I Am An Mra

JB wrote: "Ladyblu, who's husband is a divorce attorney, says that this can't happen and because I say it can and does she says I don't know what Im talking about."
my response: Oh brother . . . here we go again with the BS. My husband isn't a divorce attorney, and he has never said this can't happen. If you open your mind and pay attention to what I have written you would know this JB since I have written about it in the past (I think you know it, but just lie to try to make us look bad – FAIL!).
Once again you are showing yourself to be a liar because I have written numerous posts (some in response to you) indicating that my husband's law firm is a corporate law firm, and not a divorce law firm. He and his associates engage in corporate law for income, and not divorce law. However, he, and he alone and not his associates, sometimes represents men and woman who have been treated unjustly in divorce (and other legal) proceedings. I have written this several times, but here we go again.
And just so you know, I was treated extremely unfairly by my ex husband when I filed for divorce because he was treating me horribly. Before I had left him I worked night and day like a slave for him to do what he constantly demanded that I do. He was extremely emotionally abusive. When I eventually left him and filed for divorce because I couldn't take it anymore (I had told him he needed to stop abusing me or I would do this, but he didn't care) he fought me and told me that he would never pay me a dime, and would fight me “tooth and nail” for eternity if I tried to get any money, or any of our assets from him. I just wanted out so I gave up my right to seek any of our assets, any alimony, any child support, or anything else. All I got was my old car, some of my clothes (he refused to give me all of my clothes), and a few other things that were mine, and that he would never want to keep. He did not request any custody of our two children, but I agreed to give him joint custody. The majority of the time he would come up with excuses to avoid spending the time he was given with our children. He seemed to want little to do with them. Me and my kids left our huge house that my husband kept and lived in a tiny apartment. I worked at three jobs at one point to support us. I would often work 16 to 20 hours a day, and would spend the remaining hours with my kids. I was exhausted all the time, but wanted my children to be able to spend time with their mommy so often I wouldn't sleep more than an hour or less before going back to work. It was horrible, but emotionally better than my life had been with my ex. My ex didn't give a damn about our struggles and our impoverished life. He just kept demanding that if I wanted a better life I needed to come back to him and abide by his demands. Eventually things improved and I married my current husband. He wanted me to marry him as soon as my divorce was final, but as I mentioned below I needed time. He offered to help support me and my kids before we married, but until I moved in with him I refused to have him do so.
Maybe I should have made a YouTube video about how unfairly and unjustly my ex treated me, and then made YouTube videos showing all the women I have known who have been abused and treated unfairly by their husband's too, and taken to the cleaners in their divorces. Nope, I have a good life and it isn't something I would want to cling to and put out for everyone to see like that daddy.com guy constantly does.
As I stated above, my husband is a corporate attorney. He sometimes chooses to represent people (both men and women) on an appeal because they have been treated extremely unjustly and unfairly in their original case. The majority of the time he does it for free (pro bono). He has represented men who have been treated unjustly and unfairly in divorce proceedings so there is absolutely no reason why he would EVER say it can't happen, and he NEVER has. I have never said it can't happen either. It just isn't as common as JB and many other anti-feminist MRAs constantly claim it is.
In addition, what someone posts on a YouTube video isn't always completely true, and is sometimes one sided and exaggerated. The fact that Vonderheide only posts a few snippet's of his interview with Alvin Esh's current attorney (not his old one who probably screwed things up for him), and then Vonderheide puts his own written comment's about what is happening on the video, tells me that far more is probably going on to cause things to end up the way that they have that he refuses to mention, and we will never know about, because it may explain more thoroughly what is happening and make it seem less unfair.
Now here are the answers to your questions JB. My husband won't lose any income whatsoever since, as I mentioned above, he isn't a divorce lawyer, he usually represents the men he has appealed cases for for free, so he would probably gain income if they stopped needing his help and he stopped giving it to them. Now do you want me to post links to cases where women have been abused, and completely screwed over by their ex husbands in divorce cases like I was, and/or taunted and harassed by them. Here are some interesting and educational links for you:
http://gawker.com/rich-man-buys-house-next-to-ex-wife-erects-giant-middl-1465406839
http://www.legalzoom.com/marriage-divorce-family-law/divorce/men-v-women-who-does
http://primacyofreason.blogspot.com/2011/05/in-depth-study-after-divorce-44-of_31.html
http://www.divorce360.com/divorce-articles/after-divorce/general/surviving-divorce-after-40.aspx?artid=1650
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-lyle/after-divorce-women-rebou_1_b_1970733.html
http://www.divorcecentral.com/DCLive/expert/winner_excerpt.html
Almost all of these links are objective and were not written by men who are angry because they felt they were not treated fairly by the divorce courts, and as a result focused all of their future time and attention on that. As stated in one of the links, women are often able to move on emotionally (I did) while men often cling to their negative emotional feelings longer.
It is a well known fact that women are usually the ones who end up worse off financially following divorce, and not men. But the women that this happens to (like me in the past) very rarely openly whine, moan, complain, post YouTube videos, and tell the world about their unjust and abusive treatment. Instead they move on and make it work.

Ladyblue. You are smarter than you pretend to be.
Joe biden said it is never ok to hit a woman. He didn't say "its never ok to hit a woman except in self defense."
See the difference.
Joe is the VP. He was physically abused by his sisters yet he leaves the "except in self defence" part out. He is smart enough to not make a mistake like that so it must be intentional.
We know that DV is 50/50. By creating a PSA that is directed solely at men that tells them to never hit a woman (even in self defence) he is saying the following:
Women aren't equal to men. Women deserve special protection from violence even when they are the aggressor. This is misogyny because it reinforces the idea that women are week and shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. It is also misandry because of the same double standard. He is saying that if a woman attacks a man he should just take it. It is also misandry because he is pretending that male victims of DV don't exist.
By this PSA he has proven that he doesn't see men and women as equals.

He is an idiot because he knows that women can be just as violent as men because he experienced it himself.

He is the textbook definition of a mangina.

Oh geeze, here JB goes repeating his lies and bullshit AGAIN after I have already addressed them. He has obviously ignored what I wrote or just wants to get a chubby by seeing me point out how wrong he is again, or he thinks that by just writing his nonsense over and over at the top of the story people won't recognize that I pointed out how wrong he is when I already addressed it when he wrote it down below. He is so annoying.

