« Happy New Year, Folks! And A Special Treat For My "Cold Case" Fans | Main | The First Friday Random Ten Of The Year »

January 03, 2006

Yet Another Fathers' Rights Manual On How To Keelhawl "The Bitch"

A colleague had e-mailed me this horrible web site, Married Mens Militia. It includes an instruction manual on how to keelhawl "the bitch" in a divorce. These are the kinds of instructions fathers' rights activists give each other to get their way in court hearings. These instructions will backfire on them when the judge gets wind of what they are doing.

I've seen instructions like these in books for men getting divorced. They are ugly. One book, which I won't name so fathers' rights activists won't go out looking for it, gives men instructions on how to "legally" kidnap their children. The idea behind the "advice" is by the time the primary caregiving mother tracks him and the children down - which could take a couple of years - he could petition the court for a change in custody order because the children have settled into their new home, new school, new neighborhood, new activities, etc. This kind of crap doesn't work. It makes judges very angry. Just ask Lowell Jaks, owner and president of the fathers' rights group Alliance For Non-Custodial Parent's Rights (ANCPR).

Married Mens Militia


It is important that your tactics be executed in a completely legal manner so as not to backfire into your own face. A good rule of thumb is that "anything that can be said in Latin can be done legally."

The kinds of tactics this moron recommends will not sit well with a judge. Yeah, you could cancel your ex's electric company coverage and cancel the credit cards with the idea that the credit card companies will come after her to pay up when you, the angry dude, refuse to do so. That kind of crap leaves a paper trail, and she will rightly show the judge what kind of nastiness you've been doing.

To break it down into its parts "X" is the diminutive of excretion as in "excretion out of luck." "Parte" pronounced par-tay means "to party" as in "we're going to "partay" after you get eX-creted upon."

An ex parte motion asks the judge to rule against the adversary before the adversary even knows what's going down. That means the judge can rule against one side and then inform the other of the ruling.

The tone of this paragraph only sets the tone for the rest of this ugly web site. Keep reading.

Example of How To Ex Parte The Bitch
Let's say you want to get custody of the children. First, you must acquire evidence that she is an unfit mother and it would be dangerous for the children to be left with her. Let's further assume you have evidence she is leaving the children alone during the day so she can shoot heroin with the Jr. League Crocheting Team. You get video tapes of the kids and her, time-clocked and witnessed.

The you sneak into court without telling her and make an ex parte motion. Next thing she knows, before she can say, "Does anyone have any baby laxative to cut this horse?" you've got the kidlets.

When accomplished successfully, this tactic is said to be a "fait accompli" which is french for "tough excretion, sucker, we got it our way, it's written in fucking stone. Na-na-na-na-na-naaa!"

Hatred for women just pours out of that "advice". Most likely, the angry dude won't have any proof that "the bitch" is unfit, so why not make shit up? Anyone filled with so much rage and hatred for his ex doesn't choose to engage in tactics like this out of the blue. Most likely, he has established behavior that is enraged or even downright abusive towards his ex. It shows, and she can tell the judge about it.

How To Cut Her Supply Lines
This is a must tactic -- unless you are the one out of one thousand who enjoys the relative bliss of an uncontested mutually agreed upon divorce.

1. Close the joint bank account
2. Cancel the credit cards
3. Run an ad in the local newspapers absolving yourself of any debts she may have incurred or may incur in the future
4. Write to the businesses where she shops to inform them that if they sell her merchandise on credit, you ain't paying
5. Change your legal mailing address so you can control the mail
6. Cancel your memberships in any clubs or associations
7. Take all the files and records and give them a friend for safekeeping

These seven deadly supply line cutters are only the basics. You might consider going further...

8. Call Ma Bell and cancel the telephone. (You can always get yourself a cellular with a new number)
9. Sell her car to an out-of-state buddy
10 Cut off all sources of funds so she is forced to get a job
11. Hire immigrant Serbs with experience outside Serajevo to lay siege to your house -- with the goal of getting her to move out. (Known as wifenic cleansing, this act is deplored by the Geneva Convention.)

