Friday, June 29, 2007

Marriage in the UK at an All-Time Low

The work of the feminist/socialist revolution of the West is reaching a new level of success in the UK...

Marriage rate falls to its lowest level since records began

Marriage has slumped to its lowest level since records were first kept more than 150 years ago, official figures have revealed.

The proportion of couples tying the knot has fallen back into line with its declining long-term trend following a clampdown on sham weddings.

The popularity of marriage has been waning since 1973, but in recent years it has been artificially boosted by such bogus unions. In London alone, new rules which make it harder to use marriage to win the right to stay in Britain cut the number of ceremonies by more than a third.

But the report from the Office for National Statistics said the crackdown was responsible for only some of the steep decline.

It said the long-term fall in the popularity of marriage was continuing, with millions of couples choosing instead to live together and delay having a family. The figures, which cover 2005, the same year the new rules were brought in, show the number of weddings in England and Wales dropped by more than 28,000, from 273,070 to 244,710.

The fall brought the marriage rate, the number of people marrying compared to the population as a whole, to its lowest level since records were first kept.

The figures show that 12 people married in 2005 for every 1,000 unmarried individuals. That compares with a figure of 27 in 1851.

The proportion of married people among the adult population is now only a fraction over a half, at 50.3 per cent.

This figure compares with 54 per cent in 1997 and more than two thirds in the 1970s.

The report said: "There is evidence that London, a location with a greater than average proportion of non-European nationals, may have seen an effect from the legislation, either in removing sham marriages, or in delaying and deterring marriages."

The findings show that the law putting limitations on the marriage rights of those from outside Europe had an immediate impact after it came into effect in February 2005.

Under the rules, anyone without the right to live in Britain must get a certificate of approval from the Home Office before marrying, and must give notice of the marriage in one of 76 designated register offices.

However, the ONS said the action against fake marriages was 'certainly not enough' to explain such a large drop in marriages.

The analysts said marriage rates had picked up in 2002 and 2003 in advance of the 2005 slump. They said couples were influenced by a number of factors that compounded the effect of sham marriages.

Of course, as is typical of the pro-feminist/socialist/progressive press, no mention of the underlying factors that could possibly explain the decline in marriages - factors that are directly related to the feminist platform that have been enacted into the legal system to change the very fabric of Western society.

In 2003 and 2004 widespread publicity about the state of marriage, the legal rights that go with it, and discussion over the intromarriageduction of gay civil partnership may have encouraged more couples to marry, the report said.

It added that other influences on the figures could be migration, because incoming migrant groups include those with more commitment to marriage than the existing population, and the growing fashion for people to marry abroad.

Yes, incoming migrant groups from traditional Patriarchal societies vs. the homegrown mass of entitlement princesses who's precious legal rights to be sluts without incurring consequences for their irresponsible behavior and encouragment to enslave men into becoming wage slaves without reciprocating anything in return

Critics of marriage insist that the institution reached heights of popularity in the 1950s and that in past centuries people married in similar numbers to now.

Marriage is the foundation of Patriarchal society...the society that has been branded as "oppressive." The very same society of "oppression" that raised children in intact, nuclear families that were much more likely to become productive, law abiding and positive contributors to overall society.

Instead, we in the West are afflicted with the exponential growth of Matriarchal-empowered relationships that result in the pandemic of broken homes, millions of children sacrificed on the altar of "choice," and millions of couples failing to reproduce adequate numbers of the next generation to support the socialist redistribution schemes of the government. Bankruptcy for the UK is not too far off in the the retiring generation seeks to attain their share of redistributed earnings from the younger generation - a generation much smaller than their own due to the feminist agenda's implementation.

The story is the same for the's only that the UK has moved further along on the path of "progressive" feminist's re-making of society, so you in Great Britain are much closer to the endgame than we in the US are. Nevertheless, all of us cultures in the West are due at some point or another to reap what we have sown.

In recent years the decline of has come alongside the abolition by Labour of the Married Couples Allowance tax break, the removal of references to marriage from official documents and register office signs, and the growth of the tax credit benefit system which discourages people from living as a couple.