JB wrote: (I have) “said that a person cannot be an MRA and be a humanitarian. Yet she offers no evidence of any kind, let alone credible, that this is true.”

my response: I will repeat what I wrote in response to this lie AGAIN. I NEVER said that a person cannot be a MRA and a humanitarian. I already pointed out that saint wrote this and not me. Please stop lying about what I write JB. I also wrote below that I know that some MRA's are good people, and not just feminist-haters, who actually like women and don't have issues with them, and actually engage in activities to help men who are being treated wrongfully and/or unfairly.

He also wrote: "She also demands that I provide evidence that a person cannot be a feminist and a humanitarian and placed restrictions on what sources I can use as evidence.

my response: And I will write it again . . . provide actual factual PROOF that feminists are not humanitarians who promote equality, instead of just providing your twisted opinions and beliefs, or those of other feminist hater/MRAs. Asking that you do not just provide opinions or beliefs, and instead provide actual factual evidence, is not placing restrictions on what sources you can provide as evidence, as you have falsely accused me of. Everyone who has even the smallest degree of intelligence knows full well that when someone writes blogs, articles, and posts that contain their opinions and beliefs that is NOT considered factual evidence or proof of anything. That is why, for instance, in newspapers and other sources of information, articles and stories are considered to contain factual information while editorials are known to contain opinions. He is probably getting a chubby by writing this nonsense that he knows I will spend time and energy pointing out is nonsense, and that is why he keeps doing this crap.

He wrote (with absolutely no proof whatsoever that it is true)” "a feminist (a group of people that has a proven track record of pushing for policies and legislation that removes rights from one group of people based solely on their reproductive organs). As you can see the two contradict each other. You can't be both."

my response: I have continued to ask you to provide actual factual proof (not MRA/feminist-hater blogs or posts that contain opinions and incorrect assumptions) that prove that feminists have pushed for policies and legislation that removes equal rights from men. You have continuously failed to do so. Feminists have continuously fought for equality, and not for the removal of any “equal” rights from men. If you consider men making more money than women who are doing the same job for the same company to be a "male right"; or the ability to force a woman to have a child when she has been impregnated by a man, but doesn't want to have the child, a "male right"; or men's ability to sexually harass women in the work place a "male right"; or an employer continuously promoting men while ignoring women who are doing a better job and have worked for the company longer a "male right"; or a rapist's ability not to be prosecuted for raping a woman a "male right"; or only men, and not women, being able to vote a “male right”; or only men, and not women, being able to own a business a “male right”; or husband's, but not wives, being able to own their property a “male right”; or only males, but not married females being able to be heirs a “male right”; or only men being able to have certain jobs a “male right”; or only males, but not females, being able to attend higher educational colleges a “male right”; or men being able to beat their wives without being prosecuted a “male right”; or women not being able to take birth control a “male right”; and similar types of male preference and female inequality that feminists have fought to correct, then you are absolutely right because feminists have fought for women, and not men, in those types of situations. However, if you consider those things to be rights that men should still be entitled to then you, and anyone else who thinks the same way, obviously does not believe in equality and clearly is not a humanitarian.

he wrote AGAIN: "Lets take a look at VAWA. Ladyblu has said that VAWA is gender neutral. But it isn't. Here is the proof.
http://breakingtheglasses.blogspot.com/2013/01/vawa-is-not-like-that.html?m=1”

And here is my response AGAIN: I am also surprised that people like JB think that blogs and posts that his fellow biased, feminist hating, MRAs write are actual proof of certain things. They aren't. They are often just their twisted, biased, delusional opinions and beliefs of laws and other things that they obviously don't fully understand, and obviously want to believe that they mean something that they don't (as I pointed out above most people know that opinions and beliefs are not actual factual evidentiary proof of anything). He is trying to claim that the link to the blog he posted below, and posted above again, is proof that VAWA isn't gender neutral when it is obvious that the person who wrote the post on that blog obviously doesn't fully understand the changes that have been made to VAWA over the years that have resulted in it being gender neutral. Our government officials have repeatedly pointed out that VAWA IS GENDER NEUTRAL!!!!, and anyone who is intelligent and knows how to decipher laws and legislation knows full well that this is true.

http://www.ncdsv.org/images
/FAQ_VAWA%20and%20Gender.pdf

Here is the link to my story where I addressed this issue:

http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Know-Feminism-Is-The-Biggest-And-Most-Harmful-Hate-Group/3003494

JB wrote: Ladyblu.
Can you back up any of your assertions?
Can you take the parts of Vawa that she discussed in her blog post and prove that she is wrong.

my response: I absolutely can, and will do so now, and hopefully you will understand it (although I doubt it, since you have continuously shown that you don't) .

The Honey Badger who wrote the Breaking the Glasses blog post that JB quoted is completely wrong in her claim that VAWA isn't gender neutral. She quoted sections from the Act as it was written in 1994 without providing the amendments that were created, and have been applied, to ensure that the Act is now gender neutral, and that everything that previously applied only to women, now applies to everyone including men. This is set forth in the very first section of the 2013 revision (which the Honey Badger left out). It states:

" `(13) CIVIL RIGHTS-

`(A) NONDISCRIMINATION- No person in the United States shall, on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity (as defined in paragraph 249(c)(4) of title 18, United States Code), sexual orientation, or disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (title IV of Public Law 103-322; 108 Stat. 1902), the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 (division B of Public Law 106-386; 114 Stat. 1491), the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (title IX of Public Law 109-162; 119 Stat. 3080), the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, and any other program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds appropriated for grants, cooperative agreements, and other assistance administered by the Office on Violence Against Women.

`(B) EXCEPTION- If sex segregation or sex-specific programming is necessary to the essential operation of a program, nothing in this paragraph shall prevent any such program or activity from consideration of an individual's sex. In such circumstances, grantees may meet the requirements of this paragraph by providing comparable services to individuals who cannot be provided with the sex-segregated or sex-specific programming.

`(C) DISCRIMINATION- The authority of the Attorney General and the Office of Justice Programs to enforce this paragraph shall be the same as it is under section 3789d of title 42, United States Code.

`(D) CONSTRUCTION- Nothing contained in this paragraph shall be construed, interpreted, or applied to supplant, displace, preempt, or otherwise diminish the responsibilities and liabilities under other State or Federal civil rights law, whether statutory or common.

`(14) CLARIFICATION OF VICTIM SERVICES AND LEGAL ASSISTANCE- Victim services and legal assistance under this title also include services and assistance to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking who are also victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons as defined by section 103 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102)."

Essentially what this is stating, which some people obviously don't understand, or don't want to understand (JB and the Honey Badger), is that all sections of the VAWA act (like 40291, 40121, 20102, 20103, and 30208 part 5. which the Breaking the Glasses Honey Badger posted, and any others she quoted which were taken word for word by her from the 1994 Act) no longer apply only to women, and not men or anyone else any longer. It indicates that even if a particular section specifies that it only relates to women, it NO LONGER DOES. Do you get it now JB?

