indicative of a generalised backdrop of at least faint malevolence, resigned melancholy and outright malicious disdain.

Attitudes of mutual disregard feed into a dog-eat-dog mentality. And that attitude works its way into socio-political systems. Before long, whether you get eaten or do the eating depends on the law and/or personal discretion. You appear to have been quite reasonable and demonstrate an apparently laudible character. At face value that is highly commendable. Flipside, as the devils advocate, maybe the meager pickings of a strawman made such laudible conduct easy and inevitable. Then again, you seem to have been very reasonable about the kids. Good stuff. Be nice if there was more of it.

Point lm trying to make is that the system allows you a choice that has potentially onerous consequences on a man’s life and he must more or less defer exclusively to trust, he must make a leap of faith. We dont get the fall back that you get and the reasons really dont matter to us… consequences and outcomes matter more, much more than reasons. You can give us the faith and trust, but mostly you have the law on your side should it all go pear shaped. Its sort of easier for you to make the leap than it is for many men. At least that is how many men see it. Things like the divorce rate and custody arrangements tend to weigh on a man’s perspective.

Personally, l dont really buy into the blanket dismissals and stereotypes of western or other women nor men for that matter. It all a bit too convenient for my tastes and whilst it can be useful, interesting, entertaining, this, that and the other… it strikes me as the lazy way thru. lf its one thing l will not do it is live in an the absence of hope.

l think that men and women have fought the gender war for too long. We are where we are and l dont see the point of nostalgia induced social/political/economic reorganisation. l would prefer to learn to get along.

It gets tedious thinking in us and them terms all the time about so many friggin things in the world. It gets especially annoying when applied to something so basic, natural and essential as loving, respectful relationships between men and women. Sure we do it, all of us, but l think its out of hurt. Sure, the deck is stacked toward women in the private domain. Though l think that men have for the most part kept control of the public sphere. Men play the power game very, very hard indeed. We accept the consequences and we will pay the piper. Our eyes are mostly open.

l dunno, l suppose women get resentful about that public power and so exercise a sort of politically inspired transference of that perceived imbalance onto their relationships and families and the men in them. As a guy, that stuff gets annoying. It suggests a deep seated hostility which is ultimately damaging to a healthy relationship. Men and women need a fair amount of tolerence and understanding of each other to make a happy life. Politics just gets in the way. Sets up conflict, discontent, anxiety, tension. Not good for a relationship.

Anyway, we arent all at one extreme or the other. Some of us arent on a linear continuum and prefer to see ourselves inside a sphere, bouncing about, taking whatever serves, when we want it. Politics is all a lot of rot in the end and a great distrcation. A way to convince ourselves that we are doing something, rendering change by talking, talking, talking about it. From what l can see, people go their own way if so motivated. If enough people do it, then you get social change. If more people keep doing it, the politicians move in, make a lot of noise, pick up some votes and start ‘making changes’ to the laws.

Things have a way of sorting themselves out. l like to start with myself… hence dont marry. But, heck, dont stop lovin em.

Cheers.

See, now this is a post I can understand and agree with. In fact, there is not a single point that I disagree with and what you wrote makes a lot of sense to me.

What I refer to as a middle-ground is, I think, very close to your analogy of bouncing around. There are many philosophies where I believe a bit of this and a bit of that. There is nothing that I am 100% in agreement with, especially the more militant beliefs.

Politically I tend to refer to myself as a liberal libertarian because I believe in a lot of individuals rights but at the same time believe there is a place for certain government safety nets, environmental laws, and worker’s rights.

There is some good food for thought in this post and I appreciate that, thank you.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by Freshy on Dec 18, 2005, 5:51pm

Dec 17, 2005, 11:51am, chrisvet wrote: Oh, and when you move on to Mr. #2, and Mr. #1 gets a job, I guarantee you’ll be right there @ the courthouse demanding 70% of his income.

Women always seek to get the best deal possible.

Well considering we went out of our way to avoid lawyers in the first place (waited 18 months and used a mediator) I sincerely doubt that would ever be the case.

Most likely what will happen if/when my ex is in a better financial situation is that we will sit down and discuss a fair amount. While we didn’t do well as a married couple we do have a friendly relationship now. Heck, we’ve even gone out on double dates to concerts and such . I know it’s not the norm but it works for us.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by Christianj on Dec 18, 2005, 6:16pm

As soon as you confess or side with the femazies, your toast.

——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by travis on Dec 18, 2005, 6:42pm

Quote: The final straw was when he quit yet another job (had finally been working a good full-time job for about 3 months) to pursue his band. Overnight the band fell completely apart and rather than get his old job back (which would have been easy, it was a small company and they didn’t want him to leave) he said he was just going to concentrate fully on his music and I was expected to support our entire family. There was no discussion involved in this decision, he just declared that was the way it was going to be.

Quote: My boyfriend and I have been friends since our very early teens but we never dated until after I had divorced. He certainly knew my beliefs and personality by that point and had seen me go through all of my relationships. Heck, he’s friends (as am I) with a few of my ex’s so there were no surprises for him.

Ah, I see, so after you realized marrying the artsy guy was a big mistake, you went back to your intellectual whore, who happened to still have feelings for you. Brilliant! Guys, this is what women will do: ignore you until they need someone academically smarter to bail them out. Avoid them. This reminds me of an article I read at a website I go to. If you came here 7 years ago I would’ve handed this to you: http://capnasty.org/issues/5/6/75
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by Freshy on Dec 18, 2005, 7:30pm

LOL, I won’t say that marrying an artsy type wasn’t my first big mistake. Though in a bit of defense for me when we first married he was working construction and talked as though he had a great work ethic. I screwed up by listening to his words and ignoring his actions. We were young and I was stupid, thinking I could deal with something that I couldn’t. I know much better now (thank goodness!)

Oh and as for my boyfriend:

A) When I divorced I thought he had only friendly feelings toward me. He had once remarked of another female friend of his that he used to like her but after seeing her through a bunch of relationships he lost all interest in her as more than a friend. That was the camp I thought I fell into. My only thought when contemplating divorce was whether it was better to be married or single, dating was not something I considered, and certainly not with my then friend.

