Awarding custody to abusers

I saw this article by Glenn Sacks: NOW says Family Courts Are Awarding Custody to Abusers.

Of course, for NOW, father = abuser. No difference. In their mind, the two terms are perfectly interchangeable. All fathers are abusers, and all abusers are fathers. This is the feminist dogma.

The fact is that Family Courts are in fact awarding custody to abusers. In droves. Women are much more likely to commit child abuse than men, they are much more likely to murder their own children than men, and they are more likely to use the child to get back at the man, hurting the child terribly in the process. But does that matter? No! The courts give a woman who has killed her child far less serious sentences than a man who has sex with child - a pedophile. If you are man, you just might get a more serious sentence for pissing in the bushes or for having sex with your underage girlfriend than a woman would get for abusing and killing her children.

If you are a criminal, it is far more profitable to be a woman. Not only are you more likely to have men do your dirty work, but even if you get caught, the judges will hardly sentence you to a fraction of the time they'd give a man. Also, men are never "too pretty for prison" a la Debra LaFave.

Glenn Sacks goes through the entire case history of the very cases the NOW presents as victims and pretty much blows apart their argument. Why has this never been done before? Why does everyone take the word of feminists, of NOW, of women as the truth? Where are the investigations and the fact-finding missions?

I've looked into the three most highly-publicized cases featured by the BMCC and NOW-NYS--the Genia Shockome case, the Sadia Loeliger case, and the Bridget Marks case. In each case, we were told that a fit, loving, protective mother was stripped of custody by an abusive father.

When I first started looking into these cases, I figured there probably were some where the mothers really were mistreated. I still think those cases are out there, but I haven't found them yet. Neither the Shockome case, the Loeliger case, nor the Marks case fit the NOW/BMCC "protective mother losing custody to abusive father" model. None even came close. 

In the Loeliger case, it was the mother who had been found culpable of child abuse by a California juvenile court. The father got custody not due to family court machinations, as the mother's supporters claimed, but because the juvenile court removed the little girl from the mother's care because of the physical abuse.

In the Marks case, all five judges who heard the case, male and female, concluded that she had coached her little girls into asserting that they had been molested by their father.

In the Shockome case, the mother's absolute refusal to co-parent with her ex-husband led the courts--eventually, after giving her many chances--to transfer custody of the kids from Genia to her ex-husband.

A simple cursory check of the facts in the NOW report shows that there is no basis for claims of victimization. But does that matter? Or will the media, the courts accept the report at face value? I think we know the answer. Women, and subsequently feminist organizations, are held to a lower standard. If they lie, its ok.

Also read the article by Sacks on the Shockome Syndrome.

9 yr old girl calls for police when asked to clean room

A nine-year-old German girl was so upset about having to tidy her room she put up a sign in her window urging passers-by to call police for help.

Pedestrians in the central city of Braunschweig saw the girl crying in the window, holding up a sign up saying "Help! Please call the police!" Next to her sat a small boy.

Quickly alerted, officers rushed to the scene to discover the girl had argued with her mother about tidying her room and enlisted her two-year-old brother's aid to attract attention.

"The room looked like a battlefield," said a spokesman for local police on Monday. "Officers told the girl to tidy her room. When they came back two hours later to check, it was all cleaned up. And the mother and daughter had made up too."

Slow news day I guess, its sort of funny that girls (and women) seem to call the police nowadays for every trivial matter. Help, police! BK doesn't want to give it to me my way!!

Welcome new visitors

What you see may shock you. This is not your typical whining blog. This is about serious matters. I'm angry, and so are many of the fine men who are with me. We are not going to take this assault on masculinity lying down. There is misandry in the media, there is misandry in greeting cards, it seems that the very same people who would call me a misogynist happily engage in man-hating with their friends over an afternoon lunch. (By the way - did you recoil when you read the words "I'm angry"? Did you stop to consider where you would be today had the way before you not been paved by angry men? Do you think that the Marines who are fighting for this country are pacifists? Do you think the founding fathers should have been arrested for domestic violence?)

Men marched with women to secure equal rights back in the 1960's. It is time for another hand-in-hand march. It is time for women to admit that they are more privileged and march with men for equality once again. Feminists couldn't have done what they did without men, and while we seek women's help, men are fully capable of reversing the current women's rights/men's responsibilities by themselves if they need to.

