Thursday, October 22, 2009

M is for Man Song

In case you haven't seen it before:

You can laugh, or you can cry.


Monday, October 12, 2009

F is for Fair Warning

Well, the court system seems to be calling me, and I suspect strongly, with some evidence that my very evil ex has figured out that this blog exists.

And so therefore, I am going to go into hiding, until such time as the court has done abusing me. Perhaps I will throw out links to other sites, but the posts on this site needs must disappear for a while.

I won't delete them, I will just hide them. If it happens that you need me to dig a link, or some data from a post up, please email me at b3u8ebs02 at

I apologize for being a wimp, but my private emails have been introduced to the court before, and have previously helped the court to decide that I was being 'truculent' about my enslavement. I suspect that my blogging here would be even more evidence of my lack of good faith. (insert eye roll here)

So, I must go into hiding. I pray for the day that what I must conceal can be said in the open, but obviously, it is also our right to free speech that is under attack by the Gynocracy.

This is a 'fair warning' post, and it itself will shortly dissappear, to be replaced by some generic message.

My Best To You In Your Struggles


Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

Saturday, October 10, 2009

G is for Getting Married?

Getting Married?

Thinking about it?

If so, you should take a moment to read this post.

Did you know that better than 60% of marriages end in divorce?

Did you know that women file the vast majority of those divorces?

Did you know that in the vast majority of divorces, women get your children, and you get to visit them on occasion if you are lucky - and women get better than half the assets, and women usually get the house to live in until things get divided, and women generally get support of some sort?

Ok, with that in mind.... ...look at the picture below.

This is an UNEMPLOYMENT PAYMENT CONFIRMATION. This one is for a top earner, who is getting the maximum unemployment possible. He's been out of work for almost 2 years. Take a moment to review it. I'll wait....

Ok, notice anything funny about it?

-Like how the gross is over %1,000 for two weeks, but the actual amount of the check is $280?

Where the heck did all that money go?

Well, see - right there - most of it went to 'Garnishment'. This man, who has his kids, who is out of work for years, loses 65% of his unemployment to his ex-wife.

Want to know what her gross income is?

Would it suprise you to know that she brings home over $100,000?

You may say: Oh, he just needs to go back to court to get that thing adjusted.


Would it suprise you to learn that he had been back to court?

That in fact, his ex-wife SUED him for a 'violation' of her rights - because he wasn't paying the full amount of her 'support'?

Would it suprise you that not only did the court not reduce his payments, but that it increased them?

Well, if any of this suprises you, you just plain don't know how the game is played here in good sweet ol' New Jersey.

So, I ask again...

Are You SURE You're Getting Married?

My Best To You In Your Struggles


Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

Friday, October 09, 2009

D is for Die (Like a Man)

Today’s statistical foray is into the field of 'Survivorship'. One key way that we measure the relative treatment and condition of the different races is by their relative survivorship over time – how quickly they die off as opposed to the average, and as compared to other races. Black men, for instance, are about 1/3rd less likely to make it to age 80 than white men, and that indicates to us that black men are doing about 33% less well in our society than white men.

And the same logic reasonably applies to the differential in survival rates between men and women – a black male is 50% less likely than a white woman to make it to age 80, and about 35% less likely than a black woman to achieve that age.

And it isn’t about race as much as it is about sex. Life expectancy at birth for black women has uniformly exceeded that of both white men and black men since at least the 1970s. More than your race, your sex determines when you will die.

And the problem doesn’t start at the end of life, or even at age 80. Somehow disparities in being able to care for and raise males start in the very beginning of life. Already at age one, per the survival tables, we have 240 less males per 100,000 than we do white women. Apparently there is something it about white girl babies that their odds of living are just higher. Like, maybe we take care of them better. Oh you may say “That’s just boy babies – they die more.” But if they do, shouldn’t we do something about it? And can you imagine saying something like that about girl babies? 240 out of 100,000 may not seem like a lot, but extrapolate that out to our current population of about 300,000,000, and you find that almost 400,000 of today’s potential males are missing because they died in their first year – males that perhaps could have still been around if we could take care of them as good as we do white girl-babies.

And by the time we get to the 20 year-olds, that number has almost doubled – with about 720,000 missing young men, men who might be around if we socialized and cared for our males the way we do women. But there’s more. Now we are getting into the work, marriage and divorce years. Men are getting married and then divorced, most often not by choice, and find themselves destitute, emasculated, enslaved and financially destroyed, and are also taking jobs that put their lives and health at risk - and the numbers start shooting up. By the time US men hit 45, more than 2.7 milion of them are missing. Dead. 2.7 million men in their mid 40s are dead who would be alive today if we could just do as good a job keeping them alive as we do women.

And it keeps on going up. Without going into detailed age distributions, it can be estimated that over 10 million men have died who might still be around today at age 80 – if only we could have taken as good care of them as we do women.

But instead we hear about ‘breast cancer’ and ‘ovarian cancer’ and ‘women’s heart disease’ and all manner of women’s ailments, and even more tellingly, our media is full of stories about women feeling ‘unfulfilled’ and ‘unhappy’ with their roles in life, and taking weeks and months off to renew themselves.

Few and far between are the organizations raising awareness for men’s concerns – suicide, men’s heart disease, prostate cancer, testicular cancer, penile cancer, male breast cancer, workplace hazards and the like. Where are the stories in the media about men taking months off to renew themselves after half a life of wage slavery? There aren’t many, and you won’t find Oprah, Oxygen or HGTV financing a men’s month off to get rejuvenated either. You gotta earn the money and go do it yourself.

So in case you haven’t figured it out yet, it’s a woman’s world.

Welcome to the Gynocracy

My Best To You In Your Struggles


Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

(Data used for calculations in this article is from the CDC’s December 2007 National Vital Statistics Report, Vol 56, No 5 United States Life Tables, 2004 by Elizabeth Arias, PHD, and also from the historical statistical abstracts of census data maintained by the US Census Bureau)

Friday, October 02, 2009

M is for Moms - Reprise with some links...

A reprise of a poem from Jan 2008 with some, but not all, by far, links added.

They can cook kids in ovens
They can drown them in lakes
They can chop off their limbs
They can burn them at stakes

They can smother them
Bleed them
Dismember them all
They stash their sad bodies
In closets, behind walls...

...In suitcases grim, beneath flower beds;
They begged for their lives;
And now they are dead

Their killers? -Their mothers;
Who beat, drown, and hack;
When it comes to child-murder;
The mom is no slack.

But when it comes to the court
And the newsreel we find
That men are the villains;
They think all moms are kind

They little consider
The statistics which tell
That families-sans-fathers
Are our children's worst hell

So pray for our children
And pray for the State
Which finds women all saintly
And men, reprobate.

Perhaps some day soon
We'll treat women like men
And not coddle those
Who kill most
Who cause Woe to Men.

My Best To You In Your Struggles


Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

Thursday, October 01, 2009

E is for The Economic Lull

I can't imagine why divorce would drop off in bad times.

I mean, if the problem is the evil, cheating man, then the solution is divorce, no? Bearing in mind that the majority (about 70%) of divorces are filed by women, then certainly, if the problems are violence, masculine stubbornness, male ignorance, and the like, and given a divorce system that makes men pay their partner's legal fees, divorce rates should stay the same.