The drop in marriage has also meant that the teenage wedding - a phenomenon that caused great concern in the 1960s and 1970s has virtually died out.

Last year the number of teenagers marrying dropped to fewer than one for every 1,000 single people.

As more and more teens grow up in broken homes, they are unable to even comprehend what it means to grow up with a stable family between two normal people that work together and complement each other in life to nurture a healthy family. This is a generation raised in homes where positive examples of marriage simply do not exist...not in their own homes, not in their peers homes, and certainly not anywhere in popular culture as reflected by today's television programming of sitcom's, reality shows and dramas of insidious propaganda masquerading as entertainment. So of course the next generation of teens have no desire to do something for which all of their experience or all they've been told about the system of Patriarchal Families has been the tragedy of modern matrimony promulgated by the feminist fascists.

This article is merely a report on what is essentially a marker on the road to civilized society's ruin.

Friday, June 22, 2007

The Eternal Bachelor is Hanging it Up

No, he didn't go and get married...


Well, after almost two-years of typing and posting away, and a fairly impressive 700,000 hits or so, it's time to close this blog. It's been fun but there's only so many times I can rant and rage before repeating myself. Plus as well as running out of things to post about, the blog was taking up quite a bit of time and I've just moved to a new country and need to concentrate on sorting stuff out.

Not that I have any intention to stop being an bachelor, naturally.

I'll probably see some of you on the various forums out there anyway.


Damn Duncan.

Thanks for all the contributions you have made to the MRA movement. You inspired myself and others to pick up the blogger's pen and join the fight!

But couldn't you have at least left your archives up for us to peruse and reminisce? lol

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Veterans Fighting Paternity Fraud

Tom Leykis had Gulf War Veteran Taron James on his show today.

Taron James was serving in Gulf War I back in '91 when a former lady friend of his claimed he was the father of her illegitimate child. Upon returning from the war with multiple decorations for his service, he got slapped with a default judgment and the State of California began garnishing 50% of his wages for the next 9 years.

Here's the Glenn Sacks article from 2003 on Taron's case:

"Sometimes it's hard to feel much pride on Veterans Day," he says.

"Sometimes I just feel like a sucker. Veterans Day only reminds me that my government holds me and other vets in such contempt that it cannot lift a finger to stop a blatant fraud which victimizes tens of thousands of servicemen. Worse, the government actively enforces that fraud."

While serving in Iraq, James was notified that a woman he knew back home was demanding that he pay child support for her newborn son. James knew from the beginning that the child could not possibly be his.

The Navy's Judge Advocate General is not authorized to handle a serviceman's legal problems outside of the military justice system, but a sympathetic captain helped him obtain an agreement from the child's mother for a DNA test.

Before the test could be done, however, the mother reneged on the agreement and disappeared with the child.

James requested a blood test from the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office, and was told repeatedly over the next year and a half that he would be notified when there was a new development in the case. The D.A. instead went to court without James' knowledge and obtained a default judgment against him. James did not find out about it until the D.A. seized his driver's license and began taking 50 percent of his take home pay.

Despite subsequent legal appeals and an April, 2001 DNA test which confirmed that the child is not his, the courts have refused to set aside the judgment. In the years since the D.A. and later Los Angeles County Child Support Services have: seized James' tax refund for six years in a row; blocked him from renewing his notary public license, which in turn caused him to lose his job as the manager of a business; ruined his credit, denying him the chance to purchase the business at a low price when the owner offered it to him for sale; blocked him from obtaining a passport; and forced him to drop out of college before finishing his degree.

James' problem is not uncommon. According to Carnell Smith, Executive Director of the National Family Justice Association, military men such as James are often "preyed upon" by unscrupulous "father shoppers" who can make fraudulent paternity designations without penalty.

"The military provides (a mother) a steady, easily garnished income as well as medical care for the baby. It's hard to contest paternity when you're thousands of miles away and losing a good chunk of your income to child support," he says.