For more background, check out my first few posts from the sidebar. Understand why I created this blog and why it is strong even today. Understand why the Eternal Bachelor blog is such a force - how many men are deciding that the price is too high. This is a movement with no leader, nobody that feminists can tar and feather. It is an inexorable movement that can only be halted by reversing sexist, discriminatory and hateful laws.

Most of us, when we see someone call the justice system unfair, write off that person as a lunatic. Call me whatever you wish, I'm here to tell you that the justice system is unfair. And I'm not only talking about family law and divorce and child support here.

Women routinely get off with lower or NO sentences for crimes that would land a man in prison or on death row. Last year, a woman in Texas was acquitted of murdering FIVE children on the grounds that she was insane, by her own testimony. She planned that murder to the minutest detail and carried it out when her husband wasn't home, and still people were asking "Where was the husband?"

The majority of child abuse and child murder are committed by the mother acting alone, with the father acting alone the least likely to abuse or murder a child. Yet whenever a father goes to watch his son practise baseball or his daughter try out for cheerleader, he is all but fried in vat of hot oil by public opinion, which is poisoned by false statements that outright tell lies about fathers to an uninformed public.

Like I said, this is like no other blog you will read. I'm not a conspiracy nut, and what I write is the truth. Not because I wrote it, but because I only write about the truth. The truth that the mainstream media doesn't want you to see. Or if that is too "conspiracy" for you, the Truth that the mainstream media doesn't tell you.

Four women fired for gossipping

Hahaha, I love these stories! Most of the time, women are untouchable at work - they can say whatever they want, they can openly flaunt their tits and bits, they can come late and leave early, and while its not like they get the run of the place while the bosses sit bound to their desks, women do get more leeway than men. And that's just the single women. The mothers are worse.

But anyway, here's the story - Idle Chatter Cost Four Seasoned Employees Their Jobs.

Four town employees with 46 years of service between them were fired, in part for gossiping and discussing rumors of an improper relationship between the town administrator and another employee that Hooksett residents now agree were not true.

The administrator complained, and after an investigation the town council fired the women, finding, "Gossip, whispering, and an unfriendly environment are causing poor morale and interfering with the efficient performance of town business."

"When I was given my termination papers, I just looked at the gentlemen that were present in the room and I said, 'You've got to be kidding!'" said fired worker Sandy Piper, who insisted her comments weren't out of line. "We discussed it on a lunch break, and then it ended."

I just wonder about this part:

Lawyers for the Town Council of Hooksett told ABC News they have "no comment" at this time, but there could be a decision this week on whether to reinstate some or all of the women.

"Attitudes don't always reflect behavior with women"

I've been on lots of forums where everyone is talking about WAF - Wife Appreciation Factor. Mostly Home Theater and other "guy stuff" forums. Basically, if the wife doesn't like it, back it goes. I find that extremely disturbing, and a symptom of the average home's power distribution - remember, its the women that have the nesting urge. You are just the enabler, the wallet. They will decorate the whole house as they wish, including "your" bedroom, and banish all the guy stuff to the garage. And then all the other wives will come in and coo "Oooh you've done such a nice job of decorating Linda, you have a great eye for color!" The man becomes an unwelcome stranger in his own home, but hey, leave the wallet behind.

Its the same whenever you try to exert a little bit of influence on the home's decor - for example, even to change bulbs from incandescent to fluorescent, which mostly doesn't make a difference in decor but conserves energy and saves money. Oh wait, why would the woman be concerned with saving money, that's not her department is it LOL!

Fluorescent Bulbs Are Known to Zap Domestic Tranquillity
Energy-Savers a Turnoff for Wives

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 30, 2007; A01

NESKOWIN, Ore. -- Alex and Sara Sifford, who live here on the Oregon coast, want to do the right thing to save a warming world.

To that end, Alex Sifford, 51, has been buying compact fluorescent light bulbs, which use about 75 percent less power than incandescent bulbs. He sneaks them into sockets all over the house. This has been driving his wife nuts.

She knows that the bulbs, called CFLs, save money and use less energy, thus cutting greenhouse gas emissions blamed for climate change. She knows, too, that Al Gore, Oprah Winfrey and the Department of Energy endorse them. Still, the bulbs, with their initial flicker, slow warm-up and slightly weird color, bug her.