Unless, of course, it isn't about anything but the freaking money.

I've said it before - it's a storm of the spirit - a moral storm, and unfortunately it appears that the majority of women lack a moral compass, and so therefore their partners, the men, are at great risk.

My Best To You In Your Struggles


Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

M is for Men Are Good

This shouldn't be a shocking message.
This shouldn't be a new message.
This shouldn't be a radical message that must be suppressed.

But it is the name of a website that I just discovered, via 'Angry Harry', that details that exactly this message is being actively supressed.

Go, start Here and read, and remember, Men ARE Good.

My Best To You In Your Struggles


Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

Saturday, September 26, 2009

P is for Protect Yourself

Another problem that presents itself to men in divorce and separation is what happens when you lose you job.

You can find yourself building up arrears while your ex collects 65% of your unemployment, and sues you, claiming you aren't searching hard enough for the next job. When you get the next job, she may sue you claiming that this job pays lower than it should have because you didn't do an adequate search. And the odds of being sued in these ways are high, because traditionally, the man (whups, the 'presumed higher wage earner') pays for the lawyers fees. So she's got nothing at stake.

To protect yourself you need to keep a record of who you sent your resumes to, who you spoke to, and what kind of networking and investigations you did in hunting for your job. You also need to track salary information for these jobs (if available), locations you looked in, job titles and the like.

And this isn't a joke - the burden of proof in one of these cases does not fall upon the accuser - the woman - it falls upon the support-payer; the man.

It is up to you to prove that you are doing or did do an adequate search to the court, and show where you searched and how.

I have been there, and I know.

They want to see how many folks you contacted, if you followed up, and where the jobs were located, and are liable to parse this data closely. It's a big deal. And if you fail to prove that your job hunt was sufficient, then you get the joy of 'imputed income', which is where the court pretends, for its calculations that you are making your old income. (i.e. when the facts don't allow you to come up with your insane support numbers, just plug in the pretend facts that will help. Nice.)


So to deal with this documentation/job search issue I use a job networking tool that has good job-hunt reporting, called 'The Job Networking Assistant', from Anonymous Developments, who have just rolled out their latest version. The software costs a big $20, and automates your job search and networking efforts in a way few tools can. It autodials, generates professional-looking customizable emails, pulls up maps of job locations, tracks referrals, and a lot more. Upgrades are free, and revisions generally roll out every couple months. If you are a divorced person hunting for a job, this may be the best $20 you ever spent.

The standard version of the software is available for download as a free trial - just follow the link here.

Oh, and I get a big piece of the action, so do buy it and use it - it's good for networking, even if you haven't lost your job or aren't divorced or separated!

My Best To You In Your Struggles


Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

Friday, September 25, 2009

R is for Reading List

As new voices emerge, it is good to remember where we started from.

Below find Youtube links for an interview based upon Warren Farrell's 'The Myth of Male Power'. Warren comes from a different generation than I, a generation that lived with more of the positive aspects of women's liberation.

I live in a world where those aspects have been digested, legalized and are assumed. If a woman wants a job, wants to join the team, wants equal pay for equal work - she gets it, and has a legal basis for it, and legal recourse if she doesn't get it. But negative aspects of feminism have balooned, and at the expense of men, and few of the old inequities have been redressed.

So it is very worthwhile listening to Warren - and remembering that since this interview, things have gotten much, much worse for men. Warren saw a brave new recasting of the gender roles that liberated both sexes emerging. Instead we have a brave new world of male servitude, second-class citizenry, and slavery, with women having all the options and men having all the state-enforced obligations.

The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 1/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 2/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 3/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 4/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 5/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 6/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 7/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 8/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 9/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 10/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 11/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 12/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 13/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 14/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 15/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 16/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 17/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 18/19
The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell - 19/19

My Best To You In Your Struggles


Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Y is for Yawning

Don't say I'm cheap. Even if I am. :)

If you don't read anything else today, go read Yawning at Hofstra at A Voice for Men.

Brilliant Excerpt:

Even with their neck planted squarely on the guillotine, if a woman’s hand is on the lever, the last words of men will likely as not be, “I’m sorry if I get your blade bloody.”

Men are, it seems, the greatest masochists of all time. Whatever you do, don’t get between a man and an opportunity to excuse a woman for whatever harm she causes to others.

You’ll be road kill in a nanosecond.

And that is precisely what men are becoming. They are like dumb animals that wander onto the super highway of gender politics, unable to grasp the concept of speed and Mac Trucks. After getting hit, the ones who don’t get squashed flat simply limp off to the shoulder, covering their pain with a smile and saying, “Please, ma’am, may I have another?"

Hey, look Hot Air is onto the Hofstra misandry too, with a must read article entitled: Making Children Of Women


We’ve come to this weird place in our history where women become babies instead of have them. It’s all about choices - but not about consequences. Rights, but not responsibilities. When a woman becomes pregnant, she can choose to kill the baby (or if you’re squeamish, terminate the pregnancy.) Repeatedly, in one case. Or she can choose to claim a goodly percentage of the man’s income for the next 18 years. Women have reproductive choices, men have obligations.

Read the Whole Thing

Related: Falsely accused Hofstra Senior: “Thank God I Filmed It.” Oh yeah, because clearly the testimony of one skank is worth much more than that of five men. Oh, Lookie! we have a name for the young (struggling for a new, appropriate adjective here) woman: Danmell Ndonye.

Excerpt from The Gothamist:

The aunt of falsely accused Kevin Taveras told the Post that when Ndonye was split up from her boyfriend at an on-campus party, she and [Kevin] "started making out, and she said to him, 'Do you want to come back to my dorm?' He said, 'I have friends here with me,' and she said, 'Bring 'em along. It'll be hot.' It started from there. The point is she knew what she was doing... Stalin said to her, 'Are you sure about this?' She said, 'Yeah, sure, I want to.'" (Link)

My Best To You In Your Struggles


Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

W is for Why D'Ja Spoze...

There have been a number of articles on the much heavier impact of the current economic disaster on men than women. The Rights of Man directs us to a UK report that shows the impact on married/cohabiting men is twice that of women.

And why d'ja spoze that is? Why do you suppose that men are more than twice as likely to find themselves unemployed than women?

Is there any chance that it is because many of the jobs women fill are entitlement jobs, government jobs, you-can't-be-fired-from-this-one jobs, and she-has-something-on-the-boss jobs? Make-work jobs and no-show jobs? Service jobs that require just a bit less, but must be done come heck-or-high-water?

D'Ja Spoze?

But as we contemplate the reality of numbers like those in the graph here, there are others who say things like:

"In the early '70s, breaking out of the domestic cocoon, leaving their mothers' circumscribed lives behind, young women felt exhilarated and bold. But the more women have achieved, the more they seem aggrieved." Maureen Dowd in the New York Times, Sept. 19, 2009.*


"Many women are being charged more in health care coverage, but as we all know, women are earning less. We all know that women earn 78 cents on the dollar to every men -- to a man [sic]." Michelle Obama, First Lady (Hat tip for graph and quotes - American Thinker)

If it is so terrible to be a woman, than why d'ja spose the real numbers all seem to indicate something else? Why is it that 2/3rds of all male suicides are divorced or separated, and why is it that that number is almost exactly equal to the difference between the male and female suicide rate?