I'm sure many angry men have cancelled their credit cards and refused to pay the balances. They'd rather leave all that to their financially-strapped ex's. When a judge sees this kind of behavior, he can order the asshole to pay the debt. Publishing a notice in the paper absolving himself of the debt won't make it go away. The problem is that the asshole will still refuse to do it, leaving his ex to pay the balance so that she doesn't see her credit rating ruined. That's the ultimate goal of a stunt like that - destroy her credit rating so that she can't buy a new house or get a loan to pay her lawyer.

Plus, it can easily be proven that the asshole has done all of this out of malice. That won't sit well with the judge. That kind of hatred comes off an asshole in waves, and it will be obvious to anyone within spitting distance of him.

But there are times when cutting her supply lines isn't enough.

Preemptive Strike
Let's assume it's still early in the proceedings, hopefully before official divorce papers are filed. You know you are going to be taking it up the poopchute, 'cause she's got you by the short and curlies and she's shown she's prepared to twist them until you squeal like a stuck sow. Now is the time to consider desperate measures.

It is possible, in spite of the sage advice you are getting in this highly informative and brilliantly written website, you may find yourself in such a no-win position. You feeling is something like, "Hey, I'm fucked. Whatever I do I'm fucked." It is now that you should consider cutting your loses.

What the farouk, if your life is going to be ruined anyway, why not consider doing it yourself -- in your way, not hers. And in doing so you can prepare for your new life after the bitch.

First you cut her supply lines. Then you embark on a scorched earth policy.

Wow, what a lot of rage! I bet the angry dude who wrote this is divorced. These tactics are very bad for the children, who have to suffer while they live with their mother. Children aren't stupid. They can see how much dad hates mom when dad pulls stunts like this. That kind of behavior hopefully won't get past the judge.

Scorched Earth Policy
It worked for the Russians fighting Napoleon and it can work for you. What the Czar's army did was to burn everything between Nappy and Moscow. That prevented the frog army which as Nappy said "traveled on its stomachs" from living off the land... and it eventually setup their defeat.

Assuming nothing gets literally torched, how do you employ a scorched earth policy in a divorce proceeding.

1. Sell the house
2. Sell the cars
3. Sell the furniture, the lawnmower, the garden hose and the metric tool set you've never used anyway
4. Sell everything you have -- down to your golf tees. Sell the stuff you want to buy back later from your brother or some other trustworthy male relative or buddy. What the hey, if you don't sell it all, she's going to take it all anyway.
5. Quit your job -- she's going to garnishee your wages anyway.

Yeah, hide assets by putting them in your brother's care or in your brother's name. If "the bitch" has co-signed the deed to the house and the cars the asshole can't just sell them out from under her.

It's no wonder enraged men who do these kinds of tactics don't remarry. No woman in her right mind would want to marry an asshole.

Quitting your job doesn't work. Neither does taking a lower-paying job to get out of paying the amount of child support you should pay. Judges look down upon that kind of crap. And yes, you will definitely get your wages garnished if you pull stunts like this. You still refuse to get a job? Well, the judge will just award "the bitch" the cars, the house, your golf clubs, the garden hose, the lawnmower, the metric tools you never use, any stocks and bonds you have squared away, and anything other assets that can be dug up.

If you think this kind of behavior will get the kids awarded to you, you've got something else coming.

Where do you hide, uh, sorry
What do you do with the money from the sales?

Possibly take a Caribbean trip island hopping from San Juan to Aruba. Possibly take an unscheduled stop at Curaçao and set up an offshore company in which you put 95% of your assets. Possibly claim you lost the rest gambling.

Or you could invest your drinking buddy's new play about his days as an Alaskan construction worker.. Or you could buy stock in your other buddy's idea for construction company that builds hotel out of beer cans... Or maybe even use the money start your own street football league.

Be careful! If the scam you choose to hide dispose of your assets is handled inadeptly, it could look a lot like "willful dissipation of assets" and because this is somewhat illegal and does not create direct legal fees, it could put you in jail. But hey, screw it, they'll probably feed you better in the can than she did anyway.

It will look alot like "willful dissipation of assets" because it is "willful dissipation of assets", you moron! You'll get nailed good. And as I said earlier, don't run off to a tropic island to hide out, especially if you kidnap the kid and take him with you. That's what Lowell Jaks had done, and he was caught and thrown in jail.

The contempt for women that pours from this "advice" doesn't surprise me, but I'm always stunned by how much hatred of women I see in fathers' rights advice for angry men. This is only the latest example of such hatred I've seen in fathers' rights books for angry men and fathers' rights web sites.