B) My boyfriend does not fall into the “intellectual whore” category. Actually he is a blue-collar worker who never finished college and has worked damn hard to get where he is, a commercial electrician who is the foreman for his company, and by his early 20’s at that. *Part* of what I love and respect about him is his wonderful work ethic. It doesn’t much matter to me what a person chooses to do as their career as long as they do the best job that they can. That goes for myself as much as anyone else.

My ex is the one with the college degree.

C) While I was dating, getting married, and having kids my friend/boyfriend was definitely living his own life and had a couple of serious relationships. There was never any pining away for me or me for him. It just so happened that when I divorced he was single and ready to get back into dating and possibly a more serious relationship.

That article was great btw. I wish I had read it 7 years ago but then again I was young and thought I knew everything, I doubt I would have listened .
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by jbgood2 on Dec 19, 2005, 1:23pm

Jamie, she’s saying she is not pursuing him for child support like she’s doing him a favour! She says he doesn’t have any money and then takes the moral high ground that she won’t ask for it even though her friends are encouraging her to do so. No, she’s going to do the decent thing and wait till he’s got some money. It seems her friends are more involved and/or more important to her than her relationship with the father of her children. Perhaps her son gets to see his mothers friends laying around his home discussing his fathers failings and offering their advice (without having to take any responsibility for the outcome). No doubt he will have to be introduced to a string of “uncles” coming to his home and being made more welcome than his own father. She is no hero. I feel sorry for the kids having this crap going on around them.
jbgood2

——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by Freshy on Dec 19, 2005, 5:33pm

Jamie, she’s saying she is not pursuing him for child support like she’s doing him a favour! She says he doesn’t have any money and then takes the moral high ground that she won’t ask for it even though her freinds are encouraging her to do so. No, she’s going to do the decent thing and wait till he’s got some money.

So are you saying a father shouldn’t help to support his children? It’s not as though they were the result of a one-night stand or me tricking him in some way. Last I checked they are as much his children as mine. At the moment he is not able to financially contribute and I understand that, but when he is should I still be the only one shouldering the cost? Seesh, you all talk of women not taking responsibility… Though I have little doubt my ex would likely step up to the plate on his own and start paying child support when he is able to, so I don’t really see that part as much of an issue.

It seems her friends are more involved and/or more important to her than her relationship with the father of her children. Perhaps her son gets to see his mothers friends laying around his home discussing his fathers failings and offering their advice (without having to take any responsibility for the outcome). No doubt he will have to be introduced to a string of “uncles” coming to his home and being made more welcome than his own father. She is no hero. I feel sorry for the kids having this crap going on around them.

LOL, again I love the assumptions. Where did you ever get the idea that he isn’t welcome in my home or that I speak badly of him? Any conversations my friends and I have had regarding my ex certainly never took place when my children were around. What was it I said earlier? Something about I would never speak badly of my ex as a father? That I declared the topic off-limits to my friends? Oh and that the ex and I now have a friendly relationship? That we’ve actually gone on double dates together? Yeah, I think that’s what it was. Should I also mention thanksgiving dinner consisted of having both my ex and my boyfriend over? And that they were okay with it and joking around having a great time? BTW, I’m also friends with my ex’s girlfriend, ya know the one he’s living with who didn’t know the kids before they started dating? Which admittedly used to be a sore spot with me, so if that sounds a bit snarky, well it worried me that he started dating her because he needed a place to live(he only pays $300 a month in rent to her), they’ve been together awhile now and seem very happy so I’m mostly past that worry.

FYI, the only reason my boyfriend is involved in my kids lives is because he has known them since they were born, was one of the first people at the hospital actually. Had it been otherwise I would have waited quite awhile to introduce them to each other. Heck, it wasn’t until we had been dating for three months that the kids knew (as much as young children can grasp the concept) we were more than just friends. We still maintain seperate residences and mutually decided that the only way we will ever live together will be if we decide to get married at some point. I couldn’t move my kids into a house with some guy without knowing we were both totally committed, if/when I marry again it will be forever, I’ve learned my lesson and it’s not one I’ll repeat.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by Niall NLIT on Dec 19, 2005, 5:45pm

Tell you what feminazi freshy read my post ‘The crazy fuckers just did this’ and tell me where the middle ground is?
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by Freshy on Dec 19, 2005, 7:40pm

Dec 19, 2005, 5:45pm, Niall NLIT wrote: Tell you what feminazi freshy read my post ‘The crazy fuckers just did this’ and tell me where the middle ground is?

Got to admit, I hate the feminazi term. Actually I hate almost anything being compared to nazis. Unless you are talking about ACTUAL mass genocide then it seems inflammatory and unnecessary. Hell, I hate G.W. with a passion but I still refute all of those stupid Hitler comparisons.

Anyway, I read and responded to that post.

So are you saying to me that because of the laws the govt is passing you can find no middle ground in your own private life? I’m far from happy with many of the laws that are being passed right now, but I don’t take all my anger out on people around me.

Let’s use this reasoning in other ways… Like the ability to tap phone conversations without a warrant. Okay, that affects all Americans and is a very big issue. I’m angry that there are terrorists in this country and that because of that the govt thinks it should be able to monitor any phone conversation they want too. Still I blame the terrorists only, not the regular people making international calls to countries like Iran and Pakistan.

I don’t know, I just can’t see being angry at everyone because of the actions of some. I’ve seen posts here that were downright evil toward women but I’m not going to extend the view of the authors of those posts to all men, not even to all men and women involved in the men’s movement.

I try to judge each person as an individual, not everyone as a group.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by NIall NLIT on Dec 20, 2005, 3:23am

The term feminazi is MEANT to be an insult your not meant to like it. It is also a pretty accurate description of the feminist movement which is a totalitarian hate cult where you must tow the party line or else and there is a clearly identified enemy who must be destroyed then it was Jews now it is men. When getting all worked up remember that senior members of your movement have been debating whether or not they should have Ann Coulter raped for ‘betraying’ the sisterhood.