JB goes on to write: "Anyone who admits to being physically abused by his sisters then creates a PSA telling men that it is never ok to hit a woman is not only a misogynist and misandrist but is also a raving idiot."

my response: How so? Please explain why you believe that a man who was physically abused his sister but now thinks that it is never OK to hit women is a misandrist, a misogynist, and a raving idiot? Should he be encouraging men to hit women instead?

Males who were abused by their sisters and maintained hatred, anger and loathing toward women as a result (which is misogyny), and who as a result promote, and think it is perfectly fine to hit women are viewed by most fair minded people with a brain as hypocritical, misogynistic, raving, idiots who don't seen to know the difference between right and wrong, and feel that two wrongs somehow make a right.

Men who experienced physical abuse by their sisters but are able to move on and let go of their anger and hostility, and be a more intelligent, caring, and non-hypcritical person as a result, and who doesn't promote men doing to women the equivalent of what was done to them are viewed as good, fair minded people. They recognize that two wrongs don't make a right and they certainly aren't misogynists as a result, or misandrists simply because they don't think people should do to the opposite sex what was done to them.

JB posted more foolish nonsense below that shows that he doesn't really know how things work most of the time in relation to divorce and alimony. In most states a woman can't empty the couples bank account and file for divorce without being expected to return half of the money she took out of the account in one way or another. Virtually everything that the couple owns jointly will be split 50/50 unless they mutually agree to do things in other ways. This is because the majority of the time each spouse is considered to be contributing equally to the marriage in one way or another. Both people may be working at a job and contributing financially, and also contributing emotionally, physically, sexually, and in many other ways equally.

Often when only the husband works and is the "bread winner", the wife will be picking up the slack and doing almost all of the housework, shopping, cooking, caring for the children, etc. It is also the case if only the wife works and is the "bread winner" and the husband takes care of other things so they both contribute equally. Any man who thinks that making money is the only thing that contributes to the livelihood of a marriage is an ass. Also, in most states a spouse will not get alimony for the rest of their life unless they have no working skills, and are too old to get any before they can start a career and start supporting themselves as a result. Even if this is the case, if they remarry their alimony will stop.

In most cases if one of the spouses is not too old to get a job, but has no career skills, has not been working, and is a stay-at-home mom/dad at the request, and/or with the appreciation and acceptance of the working spouse, if they divorce the spouse who has not been working will be expected to get job training and then begin working and supporting themselves. The working spouse will pay for the job training and the non-working spouse will receive alimony while they are getting their job training and then looking for a job, but once they get a job their alimony will usually end. This is the norm in almost every state. This is also the case if the spouse has been working, but only part-time or at a lower paying job than the other spouse. They will receive alimony until they begin working full-time and are able to support themselves as a result, or if they work at a job where even if they work full-time they still will not be making enough to support themselves they will get alimony until they get the training needed to get a job where they can support themselves, and then actually get the job that enables them to do so. This is often the case if, for instance, one spouse works at a fast food restaurant like McDonalds while the other spouse works at a job where they earn more pay. The courts in almost every state rarely ever let a young wife, who is capable of somehow getting a job and supporting herself, collect alimony from her husband for the rest of her life if they get a divorce. Any MRA who thinks that is common is showing, once again, that he doesn't know much about reality.

I find it very interesting that JB has indicated that his wife is now working full-time. When I first encountered him here on EP he stated that his wife was not working, and did not want to, because she didn't like working with women and every job she could ever have would require her to have female co-workers. If she is working full-time now it must be either because she got bored not working and really didn't have a problem working with women (JB was lying again), or because she found a job where only men are her co-workers (very unlikely), or JB ended up working less and being on the internet instead so he wasn't making enough money to support his family and his wife had to go to work to pick up the slack. Those are the only reasons I can think of as to why she would be working full-time now ba<x>sed on what he wrote about her in the past.

JB wrote: "I challenge anyone reading this to find and piece of feminist legislation or policy and/or any feminist ideas form 2nd or 3rd wave feminism that doesn't have its roots in the the redstockings manifesto. The redstockings manifesto is the blueprint of all that feminism is. If you don't believe what it says then you are not a feminist. Period. . . American feminism can be traced directly to the redstockings manifesto. "

my response: And here he goes with this nonsense again that he wrote on hikingguy's story. Feminism came to be long before the redstockings manifesto ever existed so assuming feminism can be traced back to it makes absolutely no sense at all since feminism existed long before the redstockings manifesto ever did. Also, I challenge you JB to find any piece of "feminist legislation", and if you do, provide it, and all feminist policies, and feminist ideas from 2nd or 3rd wave feminism that have their roots in the the redstockings manifesto, and provide proof as to why you feel they do. I am a feminist, my sister is a feminist, my mother is a feminist, my aunts are feminists, my grandmother is a feminist, my friends are feminists, my husband is a feminist, my father is a feminist, my grandfather is a feminist, my uncles are feminists . . . and none of us had ever heard of the redstockings manifesto until YOU brought it up, and we don't agree with much of what it says. The same was written by many of the feminists here on EP. Most of them had never heard of it either and don't agree with much of what it says. Redstockings has always been considered a radical feminist group http://womenshistory.about.com/od/feminism/a/redstockings.htm, and contrary to what you and many feminist/female-hater MRAs claim, most feminists are not radical feminists. Feminism is a movement. The feminist movement consists of many different groups, and many of them differ from each other in many ways. Anyone who thinks that one particular group is the sole basis of the entire movement and that any member of the movement who doesn't belong to the group or agree with its ideology isn't a member of the movement, is VERY wrong. That isn't how things work.

People like JB who obviously hate a certain movement and try to claim that people who belong to that movement must agree with certain things that one particular group in the movement expresses, and must think certain ways, abide by certain beliefs, and act certain ways or they aren't part of the movement come off as pompous, arrogant, self-righteous, judgmental, closed-minded, know-it-all, fools. Doing that kind of thing is like me saying that all MRAs must agree with, think like, abide by the beliefs of, and act like the members of the "Good Men Project" (who I feel has the most equal minded, non-hateful, positive, activist members of any MRA group) or they aren't MRAs. Period . . . However, I would never say that because I am not a pompous, arrogant, self-righteous, judgmental, closed-minded, know-it-all, fool who feels that I have the right to dictate how people must think and act in order for them to be a member of a particular organization, movement, or group.