Why D'Ja Spoze?

The First Lady should know better, but perhaps in the echo chamber she lives in, she can't hear anything but the vaporings of NOW.

On the other hand Dowd is truly tone-deaf. She works in the news industry and should know that men are dying in the streets - but here she is wringing her hands about her ennui. Disgusting.

Update: Novaseeker dissects Dowd and her ennui gap here.

Brilliant line from Novaseeker: There are more widows, Maureen, in large part because men die younger than women do, and die much more often at work than women do. It's hardly a romantic advantage later in life if you are dead.

From my comment on Novaseeker's post:

Dowd is blindingly awful. How disgusting that she blathers on about her lack of happiness, her ennui, when 3x the number of men are dying of suicide as women, when men are dying earlier and in larger numbers from poor health care, when men's deaths make up 90+ percent of hazardous job deaths.
When we see black people dying in this way we attribute it to racism. I say that when men die earlier and in greater numbers, it is a result of genderism that fails to care for their needs, that drives them into dangerous jobs, and kills them off early. All while women like Dowd whine about their ennui. (spit)

My Best To You In Your Struggles


Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

* I won't link the NYT or Dowd because they live in such a world of propaganda, and I don't want to send traffic their way. Probably I shouldn't link Whitehouse.Gov for the same reasons. But you can find the Dowd link at American Thinker here if you want to go wallow in it. I think you have to register to read her swill. But Novaseeker has a lot of it.

p.s. Welcome Novaseeker to the blogroll.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

B is for Back in the Slammer

"She called me, and we're going back to court" related the lawyer.

"We'll make a motion, and the judge will go for it and he'll be tossed back in the slammer."

"And he's not a bad guy, he isn't mean or abusive, or intentionally delinquent, he's just out of work. He's a business suit kind of guy. A manager, and he can't get anything."

"I try and tell her that you can't get blood out of a stone, and that she's wasting her money on me doing these motions, but she doesn't care. Every few months we do it again, like clockwork.

He gets out, more arrears build up, and she gets me to toss him back in."

"You'd think the judges might 'get it' but they don't. It's the system. I figure eventually she will see the argument of diminishing returns, and then it will stop."

There you have it. More or less exact words from a lawyer, about to throw an honestly unemployed man back into jail, for not forking money he doesn't have over to a well-heeled woman who can afford to torment him and keep him in jail.

Yet another case of legal gynocracy. Peonage. Debt servitude. Debtor's prison. Slavery. You name it.

And in today's economy, doubly depressing. More and more men are in this position today. Probably more than ever before. But the law says that the man is guilty. Guilty under all circumstances. Guilty until proven innocent.

Fall late on your payments, and you are guilty of violating the plaintiff's RIGHTS. She has a RIGHT to your money, even when you have none. And not paying is a jailable offense.

Remember that this is what marriage can be, and for many, many men, what it is.

Back in the slammer with you now...

Welcome to the Gynocracy.

My Best To You In Your Struggles


Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

Monday, September 21, 2009

M is for Manifestos - unpub

In the Men's Right's world, there are a lot of proposed Manifestos or Bills of Rights, and I thought it would be interesting and useful to bring them together.

H is for Help - as in SHE Needs Help +Update!

If you haven't seen this article by Glenn Sacks and Ned Holstein, it's time to take your eyes for a walk over to MSN Lifestyle, where they relate the story of David Woods:

Bleeding from the neck from a knife wound delivered by his violent wife, David, a partially disabled ex-Marine is cuffed, and treated like a violent offender.

Only when his children come crying to his defense, and - out of his presence - are able to convince a female sheriff's deputy what really happened, is he uncuffed, and the police begin to treat him like someone other than the offender.

So what happens next? Does his wife go to jail? Certainly assault with a deadly weapon is a felony?

No, instead the officers say that, "She needs help", and direct David to call the emergency mental health line for her health insurance policy.

Those Police, Always So Helpful!

Bye Guys! It's Been Nice! Stop By Anytime!

David notes: "Now, isn't that strange? When she had a fat lip, it was a felony and I was going to jail. But when they finally realized that she tried to stab me in the neck, it stopped being a crime, and instead it was a mental health issue."

-And they think SHE Needs Help.

No, I think SHE is getting all the help she needs.

Enabling, Misandrist Help.

Howabout giving David and his children a hand, and locking this woman up?

It is interesting that the wife here actually makes a habit of accusing David of criminal and violent behavior against her. Accusing him of what she is actually guilty of. Something I think a few of us are familiar with...

And in case someone wanders by, and claims that men ARE usually the perpetrator, hey, it's time for a trip to the CDC, which just released a study indicating when violence is one-sided, women are the perpetrator 70-freaking-percent of the time, and when violence was reciprocal, women were most likely to have struck first.

Do go read the rest of the article.


And don't we hear an echo of this in the Hofstra False Rape case? The men's reputations and families were dragged through the mud... but the young woman? "Authorities have not released the accuser's name, saying they are concerned over her safety." -And; "Her actions and her demeanor depict a very troubled young woman in need of much help."

Want to get really enraged? Listen to the harpie feminist DA who claims 'no crime occurred', and seems to think the important thing is that they 'got her to admit the truth', and she somehow thinks that this 'put an end to this injustice'. How about THIS injustice? It is true that her community 'has real victims of sexual assault'. FALSELY ACCUSED MEN. How about some charges for the criminal in this case? (Hat tip Misandry Review.)

More Misandrist, Enabling Help for the Offending Women. More Abuse for the Men.

Update Update: Yet another example? Merced cops toss an unarmed, legless man out of his wheelchair, removing his pants in the process, snatch his 2-year-old daughter, and drag him off to jail, all on the claim of his wife that he punched her in the stomach 3 times. But lookie lookie, as you read through, you find the wife not quite so innocent: "Police took Phifer, Williams' wife, into custody during the incident on an outstanding $10,000 misdemeanor warrant for domestic violence." (on page 3) Hmmm, any bets as to who was the real violent offender? No word on how many times they tazed Phifer. "Recounting the experience, Williams broke into tears. "How much resisting am I going to do with no legs? No feet?" he wept. "It's ridiculous what they did to me. How far am I gonna run? Where am I gonna go?""

My Best To You In Your Struggles


Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

F is for Feminized Field-Day

For some reason was thinking about 'Field-Day' the other day.

Now, I assume everyone knows what this is, and maybe they don't: 'Field Day' is a day of sports activity held at the end of the school year for school children - usually K-6, back in the days before they invented Middle School. (Why DID they do that anyway? Just so they could have more administrative slots?)

Anyway at Field Day, you did all of the different sports you were interested in - anyone could compete, and there were 'first, second and third/blue, red and yellow' ribbons for the winners from each grade.

There was a 100m dash, and longer runs, and relay races, and the broad jump, and the 'hop, skip and jump', and silly things like 3-legged races and wheelbarrow races. It was loads of fun.

Anyway, I now have my own kids, and attend and sometimes volunteer at the modern 'Feminized' Field Day. It is unrecognizable. First of all, it isn't held at a field. Not that no fields are available, it just wasn't that sort of thing. See now, at least for where my kids went to school, 'Field Day' is about social education.