Keeping The Children Out Of The Line Of Fire
Tell them both you and she still love them. Explain that you are not divorcing them -- only each other. Get them to understand that you will still be their father and she will still be their mother. That they did nothing to cause this and they can do nothing to stop it. It is just one of those unfortunate things that happens to married people.

Even if you do all this correctly and honestly like a gentleman divorce warrior should, you may discover your spouse has broke your truce and has been "saying things" to the children about you. Don't try to deal with this during the divorce. Don't immediately try to make the kids understand your side. It will just turn into a pissing match with the children in the middle.

Today's kids are smarter and more sophisticated than you may give them credit for. They know what's what. They know what they see and what they feel. They have a good idea who the real bad guy is. A child who loves you will go on loving you.

After the divorce is over and the emotional stakes have been lowered, you can and should talk to them about it in non-aggressive rational manner. You can answer their questions and reassure them that they still have a daddy who loves them and who tried hard not to hurt them.

Jesus jumped up! Give me a break! So the moron who wrote this "advice" for angry dudes finally gets around to paying lip-service to the kidlets at the end of page two. The kinds of underhanded and abusive "tactics" described on that web site are not "one of those unfortunate things that happens to married people." They are abusive, malicious, and controlling. And they will show when "the bitch" demonstrates with cancelled checks, cancelled utilities, proof that you quit your job out of malice and spite, and nonpayment of child support. Daddy doesn't love the kids if he treats their mother this way. Most likely, the kids are living with their mother, and they have to go without heat during the winter because dear old daddy cancelled the electric company and oil heating bills. Yeah, what a great dad!

If a dad who takes this kind of "advice" also is fighting for custody, he doesn't do it for the children's welfare. Ann White had written for the Florida Bar Journal that "[a]busive fathers are far more likely than nonabusive parents to fight for child custody, not pay child support, and kidnap children." The National Association Of Women And The Law reported that "[m]any men who initiate custody and access challenges through the family law court system do so in order to harass or maintain control over their ex-spouses." In addition, exposing the kids to this kind of abusive behavior is harmful for them - "[u]sing data from a "nationally representative sample" to explore whether there is a relationship between experiencing or witnessing violence in the family of origin on the one hand and perpetrating violence against one's spouse on the other, Kalmuss' results indicate that those who observed violence between their parents were more likely to perpetrate violence against their spouse than those experiencing violence as a teenager.  Sons and daughters were equally as likely to be victims as perpetrators after witnessing their fathers hitting their mothers.  The intergenerational transmission of this behavior appears to be role-specific, i.e., children who observe violence between parents may come to see it as acceptable behavior between spouses but not against kids.  Frey-Angel (1989) suggests that observation of violence perpetuates the cycle in the next generation." Abuse is much more than just hitting and punching. Legal abuse like the kind recommended by this web site can be much more devastating to mom and the kids than seeing mom get her face bashed in on a regular basis. This kind of legal abuse takes time, and it's very harmful to children. Hopefully good judges will see that and do everything in their power to stop it. Sadly, many angry men who use these kinds of tactics get away with them, at least for a period of time. However, I figure more often than not this kind of crap gets squashed quickly.

Kids aren't stupid. They can see the animosity between their parents when angry dads use these kinds of tactics. Children are most influenced by how their parents treat each other. A seven-year study by Dallas's Timberlawn Psychiatric Institute found "the one factor that was the most important in helping children become healthy, happy adults, was the quality of [the parent-parent relationship]."

Fighting for custody and not paying child support are some of the "advice" recommended by this moron. I've already mentioned that one fathers' rights book instructs men how to "legally" kidnap the children. Dads who do these things aren't doing it out of the kindness of their hearts for their children. They're abusive, malicious assholes. They deserve whatever kind of misery the court deals out for them. Hopefully, mom and the kids won't be too damaged from an onslought of viciousness like what is recommended on this web site. The problem is that if an angry, abusive asshole wants to do this kind of stuff, he can do it until a court stops him. I'd like to see angry, abusive assholes get the treatment they deserve if they pull stunts like these.

Posted on January 3, 2006 at 08:43 AM | Permalink


But...doesn't this amount to his advising people how to
commit fraud.

That's illegal...isn't it.