"Sometimes the time limit for contesting runs out and the guy ends up on the hook for 18 years of child support simply because he served his country."

The solution to the problem is paternity fraud legislation of the type enacted in Illinois, Georgia, Maryland, Ohio and other states. This legislation allows putative fathers more time and greater judicial flexibility in challenging paternity findings.

Similar legislation in California was vetoed last fall by Gov. Gray Davis, and a revised paternity fraud bill, SB 1030, passed the Senate 34-2 in June but is currently stalled in the Assembly.

James has joined with 600 other victimized veterans and their families to form the Los Angeles-based activist group Veterans Fighting Paternity Fraud.

"The problems we face wouldn't be hard for the government to solve if someone gave a damn," he says. "Every Veterans Day and Memorial Day I think the same thing -- we don't need parades and speeches -- we need justice."

Amen Taron. How can our Government get away with this crap for our veterans?

If you'd like to support Taron and his cause, check out his website, Veterans Fighting Paternity Fraud.

UPDATE: Looks like the courts have denied Taron James a refund for the money fraudulently taken from him by a false claim of paternity. Via Glenn Sacks,

No Refund Due Man Ordered to Support Child Not His

James last year renewed his motions to set aside the paternity judgment and obtain reimbursement. Carroll granted the set-aside motion but denied his reimbursement request. The Court of Appeal agreed with the judge that Family Code Sec. 7648.4 barred reimbursement. Sec. 7648.4 expressly provides that, following the set-aside of a paternity judgment, “[t]he previously established father has no right of reimbursement for any amount of support paid prior ot the granting of the motion. ”Writing for Div. Eight, Justice Paul Boland said a plain reading of the statute precluded reimbursement. Adding that such a reading was consistent with legislative intent, he explained: “The section was intended to protect a declared father who, under existing law, lacked the procedural means to set aside or vacate an existing paternity decree after genetic testing determined he was not the biological father. While the statutory change was designed to enable a declared father to challenge a paternity decree, it was also intended to safeguard the child. ”While aware of the harm that paternity fraud inflicts on a declared father, Boland said, the Legislature balanced the competing interests of declared father and child and concluded a right of reimbursement should not be allowed.

Should not the interest of the child include having laws that do NOT give their mothers incentives to lie, cheat and steal?

Why shouldn't this mother that defrauded Taron James out of $12,000 and ruined his credit and caused other hardships that Taron did not deserve...why shouldn't she face ANY consequences for her despicable behavior?

California law Sec. 7648.4 needs to be changed! Taron is an innocent victim here, and the fact that the Government is the de facto accomplice of this woman's blatant theft of Taron's money just goes to show exactly how misandrist and feminized our Government has become.

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

The Law of Unintended Consequences & Feminist Social Engineering

Todays Opinion Journal had an article written by Freakonomics author, John Lott. In his article, It's Not Enough to be Wanted, Lott reviews the statistics and points out all of the unintended consequences fostered by the passage of Roe vs. Wade almost 35 years ago.

The abortion debate usually centers on the morality of the act itself. But liberalizing abortion rules from 1969 to 1973 ignited vast social changes in America.


Roe did substantially increase abortions, more than doubling the rate per live birth in the five years from 1972 to 1977. But many other changes occurred at the same time:

• A sharp increase in pre-marital sex.

• A sharp rise in out-of-wedlock births.

• A drop in the number of children placed for adoption.

• A decline in marriages that occur after the woman is pregnant.

Lott gives us some interesting food for thought...but I believe he has not touched on other aspects that explain much of the societal changes that he attributes largely to the federalized legalization of abortion. Although I believe he's got a real case for attributing PART of the drastic changes due to Roe v. Wade, a large share of responsibility for the drastic changes in demographics concerning marriage, pre-marital sex and illegitimacy has just as much to do with the proliferation of no-fault divorce laws coupled with the widespread availability of cheap and relatively effective birth control methods.

California first enacted No-fault divorce laws in 1969, and the rest of the nation soon followed suit. So by the time 1975 rolled around, per-capita divorce statistics hit an all time high of 5.3 per 1000 people.