As for finding a middle ground no I can not. There will shortly be a law on the books that says I am assumed to be an abuser of women until I prove I am not. Where is the middle ground on that?
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by sayonara on Dec 20, 2005, 5:02pm

Dec 20, 2005, 3:23am, NIall NLIT wrote: The term feminazi is MEANT to be an insult your not meant to like it. It is also a pretty accurate description of the feminist movement which is a totalitarian hate cult where you must tow the party line or else and there is a clearly identified enemy who must be destroyed then it was Jews now it is men. When getting all worked up remember that senior members of your movement have been debating whether or not they should have Ann Coulter raped for ‘betraying’ the sisterhood.

As for finding a middle ground no I can not. There will shortly be a law on the books that says I am assumed to be an abuser of women until I prove I am not. Where is the middle ground on that?

Feminazi is being too kind. Ever read the SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) manifesto?

http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm

Written by another attractive feminazi.

Dec 16, 2005, 9:32pm, freshy wrote:
In my case I definitely consider myself a feminist

——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by antiriad on Dec 20, 2005, 5:15pm

Dec 19, 2005, 7:40pm, Freshy wrote:
Dec 19, 2005, 5:45pm, Niall NLIT wrote: Tell you what feminazi freshy read my post ‘The crazy fuckers just did this’ and tell me where the middle ground is?

Got to admit, I hate the feminazi term. Actually I hate almost anything being compared to nazis. Unless you are talking about ACTUAL mass genocide then it seems inflammatory and unnecessary. Hell, I hate G.W. with a passion but I still refute all of those stupid Hitler comparisons.

Anyway, I read and responded to that post.

So are you saying to me that because of the laws the govt is passing you can find no middle ground in your own private life? I’m far from happy with many of the laws that are being passed right now, but I don’t take all my anger out on people around me.

Let’s use this reasoning in other ways… Like the ability to tap phone conversations without a warrant. Okay, that affects all Americans and is a very big issue. I’m angry that there are terrorists in this country and that because of that the govt thinks it should be able to monitor any phone conversation they want too. Still I blame the terrorists only, not the regular people making international calls to countries like Iran and Pakistan.

I don’t know, I just can’t see being angry at everyone because of the actions of some. I’ve seen posts here that were downright evil toward women but I’m not going to extend the view of the authors of those posts to all men, not even to all men and women involved in the men’s movement.

I try to judge each person as an individual, not everyone as a group.

FemiNAZIS have imposed laws that are so anti-male that 18,000 divorced fathers commit suicide YEARLY (a far higher figure than mothers).

Feminazis are human excrement, they have committed crimes against humanity that nazis never even dreamed of.

A friend of mine recently started dating a girl who is a self-proclaimed feminist. I told him that he is welcome to stay at my house any time he wants to – but that, much as I don’t associate with Nazis and KKK members, I am not going to subject myself to the presence of feminist filth. He can stay at my house, but she is not welcome. I should add that I made it perfectly clear to him what I think of feminists. I don’t care if I’m insulting his date, if she claims to be a feminist then she is an amoral criminal in my book.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by daniel on Dec 20, 2005, 8:31pm

Dec 18, 2005, 5:16pm, Freshy wrote: I call myself a feminist because I like to work outside of the home, I enjoy voting, and if you steer away from the more fringe elements the basis of feminism really is equality.

Which is why you’re another worthless American woman.

What self-respecting guy would bother wasting two seconds listening to your tedious, unimpressive story? You talk like you hold the cards – you have nothing. And if some man ignored and discarded you like a piece of garbage, he would – at a minimum – lose absolutely nothing. A reasonably perceptive man would know that he has too many better alternatives to bother deigning listening to you.

Someday, you AW will see the plain, unchangeable truth that you seem as yet unable to grasp, whether out of incompetence (likely) or childishness (also just as likely): namely, that women are the inferior, weaker sex. Future generations of women will shake their heads in awe and wonder at the embarrassing silliness and disgrace you AW brought upon yourselves denying this very basic reality.

And incidentally, “equality” is a purely arbitrary concept from the Enlightenment era – as arbitrary as “IN-equality” would be. If you decide that the sexes are “equal,” then that belief would be no more or less valid as the belief that the sexes are “unequal.” Who’s to say which one is right? It all comes down to conviction – and the will and strength to effect such convictions.

——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by Freshy on Dec 20, 2005, 8:53pm

FemiNAZIS have imposed laws that are so anti-male that 18,000 divorced fathers commit suicide YEARLY (a far higher figure than mothers).

Feminazis are human excrement, they have committed crimes against humanity that nazis never even dreamed of.

Show me these laws that are worse than gas chambers and human experimentation please.

I say this as a person of Jewish descent. I do not like any references to nazism that do not involve literal genocide. I don’t use them against things which I detest, such as much of the US govt. The only thing that could come close to the true horrors of Nazis that our govt has been complacent in is the torture, and continued torture, of prisoners exempted from POW status by the Patriot Act.

Even the SCUM thing doesn’t truly count. It is disgusting, very very true, but has this been acted upon? No. It is over 40 years old? Yes. Is it viewed as anything more than an interesting commentary on the most radical early feminists? No. Does it affect feminist thought today in any significant way? No.

I have no real interest in defending feminism because I’m well aware that no matter what none of you will read with enough of an open-mind to change your views.

I just find it interesting that with little effort I could come up with equally disgusting things said about women on this site.

For example this post:

Re: Islamic Gender Apartheid
Dec 18, 2005, 4:10am, niceguy78 wrote:

Dec 17, 2005, 12:56pm, knighterrant wrote:
The Islamic countries may go too far, but they have one thing right: keep em under control!!!

Agreed, and these Islamic women may have “real” hardships, but I bet their lives are much more fulfilling.