Maybe this should be reported to a prosecuter...if someone
can figure out what municipality(sp) he is working from.


Posted by: Mark "Puff" Anderson at Jan 3, 2006 10:22:34 AM

Wow..I agree with puff - if anyone can draw attention to this it's you Countess. This pud is advising men to not only act on thier anger, which can turn violent and dangerous, but he is telling them to break the law - albeit in an off handed, indirect way.

Posted by: AldeaMB at Jan 3, 2006 10:32:52 AM

This makes me angry and incredulous at the same time.

First of all angry because we are all know how to be assholes without getting pointers from the internet.

Incredulous that this guy thinks he can follow a scorched earch policy against the mother and a) not hurt the kids, b) the kids will realize he was completely in the right.

It's a crazy world.

Posted by: Bryant at Jan 3, 2006 1:08:09 PM

I'm a veteran survivor of these tactics. My only disagreement is that these tactics make judges angry. So far, I haven't seen that they give a sh--. In some ways, they just join in the same games.

Posted by: silverside at Jan 3, 2006 1:15:05 PM

Silverside, I know that your case shows that some judges don't give a sh--. I've heard from other mothers who said the judge gave their ex's his head on a platter. I just hope that more judges can see through this crap than those who refuse to do so.

Posted by: The Countess at Jan 3, 2006 1:40:18 PM

Jesus fucking Christ! What a freak show! That makes me feel sick to my stomach. "Non-aggressive rational manner" my ass--uh, *yeah,* I expect the kids are sophisticated enough to see what's what, at that. What the hell is wrong with some people?

Posted by: belledame222 at Jan 3, 2006 2:13:59 PM

Oh, the kids aren't stupid. They see exactly what's going on, and it messes them up. Can't these assholes see that by sticking to "the bitch" that they are harming the kids they claim to love so much? The kids most often live with mom, so they have to suffer when the electricity is turned off, when the asshole refuses to pay child support, when the car is sold out from under mom, and other such sick shit as what this clown is recommending.

Posted by: The Countess at Jan 3, 2006 2:32:06 PM

>>"[a]busive fathers are far more likely than nonabusive parents to fight for child custody, not pay child support, and kidnap children." >>

Here is something that really needs to be addressed: Non payment of child support IS abuse. If a custodial parent refused to feed a child, that would be abuse. Not paying support takes food out of the child's mouth, too.

BTW, from personal experience, some courts won't mind if a father quits his job, or takes a much lower paying job, as long as papa claims he is "finding himself" and "finding a more fulfilling life." It worked for my ex.

Funny, no one ever seemed to care if I had found myself or was fulfilled, just whether I was taking care of my child or not.

Posted by: Broce at Jan 3, 2006 3:44:58 PM

Hmmm, not that angry wives do anything low-down to their husbands during a divorce. Women are above that sort of thing, don't-cha know.

Obviously, there are tons of divorce cases where the wife screws the husband, and vice versa. And there are tons of cases where the divorcing couple acts like adults instead of children. Hopefully more of the latter than the former.

I think the guy who wrote that webpage knows perfectly well his advice isn't worth anything. I think he's just blowing off steam and fantasizing a little bit.

Posted by: Scarbo at Jan 3, 2006 4:37:18 PM

Scarbo, there are probably lots of father's rights activists who take that kind of "advice" to heart and use it. I've heard of plenty of mothers who had to deal with such tactics. As i've said in my post, this isn't the first time that I've heard of that kind of "advice" being given to angry dads.

And my post isn't a place for the usual "women do it too!" crap I hear from fathers' rights activists. Any such nonsense coming from anyone else here from this point on will be removed.

Posted by: The Countess at Jan 3, 2006 5:10:23 PM

You're right, there probably are fathers who take that advice and try to use it.

And (here I go, breaking your rule!), there are mothers who take similar "scorched earth" advice from their attorneys, no less, and use it.

So what? Did we learn anything new here?

Go ahead and remove me and what I write, if you must. I really can't understand this policy of yours. By silencing half the truth, what are you left with?

That's right: half-truths.

"Women do it, too!" -- why do you have a problem with this? Is it because the truth hurts? Is it because saying this dilutes what you're angry about? Is it because it's hard to present women as better than men if you acknowledge it?

I don't know how you can continue to insist on being taken seriously, but hey, it's your blog.