However, Lott does make an essential point that is really the root of much of modern societal problems, and for which the changing social mores on pre-marital sex, illegitimate births and abortion:

But all these changes--rising out-of-wedlock births, plummeting adoption rates, and the end of shotgun marriages--meant one thing: more single parent families. With work and other demands on their time, single parents, no matter how "wanted" their child may be, tend to devote less attention to their children than do married couples; after all, it's difficult for one person to spend as much time with a child as two people can.

I'm still amazed when I encounter people that believe that Fathers are not necessary to the successful rearing of children. The basic MATH of the common sense statement "
after all, it's difficult for one person to spend as much time with a child as two people can." would seem obvious to any normal thinking person.

Than again, who said feminists are normal thinking people?

Nine FireMEN Killed in South Carolina Warehouse Fire

Hearing the reports on the radio, and reading the first reports on the Internet, I could not find any indication of whether it was Firemen or Firewomen were killed in todays warehouse fire in South Carolina.

Here's the first article covering todays tragedy: S.C. Warehouse Fire Kills 9 Firefighters

No mention of the gender of the fallen fighters....of course, now that the names have been officially released, it's not really surprising to find that all 9 are men.

Captain William "Billy" Hutchinson, 48, 30 years of service; Captain Mike Benke, 49, 29 years of service; Captain Louis Mulkey, 34, 11.5 years of service; Engineer Mark Kelsey, 40, 12.5 years of service; Engineer Bradford "Brad" Baity, 37, 9 years of service; Asst. Engineer Michael French, 27, 1.5 years of service; Firefighter James "Earl" Drayton, 56, 32 years of service; Firefighter Brandon Thompson, 27, 4 years of service; Firefighter Melven Champaign, 46, 2 years of service.
RIP Men. You are true heroes.


Here's one "glass ceiling" the feminist have yet to even come close to addressing: the ratio of men to women in hazardous careers and suffering on-the-job injuries and death. Perhaps if you feminist "Gender Equity" activists thought about it, there's a damn good reason the average woman makes $.76 to the man's $1.00.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

CBS President, Mangina Moonves

CBS blames sexism for bad ratings

By Joshua Chaffin in New York

Published: June 12 2007 22:27 | Last updated: June 12 2007 22:27

Leslie Moonves, CBS chief executive, on Tuesday suggested that sexist attitudes were partly to blame for the faltering performance of Katie Couric, the news anchor he recruited to the network with a $15m annual pay package.

“I’m sort of surprised by the vitriol against her. The number of people who don’t want news from a woman was startling,” Mr Moonves said of the audience’s reaction to Ms Couric, who this month brought ratings for the CBS Evening News to a 20-year low.

Sorry Leslie, but you just don't get it. The number of people who don't want news from THIS woman is NOT startling. If you weren't the leftist, liberal, feminized tool typical of most of the network news types, you would have understood that Mz. Couric was going to be a disaster as a news anchor.

NRO Columnist, Myrna Blyth, explains it perfectly...

They promised something more interesting than a news format that has been losing viewers for years, and then they didn’t deliver. They promoted Katie as a different kind of anchor as well. In truth, she is different only because she is not nearly as capable as the scores of women broadcasters who competently anchor or co-anchor the local news twice a night all over the country. And who audiences find acceptable.

On Today, Katie was one part perkiness, one part snarkiness, overlayed with occasional forays into gushiness — especially whenever Hillary was on the set. She started out marketing herself to the women of America as your typical “soccer mom.” And that worked for quite a while. But as the years went by and she became more and more glamorous, showing off her trainer-buffed body and swinging her dangling earrings, her toned legs, and Jimmy Choos, at the camera. As her salary and celebrity status grew, she lost a lot of her appeal to the women who had been her fans. By the end of her Today stint, her Q ratings were even lower than, yes, Dan Rather’s! One wonder why CBS, as they handed her buckets of money, never even noticed.
See, 'cause CBS thought they were being cutting edge...that they were pioneering some kind of magical liberal PC breakthrough. Why, it was the FIRST female news anchor on prime time network news!