JB wrote: "By creating a PSA that is directed solely at men that tells them to never hit a woman (even in self defence) he is saying the following:Women aren't equal to men. Women deserve special protection from violence even when they are the aggressor. This is misogyny because it reinforces the idea that women are week and shouldn't be held accountable for their actions."

my response to this dumb comment: This is not misogyny it is reality. Most women aren't equal to men in terms of their physical strength. Most women are weaker. Do some research. The fact that you and your wife are equally as strong as one another, or she is stronger than you is not the norm. The fact that you are a weakling and your wife is a hulk doesn't mean that is the case with everyone or the majority.

I will write again what I have written before, and maybe this time you will understand it and stop making such dumb comments. It is well known that because most men are physically stronger than women, and are built in a way that makes them better than women when it comes to boxing, fisticuffs, cage fighting, and other things involving physical strength and altercations, it is understood that when a man hits a woman there is a far greater chance that the woman will sustain a far more serious injury than a man will when he is hit by a woman. As a result men are instructed not to hit women, and if they get into a physical altercation with a woman who is attempting to strike them, to defend themselves the men should try to hold the women's arms, hands, legs or whatever, and do whatever they can to restrain her from striking them instead of just punching her, choking her, etc. and as a result seriously injuring her in some way, and/or causing her to become unconscious, which most men can do much more easily than women can.

Self-defense does not involve punching, choking, kicking, etc. someone and trying to seriously injure or kill them unless that is absolutely the only way to stop them from seriously injuring or killing you. Self-defense involves doing whatever you can to stop the physical altercation from occurring/continuing in the mildest and least serious, and least physically damaging way.

As I have mentioned before, if someone does something far more extreme to someone who is attempting to hit them or who has hit them, but has stopped, they will be arrested for assault. If they try to claim that the serious injury they caused was merely done out of self-defense, but they do not have any obvious somewhat severe injuries themselves, often it will not be considered to be true, and as a result they will be arrested and charged with assault, and won't be acquitted ba<x>sed on self-defense if they are prosecuted. This is true for both men and women, but it happens far more often with men because of what I explained above.

JB wrote: "Did you know that when a woman gets someone else to kill her husband it isn't counted as DV in the statistics."

my response: Did you know that the same is true with men? If a man gets someone else to kill his wife it isn't counted as DV in the statistics. For both men and women it is just considered first degree murder.

<p>this post by ladyblue is worthy of re reposting..>And here's some more showing that women can be treated just as unfairly and unjustly as men by divorce courts, and often end up much poorer than men in the end:</p><p>http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/25/divorce-women-research</p><p>http://nypost.com/2012/06/24/nj-ex-wives-say-divorce-judge-favors-rich-hubbies/</p><p>http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/09/opinion/murphy-alimony-overhaul-con/</p><p>http://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2011/07/12/in-many-states-alimony-reform-has-gone-too-far/2/</p><p>http://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2013/05/17/what-divorcing-women-need-to-know-about-alimony-reform/</p><p>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pauline-gaines/why-im-glad-my-ex-stopped_b_1291768.html</p><p>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pauline-gaines/should-the-richer-parent-_b_1905815.html</p><p>http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/tameka-raymond-ushers-status-helped-win-custody/story?id=19969051</p><p>http://www.divorcesupport.com/columns/archives/dg1-39-98.shtml </p><p>In addition, now a days many wealthy people insist on having prenuptial agreements before getting married. If men are so afraid that they will be taken to the cleaners if they marry a woman that they love, but they end up getting divorced later on, why not just have her consent to a prenuptial agreement that will ensure that won't be the case instead of refusing to marry and just stay single which often won't lead to a happy, fulfilling, life. If people don't remain single and are in a relationship, but choose not to marry, and to instead just be emotionally committed, they will not get all of the benefits that come with being married such as having to pay less in taxes; getting better and less expensive health insurance; inheriting if their partner dies; having their children not be viewed as illegitimate and suffer the consequences; being able to do certain things with, and for, their partner and children that laws only allow spouses to do; and more. Instead of doing a marriage strike these guys should just do create prenuptial agreements and have the woman they love consent to it and sign it before they get married. They can actually create a prenuptial agreement themselves for free. Then they will feel more confident and secure knowing that if the marriage falls apart their wife won't take them to the cleaners (which now a days is much less likely to be able to occur anyway).</p>

Men and women (or LGBTs) being together is like the yin and the yang uniting. When we are not in a relationship we are usually not complete or balanced.
But before people get married they need to wait for their true soul mate to appear instead of just marrying someone they think they are in love with and can be committed to because they feel temporary passion and infatuation for them. When you find your true soul mate you will be comfortable with them and your life will be easy. Marriage won't be hard work and a chore, and you will want to please them and make them happy, and they will want to do the same for you (its not blowing smoke up someone's ass. Its reality).

With a true soul mate life will never be hell if you fail to go out of your way to do or say things to please your spouse and make their life happy and comfortable. It will come very naturally. A happy wife does mean a happy life, just as much as a happy husband means a happy life. If either spouse is unhappy their life together is not going to be joyful and happy. If my husband is unhappy, sad, upset, frustrated, etc. because of something that happened at work or in our lives (like one of our pets dying, an unforeseeable problem with our house or cars that unexpectedly ends up costing us a lot of money, or things of that nature it can cause one of us, or both of us, to be unhappy, sad, frustrated, etc., and life won't be wonderful for either one of us during that period of time. When that kind of thing happens we will do all we can to make the one we love feel less bad and bring joy and contentment back into our lives. We won't just ignore them and expect them to care for themselves. That's selfish. Its not hard work or a chore either. It is something we enjoy doing, and as I mentioned above, it comes naturally. Good people like to help other people who are having difficulties or are unhappy for some reason. Selfish, self-centered people often don't give a shit about other people, and don't want to put any energy into helping their spouse in any way they possibly can (including saying and doing what they want to help fix things and make them better for them). They just focus all their time and attention primarily on themselves. I feel sorry for women and men who are married to that kind of person.
People also need to be honest about themselves with their potential spouse. If my ex husband had done so I never would have married him. He hid his true self as long as he could, but eventually it had to come out. That is when our marriage started too unravel.
I am glad you appreciate your wife JB. I just hope she feels the same way about you.
I don't see fewer and fewer men marrying. Some of them fall for the negative nonsense that MRAs constantly spew out. Then when they are old and alone they will probably regret buying into the bullshit and thinking they would have a happier and more fulfilling life if they never got married.