It is about 'stop smoking', or 'drug avoidance' or 'save the earth' or 'gang awareness' or something. And there is some limited physical activity, but all just taking kids through the motions of avoiding the ciggies and dodging the pusher.

But nothing competetive. No. You go through the motions, and then line up for the next activity. Not that the kids minded hugely, it was a break from the routine, and they got to be a little physical, and get some of their energy out playing silly games.

The first time I helped at one of these things, I was like, 'OK, what do the winners get...' and I got stared at. EVERYONE is a winner. We don't give out prizes. OOHHHH.

Because competition is bad. Winning is bad. No we should prepare our children to live in a non-competetive world where the few who work take care of the rest of us.

OK, Let me know how that works out.

- Oh, wait. We're living it now, - with an economy destroyed by housing entitlements and government control of industry and banking - and soon, if we're lucky, healthcare.
...I can hardly wait.

My Best To You In Your Struggles


Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

S is for Statistics

Back in 2006, I posted a review of sentencing of men vs women by our courts entitled H is for Happy (it was the New Year). I like sentencing stats - they reflect the actual functioning of the courts, and hint to us at the injustices that might be happening in other parts of the process.

My intent was to discover if the evidence of our eyes was true, and if women in general were getting a whole different kind of justice when they went to court.

The numbers were shocking - across the board, women were recieving much shorter sentences - about 40% shorter than what was doled out to men. And it of course leads you to wonder what kind of biases are occuring in the arrest, trial and probation phases.

Well, I thought it was time to re-visit this question, and I found a nifty and huge government database to work against:

United States Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Federal Justice Statistics Program: Defendants Sentenced Under the Sentencing Reform Act, 2007 [United States] [Computer file]. ICPSR24232-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2009-02-23. doi:10.3886/ICPSR24232

Apparently they turn one of these out every year or did up to '07. You can download your copy here, (registration required) but the dataset is kind of large, and unless you have a recent copy of excel and/or are pretty good with databases, this isn't fun. Happily, I love this kind of thing and so:

I took the data, which is at an individual level, and first determined the average sentence length by gender: The average woman was sentenced to a 59% shorter sentence than the average man, with the average sentence (across all offenses) for a man being 57 months, and the average sentence for a woman being 23 months.

If men and women are really committing the same crimes, this already givs us significant evidence of bias, but let's compare apples with apples. The database gives us the primary offense, and we can break the data down by that:

The following list outlines, per the data that you can download and work with yourself, the percentages less (or more) that women are sentenced for the exact same crime as men:

51% 1 Murder
43% 2 Manslaughter
37% 3 Kidnapping/Hostage
68% 4 Sexual Abuse
34% 5 Assault
57% 6 Bank Robbery
24% 9 Arson
47% 10 Drugs: Trafficking
50% 11 Drugs: Communicatn facilities
81% 12 Drugs: Simple possession
54% 13 Firearms: Use & possess
(21%) 15 Burg/Breaking & Entering
14% 16 Auto Theft
57% 17 Larceny
45% 18 Fraud
46% 19 Embezzlement
49% 20 Forgery/Counterfeiting
40% 21 Bribery
14% 22 Tax offenses
40% 23 Money laundering
62% 24 Racktring (includes extortion)
100% 25 Gambling/Lottery
41% 26 Civil rights offenses
51% 27 Immigration
43% 28 Pornography/Prostitution
32% 29 Offenses in prisons
60% 30 Administration of justice
117% 31 Environmental offenses
34% 32 National defense offenses
100% 33 Antitrust violations
(253%) 34 Food and drug offenses
63% 35 Traffic violations

And now it is possible to calculate how much less, on average, by crime, a woman is sentenced to than a man: 40%. Note that there are only two (2) areas in which women's sentences exceed men's.

Now perhaps the sentences being meted out to women are appropriate, and those given to men are out of line. With this nifty database to hand, I can calculate how many excess years are being doled out to men per primary offense, and the number is.... for 2007...

(drum roll please)

142,036.17 years.

Think of that, 142,036.17 years of productive male effort flushed away in the US court system just in 2007, - because men are not viewed as being as worthy of mercy as women.

Think what you could achieve with an army of 142,036 men working for you for a year! Even if these are difficult, or slothful men, a lot could be done! But it is necessary to lock them away, because, as you know,

...they just aren't women....

Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

My Best To You In Your Struggles



While I was in the neighborhood, and with the HBD/VDare/BNP/Bio-Cons and the like in the back of my mind, I wondered what the stats would say about Blacks as opposed to Whites in the courts.

And those who are Black do suffer from bias in some big-ticket items - murder (your average White gets a 7.3 year sentence according to the data, but your average Black gets 23 years), Manslaugter (Whites get a 23% discount), Arson (51% discount), and Drug Posession (75%!).

But the balance tips the other way for white-collar crimes, and the sentencing balances out around 4% in favor of the Black Man if you average across offenses. Whites are beaten up for Embezzelment -75%, Gambling -296%, Civil Rights Offenses -181%, and the like.

I guess that judges and prosecutors get 'fed up' with certain crimes in certain communities and races and sentence those extra hard, thinking that that will make a difference. Or perhaps certain crimes occurr more predominately in different communities, and repeat offenders get whacked. The data is there to parse that out if anyone is interested.

It's also fair to note that the things that blacks are being sentenced with carry much longer terms than what whites get sentenced with, but, you know, I am running a Men's Rights blog here, not a generic Civil Rights blog. If some Civil Rights guy wants to dig down on this data, and isn't technical enough to mince the data properly, I'd be glad to help.

Heck, maybe a grant could be written. :)

There might be grant money for studying how the court system screws BLACK men.
(Bitter? Me? Nooooooooooooooooo)

pps - had a brain spasm and typed 'years' instead of 'months' as the units for the average sentences in the 7th paragraph above. This has been fixed. In years (for those who can't divide by 12) it is 4.8 years for average male sentence, and 1.97 for average female sentence. The ratio remains the same, of course, with women getting a 59% discount on average. The other numbers (like the excess years men serve) did not suffer this problem.

Monday, September 14, 2009

B is for Blogging

I've gone to a nifty blog-listing tool on the left that gives you the blogs I link to in order of their last update, and their most recent post's title. Very Exciting.

Also scary again to me how bloggers in the MRA world turn over, fade out, et-cetera. Saddening to look at a good blog that has been un-updated for half a year... Did they go ghost? Are they just up to their necks? (Usually the case with me). Did they give up ranting about the system - or just give up? Did they kill themselves? One wonders.


W is for Worried

Another couple interesting elements in the emergent Men's Interests world are the Bio-Cons and HBD aka 'Human BioDiversity'.

If I understand the Men's Interests argument of the former (the Bio-Cons), it is that there was something biological or 'natural' about the old social constructs - they gave 'beta males' - that is, the average dudes out there (and that means all of us at one point or other, in my opinion) - a way to succeed. One woman was bound to one man, and needed that man to make her routine work.

Overturning the basic social framework with easy divorce, sex-without-responsibilities, abortion on demand, government supports for single motherhood, and governmental divorce structures that leave men destroyed and women empowered disrupts our society. Suddenly the nuclear family is less common, and men are avoiding marriage as women are running for their marriage exit and alimony/support check.