They are allowed to be women, raise their children, and have no stress. Look at how many women in the USA live on drugs (mostly pharm. drugs) just to get through their damn day.

Yes, that poster was told he was wrong, and I’m open-minded enough to know that his thoughts most definitely do not represent all of the other men on this board. I don’t make blanket generalizations against all those within the men’s movement because of the beliefs of a few radicals so I’m trying to understand why you all do?

Or for another example, many Germans were part of the Nazi party, some were extremely evil. Even my hatred and anger over what was done to my grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other family members does not extend to every German person.

I don’t think all Muslims are terrorists. I don’t hate all Muslims because some are terrorists.

I just don’t get the whole thing with lumping everyone in with the radicals.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by Freshy on Dec 20, 2005, 9:01pm

Dec 20, 2005, 8:31pm, daniel wrote:
Which is why you’re another worthless American woman.

What self-respecting guy would bother wasting two seconds listening to your tedious, unimpressive story? You talk like you hold the cards – you have nothing. And if some man ignored and discarded you like a piece of garbage, he would – at a minimum – lose absolutely nothing. A reasonably perceptive man would know that he has too many better alternatives to bother deigning listening to you.

Someday, you AW will see the plain, unchangeable truth that you seem as yet unable to grasp, whether out of incompetence (likely) or childishness (also just as likely): namely, that women are the inferior, weaker sex. Future generations of women will shake their heads in awe and wonder at the embarrassing silliness and disgrace you AW brought upon yourselves denying this very basic reality.

And incidentally, “equality” is a purely arbitrary concept from the Enlightenment era – as arbitrary as “IN-equality” would be. If you decide that the sexes are “equal,” then that belief would be no more or less valid as the belief that the sexes are “unequal.” Who’s to say which one is right? It all comes down to conviction – and the will and strength to effect such convictions.

And what exactly do you have that makes you so worthy?

As for equality… My personal definition and what I mean when I say equality is for every person to have all of life’s options open to them. Being qualified to take those options and working toward those options is up to each individual.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by logic101 on Dec 21, 2005, 1:37am

Dec 20, 2005, 8:53pm, Freshy wrote: I have no real interest in defending feminism because I’m well aware that no matter what none of you will read with enough of an open-mind to change your views.

Not true Freshy and you just did broad brush(by including ‘all of us’).

Most enlightened men honestly want to just go their own way and don’t want to involve themselves in the anti-heterosexual-male/anti-father environment we find ourselves here in America. And yes No-fault divorce is not a good way to promote healthy family values in America. Thankfully there are better options for squared away men outside of this troubled environment/western world. It is always better to start a family in a country that honestly promotes a pro family/pro-father/non-feminist environment. America and many other western countries unfortunately continue to move away from this goal.

-Logic 101

——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by Snakey on Dec 21, 2005, 3:29am

Quote: Show me these laws that are worse than gas chambers and human experimentation please.

If you consider abortion, we’re up to 40 million or so human beings killed. (Enough of this “is it a person” debate. Is it alive? Yes. Is it human? Yes. Therefore it is human life.) Why killing babies is so important to a bunch of lesbians, someone will have to inform me, because I can’t figure it out.

That aside, as Antiriad stated, examine the male suicide rates, especially after divorce. 18,000 a year will add up. Then add in the indirect damage feminism has caused, including the impending economic collapse and the deaths likely to result. What you have is a disaster on numerous fronts. Women in general don’t examine or think critically about these things, usually a result of being unable to, added to the fact that an antifeminist viewpoint has become taboo and impossible to express. That’s the Lace Curtain we sometimes refer to. If you really want to know the truth about the movement you support, read the archives of this site and check out mancoat … but please keep your mouth shut over there. Mention you’re a feminist and you won’t last long on that site.

Also read The rantings of a Single Male by Thomas Ellis which you can buy on Amazon. You’ll discover many things about femiNAZIS, including that they wish to make any antifeminist statement illegal, as ‘hate speech’. They want to make it illegal to disagree with them, no lie.

Quote: I say this as a person of Jewish descent. I do not like any references to nazism that do not involve literal genocide.

Not that I care about your sensibilities, miss feminist, but I consider the mass neutering of a civilization’s masculinity paramount to genocide, albeit indirect. If you don’t think real men are essential to the survival, let alone advancement, of a civilization like ours, then hang around. All signs point downward, I’m afraid, and much of this is the result of inefficiencies caused by feminism. Add outside assaults like terrorism, and we have a failing state. Unfortunately we have a few generations of neutered men standing between you, your princess sisters, and disaster. I don’t like your chances. Look at what’s happened to education. In my country, Australia, batman & superman games have been banned in schools, because of some mumble-mumble gender-roles something-or-other, a feminist objection. Do you think a neverending psychic assault on your achievers, your leaders, your workers, your best and brightest, your MEN, is going to do a nation’s chances of survival much good? Or do you honestly believe women can pick up the slack of men excluded from the system? Do you really?

Like I said, stick around. The fun has already started.

——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by daniel on Dec 21, 2005, 4:06am

Dec 20, 2005, 9:01pm, Freshy wrote:
Dec 20, 2005, 8:31pm, daniel wrote:
Which is why you’re another worthless American woman.

What self-respecting guy would bother wasting two seconds listening to your tedious, unimpressive story? You talk like you hold the cards – you have nothing. And if some man ignored and discarded you like a piece of garbage, he would – at a minimum – lose absolutely nothing. A reasonably perceptive man would know that he has too many better alternatives to bother deigning listening to you.

Someday, you AW will see the plain, unchangeable truth that you seem as yet unable to grasp, whether out of incompetence (likely) or childishness (also just as likely): namely, that women are the inferior, weaker sex. Future generations of women will shake their heads in awe and wonder at the embarrassing silliness and disgrace you AW brought upon yourselves denying this very basic reality.

And incidentally, “equality” is a purely arbitrary concept from the Enlightenment era – as arbitrary as “IN-equality” would be. If you decide that the sexes are “equal,” then that belief would be no more or less valid as the belief that the sexes are “unequal.” Who’s to say which one is right? It all comes down to conviction – and the will and strength to effect such convictions.