And here's some more showing that women can be treated just as unfairly and unjustly as men by divorce courts, and often end up much poorer than men in the end:

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/25/divorce-women-research

http://nypost.com/2012/06/24/nj-ex-wives-say-divorce-judge-favors-rich-hubbies/

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/09/opinion/murphy-alimony-overhaul-con/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2011/07/12/in-many-states-alimony-reform-has-gone-too-far/2/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2013/05/17/what-divorcing-women-need-to-know-about-alimony-reform/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pauline-gaines/why-im-glad-my-ex-stopped_b_1291768.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pauline-gaines/should-the-richer-parent-_b_1905815.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/tameka-raymond-ushers-status-helped-win-custody/story?id=19969051

http://www.divorcesupport.com/columns/archives/dg1-39-98.shtml

In addition, now a days many wealthy people insist on having prenuptial agreements before getting married. If men are so afraid that they will be taken to the cleaners if they marry a woman that they love, but they end up getting divorced later on, why not just have her consent to a prenuptial agreement that will ensure that won't be the case instead of refusing to marry and just stay single which often won't lead to a happy, fulfilling, life. If people don't remain single and are in a relationship, but choose not to marry, and to instead just be emotionally committed, they will not get all of the benefits that come with being married such as having to pay less in taxes; getting better and less expensive health insurance; inheriting if their partner dies; having their children not be viewed as illegitimate and suffer the consequences; being able to do certain things with, and for, their partner and children that laws only allow spouses to do; and more. Instead of doing a marriage strike these guys should just do create prenuptial agreements and have the woman they love consent to it and sign it before they get married. They can actually create a prenuptial agreement themselves for free. Then they will feel more confident and secure knowing that if the marriage falls apart their wife won't take them to the cleaners (which now a days is much less likely to be able to occur anyway).

JB wrote: "Telling your wife "my life begun when I met you" is just bullshit."

my response: First of all my husband says "my life 'began' when I met you, and not "my life 'begun' when I met you", because saying the later is an example of improper grammar, and my husband definitely never engages in improper grammar.

Second of all, it might be bullshit for you, but it isn't for my husband. Claiming that you know how all other people think and feel is ridiculous, and extremely arrogant, pompous, and self-righteous. My husband has told me many times that before we met he felt that his life was somewhat boring, dull, vapid, and humdrum even though he did what many people would consider to be outrageous and exciting things. He said he almost felt like he was detached and unfeeling.

He says that when we met it was as if he finally became alive. He says he started seeing things in a brighter and more noticeable way, and his life became more exuberant and exciting. His friends have told me that they noticed this. They said before we met he was almost zombie like much of the time. He just didn't seem to really feel anything or have any emotions. They said after we met that changed and he became very enthusiastic and began showing emotions (most of which were joyful and happy).

Things were similar with me. My life before I met him was extremely unhappy and difficult. I felt like I was emotionally shutting down and becoming introverted. When we met I felt like I was coming back to life. Like him I was starting to open up more, and was feeling emotions, excitement and happiness again. We have had extremely happy, joyous, blissful, exciting, and successful lives since we met. We are deeply in love and enjoy making each other happy, satisfied, and content. My husband is an extremely romantic, loving, caring man. He says very romantic, imaginative, creative and loving things to me often, and I do the same with him (far more than just "I love you" and "I appreciate you"). We do things for each other all the time, and it makes both of us feel good doing so.

And just so you know JB . . . I don't know of a single feminist who has ever said, or feels "happy wife, happy life". The first time I ever heard that was on that silly show "Real Housewives of New Jersey", and the woman who said it isn't a feminist. She is more of a traditional wife, and obviously is lacking intelligence in many ways ba<x>sed on how she acts, and the goofy, incorrect things she often says.

someone wrote: Absolutely NOT TRUE. where did you get that myth. In Texas, the second or third most populous state, it is normal for the courts to make the husband pay attorney fees and court costs for both sides. California is the same."

my response: NOT TRUE. The court's don't make the "husbands" pay attorney fees and court costs. And I should know since my husband is an attorney here in California. It has absolutely nothing with gender and/or whether it is the husband or the wife. It is all about who is making the most money. The person who is making the most money will often be required to pay the attorney fees and court costs regardless of whether they are a man or a woman, or a husband or a wife. The only reason that it seems that they make the husbands pay is because the husbands are usually the ones who make the most money. Particularly when the divorce is contentious (which it usually is when the husband who is making far more money than his wife wants to do whatever he can to avoid paying any child or spousal support). Also, the spouse who earns the most income may initially be required to pay the court costs and attorneys fees, but once the divorce becomes finalized and the assets are distributed to the spouses, half of the court costs and attorney fees that the one spouse who earns the most was initially ordered to pay will be deducted from the assets the other spouse is getting to be fair.

What dante (ambi) knows but isn't telling is that most fathers can't afford to "ask" for custody.
Lets look the fact that a parent should has to ask to be a part of their child's life. I wonder if feminists would feel the same indifference if society started giving the children to fathers instead of the mothers and the mothers had to "ask" to see their kids. Oh. Wait. We did that in the past and the feminists got really upset about it but instead of asking for equal parenting they implemented the tender years doctrine.

The act of "asking" to be a part of the child's llife cost 10s of thousands of dollars. Most men who have.just lost everything he owns and is forced to pay 1/2 to 2/3s of his income to the woman that has just taken everything he owns can't afford to to spend the thousands of dollars to "ask" the court to be a parent. So most men don't even try. They accept what the courts give them because they have no way to fight (I mean ask) for equal treatment.
At the vertically start dantes statistic is already looking like just more feminist deception.
Now let look at the fact that she freely admits that 30% of fathers who "ask" for shared custody don't get it. While this figure doesn't seem to bother dante it does me.

Now lets look at what what shared custody means. Shared custody means dad gets the kid every other weekend, every other holiday and a couple of weeks during the summer.
THIS ISN'T SHARED PARENTING. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE.
We demand that custody hearing start from the basis that custody is to be 50/50 unless the parents agree to a different arrangement or that one parent can be PROVEN WITH EVIDENCE to be a danger to the child. Anything less is a sever violation of basic human rights and will no longer be tolerated.

Jack is not addressing the fact that when a mother asked for custody, she had to pay just the same as a father.

So, Given that

" women’s earnings were lower than men's earnings in all states and the District of Columbia according to the Income, Earnings, and Poverty Data From the 2007 American Community Survey by the Census Bureau."

And that

" evidence shows that working women with children make less than women without kids, while having children actually boosts men’s wages"

How is that the mothers manage to find the funding yet according to Jackoffbarnes the fathers cannot ?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/11/3048811/pew-gender-wage-gap/


Furthermore, the cost of a mutually agreed upon custody agreement is the same whether or not the father asks for custody.

