Blog Mirrored at Antimisandry
My New Blog
The owner of Antimisandry recently invited me to create a blog on his excellent website. I mirrored the articles I thought best pertained to his site's mission.
I have not yet decided whether to exclusively create my new articles related to feminism, anti-male policies, etc. on my new blog or to continue including them on this blog.
posted by Lord Feverstone | 5:34 PM
24 Comments:
I went to the site and was not impressed.
Anyone who creates a site on the internet and then tries to limit participation on it obviously misses the entire point of the world wide web.
It's to reach people who normally would never even know about you or that your ideas existed, but for the internet. Not to create communities just like yourself to discuss things with...for that you could have formed a club in your own hometown...
People use the web for all sorts of things. Sometimes for open forums, sometimes for affinity clubs. There is no "entire point' of the WWW;
it 'points' every which way....
Actually, that site is a haven for like-minded people, nymom. Was your participation limited?
"People use the web for all sorts of things."
But generally 'blogging' is thought to be a form of communication of your ideas to others outside of your customary circle...otherwise you could just engage in conversation with your ordinary circle of friends and relatives over dinner, drinks or other communal events...
So why bother blogging????
At least that's what I thought it was supposed to be about...
"Actually that site is a haven for like-minded people, nymom. Was your participation limited?"
Yes, it was as it forced me to register if I wished to participate in discussion.
Remember even forums created primarily for like-minded people sometimes benefit from allowing outsiders in to speak once in a while.
Which is why I frequently allow comments not supportive of mothers to remain up on my blog...it's only if they become repetitious that I begin to erase them...or if they begin attacking other posters.
Unlike you I don't allow people to engage in profanity or name-calling of others on my blog. Even if I disagree with them. I try to maintain a certain standard and level of civility at all times.
But generally 'blogging' is thought to be a form of communication of your ideas to others outside of your customary circle...otherwise you could just engage in conversation with your ordinary circle of friends and relatives over dinner, drinks or other communal events...
Blogging is done for many reasons, so I wouldn't generalize about that.
On the web, people are often in search of 'kindred spirits'. They've already got a template in their minds of the kind of folks they're looking for.
And they apply various filters, so that they won't spend too much time with unsuitable candidates.
If they could find the desired brand of people in their customary circles, then indeed as you suggest they would need look no further.
But they can't....so they do.
Humans are very tribal critters when you get down to it. People often claim that they want to "broaden their circle", but if you scratch the surface you will find that they are really just trying to change their tribe.
Well perhaps you're right and in that case the internet will not prove to be the sort of communication and educational tool it's being touted as. But then people first thought television was going to be an educational tool as well instead of the 'idiot box' it's become...
NYMOM said...
I went to the site and was not impressed.
Anyone who creates a site on the internet and then tries to limit participation on it obviously misses the entire point of the world wide web.
*
*
*
Very amusing, nymom complaining about censorship. Go over to her blog and click on any comment link and you'll find a bunch of deleted posts. Looks like it's a-ok when she's the one with her finger on the censor button but just wrong with anyone else's.
Typical female entitlement thinking.
Chronos
I only delete abusive comments or ones that repeat the same questions, after I've answered it once...
I am less patient with women these days then men. As I find women are just on the internet to try to get the attention of men and not really seriously interested in the issues my blog talks about; so most of the comments I've deleted are these two sorts...
But anyone objectively reading my blog can see the truth. I leave most comments up and reply to every one of them...
The only comments I've deleted are my own. I don't need an echo chamber in there.
Blogging is pretty fun. Very time consuming, I'd be worth a billion dollars by now if I was paid to do this!!!
Disagreeing women come to your site to get the attention of men, NYMOM?
Please.
You have no patience with women who disagree with you because they mess up your delusion that you speak for "most women," "ordinary women," and so on.
So you dismiss whatever they say by claiming that they just want the attention of men.
Guess it makes you more comfortable, but it's totally bogus.
BTW Kellymac when are you going to update your blog again? I miss your commentaries.
"You have no patience with women who disagree with you because they mess up your delusion that you speak for "most women," "ordinary women," and so on."