"What really got me was when my husband put a fluorescent in the lamp next to my bed," recalls Sara Sifford, 53. She said she yelled at her husband for "violating the last vestige of my personal space."

Experts on energy consumption call it the "wife test." And one of the dimly lighted truths of the global-warming era is that fluorescent bulbs still seem to be flunking out in most American homes.

The current market share of CFL bulbs in the United States is about 6 percent, up from less than 1 percent before 2001. But that compares dismally with CFL adoption rates in other wealthy countries such as Japan (80 percent), Germany (50 percent) and the United Kingdom (20 percent). Australia has announced a phaseout of incandescent bulbs by 2009, and the Canadian province of Ontario decided last week to ban them by 2012.

The relatively glacial adoption rate of CFLs in most of the United States suggests continued stiff resistance on the home front, despite dramatically lower prices for the bulbs and impressive improvements in their quality.

"There is still a big hurdle in convincing Americans that lighting-purchase decisions make a big difference in individual electricity bills and collectively for the environment," said Wendy Reed, director of the federal government's Energy Star campaign, which labels products that save energy and has been working with retailers to market CFL bulbs.

"I have heard time and again that a husband goes out and puts the bulb into the house, thinking he is doing a good thing," Reed said. "Then, the CFL bulb is changed back out by the women. It seems that women are much more concerned with how things look. We are the nesters."

A key to the abiding grass-roots resistance to CFLs, Reed and other experts said, is indelible consumer memories of the hideous looks and poor quality of earlier generations of fluorescent lights. They were bulky. They were expensive, as much as $25 each. They had an annoying flicker and hum. They cast an icky, cold-white light that made people look pale, wrinkly and old.

"People remember them from 20 years ago and they are not going to forgive," said Dave Shiller, vice president of new business development for MaxLite, a Fairfield, N.J., company that manufactures CFL bulbs.

A new breed of bulbs solves most, if not all, of the old gripes. The bulbs are smaller and much cheaper -- often selling for as little as $1.50 each at big-box stores. Most bulbs pay for themselves in reduced power consumption within six months. They last seven to 10 years longer than incandescent bulbs. The hum and flicker are long gone, and many bulbs are designed to mimic the soothing, yellowish warmth of incandescent bulbs. (Most, though, still do not work on dimmers.)

"The new fluorescent bulbs aren't just better for both your wallet and the environment -- they produce better light," declares the May issue of Popular Mechanics, in an exhaustive comparison test of the new breed of CFLs against incandescents.

Still, many consumers -- especially women -- do not seem to be buying in.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll released last week showed that while women are more likely than men to say they are "very willing" to change behavior to help the environment, they are less likely to have CFL bulbs at home. Wal-Mart company research shows a similar "disconnect" between the pro-environmental attitudes of women shoppers and their in-store purchases of CFL bulbs.

Wal-Mart launched a campaign last fall to sell 100 million CFL bulbs a year and is prominently displaying them in all its stores. That campaign, Wal-Mart says, has more than doubled the share of CFLs it has sold.

"Attitudes don't always reflect behavior, and that is what was most surprising to us," said Tara Raddohl, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman. "Customers may have in mind, yes, they want to support environmentally friendly products, but when they come to the shelf to buy, the data shows they are not always buying them."

Utility company surveys show the same gender-based bulb-buying pattern in the Pacific Northwest, which has the highest CFL market share in the nation, about 11 percent. Men have been aware of CFLs longer than women, have bought them earlier and have installed more of them in the house than women, according to surveys that the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance has been conducting since 2004.

In groceries and drugstores, where 70 percent to 90 percent of light bulbs historically have been sold and where women usually have been the ones doing the buying, CFLs have not taken off nearly as fast as they have in home-improvement stores such as Home Depot and Lowe's, where men do much of the shopping.

"My gut feeling is that the last remaining factor that we have not cracked in selling these bulbs is the 'wife test,' " said My Ton, a senior manager at Ecos Consulting, a company in Portland, Ore., that does market research on energy efficiency.

After a decade as a researcher in residential lighting, Ton said he has concluded that a major part of the CFL problem in penetrating the American home "is a lack of communication between the sexes."

"The guy typically brings a CFL home and just screws it into a lamp in the bedroom, without discussing it with his wife," Ton said. "She walks in, turns on the light and boom -- there is trouble. That is where the negative impressions begin, especially when the guy puts it into the bedroom or the bathroom, the two most sacred areas of the home."