Meaning if a Father can afford to get divorced he has already paid for the ability to ask for custody.

Jack un-surprisingly didn't use the link provided to him because he would have realized that more than 90% of custody issues are settled mutually between the two parties, the court merely enforces the agreement the parties decided on, the cost of that is negligible.



The court will not give custody to either a mother or a father without being asked by the parties. FULL STOP. So women aren't being GIVEN children ( and can't legally be given without cause and petition) ,they are ASKING for them. Men are afforded the same entitlements, rights and responsibilities under the law.


This type of failure to understand basic concepts is why Jack needs to educate himself before making such specious claims.

JB wrote: "It is obvious that ladyblu didn't read the link i posted. Unlike ladyblu the author of the blog used Vawa to prove her points. Not only did she make the state that Vawa is bias against men, she backed up her statement with references to the bill itself."

my response: I read the link, and the author of the blog is clearly very biased against women and feminism, and continuously spews her negatives views about us. She favors men over women, loves AVfM and its minions, and is an MRA honey badger.

http://breakingtheglasses.blogspot.com/p/whose-blog-is-this.html

http://manboobz.com/2014/01/25/mras-agree-female-humans-deadlier-cuter-than-males/

She continuously writes blogs and posts that attempt to make women (she calls them female humans) look evil, abusive, mean, onery, and manipulative, as so many women of her kind continuously do. I sometimes can't help but wonder if they do this to draw men in and get them to want them, because if they didn't most men wouldn't want them because they are unattractive and look kind of masculine.

Many of her "points" and interpretations of VAWA are incorrect because she clearly does not fully understand VAWA, or just wants to try to make it look biased against men when it isn't. She just took little snippets from the bill here and there, out of context, and interpreted them in a way to try to support her beliefs and opinion that VAWA is biased against men when it isn't.

If you can't find a link to a post or article that indicates that VAWA is biased against men which was written by someone who is objective, and isn't a biased, feminist/woman-hating, AVFMer or MRA, don't try to convince those of us who know that it isn't, that VAWA is biased against men. We aren't going to buy into the BS.

I will point out the reasons why that honey badger's beliefs and opinions about VAWA are incorrect later when I have more time.

JB wrote: "We have already made marital rape illegal. Now we should remove a mans legal obligation to protect and provide for women."

my response: Now that is seriously twisted. So based on what he has written it appears that he thinks that the only reason that a man should marry a woman and protect and provide for her is so he can sex with her anytime he wants to . . . WOW! So I guess he doesn't really love his wife and just married her, and protects and supports her so he can fuck her anytime he wants to, even if she isn't in the mood, is having physical problems, and doesn't want to do it. Doesn't matter to him because he is entitled no matter what right? What a sweet, loving, caring, considerate, husband . . . NOT!!!!

And based on what he thinks about women I guess women only marry men to be protected and provided for, and not because they love them and care about them, enjoy being with them, enjoy having sex with them, etc. Yeah right, I'm just with my husband so he will protect and provide for me, even though I am perfectly capable of providing for myself and my children, and have learned self-defense and martial arts. And I guess the only reason he married me is so he can sex with me whenever he wants to even though he enjoys doing a variety of things with me that have nothing to do with sex (even though we do have and awesome sex life that I fully enjoy too).

Ladyblu said the following:
"J B posted more foolish nonsense below that shows that he doesn't really know how things work most of the time in relation to divorce and alimony. In most states a woman can't empty the couples bank account and file for divorce without being expected to return half of the money she took out of the account in one way or another."

Why don't you tell this guy, this guys attorney and the divorce court judge that a woman can't do that.

http://youtu.be/YXE4ZVzEutw

She pulled $194,000 out of a home equity line of credit. The judge ordered that she could keep the money but that the husband has to pay it back. Plus she got half of all the assets. Plus he has to pay her 60% of his income in alimony.

Ladyblu, who's husband is a divorce attorney, says that this can't happen and because I say it can and does she says I don't know what Im talking about.
Questions for ladyblu
How much income will your husband loose if men wise up and stop marrying?

How much income will your husband loose if laws are changed and men start getting a fair shake in the family courts?

How much income will your husband loose if the truth comes out and people are made aware of the corruption and dishonesty in the family court?

Would it be accurate to say that, through your husband, you have a financial interest in maintaining the status quo when it comes to family courts and the laws that govern them?

Ladyblu.
As for you "statistics".
First I any reasonable person can say with some certainty that these are feminist statistics because they completely ignore the truth and erase male victims.
For a moment lets just pretend they are all true. Don't worry its just pretend. We know for a fact that men are half the victims of domestic violence. We have know this.since the first credible (non-feminist) studies were conducted back in the 70s. Since that time there between 600 and 700 hundred credible studies show that domestic violence is gender neutral.
Since we know that domestic.violence is render neutral that means that according to your "statistics" 1 in 3 men will be the victim of domestic violence in their life time.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE STATISTICS

⋆ One out of every three women will be abused at some point in her life.
⋆ Battering is the single major cause of injury to women, exceeding rapes, muggings and auto accidents combined.
⋆ A woman is more likely to be killed by a male partner (or former partner) than any other person.
⋆ About 4,000 women die each year due to domestic violence.
⋆ Of the total domestic violence homicides, about 75% of the victims were killed as they attempted to leave the relationship or after the relationship had ended.
⋆ Seventy-three percent of male abusers were abused as children.
⋆ Thirty percent of Americans say they know a woman who has been physically abused by her husband in the past year.
⋆ Women of all races are equally vulnerable to violence by an intimate partner.
⋆ On average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or partners in this country every day.
⋆ Intimate partner violence a crime that largely affects women. In 1999, women accounted for 85% of the victims of intimate partner violence.
⋆ On average, a woman will leave an abusive relationship seven times before she leaves for good.
⋆ Approximately 75% of women who are killed by their batterers are murdered when they attempt to leave or after they have left an abusive relationship.

http://www.domesticabuseshelter.org/InfoDomesticViolence.htm

I can provide hundreds of links that offer the exact same statistics because unfortunately they are REALITY!

No one said that women are not or cannot be harmed by divorce courts.
However the overwhelming evidence proves that on the whole the divorce courts are bias in women's favor. The majority of people who suffer a severe negative impact from the family courts are men and their children.

Here is the thing. All of the legal and policy changes would benefit women and stop women from becoming victims in the family courts. Of course the majority of people these changes would help would be men but women would he helped too. Yet feminists do everything in their power to prevent change.