Friday, June 8, 2007


One of the blogs I enjoy reading is "The Advice Goddesses" blog by Amy Alkon, a Libertarian that often takes feminists to task for their misandry, entitlement princesses for their narcissism, and wussy girly men for being manginas. (A side note: I just noticed that "Blogger" treats the word misandry as not a real word by underlining it in red! WTF? I'm quite sure misogyny doesn't get the same treatment -- yep, it doesn't.)

Anyhow, I read the following Reason Magazine article, "Injustice By Default" from a link from her blog -- and it contained something that EVERY AMERICAN MALE MUST KNOW:

...what nearly 10 million American men have discovered to their chagrin since the welfare reform legislation of 1996, is that when the government accuses you of fathering a child, no matter how flimsy the evidence, you are one month away from having your life wrecked. Federal law gives a man just 30 days to file a written challenge; if he doesn't, he is presumed guilty. And once that steamroller of justice starts rolling, dozens of statutory lubricants help make it extremely difficult, and prohibitively expensive, to stop -- even, in most cases, if there's conclusive DNA proof that the man is not the child's father.

You got that men?!?!? If you are ever served with paternity papers claiming you are a deadbeat dad, you must IMMEDIATELY obtain legal counsel and submit a written challenge to protect yourself!

Check out the experience of the subject of the article - a man who literally had a skank-whore pick his name out of the phone book and claim he fathered her bastard.

Tony Pierce remembers vividly the exact moment in November 2000 when the state of California began trampling on his life. "There was a loud angry pounding at my door at five o'clock in the morning," he recalls. "Very scary."

It was a female police officer with a complaint accusing him of being the father of an 8-year-old girl in Contra Costa County, east of San Francisco. "I'm like, 'Great! I'm definitely not the father of anybody,'" he says.


The front page of the court document gave simple but misleading instructions: "You have 30 days to respond to this lawsuit. You may respond in one of two ways: 1. File an Answer to the complaint with the Superior Court of Contra Costa County, not with the District Attorney....2. Settle the case with the District Attorney. You may call us at (925) 313-4200 to discuss your case." Concluding incorrectly (but understandably) that he could settle the matter over the phone, Pierce called -- three times that day -- and tried to weave his way through a labyrinthine phone tree. Finally he found a human being, who instructed him to leave a message with a home phone number. The department called him back the next day and left a message; it took another three calls from Pierce before he reached a caseworker for the first time.

"I said, 'What do I need to do? I'm not the father,'" he remembers. "And they were like, 'OK, well this is what you do: You just call in every day, and then we'll understand that you're not it, because if you're it, you're not gonna call us every day.'"

Pierce did everything he was told over the next three weeks of phone tag, except for comprehending that the 30-day deadline for denying paternity in writing was etched in federal law, regardless of what he discussed with Contra Costa employees -- who he says never once told him the clock was ticking. "All they were doing was delaying me from doing what I needed to do," he says. "It's a huge scam -- huge scam....They're just counting the days. They're like, 'Sucker, sucker, sucker, sucker.'...And this is the government!"

Two months later, after the phone conversations had ended and he assumed he was off the hook, Pierce received notice that a "default judgment" had been entered against him, and that he owed $9,000 in child support. He was between dot-com jobs, and his next unemployment check was 25 percent smaller; the state of California had seized and diverted $100 toward his first payment. Suddenly, he was facing several years of automatic wage garnishment, and the shame of being forced to explain to prospective employers why the government considered him a deadbeat dad. "That's when it hit me," he says. "I mean, it's mostly my fault -- 'Fill out the form, dumb-ass!'...But it's so rigged against you, it's ridiculous."

You got that guys? Remember, this is a FEDERAL law, so this sort of thing can happen to you in ANY 50 States in the good old United States of Matriamerica!

Here are some more details:

For now, the system aimed at catching "deadbeat dads" illustrates how a noble-sounding effort to help children and taxpayers can trample the rights of innocent people.

