antifeminism evil women homophobia hypocrisy men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny Uncategorized western women suck

>Anglo-haters gonna Anglo-hate


Bill O’Reilly secretly spreading Feminazi man-hate.

The fellow behind the charmingly named Anglobitch blog — devoted to the notion that “Anglo-American Women Suck!” — has delivered up a rambling, loopy rant about hate crime legislation, which essentially suggests that the very existence of such legislation reflects an “inherent, all-pervasive hatred of men” in the “Anglosphere.”

For while Hate Crime is prohibited by each Anglo-American national state, pan-anglosphere misandry is actively promoted by each state against its male citizens.

His first example of this is … Rupert Murdoch’s media empire. I’m not sure exactly when Murdoch was promoted from media mogul to head of state, but never mind. Our Anglo-blogger is off and running: 

The Murdochratic media ceaseless vilifies men as outcasts, misfits and sexual deviants while exalting women as paragons of virtue, beauty and intellect. This anti-male propaganda is at least as relentless as the Nazi media campaign against the Jews –– but even more insidious, since its agendas are covert and unstated. … And, as in the Third Reich, hatred of the outcast group (in this case, men) has been fully normalized since the rise of gender-feminism in the late sixties.

Uh, yeah, that agenda is pretty … covert. I don’t remember there being a lot of Jews at the top of the Nazi party. But it seems like every time I turn on Fox News I see someone from “the outcast group (in this case, men)” spewing what to the untrained ear sounds like reactionary nonsense. (I mean, there’s Gretchen Carlson, but she’s got to share the set with Steve Doocy and that other dude.) But apparently I can’t see Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck for what they are: footsoldiers of our feminazi overlords. Er, overladies? Overwomyn?

Our Anglobitcher then moves from the anti-male evils of Murdoch to the anti-male evils of the law. Apparently divorce law is so biased towards women that

many Anglo-American women consciously plan for a ‘starter marriage’ to fleece some unsuspecting male [which] proves that malicious misandry is rapidly becoming a female lifestyle-choice.

After a brief denunciation of the welfare state — men pay the taxes and women benefit! — Anglobitcher comes to the US military draft, for which only males have to register “despite them being tacitly viewed as Untermenschen by law, government and the media.” Hey, I didn’t like having to register, and I don’t think any one of either sex should have to, but, uh, no one has been drafted in the US since the Vietnam war. 

So the first of his examples of state oppression is based on the idea that Rupert Murdoch is The State, not to mention some sort of feminazi. And his last is based on guys having to sign what is for all practical purposes a meaningless scrap of paper. The Anglobitcher nevertheless concludes “that males represent the primary victims of ‘hate crime’ across the Anglosphere.”

Oh, but he’s not quite done. For what angry denunciation of hate crime laws is complete without, you know, some good old-fashioned homophobia, served with a side order of transsexual-bashing:

It is also telling that the only male groups effectively protected by pan-Anglosphere hate-crime laws are gays and transsexuals. This is entirely to be expected: such males simulate the female role which, as we have endlessly observed, is routinely and blindly exalted by Anglo-Saxon culture. When the only way for men to achieve protection from ‘hate crime’ is to adopt homosexuality (or female genitalia) the true nature of Anglo ‘patriarchy’ reveals itself. Only women and their mincing mimics can enter that charmed circle; the healthy, potent male never can.

Dude, you’re an Anglodouche.

EDIT: Mr. Anglobitch has responded to this post. His response is actually a bit more coherent than the original post, though, admittedly, that’s not much of an accomplishment.

31 replies on “>Anglo-haters gonna Anglo-hate”

>You dont remember any jews being head of the nazi party? What about hitler?Anyway, men at the top have always oppressed other men, so thats magical thinking on your part.

>I fail to see how that last paragraph you mention is indicative of homophobia… irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.Note: he does not call them fags, poofs, fairies, etc…Such language is indicative of homophobia.He does not use negative language to describe them, or speak of them in a negative light – he is merely stating a fact – hate laws do protect those people.How exactly do you get "homophobia" from that?

>Scarecrow, do you actually read anything before posting? Calling gays and transsexuals "mincing mimics" of women, contrasting them to "healthy, potent males," thus suggesting they are unhealthy and impotent. That sort of thing. Eoghan, WTF. Some people have speculated that one of Hitler's grandfathers might possibly have been Jewish. Hitler wasn't Jewish.

>Hitler had jewish and african DNA David., the fact that there are male newes casters doesnt negate the fact that the political left seem to have made men their new jew.This anglobitch person forgot another similarity, the Nazi leadership were mainly homosexual men and the feminist leadership have been mainly lesbian women.And before anyone tries to play the homophobia card here, Im not, so not.