I never claimed to speak for anyone but myself.
I consider my blog to be informative to mothers letting them know what changes in public policies or laws are happening and how it could eventually impact ordinary women.
For instance I believe that many of the debates currently going on about gay rights will eventually impact single women who wish to be mothers. Although many keep claiming the issues are gender neutral, it recently came to my attention that over 70,000 families are created annually (mostly by ordinary single women, not lesbians or couples with low sperm count) through using donor sperm and only 3,000 using donor eggs.
Thus this tells me that few men, either gay or straight, use these technologies to have children...so any laws or public policies passed that impact people's ability to access these technology will have a disparate impact on women who wish to be mothers...
"So you dismiss whatever they say by claiming that they just want the attention of men.
Guess it makes you more comfortable, but it's totally bogus."
No...I've been involved with this issues for over 5 years now, even before I started my blog which is only 2 years old.
AND I know of no women involved with the mens/fathers rights movement whose husband, son, boyfriend or brother isn't involved with it as well...but there are plenty of people involved in other issues that have no family members involved...
So clearly this shows me that men are dragging women into this movement with them, they aren't coming into it under their own initiative...and they are doing it for approval from the men in their lives.
As women are wont to do...
As women are wont to do...
Yeah, that must be why it's generally women who break up men's families and rip off their kids.
Just trying to get his approval.
In deference to the faith of our host, I'll refrain from saying exactly what I think of that reasoning.
But as far as blogging goes, a reasonable woman does not have to be "in the men's movement" at all to simply point out the blatant misandry and bigotry of your views.
My wife has no one in the movement, yet she was the one who got me interested in gender issues and bookmarked various interesting sites for me.
We may not be in any movement but we have a son, after all, who will one day step into the minefield of relationships, and we worry about his future.
Just like all parents of sons do, provided they have a bit of foresight.
Perhaps that's why many women as well as men find your views repulsive.
Unlike you I don't really think that women are such foolish and infantile creatures who don't know what they really believe.
With the exception of you and the ever-whining Silverside, of course. You're the "truth-bearers."
Whatever you're trying to do, you ain't going far.
"Yeah, that must be why it's generally women who break up men's families and rip off their kids."
You can't "rip off" something that is already yours. Natural law dictates that mothers, unless proven abusive or neglectful, should always rightfully have custody of any children they bear...so it's men who are doing the 'rip off'...
Women FILE for divorce FIRST because the person who files for divorce first gets temporary custody of the children and that generally morphs into permanent custody. So this is a response to the selfishness of men today in inciting these endless custody wars over children (many instigated by the greed of men for money and other benefits they get from custody of children)...
Don't try to make this appear that women are always at fault in a marriage ending; however, just because we file first. We just take the first offensive action to ensure our rightful place with our children. Something we cannot trust the courts to do anymore since men's greed has jury-rigged the entire system to benefit themselves...
"We may not be in any movement but we have a son, after all, who will one day step into the minefield of relationships, and we worry about his future.
Just like all parents of sons do, provided they have a bit of foresight."
No...every social movement didn't start because someone was looking for advantage for themselves or another family member...that is the selfish spin I would expect someone with your thinking to put on it however.
But at least you have proven my point...that the entire mens' movement is a selfish one looking to protect male privilege and ensure they pass it along to the following generation...nothing about justice or the common good involved...
Well I can tell you this, you won't have too much long-lasting impact on history as most people will see the inherent selfishness and greediness of your movement and turn away from it...you are not Martin Luther Kings, Kennedys or Ghandi's, that's for sure...just men and their supporters looking for more advantage for yourselves...
Typical.
"With the exception of you and the ever-whining Silverside, of course. You're the "truth-bearers."
You don't even know that woman's story...but as usual ready to disregarding someone's real present day pain to assure your sons continues benefitting from your privilege.
Again, quite typical...
In a word, baloney.
When women covenant with us to live in a state of matrimony with us, together with our children, and then repudiate the contract, then you bet they're ripping us off.
And the kids too. The kids most of all.
Nothing in your "natural law" (meaning what seems right to you) can make that right. Nothing about justice or the common good there, for sure. Just self.