And what exactly do you have that makes you so worthy?

As for equality… My personal definition and what I mean when I say equality is for every person to have all of life’s options open to them. Being qualified to take those options and working toward those options is up to each individual.

You’re not listening: you have nothing.

Moreover, you offer nothing that can’t be found elsewhere, both in abundance and in far better quality.

What you think you have to say concerning (snort) “equality” means jack shit when a man has choices – one of which is to totally ignore and overlook your existence while he looks elsewhere for something far better.

That is why it does not matter what you think about “equality” – because a man with plentiful choices leaves you with no real leverage to command his attention with such nonsense. Unless, of course, he is either spineless or condescending to give such attention to you.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by Niall NLIT on Dec 21, 2005, 4:14am

‘an interesting commentary’

Hm… so you think the idea of cutting up men is interesting? I think you would have made a good camp guard at Auschwitz.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by Riskbreaker on Dec 21, 2005, 4:24am

From the rantmeister:

I will make this short, sweet, and simple. It is always a WOMAN, that rolls up on a decidedly anti female board, and tries to beat us about the head with the same tired feminist opinions,lies, bullshit, and drivel. How fucking smart is that?
Not very. Either they didn’t bother reading, which is stupid. Or, they read and decided that they can somehow spin the bullshit in such a manner as to convince us guys that we are wrong, which is delusional. Or, they are so fucking stubborn, that even when bombarded with STFU responses, THEY STILL KEEP POSTING.

Let me ask any guy on this board the following question.

WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU ENGAGED IN A CONVERSATION WITH AN AMERISKANK ALONG THE LINES OF KELLY, BUFFALO, MARY, ETC. AND WERE ABLE TO CONVINCE THEM TO SEE THE LIGHT THROUGH REASON AND DEBATE?

FUCKING NEVER. THAT’S WHEN.

You see, if that was the case we wouldn’t have websites like this, and there wouldn’t be marriage strikes.

In summary, any CUNT that thinks she can roll in here and steamroll us into changing our minds will get what she deserves.

AD HOMINEM ATTACKS.

Let me summarize this thread as succintly as possible.

Most of you guys here would like to achieve some sort of middle/ground with respect to relations between the sexes. There is just one problem with that, people.

WOMEN ARE NOT INTERESTED IN A MIDDLE GROUND!!

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS??

AM I MAKING THIS PERFECTLY FUCKING CLEAR?!!

QUOTE(Arthur)
Since my “awakening” I have YET to see someone who has feminist leanings, or agrees with the feminist, present ONE good reason why their point of view is better.
I have just read that thread between My Name is Kibalicious and Zen and it was as predictable as a Roadrunner cartoon.

Even when presented with facts and stats, the best anyone with this viewpoint can do is roll out the “exception” rule, or resort to shaming tactics. Quick, anyone in this forum, what was the last point that a feminist idiot presented to you that made you reconsider your “awakened” position?

Hasn’t happend, has it?

Conversely, when was the last time any of you was able to present our argument to one of these motards and have them actually change their mind? Not including direct circumstances.

As for the manginas that don’t agree with us, fuck ‘em. The system will recruit them to our side, regardless of the namecalling. The remaining males who don’t get screwed over, well, we wouldn’t be able to convince them anyway, no matter how it was presented. Men aren’t wired like the sistahood.

On to the skanks, dykes, cunts, bitches, whores, shortbuses and motards. (Shit, there I go again)

Who gives a flying fuck? The hardliners are our enemies. I don’t convince/persuade/argue with SWORN enemies. I shoot to kill. For this exercise, shooting to kill means serving them a heaping helping of irrelevance. See ya with your cats, ladies.

The next level are the women who would/do use our attitudes/language as a reason to leave. Yup, like we ALL haven’t seen women use an excuse to make themselves look better when they don’t really want to do something? Please.

On to the last level. The women that actually hate women. In the highest percentile, these are women that have been screwed by the system by proxy.
Gonna be kinda hard to alienate these women by calling other women cunts, innit?

And this is exactly what we have been trying to tell you and your fellow trolls.
More and more guys are waking up to typical ameriskank bullshit. Before the advent of the internet, women could pull their bullshit on guys, and when called on it,
go into isolate and scold mode. Doesn’t work now, thanks to the internet and third party validation.

Unless YOU WOMEN change YOUR behavior, you CAN’T win with enlightened guys.
We see right through your garbage and we will have nothing to do with you. And we aren’t gonna be there to pick up the pieces, either.

QUOTE(Arthur)
Fellas, what we have here is a future member of the C&C club.
Commonly known as carpets and cats.

In short, her attitude is going to have her 40 years old with no man in sight.
Thusly, she will have no alternative but to turn into a dyke and munch carpet while living with her femdyke lover and their 635 cats.

C&C club.

Carpets and cats.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by Freshy on Dec 21, 2005, 9:28am

Dec 21, 2005, 1:37am, logic101 wrote:
Dec 20, 2005, 8:53pm, Freshy wrote: I have no real interest in defending feminism because I’m well aware that no matter what none of you will read with enough of an open-mind to change your views.

Not true Freshy and you just did broad brush(by including ‘all of us’).

Most enlightened men honestly want to just go their own way and don’t want to involve themselves in the anti-heterosexual-male/anti-father environment we find ourselves here in America. And yes No-fault divorce is not a good way to promote healthy family values in America. Thankfully there are better options for squared away men outside of this troubled environment/western world. It is always better to start a family in a country that honestly promotes a pro family/pro-father/non-feminist environment. America and many other western countries unfortunately continue to move away from this goal.

-Logic 101

*Just adding I used to be in a gaming syndicate with a guy who went by the name Logic who seems to share some of the views here. Wouldn’t happen to be one and the same by any chance? lol*

You’re right, I shouldn’t have made such a generalized statement, I don’t know each and every person on this board and many opinions do seem to vary.