<p>&nbsp;<p><p><p><p><p><p>any man who would use children pictures as a threat to their adult counter parts is on the same level as a pedophile ....now who is sick jack ass????"</p><p>
jack said...>All I said was that I had seen the photos you uploaded to your profile. That's it. I never said anything about children. I never used that as a threat. All I said is that I had seen the pictures. You did the rest.I must admit it worked better than I had hoped. You totally having a melt down was awesome and calling me a pedophile was priceless.....
-------------------------------------------------------------

THANK YOU JACKASS FOR ADMITTING YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE!!! GOT A SCREEN SHOT OF THAT THANK YOU!
and oh ...once again you lied, you said much more then...>>

****I said is that I had seen the pictures. ****
poor jack ass is trying to save face again!!!

THANK YOU FOR ADMITING WHAT WE HAVE ALL KNOWN FOR YEARS!! </p><p>***IT ALSO WORKED FOR ME*** THANK YOU !! ***NOTHING LIKE PLAYING SOME ONES GAME RIGHT BACK AT THEM!! ***</p><p>

THANKYOU JACK ASS!! IM GLAD TO SEE YOU DONT SPEND TO MUCH TIME WITH YOUR DAUGHTER!</p> WHY? YOU ARE A SICK BASTARD !
YOU Totally FELL FOR IT!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAH u admitted your a pedophile!!<p></p>

mike you need to block that fuklaw guy. He's a self-righteous, judgmental, offensive, know-it-all, creep, who obviously has psychological problems. Don't waste your time responding to his constant critical insults. He does it all the time. I think he gets off on it. He'll continue to generalize and accuse you of being a pedophile lover, and other idiotic things like that that have no basis. I can't help but wonder if people who make those kinds of accusations when they have nothing whatsoever to suggest that what they are saying is true are just projecting. Talk about hypocrisy. That is the epitome.

And BTW - I am starting to think that he may be deviantproxy, aka LAV25, and possibly Crimsonfcker (who hasn't posted anything in quite a while). He is the same age, same astrology sign, has the same problems with women, writes like him, insults people the same way and then blocks them, likes many of the same things, and also doesn't like many of the same things. I wouldn't be at all surprised. When he was deviantproxy and LAV25 he got booted off of EP for being such a hateful, mean, derogatory person. Just boot that troll.

JB wrote: "This is not to mention the death threats and acts of violence perpetrated by feminists against people that dare to.disagree with them. People like Erin Pizzey. Why?
Because they were revealing the truth about domestic violence. They said that not only can men be victims and women be perpetrators but that the number of male victims are significant, nearly half. Those statements earned them death threats. They even killed Erin Pizzey's dog.
Does this sound like a humanitarian movement?"

my response: Well if that is true then MRAs are not a humanitarian movement either because some of them have done the same kinds of things to women. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/women-battle-online-anti-women-hate-manosphere/story?id=20579038

What you need to recognize is that individuals are individuals and they do not reflect, show, or express what an entire organization, or everyone who is a member, is about. Some people who belong to organizations do bad things. That does not mean that everyone in the organization does bad things, and promotes the bad things that some people do. Clinging to those kinds of beliefs makes you appear very irrational, biased, and closed minded.

JB wrote: "Men and women are paid the exact same pay for the same work in the US. Its easy."

my response: Wrong again. Gender discrimination happens frequently, and is more likely to happen to women. Numerous companies have been sued, lost the lawsuit, and were severely penalized for treating women unfairly. It is found that they are paying women less who are doing the same jobs that men are doing, are not promoting women who should be promoted based on their seniority and good work, but are instead continuously promoting men, are giving men more hours and women less, are giving men better benefit packages, are ordering the women to do the more difficult and unlikeable tasks while having the men do easy and enjoyable tasks, and so on and so on. No one should assume that every company does things exactly right. Do some research because that obviously isn't the case.
http://womeninbusiness.about.com/od/sexual-discrimination/a/Corporations-Sued-For-Gender-Discrimination-Against-Women-And-Men.htm

I am also surprised that people like JB think that blogs and posts that his fellow biased, feminist hating, MRAs write are actual proof of certain things. They aren't. They are often just their twisted, biased, delusional opinions and beliefs of laws and other things that they obviously don't fully understand, and obviously want to believe that they mean something that they don't. He is trying to claim that the link to the blog he posted below is proof that VAWA isn't gender neutral when it is obvious that the person who wrote the post on that blog obviously doesn't fully understand the changes that have made to VAWA over the years that have resulted in it being gender neutral. Our government officials have repeatedly pointed out that VAWA IS GENDER NEUTRAL:

http://www.ncdsv.org/images
/FAQ_VAWA%20and%20Gender.pdf

Here is the link to my story where I addressed this issue:

http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Know-Feminism-Is-The-Biggest-And-Most-Harmful-Hate-Group/3003494

I wonder why Jack is allowed to derail every thread ...especially given that he contributes absolutely nothing !He continues to parrot the same things he has always parrotted from AVfM. The only change being that he now thinks he is part of the AVfM staff, despite people like Victor Zen and Paul E. Not having a clue about who he is !!! Anyways I think anything he posts which is off topic should be removed.

I am going to start posting links to all of the articles I am finding that point out that the majority of society sees AVfMers and other MRAs as the misogynistic, self-centered, egotistical, delusional, numbskulls, that they obviously are, and who for one reason or another have issues with women, while claiming their movement is just about humanitarianism and equality when it obviously isn't. Here are a few to start with:

http://www.shakesville.com/2007/10/explainer-whats-mra.html

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/we-went-to-a-mens-rights-lecture-in-toronto

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/2012/08/angry-men-feminist-agenda/

http://prospect.org/article/good-mens-rights-movement-hard-find

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/michael-laxer/2012/12/mens-rights-movement-cafe-university-toronto

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights_movement

Many of these articles and posts are written by men who aren't feminists.

" example: Here is a case where a custody dispute was entertained. The custody trial itself cost a father $10,000. His wife had a number of psychological problems, which was proven. The judge still ruled in behalf of the ex-wife and ordered the former husband to pay the ex-wife’s attorney fees of $15,000. The legal fees he paid were $25,000. This amount was just for the custody portion of the divorce. If you are the sole provider of the household, beware, for you may be held responsible for paying legal fees for both sides. "

http://www.divorcesupport.com/divorce/Divorce-Attorney-and-Other-Divorce-Professional-115.html

One custody trial cost this guy 25,000 for his wife tk get custody.
What if he wants equal custody? Most men don't have another 25000 laying around.