Your reason for why women file for divorce is baloney too. Judges don't tend to give custody to whoever files first but to whoever currently has the kids, as family judges love the status quo.
The average woman (or man) doesn't know jack about that anyway. They hike because they want to, and just assume they'll be keeping the kids because that's what happens the in the overwhelming majority of instances.
And I believe you yourself posted somewhere on your blog that women mostly divorce because they think they're doing it all, so they don't need him anymore.
Which is an utterly bogus excuse for divorcing, BTW.
I may not know your buddy Silverside but it's obvious from her own postings that she hasn't suffered anything that isn't simply par for the course for men in family court.
Actually she's suffered less than many, for she hasn't had her kid moved hundreds of miles away.
Yet she admits that she'd do it immediately, if given the chance.
Like-minded, oh yeah. She's about the only one on the web that approaches your hypocrisy. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a father suffering the same "pain".
Typical.
And about that privilege I'm supposedly trying to pass on, in the current situation there ain't much of it.
And yet I'm not even sure there's anything significant that can be changed as far as the law goes. You probably can't legislate women into honoring their family commitments, especially after fifty years or so of me-first.
I just mainly want our son to be aware of some kinds of women, such as yourself, who exist out there, and of the terrible consequences of choosing unwisely.
You on the other hand are pretty open about wanting female privilege and more advantages for yourselves and your daughters.
Again, typical.
"You on the other hand are pretty open about wanting female privilege and more advantages for yourselves and your daughters."
"Your reason for why women file for divorce is baloney too. Judges don't tend to give custody to whoever files first but to whoever currently has the kids, as family judges love the status quo."
That is not true.
Actually my husband filed for divorce first (over 20 years ago) and stipulated custody to ME, which was quite common then...that is how I got custody...I never even saw the inside of a courtroom, he handled all the paperwork. YET, he could have just as easily done what many greedy men do today, which is stipulate the custody to himself. AND that is darn hard to overturn for most normal people...
This happened in the days before high child support however, so it's not a valid example for today.
"The average woman (or man) doesn't know jack about that anyway. They hike because they want to, and just assume they'll be keeping the kids because that's what happens the in the overwhelming majority of instances."
Which is why as soon as they meet with a lawyer, that's the first thing they will be told. File first for temporary custody...as you get the advantage since it's darn hard to reverse. You clearly don't know very much about these issues as any lawyer could have told you this. Yet claim you are an advocate for your son...
"I may not know your buddy Silverside but it's obvious from her own postings that she hasn't suffered anything that isn't simply par for the course for men in family court."
I don't give a damn about what is "par for the course for men in family court"...they are not mothers, they invest NOTHING in bringing children into this world; yet have the audacity to declare themselves 'equal' to a mother after contributing, risking and investing NOTHING in children...they should not even have the right to petition a court for custody of a child...as they should have no more rights then the man in the moon to these kids...
So no, the comparison is invalid.
That mother had her natural rights unjustly taken from her and handed over to a selfish beast, whose only concern was in not paying child support...
"And about that privilege I'm supposedly trying to pass on, in the current situation there ain't much of it."
So you are reaping the misery men have sowned for thousands of years when you misused the authority/privilege you had...Your history (collectively) showed you to be unfit to rule (and your buddies in other countries continue along the same vein)...so whatever happens going forward is what men have brought upon yourselves for the misuse of power...
"You on the other hand are pretty open about wanting female privilege and more advantages for yourselves and your daughters."
I don't consider it a privilege but a fundamental right for women to have custody of their own kids. It's not a 'gift' we should have to petition a court for, but the birthright every woman should expect, unless she breaks the convenant and is abusive or neglectful of her kids.
Otherwise there should be no question of custody...it should be a given that children remain with their mothers. As happens in every other species on the planet except ours, due to the endless greed of men...
Typical.
You clearly don’t know very much about these issues as there is no such thing as a guy stipulating custody to himself. A stipulation is a concession in advance to points that the other side is likely to contest. What gives custody is a judge’s order, which requires proper notice to all parties and opportunity for hearing.