OK, all of that is from my/a Men's Rights worldview, but try this definition on for size: (Source)

Bioconservatism (a portmanteau word combining "biology" and "conservatism"), is a stance of hesitancy about biotechnological development especially if it is perceived to threaten a social order.
Strong bioconservative positions include opposition to the genetic, prosthetic and cognitive modification of human beings in particular. Whether arising from a conventionally right-leaning politics of religious and cultural conservatism or from a conventionally left-leaning politics of environmentalism, bioconservative positions oppose
medical and other technological interventions into what are broadly perceived as current human and cultural limits in the name of a defense of "the natural" deployed as a moral category.
Bioconservative skepticism toward biomedical and other particular technological developments often is, but need not always be, part of a more general technophobic perspective or critique of technological society. Bioluddism represents a more radical and sweeping anti-biotechnological perspective.

So whichever of those you go with, or some cross-pollination of the two, fine. And see here and here for more on Bio-Conservatism.

But what worries and scares me is the HBD movement - Human BioDiversity - which is linked with Bio-Conservatism and which claims that the major differences between folks are not so much individual differences, but racial or genetic differences between major groups and genders.

And even if that was true, the formation of a movement around this idea worries me.

Because I think that HBD may often be a cover-word for racism - in fact, when you drill down on the bloggers involved, like Steve Sailer and Chris Brand you start seeing that they are participants in VDare, and the BNP and the like. (For more reading see here, and this post, (hm, <- this blogger also reads Roissy - and studies game))

Now I love my race like I love my gender, but even if we have good evidence that different races and genders are practically different, I don't want them treated differently by our country, and I worry that this is where focusing on this will get us.

Our founding fathers here in the states insisted that every citizen be treated equally, and that is because that is the only practical way to govern a democracy, and the only way to recognize and honor the spirit placed in us by our creator. It is also a capitalistic and legal principle that allows the truly talented to actually benefit from the work of their hands.

I want to fight for elimination of bias of all sorts - favoritism by gender, race, faith - our government should have no part of bias, and a revolution that enshrines our differences and tips the tables in favor of those who are seen as 'better' would create a new slavery, a new oppressed class, and set the stage for yet more revolution, chaos and bloodshed.

Anyway, I'm worried. I'm worried because our country, and our world is in a period of stress, and some of these new social movements that are popping up and being linked to the Men's movement on the web concern me.

I think men need to stay focused on fighting for their personal and group rights - if that means going ghost, fine - if that means going Galt, great (interesting how alike they can be) - if that means working together to break the logjam of of abusive anti-male government legislation - wonderful.

But let's not get distracted by the evil-ly tempting specter of racism and bias, and those who would look to slide them into our movement.

Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

My Best To You In Your Struggles


Sunday, September 13, 2009

G is for 'Girl' ?

Apparently when it comes down to balls, Caster Semenya has them.

If you haven't heard this story, in a nutshell, here we have a world-class 'female' athlete, who was challenged because 'she' for all practical purposes, appeared to be a man.

But that wasn't as far as it went. No, in fact, when push came to shove, here we have a 'gal' who packs two testicles tucked away inside her body, and has essentially no practical girl-parts at all.

Now, I'm all for male-ness, and I think it is great that Caster is a guy. But in fact, she chose to identify as a woman. And mostly I'm also fine with that, too - you want to call yourself 'Wendy' or 'Sheila' or whatever and wear dresses and makeup sometimes, go for it.

But when you aren't honest about your true nature in places where it makes a difference - potential intimate partners or sports, for example, well, that's another matter.

I mean, who wants to discover at the point of groping, or getting down, or shagging, or whatever, that the person you are with is of a totally different gender than you thought, and has a completely different reproductive package going on than what you had hoped for. I mean that's just not fair.

And one would think that by the time one got to the world-class level in sports, one might have noticed, between all the physicals and such, that one wasn't really a girl.

Not that the 'shemale sports' angle is new. Back in the day Russia was famous for marketing things as 'women' in the Olympics whose bodies had seen more testosterone than most men could ever dream of their wee lumpkins producing.

But when you think about it, in this unisex world we live in, where silly politicians insist that genders be funded equally and have equal opportunity - unless it hurts the man - here is a prime example of a gender difference.

Why do we segregate the sexes in running, in swimming, in the various physical competitions?

It's because women, quite simply don't measure up. Our species is sexually dimorphic. Or in English - boys are different than girls. And not just in what we carry about in our pants. We are taller, stronger, faster, and for whatever reason, a bit sharper about practical things like geometry and math, when not held back by feminized schools.

And if women want to have any fun - if they want to win in competitive sports, men and things that are genetically male must be kept out.

Oh there is the occasional woman who can compete with the boys, and being all Aristotelean and stuff, these extrordinary women are often allowed to compete as an exception - at least at the high-school level.

But men aren't allowed to compete in women's events. That just wouldn't be fair to the poor ladies.

Because we're different. Because we're better.

And that's good to remember, while the state, the workplace and society tilt the tables again, and again, and again in favor of the woman - it's good to remember that there's a reason. It's because they can't compete in a fair fight.

Not that it isn't unfair to put us in the position that men find themselves in today.
It is unfair. Very unfair.

But it's good to be different. It's good to be male.

Now - back to finding a way out of the gynocentric rat-trap.

Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

My Best To You In Your Struggles


Saturday, September 12, 2009

G is for Game

Heard of 'Game'? Know what a PUA is? Know who Roissy is?

See, I'm a bit older than some, and was happy to catch my second wind (i.e. become separated from my ex) when I was flush with income and working in a big city, in circles with a lot of lovely women, -oh, and mostly I love to just chat with folks. So I didn't need 'Game', I had natural (or un-natural) 'Game'. (If you have money, and a gift for a bit of gab, what else do you need?)

But for those of you who just tuned in, and to whom these words are odd, let me bring you as up to speed as I can.

Apparently, in 2005, a book called 'The Game' by Neil Strauss was published that told a purportedly non-fictional/autobiographical tale of a man's indoctrination and ascent in a society of 'Pick Up Artists' (PUAs) - becoming an expert - who was eventually christened 'Style' (His mentor had the moniker 'Mystery'). Here's the wiki writeup, go read it, I'll wait.

Funny thing is, the whole thing reeks to me of the '70s and leisure suits, but it probably seems that way to me because I actually remember the '70s and leisure suits - and is a sign that this kind of thing has been going on for a long time now, and this is just the latest incarnation - perhaps a slightly more technical one, which relates to our increasingly complex way of living.

So basically, what Game tries to be, if I haven't missed the key points, is to treat relationships between men and women like a game, and to adjust one's actions and inputs so as to achieve certain goals - in this case, getting the woman in question into your bed - but perhaps also to engineer your relationship in such a way as to achieve maximum ongoing satisfaction.

Anyway, I am noticing more and more about 'Game' in the MRA (Men's Rights Activism) world, (like here at Oz Conservative, and here at In Mala Fide) and I think it is an expression of some people who are following to a degree the MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) paradigm. PUAs/Gamers are looking to achieve sexual satisfaction, without having to live into the standard roles that society sets for men: Alpha Male, or Wage Slave.

For a summary of Game, perhaps here is a good place to look.