What I should have said was that I’d rather not discuss feminism because that isn’t why I started to post here. I began to post here because I wasn’t interested in getting a better idea for the beliefs of the men on this board.

The no-fault divorce thing does interest me though. My ex asked that we wait the 18 month waiting period so that we could do no fault. It was the easiest way to go about getting a divorce without having to involve lawyers.

Do you think there is any way that couples who wish to not involve lawyers should be able to obtain a divorce or is forcing couples to go through a trial part of what you think would make couples more hesitant to divorce and therefore keep families more stable?
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by Freshy on Dec 21, 2005, 9:34am

Dec 21, 2005, 4:14am, Niall NLIT wrote: ‘an interesting commentary’

Hm… so you think the idea of cutting up men is interesting? I think you would have made a good camp guard at Auschwitz.

My fault, I should have left off the descriptor. I meant that it’s of historical interest much the same way Mein Kampf is of historical interest; to keep the Nazi comparison going .

It was just a bad choice of words.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by Freshy on Dec 21, 2005, 9:42am

Dec 21, 2005, 4:06am, daniel wrote:
You’re not listening: you have nothing.

Moreover, you offer nothing that can’t be found elsewhere, both in abundance and in far better quality.

What you think you have to say concerning (snort) “equality” means jack shit when a man has choices – one of which is to totally ignore and overlook your existence while he looks elsewhere for something far better.

That is why it does not matter what you think about “equality” – because a man with plentiful choices leaves you with no real leverage to command his attention with such nonsense. Unless, of course, he is either spineless or condescending to give such attention to you.

How am I not listening? I didn’t dispute what you said. I read it and took it into consideration then I asked (and I’m asking again)… What do you have that makes you so worthy?

If I am worthless solely because I am a AW than please tell me what makes you worthwhile as an AM?

What is it about yourself that I should strive to be worthy of?

There is no snark in those questions, I’m actually interested in the answer.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by Freshy on Dec 21, 2005, 10:12am

Dec 21, 2005, 3:29am, Snakey wrote:

If you consider abortion, we’re up to 40 million or so human beings killed. (Enough of this “is it a person” debate. Is it alive? Yes. Is it human? Yes. Therefore it is human life.) Why killing babies is so important to a bunch of lesbians, someone will have to inform me, because I can’t figure it out.

I wonder if you would mind if I did another thread if you actually want to discuss abortion? I have my own views about this but I think it would bog down everything else in here. If you’d rather I just drop it that’s okay also.

Quote: That aside, as Antiriad stated, examine the male suicide rates, especially after divorce. 18,000 a year will add up. Then add in the indirect damage feminism has caused, including the impending economic collapse and the deaths likely to result. What you have is a disaster on numerous fronts. Women in general don’t examine or think critically about these things, usually a result of being unable to, added to the fact that an antifeminist viewpoint has become taboo and impossible to express. That’s the Lace Curtain we sometimes refer to. If you really want to know the truth about the movement you support, read the archives of this site and check out mancoat … but please keep your mouth shut over there. Mention you’re a feminist and you won’t last long on that site.

Actually I went to mancoat and read a few of the articles on there but I couldn’t see the forum. It said they were not accepting new members at the moment, so I’m assuming you need to be a member just to read it.

I’d like to read some articles on the suicide statistic (the actual study/rates would be great to find) and on the idea of impending doom and economic collapse due to feminism. If you’d like to point out some specific articles to check that would be wonderful, otherwise I’ll go and see what I can find.

I prefer not to get into a discussion like this without having read the facts myself.

Quote: Also read The rantings of a Single Male by Thomas Ellis which you can buy on Amazon. You’ll discover many things about femiNAZIS, including that they wish to make any antifeminist statement illegal, as ‘hate speech’. They want to make it illegal to disagree with them, no lie.[quote]

Ahh, those arguments I have actually heard and strongly disagree with. I know many other countries have such laws (Canada and Germany come readily to mind) but I personally detest them. I love the right to free speech we have in the US and don’t want to see that impeded in any way. Within the feminist movement that’s actually a highly debated topic, and I definitely disagree with those who are for it.

[quote]Not that I care about your sensibilities, miss feminist, but I consider the mass neutering of a civilization’s masculinity paramount to genocide, albeit indirect. If you don’t think real men are essential to the survival, let alone advancement, of a civilization like ours, then hang around. All signs point downward, I’m afraid, and much of this is the result of inefficiencies caused by feminism. Add outside assaults like terrorism, and we have a failing state. Unfortunately we have a few generations of neutered men standing between you, your princess sisters, and disaster. I don’t like your chances. Look at what’s happened to education. In my country, Australia, batman & superman games have been banned in schools, because of some mumble-mumble gender-roles something-or-other, a feminist objection. Do you think a neverending psychic assault on your achievers, your leaders, your workers, your best and brightest, your MEN, is going to do a nation’s chances of survival much good? Or do you honestly believe women can pick up the slack of men excluded from the system? Do you really?

Like I said, stick around. The fun has already started.

I most certainly do not think we can survive without men. I also don’t think we can survive without women.

One thing I read a bit back has always stuck with me (though I’m not sure many here will necessarily agree with this). The pendulum for to long swung in the direction of men. When women started to want equal rights the pendulum ended up swinging to far in the direction of women. True equality (as I see it) will not be achieved until the pendulum swings back to, and stays at, the center.

I think women need men and I think men need women. I don’t think one sex is inherently better than the other nor do I think that men and women are the same. I think men and women are equal, yes, but that does not mean I think we are interchangeable.

I can see it in my own children, my son prefers potty humor and more traditionally masculine toys. My daughter’s favorite color is pink and she loves pretending to be a princess. They were raised in an environment where there was no pressure to do things a certain way but both have fallen into fairly traditional gender roles. They have their exceptions, I can’t get my daughter out of a dress but at the same time she is extremely physically active (trying to climb trees and such) and while my son is happiest playing with robot toys and video games he’ll pick up a doll once in awhile and play house.