Posted by: Scarbo at Jan 3, 2006 5:16:40 PM

Scarbo, every troll who comes here looking for a fight uses the old 'women do it too' excuse, as if that makes what these men are doing alright. You're not saying anything Countess or I haven't heard before many, many times and frankly it's gotten to be such a tired retort that it has become part of the anti-feminist drinking game, *takes a drink*

Posted by: jessant at Jan 3, 2006 5:59:56 PM

Oh, look, it's Scarbo from SYG. Why do these trolls even bother?

Posted by: ginmar at Jan 3, 2006 7:37:55 PM

Wow,Is it being "from" SYG,(or anywhere else) make one a troll?
I thought "trolls" just popped up to be destructive to a thread.
Did you post JUST to opine that Ginmar? Do you feel folks with opposing insights shouldn't "bother"?

Instead of mere "This situation is bad and eeeevil" I'd find it helpful to see examinations of resolve that might be more accepted by all parties concerned. I just don't see them here!

"Scarbo, there are probably lots of father's rights activists who take that kind of "advice" to heart and use it."

"Probably" and "lots" are weasle words. From my experiance, there are enough fathers that DO NOT follow such advice that an implication of "most", or "enough that all women should be alarmed" is premature.

I have to agree with "this is some guy ranting in hindsight", although I've heard of some of the actions described used in
contested divorces, as suggested by lawers and industry wonks,
but only in an effort, in complicity with judges,(you know,..ex lawers)and legislators(you know,...how many are lawers?) to inflame the most cash from lucrative cases.

I believe looking at the entire "industry" based only on "for the children" needs to be looked at microscopicly from ALL sides. I don't see it coincidence that lawer jokes have been a staple since before Shakespears time.

Posted by: at Jan 3, 2006 9:36:15 PM

Eye opening and scary stuff. Thanks for posting this. People following these tactics of anger and the merchants peddling this brew need the disinfectant of publicity.

I am disgusted to hear from this comment thread that judges are indifferent or even join in.

Our entire society appears hell bent to play zero-sum games.

Posted by: Leo Strauss at Jan 3, 2006 9:47:50 PM

Even if some parents do use these tactics, the presentation of this guide makes it look completely satirical. The parts you quote seem not so much to seriously suggest to fathers to use these tactics as much as to mock fathers who use them by implying that they only serve the goal of hurting people. It's like the guide to debating I've seen float online a few times that suggests to people to make up facts, I think.

Posted by: Alon Levy at Jan 3, 2006 10:31:38 PM

Today's kids are smarter and more sophisticated than you may give them credit for. They know what's what. They know what they see and what they feel. They have a good idea who the real bad guy is.

Yeah, Dad, they do. Re-read that pile of reeking shit you call a blog.

Posted by: Norah at Jan 4, 2006 12:39:08 AM

Scarbo, the shit that's posted at SYG sounds just like white southerners protesting black people getting rights. You post there. You adher to the site's 'ethos' of hating women and feminists. You don't have an opposing viewpoint; you're just a reactionary.

Now go toddle along and whine to the other weenies. You don't oppose the shit they say, then you're one of them. It's as simple as that.

Posted by: ginmar at Jan 4, 2006 1:14:42 AM

Wow, reading this post was like the story of my life; I'm seriously wondering right now whether my father got some MRA advice before he divorced my mum. The talking rationally to children bit is classic; relations between us being somewhat strained after what he put us through, he continues to believe that it's a result of my mum "poisoning our minds", not justified anger on our part after 3 years of no phone, no TV, little money for anything, nearly losing our home...

One bit the guy in the guide forgot; the claiming some of the kids aren't yours trick to piss off/harass your ex and maybe get off some child support.

Posted by: sofie at Jan 4, 2006 4:19:27 AM


I found this while doing a quick google search on Beaugus and the email address provided at the site


It looks like a joke to me.

Posted by: Beste at Jan 4, 2006 5:51:31 AM

I don't think it's a joke, Beste. Look at the link page.

Link page.

Even if it is a joke, those tactics have been used against mothers in court. I have read books written for divorcing men that describe those same tactics.