Oh and Roissy? I read him as a gamer, but kind of famous, and with a game plan that can extend to longer term relationships, although his view of women is, naturally, not the most positive in the universe. (Yeah, I know; 'pot, meet kettle' - but can you blame us?) Look here for a proposed Roissy Manifesto.

What does gaming look like? Well here is a brief vid of Love Systems on Tyra Banks providing a few pointers to an awkward young fellow. Not real gaming, but you start to get an idea.

Now, there are those who criticize 'Gaming' the system from a couple points of view:

1) Isn't it unethical to pretend to be someone you are not/act in unusual ways to get somewhere with a woman - isn't it misleading?
2) Isn't this bad for the men involved, and our culture?

Now I can hear both of these criticisms, and I relate. On #1, it seems to me, a real man would be himself, no? On the other hand, when faced with a blatantly unfair 'game' where the other participants are not being anywhere near themselves (lipstick? blush? perfume? hair removal?) and are liable/likely to revert to a much scarier form once they 'have' you, perhaps 'Game' is very defensible. Especially when the culture/system we are playing into punishes long term relationships by USUALLY taking half of your assets, and potentially half of your income, and your progeny.

Wait, I saw a good comment on this lately... it is, on View from the Right:
While I don't subscribe to Roissyism, I understand the viewpoint.
The only thing the modern American (Western) girl has to offer me is sex. Which I'm not willing to pay more for than a tequila shot and a lie to the face. After the fact, what does she have to offer?

Is she going to be my life partner? No. Is she going to be my helpmate? No. Is she going to be the mother to my children? No.

Then she isn't worth 50 percent. She certainly isn't deserving of presumptive paternity (20 percent for 18 years for some bastard that isn't even mine).

We live in a culture that encourages divorce, out of some misguided need to liberate women from the "oppression" of marriage. And we have a legal system that rewards women for divorce.

Why do you think the divorce rate is so high? Why do you think that over 70 percent of divorces are filed by women, after only a few years? Why do you think it is that 1/3 of the paternity tests performed prove that the husband is not the father of the child? It couldn't possibly be that the culture and legal system make it profitable for women to divorce their husbands and commit infidelity, could it?

She gets a title, a house, a bank account, income, insurance, and guaranteed child support (regardless of who the biological father is). He gets a roommate and obligatory sex, on occasion.

Is there any other legal contract whereby one party can arbitrarily change her mind, for no reason and without penalty, and walk away with half of everything? No.

Is there any other legal contract whereby one party is required to pay child support for a third person who is not party to the contract, because the second party ran around behind his back? No.

Change the culture and change the law, if you want marriage to mean anything.

Change the culture so that women are held responsible for the consequences of their decisions and actions. Change the law so that the biological father is responsible for child support.

Unless you do that, marriage is a loser's contract for a man. Until such time, the best strategy is simply to buy her a tequila shot, lie to her face, have sex with her once, then dump her in the morning before she wakes up. Replace her with another bar slut the next night.
Which brings me to point #2 - what is the net effect of 'Game' on society? Isn't it bad? I suspect it is probably bad, but I think it is unavoidable. To the degree that long term relationships with women are dangerous, men are going to persue short-term relationships instead.

This isn't even a necessary part of 'Game', just how it can be, and often is used.

And this goal, the 'short term relationship' as the commenter above posited, is driven by the strong natural drive for sex, the danger of relationships, and also by the (sometimes accurate, sometimes not) perception of the women we meet as shallow, grasping and not worth our time - not worth the time of a long-term relationship - especially in view of the cost.

But even placing the blame for the effects of 'Gaming' for short term relationships where it belongs, what are the likely effects?
  • Men become outwardly more adapted to charming and bedding women quickly.
  • Probably more women will have children without any apparent father.
  • Men will probably more often live lives that are freer of encumbrances, at least until they actually fall in love.
  • Marriages will become more rare.
  • Men will wait for someone who is worth committing to, rather than seeing ''sex" as being the same as "marriage".
  • Perhaps, just perhaps, women will find ways to sweeten the pot - making marriage worthwhile to suitors. Dowries are seen as a primitive concept, but in a world where women can steal 'legitimately' half of a man's posessions, and enslave him for life, if a woman came to the marriage with a significant pool of assets herself that was turned over to the man, then marriage might be more attractive.
Hmmmm - seems like some of these things are happening already.

I think some form of 'Game' is natural in the relationship space, and has gone on forever. The real change is in men's realization of how deadly serious the 'Game' has become - it has changed our goals, and it is changing our culture.

And what do I think of the 'Game' providers/consultants who charge thousands to help men buff their 'game'? Sounds like a lot of money, but is it really any different that an 'image consultant' or a 'career coach'? If you have the bucks, and you think it will help, give it a shot. I'd start by reading the source materials, and saving my money. :)

Your comments and thoughts are welcome - please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

My Best To You In Your Struggles


Update: Good grief: THL (a contributor to this blog) has already been big in the Roissy world, and I didn't know it. I have to set up a blog reader or something. OY! I noticed that he had gone Galt (a little background, also here), but he has also gone Truther! It's a messed up world! I don't share his trutherism views, but I want to know how to go Galt in my own life. Really. It's kind of like an economic MGTOW.

Monday, August 31, 2009

M is for Missed Anniversary

So here we are in the fall of 2009.

I don’t think that when I started this blog, on August 10th of 2005, that I contemplated that I would be worse off in 2009. I figured that my income would increase, and the court might moderate the level of abuse I was suffering - showing some minor amount of fairness and/or justice. These things didn't happen.

This blog is 4 years old, and although I have spent most of that time unemployed or underemployed according to the courts, the courts have increased my payments and lengthened the term of them – with the most recent order increasing things coming while I was unemployed.

See, once upon a time I made big bucks, and per the court it must be that I still can. This is called 'imputing income'.

Or perhaps called closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears, and shouting 'THE POOR SUFFERING WOMAN! THE POOR SUFFERING WOMAN! THE POOR SUFFERING WOMAN! THE POOR SUFFERING WOMAN! THE POOR SUFFERING WOMAN!' over and over and over.

So 65% of my unemployment goes to the ex, and arrears pile up, because reality cannot impinge upon the family court. I feed and clothe my kids on about $400 every month, with help from the occasional bit of part-time work, and from the part-time work my ‘new’ wife does. We are months behind on our mortgage, and will soon have to figure out what ‘Short Sale’ means.

I missed the anniversary of this blog.

Sorry blog.

Happy Belated Anniversary.

But if it WAS a happy anniversary, there might be less reason for the blog.

Please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

My Best To You In Your Struggles


Sunday, August 30, 2009

P is for Purple Heart

I can't help but admire this video and feel for our servicemen who come back to find out exactly what this country turns married/divorced men into.

The statistics they cite are shocking - 70% of servicemen return to divorce - 90% will be divorced within 5 years - 1.5% will get treated fairly by the courts.

And they shouldn't be treated to this sort of abuse - but fairness shouldn't just be for heroes either. I worry that what goes unsaid here is that all men live in this world, and that fair treatment should be for all men, not just heroes. Doesn't every man deserve a fair shake in a divorce, an opportunity to succeed, and not just be a wage-slave to a wife who now has a no-work sinecure?

With that said, do please view the video. It is eye-opening.