I guess I don’t think being stuck in strict gender roles is good for men or women but I don’t think being forced out of those gender roles is any better.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by Freshy on Dec 21, 2005, 10:16am

Dec 21, 2005, 9:28am, Freshy wrote: What I should have said was that I’d rather not discuss feminism because that isn’t why I started to post here. I began to post here because I wasn’t interested in getting a better idea for the beliefs of the men on this board.

Bad Freshy, bad!

I meant “I began to post here because I WAS interested in getting a better idea for the beliefs of the men on this board.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by knighterrant on Dec 21, 2005, 10:53am

Ask yourself fleshy, if you read a manifesto advocating the Cutting Up of Women, would you want it taught in Men’s Studies classrooms?

Your call

Don’t come round here advocating the SCUM manifesto.

Ask yourself this: Is a wounded man as shocking to you as a wounded woman?
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by antiriad on Dec 21, 2005, 11:32am

Freshy, you don’t seem to get it – so let me spell it out for you. You are a self-proclaimed feminist, hence we are all too clear on the fact that your so-called “views” are based on falsifications, egregious lies, exaggerations, and baseless ideology. You have absolutely nothing to say at this point that we haven’t heard repeated over and over for the last 40 years – and which isn’t any more true today than it was when it was started.

The idea that men need women as much as women need men demonstrates your delusional thinking beyond all doubt. Take away civilized society and we’ll see who needs whom. You are typing this from the heated, secure comfort of your home – a home which is attributed 99% to MEN who invented everything around you and built a civilization on sweat and blood to make it happen. Even today when men are oppressed, you can cleary see that they are still the vast majority of inventors and thinkers. Women, for whatever reason, do not have it in them. They aren’t passionate about anything as men are. Do you know the number of female science Nobel prize recipients has actually gone down in the time that feminism has been popularized? I DARE you to claim that women are still “oppressed.” So use your f’ing head and figure out why this is. Women ARE INFERIOR, MENTALLY. Men need women for breeding; women need men for LIVING. There is a dramatic difference and only the mind of a feminist, absolutely warped beyond all reality, can somehow equate one with the other. Women could have an IQ of 0 and society would thrive. But in the absence of men, women would live like naked primitives in caves and unsuccessfully fend off the elements. Indeed, without the ingenuity of men, the human species (weak as it physically is) may well have been wiped out of existence a long time ago.

So please — pull your head out of your ass and try to apply what intellect you may possess. But I for one am done with you.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by travis on Dec 21, 2005, 12:31pm

Damn Riskbreaker, you beat me to it.
While at the gym this morning I figured I’d quote the great Arthur where he said that women don’t have a middle ground after explaining that if men did find a middle ground, we’d be labeled “too nice” because we bend over backwards to find balance for them.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by Snakey on Dec 21, 2005, 2:11pm

Let me state from the outset Freshy that although you attempt to portray yourself as one of the ‘reasonable’ femiNAZIS, this does more harm than good, for it legitimizes the demon. You are attempting to put a kinder and gentler mask on the face of the murderer, Dworkin. Anyone who calls themselves feminist is an enemy of human kind, period.

I don’t intend to go to great length explaining the economic situation to a single feminist, for all the good it will achieve I may as well pull my fingernails out. But for the hell of it here’s a quick summary, and the key is that China (and Asia as a whole) is on the rise, and is largely un-burdened by the following, by feminism (though feminism is on the rise in India, now that India is making economic progress and can afford such luxuries as spoiled women.) 1. As per feminism’s stated aims, the family has been destroyed. You hardly need ask for proof of this, check the divorce stats, check single mother stats. What comes of this? We have men without good wives (even those still married are likely to be miserable by an overweight entitlement-minded harpy, I know many such marriages including my own father’s.) This means men have very little motivation to do the grunt work, especially in tough economic times when financial incentive is removed, or if the men are burdened by alimony payments, losing half (or more) of his pay. (Cases exist where men have been ordered to pay more than he actually earns.) What’s this mean for children? For boys, without male role models, we get criminality and hyper-masculinity, as seen in the hiphop culture. For girls, without a nonsexual male role model, they learn no way to interact with men in a relationship setting other than sexually: slutty behavior, which means more single mother homes, and more criminality/slutty behavior … a vicious cycle, a feminist idea. I’m sure anyone here could google for 1 minute and come up with a feminist leader stating the importance of the destruction of families as it ‘enslaves women’. (Funny, a glance at personals websites shows quite a number of ageing dumplings bleating for someone to come enslave them with the family they never had. I suppose those women are brainwashed by the Patri-something? Yes, must be.) 2. Education is feminized to the hilt, busily demonizing boys, making maleness a condition to be diagnosed and treated with pills. For the kinds of harrassment of male students, there are no shortage of examples on Fredoneverything.net, Chapin’s articles on mensnewsdaily, etc. The education system is working to exclude men from the system. It cannot afford to do this, as it is corrupting its most valuable human capital. What good are women with their fashion-accessory part time careers? 3. Academia has been overrun by insane ideologues and has never been further removed from its true purpose of education & advancement. If you can’t see this already you won’t see it and I’m not going to try explaining it. 4. The workplace. Companies are burdened with: females demanding maternity leave, the risk of sexual harrassment suits (men can hardly risk being alone in an office with a woman these days) affirmative action and women’s innefficiency in general. Women are generally useless as par, detrimental to the workforce as often as not. I don’t care what you say or think, or what examples you cite, it’s the truth, and everyone who’s worked with lots of women knows it. 1 or 2%, the exceptional women who are able to work as competently as men, do not make up for the 98% who can’t. Women make second-rate men. It’s a truth you don’t like and will therefore deny but it won’t change it.

Quote: One thing I read a bit back has always stuck with me (though I’m not sure many here will necessarily agree with this). The pendulum for to long swung in the direction of men. When women started to want equal rights the pendulum ended up swinging to far in the direction of women. True equality (as I see it) will not be achieved until the pendulum swings back to, and stays at, the center.