Posted by: The Countess at Jan 4, 2006 8:23:22 AM

LOLOL - their bandwidth limit is exceeded...can't see the page...LOL

Posted by: Moi ;) at Jan 4, 2006 10:59:50 AM

ROFL - I noticed that about an hour ago, Moi. I can't see the page anymore, either. At least it's preserved here, in all its misogynistic glory. :D

Posted by: The Countess at Jan 4, 2006 11:14:57 AM

Scarbo: you're busted. I would copy and past your entire post(s), but I wouldn't want to filth up this site. I'm sure everyone else is aware of it anyway.


Posted by: Txfeminist at Jan 4, 2006 1:18:58 PM

It struck me as satire as well, Alon.

Posted by: Anne at Jan 4, 2006 2:59:49 PM

Anne, the problem is that I've seen that kind of "advice" offered to angry men in books recommended by fathers' rights activists. If it's a satire, it's a little too close to the truth. Angry, abusive men do cancel bank accounts, cancel the electric bill and the phone bill, hide assets, try to sell the house out from under their ex-wife and the children, try to make their ex-wives look unfit so they can get custody of the kids, and kidnap the kids hoping that when their ex's finds them years later, they can get a change in custody order because the children have settled into their new home, new friends, new neighborhood, and new routines. It doesn't work, but too many mothers who have dealt with that kind of crap (read Silverside's comment) still have to suffer because of it. In the end, it's bad for the kids.

Posted by: The Countess at Jan 4, 2006 3:20:02 PM

Really great article. I've read with pleasure. Maybe it's offtopic, but i just wanted to say, that it's really interesting to read everything this with the comments... You discuss here a lot of interesting things on different useful themes. Thanks for that =)

Posted by: Nataly at Jan 4, 2006 4:44:37 PM

Hi there, surfed in from Feministe...

A friend of mine had this more or less exactly happen to her. She got cancer, and her husband decided that he couldn't take it, packed her up (when she'd dwindled to 90 lbs from chemo and was really sick), drove her an hour to a friend's house, and deposited her -- minus their kids -- on the friend's doorstep. He then went to court and used all the "evidence" he had of her behaviour while she was sick to prove that she was an unfit mother, got custody of the kids (which he still has), and has basically blamed her for the whole thing. He also ran up massive credit-card debt (most of it on phone sex lines), and a bunch of other unpaid debt, which seriously compromised her ability to get a driver's license or a car after she got away from him (she moved to a different state where the laws are different).

The last time she saw the kids, they told her that their electricity had been cut off again, because he's terrible at paying bills.

On the other hand, he's a total controlling, emotionally-blackmailing jerk who would find a great deal of resonance in that "manual."

Posted by: Interrobang at Jan 4, 2006 8:57:51 PM

Trish, you have to check out my post on the IMBA and VAWA: the troll comments are beyond belief. I had to copy and paste one as a blog entry it was so offensive.

Posted by: ginmar at Jan 6, 2006 11:55:38 AM

I have a friend who is going through something much too much like this right now. And she is up against the fact that the husband in question is a high end lawyer himself. But the combination of rage and self-pity that drives him is no less primitive for his being able express it in high-falutin legal terms.

Posted by: janinsanfran at Jan 6, 2006 4:28:09 PM

What would be really good is if the judges would not allow either party to get out of being responsible for owing half the bills, etc. Divorces may end up with the wife getting kids, or CS, or the house, but they don't make the husband sign it over BEFORE finalizing it. Or they don't enable the wife to get the mortgage signed over to her before finalizing it.

It ends up trapping the party who makes the least, the party with the children - usually the wife, and if she needs to sell the house for some reason, she can't. Seen it happen even in "friendly" divorces. Going on now with friends of mine who ARE divorced. They can't force the ex to sign over the mortgage - he doesn't want to pay a lawyer to do it - and so they are about to take her house (bought before marriage; he was on the refinance so they could get a better rate) from her!!!

They have GOT to hold these assholes accountable.