"The act of "asking" to be a part of the child's life cost 10s of thousands of dollars. Most men who have.just lost everything he owns and is forced to pay 1/2 to 2/3s of his income to the woman that has just taken everything he owns can't afford to to spend the thousands of dollars to "ask" the court to be a parent. "

Another of Jack's made up statements. It doesn't cost "tens of thousands of dollars" to apply for a custody hearing or actually turn up for one.

There are no cases he can quote where a father has financially "lost everything" and been made to pay over 50-66 percent of his income to his divorced spouse. The rules are set by the legal system. Jack of course believes that the courts in the US are making divorced fathers homeless on a daily basis.

Ladyblu.
Can you back up any of your assertions?
Can you take the parts of Vawa that she discussed in her blog post and prove that she is wrong.

You can't take the word of Joey Biden if you want. Anyone who admits to being physically abused by his sisters then creates a PSA telling men that it is never ok to hit a woman is not only a misogynist and misandrist but is also a raving idiot. You can believe him if you want. "Who is more foolish? The fool or the fool that follows him."

<p>&nbsp;<p><p>*** example: Here is a case where a custody dispute was entertained*** .................................................................................................................

you can not use "ONE" example to use as a go to guide on how custody suits are disputed !..................... every case is different! depending on many variables.There are ground rules but, after that , like i said, the situation of that particular case, age of children, any special needs of the children?..... who/ where the children feel most comfortable with, which parent has the thickest wallet, how many children are in the family, ........ courts look at the parents relationship, do they get along well enough to co- parent, to care for the children, which parent will be able to spend quality time to support the children. there are some courts who wont allow one or the other parent to leave the state with any of the children. and the list goes on!!</p><p></p>

JB wrote: "Ladyblu says that a person cannot be an MRA and be a humanitarian."

my response: Really? Where did I write that? I'm pretty sure that saintargentina is the one who wrote that. All I did was ask you to provide factual proof that feminists cannot be humanitarians and you have still failed to do so. Your continuous assertions that all feminist think and act alike is absurd. I can point out numerous things that Elam has written that clearly proves that he is not a humanitarian, however, I do not feel that all MRAs cannot be humanitarians since it is clear that some of them can (but obviously not you).

jack ass >>> The laws did need to be changed. What you fail to comprehend is why those laws existed in the first place. Women sold thier reproductive ability to men in exchange for hiw protection and provision****


how much did they sell lt for ?

oh by the way, have you ever heard of spell check? using it will help make your lies and insults believable! ...................
stupid ass !! u try so hard at trying to look intelligent and informed, as if your a walking history book...... lady blue is intelligent, she is far more informed and with it, then you ever will be !! that is why u try to insult her!! you are intimated by women who are able to stand on their own two feet and speak their mind and know what the hell they are talking about!

More and more it is starting to seem like AVfM is using men being MRAs as a disguise for men who actually hate (or have serious problems and disdain for) most women. They claim they are MRAs instead of admitting they are woman-haters, or men who have seriously negative issues with most ordinary women, because they know darn well that if they told the world the truth about how they actually view most women the majority of the population would despise them and want nothing to do with them. However it is becoming more and more obvious every day that they actually have serious problems with almost all ordinary women who like (and love) men because of the obnoxious things the AVfMers continuously write, say, and advocate in relation to women, and not just feminists.

" any man who would use children pictures as a threat to their adult counter parts is on the same level as a pedophile ....now who is sick jack ass????"

All I said was that I had seen the photos you uploaded to your profile. That's it. I never said anything about children. I never used that as a threat. All I said is that I had seen the pictures. You did the rest.
I must admit it worked better than I had hoped. You totally having a melt down was awesome and calling me a pedophile was priceless.

I'm MRA myself and I can't stand so called pokesmen like this. They're just the male opposite of the feminists.

Instead of focusing on important issues like custody laws and male rape and abuse it's turned to mud slinging.

So sad.

Hey jacki BOY

yep ur proving/ confirming my thoughts about who you really are nearly every day!!!

what's up with you and teen age girls???

why are you trying to brain wash them into your cult of lies and deceit? grown women your age scare you hu? you think since they are teenagers you have a better chance of brain washing them!!!

well guess what jacki boy that orange jumpsuit is coming not to a theater near you but right under your own nose!!

you are really showing who you are ! yep i knew it !! here you are trying to recruit teen age girls and on top of it all... you made copies of children's pictures from profiles. to black mail their parents, which in my book sets you on the same level as a pedophile!!!!!!

Ladyblu. Men often blow smoke up their wives ass because they know if they don't life will be hell for them. Thankfully I was smart enough to not marry one of those women.
The phrase If mom ain't happy ain't no body happy rings a bell. I also heard another phrase A happy wife mean a happy life.
If my happiness is dependent on making sure she is always happy by saying and doing whatever she wants then no thank you.
Being around all of you feminists makes me appreciate my wife more and more.

If marriages is the greatest source of happiness for men then why are fewer and fewer men doing it?

90% of mothers are awarded custody. At the first custody hearing. Fighting for equal custody costs a lot of money. It requires dozens of court visits.

<p>jack said..>*** 90% of mothers are awarded custody. At the first custody hearing. Fighting for equal custody costs a lot of money. It requires dozens of court visits **

</p><p>only if one or the other parent disputes the decision, many times if the child refuses to go along with the ruling, the court will also take that into consideration.</p>

" Because the overwhelming majority of children have their relationships with their father severed. " ---jackoffbarnes


Not true. The majority of divorce and custody issues are handled by agreement of the parties (meaning the court simply records what the parents already mutually agreed to).

When men ask for custody from the courts they get it 70% of the time.

The reason so few men have custody is because they don't ask for or don't want it.

This is men abandoning their children not the courts severing relationships.


http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2012/04/child_supportcu.html

SOMEONEISalreadyUSEINGMYNAME

is a troll.... they have gone over to the sexlessmarrige grp and tired to make it about females against men !!

he is a worthless old troll who is pist because he cant abuse women anymore like he did 50 years ago !!
he is still trying to make women look bad .

his kind will die off soon thank god!!

his generation was taught that men rule and their job was to suppress women!!
all i go to say is have a nice death!

here is evidence of jackbarnes admitting he hacked into my profile and got access to the pictures of the children in my family .......>
Rubies wanted to know how I viewed the pics on gypsy's profile. Its very simple.
In quotation marks type experienceproject then the persons full screenname into Google. Click search. When the results appear click on the "images" icon at the top of the page. You will see every photo associated with the screen name you entered.

Yep. The mrm is a blacksheep....for now. The problem is that we aren't going away and we are not going to shut up. They can talk bad about us all they want. It doesn't change a damn thing. Evidence of this can be seen at Ryerson University.