And filing first does little unless you have actual possession of the kid. That’s why women are so fond of those TROs that get dad out of the house and conveniently leave them in sole possession of the kids. And sneaky tricks like carrying the kids off god knows where and leaving a note.
Any lawyer could have told you this. And you call yourself an advocate for women. Go back to school, lady.
There is also no such thing as women “covenanting” with their children. They covenant (if anyone still knows the meaning of the word these days) with their husbands and vice versa. And I don’t consider it a privilege but a fundamental right for a man to expect that his lawful wife and children will live with him unless he breaks the covenant by being abusive and neglectful.
Otherwise there should be no issue of custody…it should be a given that children remain with their mothers and fathers.
Lastly, if you don’t give a damn about what happens to men in family court, then don’t be outraged when they refrain from having the families that land them there.
As I stated elsewhere, men are no keener on losing their children than you women are.
I presume you would not risk contracting a marriage in which there is a near 50-50 chance that your spouse will leave you and take away your children.
Neither would many men. Although miraculously the vast majority of men still swallow the bait, those who don’t are not selfish but prudent to walk away from women’s refusal to commit.
So no more whining about all the men who won’t “grow up” and have families, okay?
Typical.
Note to the host: There have been some error messages. If this double-posts, please delete one.
One additional point.
Being human, to me it matters less what happens in every other species than what has happened in every other human society throughout history.
Only in the modern west has democracy and relative affluence allowed men to experiment with sharing power with women.
And we have seen our families and the very fabric of our society begin to come apart within just a couple of generations as a result.
So whatever happens going forward is what you women have brought upon yourselves by your misuse of that power.
"What gives custody is a judge’s order, which requires proper notice to all parties and opportunity for hearing."
Wrong.
People stipulate custody ALL the time to others or they can file for it themselves...it is only if it is contested that a Judge comes into the picture. Otherwise it's just a question of filing the correct paperwork with the court clerk...
I was never notified by anyone in the courts that my ex-husband had filed any paperwork for custody of our child. The first I knew about it was when he served me divorce papers which said plaintiff had stipulated custody of infant issue to defendant mother (me)...
"And filing first does little unless you have actual possession of the kid."
You don't know very much so I hope you aren't giving people advice about this. Having possession means NOTHING today...it's who files the paperwork FIRST that counts. AND once it's filed the custodial parent doesn't even have to permit the other parent to visit. As it's up to the other parent to get visitation from the court.
You clearly know nothing about these issues.
"I presume you would not risk contracting a marriage in which there is a near 50-50 chance that your spouse will leave you and take away your children."
Of course not...so the entire rationale women had to go into marriage is finished due to all this custody crap men have started...
So as more women realize this, they will become the ones who don't wish to marry.
But that will take time for women to see the changes in the legal landscape that have taken place over the last decade or so. AND I consider my blog to be part of that informational process for women...
BTW, just to let you know it is when WOMEN get sick of marriage that it will finally be over. As men have never liked or wanted marriage.
I mean we have historic records from the time of Augustus Caesar where he was tryimg to force more men to marry through tax penalties, threats of drafting single men to the frontiers, etc.,
Women have throughout history been marriage' biggest supporters, so when women are finally fed up with it then it will be finished...
You clearly don't know anything about this so I'm glad the other side has you and not us.
A filed petition doesn't grant ANYTHING. It's a petition, got it? A request for an order, got it? There is no custodial parent without a judge's order, temporary or permanent, to that effect.
People can stipulate anything to their opponent to save time and money, and work out every detail between themselves if they wish, but it's the order that counts.
And a contested matter always requires proper notice and opportunity for hearing (where evidence about who has the child and is caring for it comes in), unless the repspondent signs a waiver of notice, which is common in divorce cases. If the respondent fails to show up then, as often happens, he or she faces judgment by default.
But without any notice, the order would be thrown out immediately upon appeal. Ever hear of writ of error? Bill of review?
If you want to advise women you best get yourself a degree. Sounds to me like you're practicing some very bad law without a license.
And I'm glad you understand why many men are opting out of marriage. Now run along over to Pandagon and let Marcotte know that marriage is not a patriarchal invention created to oppress women, who have always been its biggest supporters.