Posted by: Moi ;) at Jan 6, 2006 4:28:49 PM

The irony is amazing. Don't drag the kids into it, but fuck them over by cutting off their mother's ability to provide for them. Don't drag the kids into it, but subject them to all kinds of emotional abuse. And when they regard you as an asshole for doing it, you can just claim it's mommy practicing PAS or some such crap.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Jan 7, 2006 11:02:19 PM

So many of these male stereotypes of women by vile men are just projections; PAS is no different. There's 'the woman scorned' whose behavior resembles nothing so much as that of OJ Simpson, but what have we got in real life? Andrea Yates, driven mad by too many children and her hubbie, and Susan Smith, who probably wouldn't have killed her kids had she not been molested by her dad repeatedly and left untreated. In contrast, just try and find out how many men kill 'their wives' and kids when they're not hte Lord High Emperor of the family; they just show up on CNN on the crawl and disappear, but it's Andrea Yates who's the big bad whose name everyone knows. I mean, even "Medea" was written by a guy. I bet he'd just gone through a bad divorce, too.

Posted by: ginmar at Jan 8, 2006 6:55:13 PM

The CBP ombudsman came out with a THIRD column on "Breaking the Silnce". He continues his critisim. He finds it to be deceptive - just like your "angry man" story here.

Stick a folk in it - it's done!

Posted by: Tom C at Jan 8, 2006 9:48:55 PM

While I, and others, were critisized here for saying the PBS' defense of the program was based on the threat of litigation - accused of merely parroting Glen Sacks' point - the Ombudsman say the exact same thing:

" With the possibility of litigation still lingering, PBS did not admit that there was a violation of its standards of fairness and balance. "

The ombudsman is VERY clear about his complaint:

"After close review including discussions and e-mail exchanges with those involved with the program or closely affected by it, I found the program to be so totally unbalanced as to fall outside the boundaries of PBS editorial standards on fairness and balance."

No questions remaining here!

Posted by: at Jan 8, 2006 10:13:27 PM

Well, of course we can trust an anonymous troll and an MRA, too. What better sources are there?

Posted by: ginmar at Jan 9, 2006 10:51:57 AM

Tom, sweetie, I just came back from a conference where the producer of "Breaking The Silence" spoke about the project. Some of the documentary was shown. It's getting lots of good feedback, despite the mouthing off from the Mad Dads. Word is out about it., and the word is good. Besides, PBS's final statement came out in support of the documentary, something which pissed off the Mad Dads contingency. When I find out other places where "Breaking The Silence" is being shown, I'll post about it. I'm sure that will get your dander up, not that it takes much to do that to you, especially when I post it. ;)

Now be a good boy and go back to the Mad Dads forums, where you belong.

Posted by: The Countess at Jan 9, 2006 5:57:12 PM

I just have to say that it "usually" takes two to create such an ugly situation/divorce/custody battle/child support battle. Yes, there are some men and some women who are just assholes or bitches. I read both sides of the issue and both side bash each other. I feel that there needs to be a ton of reform in these areas especially in the area of child support.

My advice to all is don't get married. I've been with my man for 12 years, we have one son, and we are happy. The hell with marriage. Keep your seperate identities. We live in a new age. I think marriage is old and outdated. Keep monies and identities seperate.

Also, be careful with who you share your sperm with. If you don't want to pay child support, don't have children. If you don't want to share custody of your children, don't have children. 50% if marriages end in divorce. This is something every lovestruck (dumbstruck) individual should think about before they get married and especially before they have children.

Posted by: Bridget at Jan 10, 2006 1:57:58 AM

Ah, yes, the old "It takes two to tango" argument. Yeah, tell that Nicole Simpson.

The fact is, Bridge, we're not talking about an equal situation at al. Which is kind of what Trish's blog is about. So why are you trying to ignore that?

Posted by: ginmar at Jan 10, 2006 10:31:02 AM

In my parents' case, it only took one person to create a mess, and he was a solicitor. It was in his interests to drag things out and make as much as possible contested, and so he did. The natural instincts of both parents to fight their own corners did the rest.

Posted by: Nick Kiddle at Jan 10, 2006 6:39:13 PM

Greek association:

'Men's and Father's Dignity'