Here's how it works: When an accused "obligor" fails, for whatever reason, to send his response on time, the court automatically issues a "default judgment" declaring him the legal father. It does not matter if he was on vacation, was confused, or (as often happens) didn't even receive the summons, or if he simply treated the complaint's deadlines with the same lack of urgency people routinely exhibit toward jury duty summonses -- he's now the dad. "In California, you don't even have to have proof of service of the summons!" says Rod Wright, a recently retired Democratic state senator from Los Angeles who tried and failed to get several paternity-related reform bills, including a proof-of-service requirement, past former Gov. Gray Davis' veto. "They only are obligated to send it to the last known address."

Can you believe this crap? They are only obligated to send it to the last known other words, a REALLY evil, conniving whore can tell social services an address you once lived at - knowing full well that you moved - but she only has to claim that as your last known address. And when you never even SEE the summons, the "default judgment" after 30 days holds you financially responsible and they will immediately begin to garnish your wages if you are employed!

Think it can't happen to you, or that this kind of thing rarely happens? Think again!

In fact, a March 2003 Urban Institute study commissioned by the California Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) found that "most noncustodial parents appear to be served by 'substitute' service, rather than personal service, which suggests that noncustodial parents may not know that they have been served." In Los Angeles County, which is notorious for its sloppy summons service and zealous prosecution of alleged fathers it knows to be innocent, nearly 80 percent of paternity establishments come in the form of default judgments. In the state as a whole, which establishes 250,000 paternities a year while collecting $2 billion in child support, a whopping 68 percent of the 158,000 child support orders in 2000 (the last year studied) were default judgments.

Once paternity is "established," even if the government has never communicated with the father, the county court imposes a payment rate and schedule under the statistically mistaken assumption that he makes a full-time salary at minimum wage. (State audits have found that a full 80 percent of default dads don't make even that much.) To collect the money, the county may put a garnish order on the purported father's paycheck or place liens on his assets. If the mother has received welfare assistance after the child was born, the man will be hit with a bill to pay back the state, plus 10 percent annual interest. "That's what they're trying to do, is get some reimbursement to the state," says Carolyn Kelly, public relations officer for the Contra Costa County DCSS. "As you can imagine, [that's] millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars."

This is without a doubt, the pinnacle of misandrist, man-hating legislation authored and enacted by the feminazi's and their mangina accomplices in the government!

So what happens to you when you are falsely accused and suffer a "default judgment" and you refuse to pay, or are currently unemployed?

If the father falls 30 days behind on his payments, he will be blocked by law from receiving or renewing a driver's license or any "authorization issued by a board that allows a person to engage in a business, occupation, or profession" -- a category that includes teaching credentials, fishing licenses, and state bar memberships. If his credit rating was good, it won't be any more. If his past-due tab exceeds $5,000, the U.S. State Department won't issue him a passport. (An average of 60 Americans discover this each day. Meanwhile, Congress has been pushing to cut the limit to $2,500, while urging the State Department to begin revoking passports, which is allowed under the law.)

"When you tell people about the inequities of the system," Wright says, "they're surprised. They go, 'This is America! You couldn't do that!' And I go, 'Yes, you can.'"

You got the whole picture men? I used to believe that the ultimate manifestation of the Matriarchy was the numerous examples of vindictive wives dragging their husbands into divorce court with false allegations of domestic violence and/or abuse, and take away your house, car, children and half your income and savings...but this is even worse than that! Women are now empowered to have the Government take a strangers money away from him, and take away all the rights and privileges we supposedly enjoy as Americans...all on her say so!

Always remember: if you get served with a summons, RESPOND IN WRITING and follow up! Make it the TOP PRIORITY IN YOUR LIFE AT THAT MOMENT. Contest it in writing and follow up to make sure your contest of paternity is recieved and registered and follow through! Because no matter what happens, you only have 30 days before the wonderful example of American Justice and Equal Rights Under the Law begins Ass-Raping you with a "default judgment!"