Ton advises husbands and wives "to talk about it before the light bulb is screwed in."

For Alex and Sara Sifford, the time for talking seems long gone.

Over the past nine years, Alex Sifford, who once worked for a utility as an energy-efficiency expert, has replaced nearly every incandescent bulb in the house. If his wife removes a new CFL, he simply waits a few weeks and screws it back in. As the bulbs have improved, he insists, his wife can no longer tell the difference.

Sara Sifford says that is ridiculous. But she has lost the will to fight. She also said she believes that using CFLs is "the moral, ethical and environmentally correct thing to do."

"He has worn me down," she said. "Honestly, the fluorescent bulbs still bug me."

You know, there are lots of things here. First of all is the fact that its awesome that "research shows" that women are more likely to talk about it, while men are more likely to go out and do it. That bit really put a smile on my face. And its true too - the fact is that in most surveys, when women are asked about something, its never corroborated or followed up on.

So when a researcher asks women "What do you look for in a man" and she gives a bullshit answer like "Oh lol a sense of humor, gentleman and what not" nobody ever follows up on that. No one goes out and trails the woman to see if she really does want what she says she wants.

I hate to stereotype here, but this is the crux of the paradox of "What do women want?" If you ask women what they want, you get half truths at best and outright lies at worst. Leave aside the obvious fact that most women are so lost to their hormones you could ask them the same question a different time of the month and get a totally different reply. If you ask men what they want and they say "Well a fit bird with righteous tits" then that is much more likely to be what the man really wants.

Another thing of course is the fact that the man is muzzled when it comes to making decisions for the home. He has to go by her wishes, otherwise she will read him the Riot Act. His contribution is limited to doing the DIY and supplying the ca$h needed.

Now, you must be thinking, "Well Pete what about your home? I bet you've got problems with upgrading to CFLs too."
I'm very happy to say that my SO and I are very much on the same wavelength here. I prefer the whitest of white light, and so does she. Most folks hate the idea of having strip lights in their homes, but me and my SO love them. We like it bright and we like it white. In fact, just today I went to Home Depot and got a pair of daylight tubes and fixture. Cost me a pretty penny compared to getting a couple of bulbs for a buck or even a couple of CFLs for a fiver, but the light those tubes give out is incomparable. I got the fancy (not fancy in looks - it looks like it was meant for the garage) electronic ballasted fixture and T8 bulbs - most strip lights you see that are flickering, greenish or otherwise shitty are old and worn T12 bulbs. T5 is the latest thing, but its prohibitively expensive. I think CFLs are a stop gap technology - we need to rethink lighting and stop depending on fixtures made for incandescents, trying to shoehorn CFLs into places where they're not suited. Spot lighting is cool, but there has to be a good source of flood light too.

But let me tell you - even if we weren't on the same wavelength, we'd compromise. And no, asking her to compromise is not domestic abuse. At least not yet.

Louis Theroux on Thai women

Well, not on Thai women but that's a nice double entendre isn't it? ;-)

Louis Theroux goes to Bangkok and interviews the owner of a Thai matchmaking agency. He isn't very enamored of the idea, since he seems to be more comfortable seeing the screws turned on a man by western women in a marriage.

Anyway, watch the videos:

Dirt on Shaha Riza

Mikeray managed to dig up some really awesome dirt on Shaha Riza in the comments section of my post Wolfowitz forced to resign.... Thanks Mike!

Turns out that not only is she a feminist, but she also loves to play the victim card!

Feminist girlfriend felt Bank stripped her of rights

Associated Press

WASHINGTON , May 18
Mystery surrounds Shaha Riza’s personal life, by her design, yet two things are beyond doubt. She is smart. And angry.

“Very angry,” Wolfowitz said of her recently. Wolfowitz lost his job as World Bank president on Thursday over an ethical entanglement arising from his relationship with the former Bank employee.

Riza, an Oxford-educated Arab Muslim feminist in her early 50s, has worked for years for democratic change in West Asia and for sexual equality both in repressive societies and within the bank. She has done so most of that time without drawing enormous attention to herself. “I simply do not know how to blow my own trumpet,” she says.

Yet, in statements to World Bank officials, she came out fighting against the “vicious public attacks on me” that flowed from her relationship with hard-line conservative Wolfowitz, a bond that has been as notable for its quiet unfolding as for its longevity.