Your comments and thoughts are welcome, and please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

My Best To You In Your Struggles


Note - I have some first-hand experience with some of this in my own circle of friends and co-workers: See O is for Opportunity for the story.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

H is for Hmmmm

The story of Jaycee Lee Dugard has drawn a lot of interest lately, but for me, it draws interest for slightly different reasons. There are questions that I'd like to know the answers to, questions that probably won't be answered.

I mean, we all read the Big Media Story, like the MSN one linked above, right? 11-year-old girl is abducted, kept as sex slave by sex offender Phillip Garrido, who had two daughters by her. But other parts of the story just didn't seem to be being brought out. One minor thing - I'd like to learn more about Nancy Garrido, Phillip's wife, who assisted in the kidnapping and then the 18 years of imprisonment. Was Phillip more evil that Nancy? Probably. Probably a lot. But I'd hate for the woman who helped every step of the way to get off scot-free because she cuts a deal.

But even more than Nancy, I wondered about Jaycee's fathers. Her step-father, who tried to run down Phillip and Nancy (the abductors) on a bicycle as they zoomed away with Jaycee in her car, and I also wonder about her biological father. Very few words wasted at MSN on the man who was raising Jaycee, or the man who fathered Jaycee.

The Sacramento Bee provides a bit more robust information, letting us know that the step-father Carl Probyn is 'separated' from Jaycee's mom. Elsewhere we read that they have been separated for 10 years. However MSN indicates that they are divorced:

"Probyn has been in constant contact with Dugard's mother, his ex-wife Terry Probyn, since she found out her daughter was alive on Wednesday. "

The money quote comes from AP, found here in the LI press:

“It broke my marriage up. I’ve gone through hell, I mean I’m a suspect up until yesterday,” he told The Associated Press at his home in Orange, Calif. “I’m the last person to see her.”

"I'm a suspect up to yesterday." Add it to how the cops and probation stumbled over every opportunity to catch the real abductor, and I think we can wonder if it isn't true that the cops had their suspect - the step-father, and looked no further, torturing this man and his wife until their relationship was destroyed.

And what about the biological father? Help Find The Missing tells us "Dugard's biological father was quickly ruled out as a suspect; at the time of her abduction, he did not even know where she was living."

One wonders how it is possible that a father doesn't know where his 11-year-old daughter is living. Mostly, one would. And I'm starting to think uncharitable thoughts about Terry Probyn. Living in the real world, I see too many men cut out of their children's lives, and wonder if in fact Jaycee wasn't abducted twice. Once from her biological father, and once from her biological mother and step-father.

I wonder what Jaycee's biological dad's name is? Was he paying child support? What about Carl? Alimony? Support? This is, after all, California.

The real story - the big story - is the rescue of Jaycee and her daughters, and the stupidity of the police - and that stupidity does seem to have part of its origins in misandry - the misandrous focus on the step-father to the exclusion of others, and the failure to do the right kind of investigations and do the right kind of monitoring with respect to Phillip and Nancy Garrido - Phillip, who as I read it, should never have been let out of prison.

But one wonders about Terry, and Jaycee's biological dad, and why it was and is so easy to ignore him, perhaps cut him off from contact with his daughter, and why it was also so easy, and perhaps financially attractive, to toss Carl aside too. Inquiring minds want to know.

My Best To You In Your Struggles.


Another look at this story - Stockholm Syndrome/PAS


One poster asked why we care -thought that this was all sick - and I think that deserved an answer, and one that should appear in the post:

I care because my default opinion that men are good, and that Jaycee's biological father was a decent man who was cut out of his child's life. I don't assume he was bad, or that he abandoned her, and I think perhaps his story needs to be told - but it isn't.

I alsso care because I see that the stepfather clearly spent years and years as a suspect, and whose marriage was destroyed as a result.

It is too easy to suspect fathers, and too easy to discard fathers.

That's why I care.

Update on Jaycee's biological dad from the comments:

The Daily Mail says: "Jaycee's natural father, Kenneth Slayton, split up with her mother before she was born and has never seen his daughter. He is said to live in the Los Angeles area but was not available for comment last night."

Again, we have a third name. Seems that Jaycee's mom likely named someone named Dugard as the dad.

Your comments and thoughts are welcome, and please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

My Best To You In Your Struggles


Friday, August 21, 2009

M is for Meaning

Ok, below we have a sexy video of a Ukranian lovely. A beautiful, busty Ukranian girl, singing about something, but what is it? The imagery of the bride over the murdered groom, and holding the knife over his back, the imagery of the woman performing for military men, being interrogated, and in mourning garb?

Anyway, if you ask the Carrot-man, everyone looks a little orange, but this video made me think of the relationship between women and their men, who are very disposable.

(Scroll Down for Lyrics)

The Lyrics Are:
АЛЛО! АЛЛО!Hello! Hello!
КТО ТРУБОЧКУ ВЗЯЛ?Who answered the phone?
От ты даешь....Wow...
Милый, смешной, игривыйSweety, funny, playful
Закроешь глазки и полетимClose your eyes and we will fly away
Милый, смешной, игривыйSweety, funny, playful
Мое сердечко не разбивайDo not break my little heart
Припев (Chorus):
Да да даYes yes yes
Люблю тебяI love you
Да да даYes yes yes
Люблю тебяI love you
Да да даYes yes yes
Люблю тебяI love you
Да да даYes yes yes
Люблю тебяI love you
Солнце, послушай солнцеSunny, listen sunny
Твоя улыбка милее всех эхYour smile is the loveliest of all, hey
Солнце, я не ревнуюSunny, I am not jealous
Я знаю сложно любить такуюI know such love is difficult
Пупсик, мой сладки пупсикBaby, my sweet baby
Давай за ручку гулять с тобойCome on lets walk hand by hand
ОЙ! Oy!
Пупсик, мой сладкий пупсикBaby, my sweet baby
Я на край света, уйду с тобойWith you I will go to the edge of the world
Припев (Chorus)
ПОВЕРЬ! НУ ПОВЕРЬ МНЕ! ЭЙ! ЛЮБЛЮ ТЕБЯ! ДА! Believe! Believe me! Hey! I love you! Yes!


p.s. Welcome In Mala Fide to the linklist! A very smart male positive blogger who is way more hip than I am. :)

Monday, July 20, 2009

A is for Activism

Have I done this one before? No matter.... I'd like to ask you to get active.

Our Congress is wrapping up its dog-and-pony show examination/'Confirmation' hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

Here is a woman who has stated over and over and over that she thinks a wise Latina woman (isn't that redundant?) would make better decisions than a white man. She also belonged to 'La Raza' (in english 'The Race') for six years, and, of course, thinks race, and by extention, gender outweighs merit. (The Supreme Court did not concur.)

We have enough Gender Feminists and their allies in government. It is the work of a few moments to seek out your representatives feedback pages and ask them to vote against Sotomayor. Current public opinion is already overwhelmingly negative. (43% against confirmation, 37% for confirmation.)

It is possible that your electronic letter might make a difference.

Click Here for a website that allows you to pull up contact information for your senators and representatives. Put a message in their feedback page, or send them an email.

Let them know that we don't need MORE gender bias in the courts - 'wise latina' or not.


Tuesday, June 30, 2009

V is for Vampires

Just a quick post to point you to Christina Hoff Sommers' article: Persistent Myths in Feminist Scholarship, in which she compares the undead, unkillable, untrue feminist statistics that keep coming back to vampires - as in being 'harder to kill than'.