Despite the fact that they proceeded to destroy it just as soon as they attained the power to do so.
I'm sure she'll rest easier tonight.
"...And a contested matter always requires proper notice and opportunity for hearing..."
You are saying exactly what I said in different words. People can file whatever paperwork they wish, it is valid unless CONTESTED. AND how would a mother even know that some sneaky dirtbag just went down to the courthouse and filed legal paperwork on her child? The court is not required to inform you of this. It's only an issue if you find out about it through other means and contest it...there is no title search done to see if a mother exists who might object to this filing. From birth, even though investing, risking or contributing absolutely nothing in the child, a father has the exact same legal rights as the child's mother. All he needs to do is show up with the child's birth certificate (with his name on it) and proof of residence in the county in order to file for custody. As my husband did.
Nobody informed me of that from the court. I found out when my husband presented me the papers.
Anyone involved with custody issues knows that the person who files FIRST has the advantage. A temporary custody order (which is what you get when you file the paperwork, a temporary order) is rarely overturned in the other parent's favor unless the person who filed for it is abusive or neglectful.
"But without any notice, the order would be thrown out immediately upon appeal. Ever hear of writ of error? Bill of review?"
Please.
How many people have ever heard of this process or would know to do it. Or could afford it...
Actually most of the non-custodial mothers I know lost custody of their children exactly through the process I described above. Men being allowed to go down to the courthouse and file for custody without the mother being aware of it...all they need is the child's birth certificate with their name upon it and proof of residence in that county. Unless the mother has already filed for custody herself, she is screwed out of her child...
Many of these fatherhood programs counsel the young men in their groups to do this sneaky crap as well. It's the equivalent of a judically-sanctioned abduction...but entirely legal...and it happens every day to thousands of mothers and children across this country.
Like I said I hope you are not counseling others with this disinformation of yours.
"Now run along over to Pandagon and let Marcotte know that marriage is not a patriarchal invention created to oppress women, who have always been its biggest supporters.
Despite the fact that they proceeded to destroy it just as soon as they attained the power to do so."
Well the reasons why women historically supported marriage are complicated. Many of them involved with the economics of providing a household for her to raise children within...w/o a marriage she could expect neither. Clearly once women had the ability to provide for themselves and the stigma of single motherhood no longer existed, the rationale for marriage became shaky as well.
So it's not as simple as you paint it...just like the filing for custody, sometimes there is no way to reverse these situations.
NYMOM, no matter what somebody else may have told you, a custody determination REQUIRES proper service of process. That's an essential requirement, part of our fundamental right of due process of law.
Nobody can just sneak down to the courthouse and remove custody from one parent or the other.
Unless the one served simply ignored the service of process and suffered a judgment by default. Many people, particularly the uneducated, do that, simply hoping the whole thing will go away or perhaps not even understanding what the service of process is.
OK?
At any rate, I don't intend to discuss legalities any further with you. I find it difficult to take seriously someone who thinks that people "stipulate" custody to themselves.
I haven't been this amused since you vowed to have Gonzo kicked off the internet.
Go get some qualifications before you try to help those evidently clueless NC moms you know.
But at least my original point has been proved. Most women have no clue about any of these legalities or whether it's best to file first or not.
But they're the ones who usually start the whole thing up anyway. It's not a matter of strategy. It's a peculiarly feminine lack of commitment to their families and obligations, of which men do well to beware.
See ya.
"See ya"
Not if I see you first.
Hopefully you are not advising anybody on any custody issues as you don't know much...
Sure, NYMOM, sure.
Now I think I'll sneak down to the courthouse and "stipulate" custody to myself without anybody knowing.
And maybe I can even get my "temporary order" on the spot. You know, without specially requesting it.
And without the scheduled opportunity for hearing which every state's family code requires for a temporary order.
And without the service of process which no judge will enter any order without.
HAHAHAHA!
If this weren't so hilarious it would be pitiful.
You don't know jack, lady. Zippo.
But good luck with your, um, mission.
Post a Comment
<< Home