Riza began working for the Bank eight years before Wolfowitz took over as president in June, 2005. She was moved to the State Department that fall, to avoid a conflict of interest but stayed on the Bank’s payroll.

Riza bristled at being forced to leave the Bank in 2005, arguing that as senior communications officer for West Asia and North Africa office, she did not report to Wolfowitz in any capacity and no bank regulations prohibited her continued employment. “I felt under attack by a powerful group that had no right to make assumptions,” she told the special panel investigating Wolfowitz.

And she noted the “irony of my working to ensure women’s participation and rights through the work of the World Bank and to be then stripped of my own rights by this same institution.”

Wolfowitz went so far as to suggest that the Bank’s ethics committee members put the onus on him to arrange her outside employment because they were afraid to cross her.

They “did not want to deal with a very angry Ms Riza,” he wrote in a biting assessment of the panel’s actions.

He hinted, too, that she was none too happy with him. He quoted her as telling the panel that he should have stood up for her, rather than accepted an arrangement that moved her out of her job.

“He became them — you — the Bank,” she told the panel, “and I had to fend for myself in the same way I’m now fending for myself.”

In her bank and academic work, Riza has promoted the link between freedom and feminism.

Riza speaks Arabic, French, Italian, Turkish and English, and majored in international relations at London School of Economics and in social studies at Oxford. She has a son.

Oh poor fucking you! You had to fend for yourself, just like Wolfowitz had to fend for himself all his life in addition to fending for you. What a vile fucking cunt. But of course - she is a feminist! Also notice how she accuses Wolfowitz numerous times. Blame the man baby, that's the fashion! He should have just let the board do whatever they wished with her, instead of looking out for her.

Why did the snake bite the turtle when it was carrying the snake across the river?
Because the snake was feminist.

Marriages to foreigners increasing

Saw this on the Don't Get Married board... by bgman.

Between 2003 and 2006, there were 1,034,976 immigrants who got green cards via marriage to a U.S. citizen, or an average of about 260,000 a year. (stats here: http://www.dhs.gov/immigrationstatistics )

Meanwhile, the number of marriages in FY2006 (ending September 2006) is estimated to be 2,155,000 (stats here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs ).

What this means is, 12% of all marriages in the U.S. are between U.S. citizens and foreigners. Historically, the lion's share of these marriages (about three-quarters) are citizen man/foreign woman, and this trend seems to have held up in recent years.

In addition, it appears to be accelerating. In the 1990s, marriages between U.S. citizens and foreigners were well under 200,000, translating to about 6-8%.

In fact, the acceleration in marriages between U.S. citizens and foreigners appears to be a factor in the long visa wait times that other immigrants bringing in adult children or siblings have to endure. Although spouses, children, and parents of U.S. citizens can immigrate without limit, current immigration law takes it out of the hide of the number of visas for these other categories of family-sponsored immigrants, so that no more than 226,000 of these other immigrants can come in every year.

Also, these only count U.S. citizens who marry foreigners and bring them to immigrate and live with them in the United States. It does not account for, say, a U.S. citizen man who has fled and married a foreign woman and went to live with her in her country!

The marriage strike is reaching epic proportions! For 12% of American citizens who get married in the U.S. every year to marry foreigners, considering the size of the American population, is huge!!

This is very interesting news, especially for folks who believe that Foreign Women are a better option. Let's face it - there is tremendous pressure on men to marry and provide from every angle, and if one has to marry, might as well do it with a woman who is less likely to divorce you and run off with José, taking your money and children with her. About 20% of foreign-citizen marriages end in divorce, compared to more than 50% of citizen-citizen marriages.

While I don't believe that marrying foreign woman is a panacea (see this post and this one and this one and this one and of course this one for my views on foreign women) - I think that there's a difference compared to marrying a venomous western woman, but its still akin to handing someone a shotgun and asking them to shoot - there might be a lower chance of the foreign woman firing, but if she does, you're just as dead.


The best option is still to not marry - the rest all involve compromise or self-sacrifice. You could give up your high standard of living and settle in a country that respects men somewhat, you could marry a foreigner, or you could simply continue living here, and only involve yourselves superficially with women. The disadvantage to that is that men are supposed to place all their eggs in one basket and reserve all emotion and feeling for their wives only, and true friendships with men are harder to find than the the Patriarchy HQ.