Posted by: Nicolas Spitalas at Feb 10, 2006 11:16:32 AM

I've read most of the comments on the fathers issues,I am a father of a seven year old
boy,aaaaahhhhhh he's my life what was I doing before he came about,Oh yeah,I was lost.
I have been very angry at his mother since she became pregnant heres'why,I was never
interested in this women and after she keep persueing me I had to tell her to back off
well when that didn't work she used sex yeah that worked real well so well she got pregnant
at that same time I decided to move by home to Texas closer to family well this pregnacy
ended that the reason why is because I felt I had to take responsibilty and support this
child also to father him I also felt it wasn't about me it was about me being his daddy
and it was his right to have one I just happened to be him ,well his mom and I had a mutal
friend she told me she had seduced me got pregnant so I would marry her and support her and her two other kids,man did I freak I went into a six year depression,I hired an attorney for
rights in fact I hired four other ones each one left me in a worse situation and broke
there were police calls against me,there were accusation of murder threats I suppose to
have made,I became a deadbeat dad to his daycare $500.00 a month for support and I still have to by him clothes etc...I am behind on all bills,mortgage three months etc....I was working
for a dead end company and three weeks ago I reached my limitations I walked off wrote my
son's mom a letter told her I had reached my limitations I couldn't go on this way any longer
and for the first time since she got pregnant I have peace I took my life back I drive a school bus part time and start with a different employer soon full time ,I have my son this weekend
it's two in the morning he's in bed,I can tell you the night we bonded he was ill his mom took him in and I met them at the hospital after leaving she asked if I would take him I was shock the she didn't want to care for him considering well she's his mom anyways that night I cared for him and next morning he was alot better and all that day he held me so tight he showered me with affection,the night I cared for him I became his protector and pimary caretaker that night I found meaning to my life and what it meant to be a real man .I would kill to protect him and as I said earlier it wasn't about me any more,I understand the anger, the financial stuggles, the I like to kill the b---h and yeah I have said some harsh words to her,I've been to fathers rights meeting and after much praying and asking God to change my heart toward my sons' mom he has after all if I hold and show hatred toward his mommy I also hold it toward him no matter the f-----n hell I got through she is still my son mommy and I have to honor her so he will learn and understand later that I loved him truely and honered his mommy by showing forgiveness,taking responsiblity and not running, though many times I longed to but that isn't what my father taught me to do and certainly not what God wanted of me,are my struggles over probably not will his mommy be a b---h toward me tomorrow probably but I am at home it's two thirty in the morning my son is in bed again sick I am at peace and later today my son will probably wake up feeling better and we will go out and ride our scooters together the bottom line to all this fustration with ex-wifes,former girl friends with our kids or even one nightstands that end up in pregnancies as far as I see it us dads need to became fathers we need to get our hearts right
learn parenting skills take responsiblity and run with it ,easy hell no ,these father rights
groups fighting for rights and the one I am in are really missing the bigger picture so
in the small world around me I hope to help change that,it's tough being a father,a provider
but I 'll take every moment I can get life is too short .

Posted by: marcos at Feb 26, 2006 3:50:58 AM

Yeah, this guy really is a blunt instrument. His techniques are sufficiently crude and brutal to actually be illegal in a few spots. But this is just the pendulum swinging back. Of course every single one of these techniques was pioneered and developed by women... and applied in actual divorce situations.

Divorce laws up until the feminist era were wildly skewed against women. It was a real Scarlet Letter situation. Marriage really was a property contract, with women as the property. In many Muslim countries, it still is-- stonings and all that, very scary.

What's happened since the 70's is that the laws in the USA at least have skewed pretty badly (by modern standards-- still no stonings) against men, and, what's worse, women have been comparing notes and perfecting the technique of fucking guys over in court. Men simply don't sit around chit-chatting about how to fuck women over in court-- this site is as close as that gets. I have a few friends who have been completely and deliberately cleaned out as well as emotionally wrecked by ex-wives basically pulling a scam over on them. I have one friend imminently about to find himself in this meat-grinder. Well, I guess that's to be expected, pendulum swinging back and all.

But now the boys strike back. And I don't expect you like it. I do not expect you to be surprised.

Posted by: nobody at May 14, 2006 3:29:27 AM

"Of course every single one of these techniques was pioneered and developed by women... and applied in actual divorce situations."

Cite your source. Your personal opinion doesn't count. Nor does your own personal experience.

"Men simply don't sit around chit-chatting about how to fuck women over in court..."

Ha ha ha ha!! All you have to do is visit fathers' rights web sites and mailing lists to see lots of angry men sitting around chit-chatting about how to fuck over women. Thankfully, decent men don't do those kinds of things. It's the angry men with entitlement issues who want to keelhaul women with instruction manuals like the piece of crap I've blogged about here.

Posted by: The Countess at May 14, 2006 9:41:30 AM