She writes Berkeley law professor Nancy K.D. Lemon about the acclaimed 'Domestic Violence Law' book she edited, pointing out outright falsehoods that appeared in her book as fact, including the following (excerpted from her article):

"The history of women's abuse began over 2,700 years ago in the year 753 BC. It was during the reign of Romulus of Rome that wife abuse was accepted and condoned under the Laws of Chastisement. ... The laws permitted a man to beat his wife with a rod or switch so long as its circumference was no greater than the girth of the base of the man's right thumb. The law became commonly know as 'The Rule of Thumb.' These laws established a tradition which was perpetuated in English Common Law in most of Europe."

Where to begin? How about with the fact that Romulus of Rome never existed. He is a figure in Roman mythology — the son of Mars, nursed by a wolf. Problem 2: The phrase "rule of thumb" did not originate with any law about wife beating, nor has anyone ever been able to locate any such law. It is now widely regarded as a myth, even among feminist professors.
Other falsehoods Sommers challenged with significant evidence:
  • "women battered during pregnancy have more than twice the rate of miscarriages and give birth to more babies with more defects than women who may suffer from any immunizable illness or disease"
  • "between 20 and 35 percent of women seeking medical care in emergency rooms in America are there because of domestic violence."
What do you think? Did Lemon immediately acknowledge the correction and issue an 'errata' like most any scholar would?


Read the article.


Thursday, May 14, 2009

E is for Eyecandy

Chosen by "The Other McCain" as "Most Likely to Offend Feminists," this video submitted by No Sheeples Here might be just the thing to put a small smile on your face, no matter how tough things are.

Russian Girls from AmxPictures on Vimeo.

Ahhh. Well, with that done, Gee, I wonder what the outrage would be like if a bunch of gyrating half nude soapy men were to beat and knock about a bound woman, and she were to appear to enjoy the treatment. Hmmm

Monday, April 27, 2009

W is for “Who is Afraid of Victoria Floethe”

Ok, it is old news, but news that has been bothering me. Here we have lovely 28-year-old Victoria Floethe (Pic here) flirting and quite openly sleeping her way up the social/work ladder, most remarkably with Michael Wolff (55 years old).

The loss and destruction Victoria has left in her wake is impressive, but all she did was have affairs with married men rather openly. Imagine if she had been intent on using her wiles to obtain a permanent position as the ‘un-fireable’ female employee, or in becoming the recipient of the payout in a significant sexual harassment lawsuit? Millions of dollars in marital assets are already being sliced and diced as a result of this young sexual butterfly, but think of what she could have cost the firms that they worked for and their investors. And the thing is, this has been and continues to be a route to promotion for young women, not so much available to their male counterparts.

Many men admit to being sexually harassed in the workplace. I have encountered a good number of agressive women in the workplace, some of whom went so far as to expose their more attractive private bits to me (and, I later found out, also to my co-workers). Imagine if I were to do such a thing to a woman. I would, regardless of my age or intent, be creating an uncomfortable sexual atmosphere, and most likely, if the feelings were not mutual, would find myself charged as a sex offender, and certainly would lose my job.

For men, the office is a very dangerous place to find liaisons. For women, not so much. They are free to be as sexual as they want, and leverage it to whatever degree they can, with the assistance of lawyers if the benefits of the liason do not turn out to be lucrative enough. Meanwhile, most men are very shy about ever being alone with a woman at work, and are even careful to avoid women at work for fear of the many penalties they may pay.

I will not judge Victoria, although I do not think that her behavior was the best. What I do judge is the culture that makes male sexuality something to be supressed at all costs – making the office another place where men must live in fear at all times, while women reign supreme.


Oh, never answered my own question. Who is Afraid of Victoria Floethe? We all are, all MEN that is.

Friday, March 27, 2009

E is for Exposure, and Explicit

It seems like every day, cases come up in the news that highlight the insanity of our legal system when it comes to the sexes. Today we hear about a teen who posted explicit pictures of herself on MySpace, charged with ‘possession and distribution of child pornography.’ She could face 17 years in jail, and have to register as a sex offender for the rest of her life, but we are assured that these stiff sentences are unlikely.

So insane: Let’s count the ways:

1. So, posting photos is a crime that can get you put away for almost two decades? And you have to be marked as some kind of sex predator for life? Isn’t this a bit extreme?
2. What she did is a crime, but they will be lenient because she is a woman/girl. A man/boy would probably be also charged with indecent exposure, or the equivalent, no? Sexual Bias, right there.
3. These are pictures of herself – one might assume that one could do almost whatever one wanted with pictures of themselves, no?
4. If a girl is mature enough to want to post her nude body on the web for her boyfriend and other friends to see, isn’t she a bit beyond ‘child’? Teenage women can be extremely precocious, and the law needs to lighten up. These girls will engage in various kinds of sexual behavior, and making them and their partners into felons is both ridiculous and criminal.
5. If you were to look at her MySpace page, those pictures would likely end up in your temporary files area. By looking at them, and by storing them, you are guilty of child pornography. Enjoy your sex-offender status!

How nice it is for the government to jump in and put this girl and her family through a huge sex-offender lawsuit, for a stupid teenage stunt that harmed no one but herself. On the other hand, we should be grateful to the Trenton prosecutor who went ahead with this case, because it shows how scary-crazy these people are and how nuts the law is.

I think most prosecutors would have let this go,

- unless, of course, the perpetrator was male.

My best to you in your struggles…


Thursday, March 26, 2009

E is for Early Learning

It is good to learn, and probably best to learn early… but whose heart can’t help to go out to a very young man, who finds himself learning life’s harsh lessons about the nature of the relationship between men and women at the vunerable age of 13?

If you haven’t heard, this is the story of Alfie Patten of England. Seduced by 15 year old Chantelle Steadman, Alfie was identified by her as the father of her child, and he stuck by her, even as teen after teen came forward, and admitted also sleeping with his beau in the appropriate timeframe. (Chantelle apparently is just a bit sexually active.) Chantelle, on the other hand, insisted that she was in love with Alfie and that he had taken her virginity.

The Telegraph tells us that Alfie was ‘distraught’ at claims that the little bastard (sorry, that *is* the technical term) that Chantelle eventually popped out was not his.

But DNA will tell all, and sure enough, Alfie ain’t the dad. He should be glad, but as he is programmed to a life of slavery to the master-sex and their spawn/vagina droppings (ok, that one was harsh), I am afraid he isn’t.

Still, this particular package of life lessons will hopefully not be lost on the precocious boy, or on any male who reads this story. I suggest the following lessons:

1) Women are much freer with sex than they like you to know. (Bonobos, anyone?)
2) Women lie about their sex lives. (OK, implied by #1, but hey needs to be said.)
3) Women lie about paternity. A Lot. (Also probably implied by #1, but also needs to be said.)
4) A major motivating factor behind all this lying is money.
5) Use a condom! (You probably aren't the first, and as far as you can know, your predecessor may have been a bonobo.)

I think we’ve about covered this one.


Oh, and p.s. where's the 'rape' charge against Chantelle? Don't you think there would have been one if a 15-year-old man impregnated a 13-year old girl?