What a ludicrous piece of nonsensical drivel this is. ‘Pendulum’? What horse shit. This supposes men have been in a state of conflict with women throughout history, when in fact men have built a world and fended off nature for the benefit of human kind in general. Quite a classic example of women/feminism’s tendency to project its own sickness on the surrounding world, and an admission that you are not about helping men, or people in general, but about waging war on half the species. In such a war nobody wins. Anyway, how has this ‘pendulum’ worked? How have men throughout history benefited by being the ones who haul ass in coal mines, who die on battlefields, while wifey stays home? It’s lunacy. We have done the grunt work, the slaving, for women, for our children. Women reached the stage where their lives got so luxurious and easy they could concoct hobbies like feminism and fuck it up for everyone.

Quote: I think women need men and I think men need women. I don’t think one sex is inherently better than the other nor do I think that men and women are the same. I think men and women are equal, yes, but that does not mean I think we are interchangeable.

Wrong. Who gets the best times etc in the Olympics? Men. We’re better than women physically, and if you disagree I’ll arm wrestle you for it. Who comprises all the great scientists, inventers, writers, artists? Men. Who makes up 95% of all geniuses? Men. Women have achieved precious little and excel only in areas where their instincts come into play, motherhood and manipulating a man to support a family. I do not disparage these tasks, they are important. It is feminists who disparaged these tasks and told women these tasks were degrading and something to be ashamed of. Women, being malleable herd-thinkers, were easily led, and now NO ONE is mothering children properly and we have this fucking mess on our hands.

Quote: I guess I don’t think being stuck in strict gender roles is good for men or women but I don’t think being forced out of those gender roles is any better.

Horse shit again. You think imposing traditional boy roles on girls or vice versa isn’t imposing gender roles? It’s far better for a person to have a guide and know what’s expected, and for that role to be in tune with his biology, than to be out of tune with it, to the point medication is needed to make him keep in line with your theory. That’s what we have. This social engineering is the sickest evil going on in the west, tampering with human nature because it disagrees with your doctrine. You’ll fit a round peg in a square hole or break both trying. Evil fucks.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by daniel on Dec 21, 2005, 4:44pm

Dec 21, 2005, 9:42am, Freshy wrote:
Dec 21, 2005, 4:06am, daniel wrote:
You’re not listening: you have nothing.

Moreover, you offer nothing that can’t be found elsewhere, both in abundance and in far better quality.

What you think you have to say concerning (snort) “equality” means jack shit when a man has choices – one of which is to totally ignore and overlook your existence while he looks elsewhere for something far better.

That is why it does not matter what you think about “equality” – because a man with plentiful choices leaves you with no real leverage to command his attention with such nonsense. Unless, of course, he is either spineless or condescending to give such attention to you.

How am I not listening? I didn’t dispute what you said. I read it and took it into consideration then I asked (and I’m asking again)… What do you have that makes you so worthy?

If I am worthless solely because I am a AW than please tell me what makes you worthwhile as an AM?

What is it about yourself that I should strive to be worthy of?

There is no snark in those questions, I’m actually interested in the answer.

No – I’m not the issue here. It’s YOU who’s the issue, and we’re not going to shift the topic as you would like.

But it’s nice to know you don’t dispute what I said about AW like yourself being worthless – because it’s a time-saver for guys who are trying to weed out low quality, undesirable women (like you, for example) who aren’t worthy of their devotion.

So while you pontificate on the meaning of “equality,” and make laughable attempts to leverage men by demanding that they demonstrate value to worthless AW like you, these men can look elsewhere and stand a pretty good chance of finding women who are truly worthy of their time, devotion, and protection. Or not look for any women, if they don’t want to.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by soon to be SolShinobi on Dec 21, 2005, 5:25pm

That’s crap Jamie. First of all it is not a man’s world. Can anyone believe this person?!?!!

If it was…all the laws would support us or if it was even FAIR it would be balanced. It isn’t…it’s gone from a blind woman holding scales to a woman who’s acting blind and peeking while the judging commences.

I think the original poster was fair in that she didn’t put the guy on child support. However, in the same breath we don’t know what is true or false. I think this is the main problem with men on women. We never know the truth with them until it’s too late.

So i will withhold judgement however i don’t put it past any woman at the level of evil i’ve seen them do.

——————————————————————————–
Re: Do you have a middle ground?
Post by logic101 on Dec 21, 2005, 11:27pm

Dec 21, 2005, 9:28am, Freshy wrote:

*Just adding I used to be in a gaming syndicate with a guy who went by the name Logic who seems to share some of the views here. Wouldn’t happen to be one and the same by any chance? lol*?

Sorry, I don’t believe so.

Dec 21, 2005, 9:28am, Freshy wrote:
Do you think there is any way that couples who wish to not involve lawyers should be able to obtain a divorce or is forcing couples to go through a trial part of what you think would make couples more hesitant to divorce and therefore keep families more stable?

**(ideal situation)….I believe more people should be civil about things and go thru a mediator and avoiding lawyers. The end result is a much cheaper outcome. Unfortunately…divorce many times brings out the worst in both parties.( I can just picture both the lawyers salivating at the mouth) This is why running on emotion is such a bad thing. Call me cynical but I’ve witnessed it first hand thru close friends. You have adults basically acting like children once again. Not a pretty picture. And I honestly don’t think kids really enjoy this behavior.

(my opinion)….The bottom line is any squared away man should really think very hard before they marry any WW(western woman) and not let emotions get in the way. I simply believe a man shouldn’t do it given the biased (family court/legal/anti-father)system we have in place now should the marriage dissolve into a bitter divorce. Enlightened men have better/other options. More men just need to realize this.

-Logic 101

Feminism has morphed into a DESTRUCTIVE Hate Movement
Next time some woman accuses you of being irresponsible because you refuse to marry or pay for the date, tell her you believe in women’s rights – the right for her to pay for the date and to support you in marriage. Just watch her expression – truly a classic.
—http://mirrorofthesoul.blogspot.com/

——————————————————————————–