>@David:Yes, I do read what you write:Mimic: To copy or imitate closely, especially in speech, expression, and gestureMincing: adjective. affectedly elegant or dainty: of a person or a person's speech, manner, etc. characterized by short steps or affected daintiness: a mincing walkNeither of these terms are negative David.If he were homophobic, he would have used words like faggot, poof, fairy etc…Plain and simple. No homophobia is going on there – he is merely stating a fact: Hate crime laws protect those people.You say he is contrasting them to healthy potent males. Nonsense. He is merely pointing out that sexualized men (or more specifically heterosexualized men – men of healthy sexual appetites) cannot enter into the "circle". You are reading gobblety-goop into what he wrote.And – I read through that CBS News story – the one you cited as proof that most rapists are not convicted:Read it: please:Your attempts to claim I do not read your articles – it seems like you are just stooping to the manhood101 level.Read the definition of homophobia again David:homophobia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.From Dr, Kshatriya's post, I do not see any fear, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuals.Also, the fact that I picked apart the CBS News Story you posted is proof that I do read what you write – and – I read the links also.I am currently writing up a bit on your whole false-rape accusation piece.It is funny too – many of your links link to each other as references – I was laughing.Also, they do not support the 2%-8% false rate claims that you made.Yes, that is correct – I am currently picking apart all of the links you provided in that ditty…

>I don't think men should be drafted. I don't think anyone should be drafted. Looking at the history of human civilizations, if something came to our doorstep, we'd be gunning up to fight it. I notice conscription largely happens when said conscripts are going to be used to invade someone else.Also, gotta point out that, on an anti-invasion front, men and women have historically been equal in their contributions. Men usually traveled to face an invading group, but the women in the region were (and still are in war-torn parts of the world) vital to driving the invaders out, because they were less suspected and thus better able to provide valuable defensive and offensive information, not to mention a multitude of asskicking skillz. Don't fuck with the farmers.This is a limited comment, but… I don't even know what to say to anything else and honestly, I'm kind of scared to. I've seen the "discussions" these kinds of things turn into, and I don't want to have to write a book about how this premise and this premise and this conclusion are wrong only to be told that I'm just dumb and brainwashed.However, I'm roffling at the idea that Rupert Murdoch's media empire is anti-white men. It's like saying that being king meant you were more oppressed than anyone else because the serfs could just stop obeying you.Also, what universe is this guy in where transmen are protected? From what I've seen, everyone's obsessed with MTFs. I guess you could say that gay men and MTFs (who are not transsexual men!) are minimally protected, given that they have a spotlight on them. Minimally. Very minimally. Sort of….Wow, ScareCrow, that is fucking dishonest.I suppose I'm not really an anarchist because the dictionary definition of anarchy is chaos and disorder and I use it as a social structure.Words and phrases have cultural meanings that cannot be correctly or succinctly communicated by a dictionary. To assert that calling gay men and MTFs (who are, again, not men, even though they were raised with male privilege) "mincing mimics of women" is neutral and free of judgment or the long history of insulting men by calling them women… well, it means you're being intentionally obtuse. To wit: you're a fucking liar if you're trying to tell me that you think it's not meant to be an insult at all.Or you have Asperger's, in which case I recommend you not engage people on these kinds of points until you can grok what I mean.But I think you're being dishonest, especially with the "Hitler was a Jew" comment. Privileged dudes love to act like oppressed groups oppress themselves all on their own, with no prodding or manipulation by the privileged groups.Apparently I must be a Muslim, since I have Persian in my bloodline. Or Native Americans aren't oppressed anymore, because I have Hopi ancestry and live off the reservation. Or…

>I don't. I think ScareCrow fully understands the insult's intent and is merely trying to intellectualize reality out of existence.People say stupid shit for cognitive dissonance's sake all the time. Several years ago, I once actually argued that animals were too stupid to be unhappy and depressed from confinement. Yeah, on one level I knew it was utter shit, but there was another level based on redirecting pressure away from some very vulnerable hypocrisy that underlaid everything about my worldview. Bigotry defines your worldview and, naturally, it's not very logical or observation-based.I can allow that privilege stops you from having accurate observations. It's another thing when someone explains why you are wrong and your response is basically, "Shut up, you whore. I'm right because you said I'm not 100% right. Only I am allowed to decide whether or not I am right or wrong."Intellectual dishonesty drives me nuckin' futz.

>"I don't think men should be drafted. I don't think anyone should be drafted. Looking at the history of human civilizations, if something came to our doorstep, we'd be gunning up to fight it. I notice conscription largely happens when said conscripts are going to be used to invade someone else."Feminists are too stupid to acknowledge the most logical and rational explanation for historical events. Everything has to fit their theories and paradigms, and any facts that don't are modified or discarded accordingly.Case in point:Delly here thinks that if any country is invaded, "we'd be gunning up to fight it."Let's look at a few examples:* Aztec Empire during Spanish Conquest – many of the constituents of that empire not only deserted, they actually joined them.* Mongol Invasions – many of the settlements conquered by the Mongolians surrendered without a fight. These invaders were some of the most ruthless, bloodthirsty, crude oppressors you could find, but when it came to defending their homes and their neighbors' the inhabitants said "nope."* Invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany and Soviet Union – These statistics should speak for themselves:66,000 dead,133,700 wounded,694,000 capturedHardly a fight to the death.I could go on, but it seems that our Delly is a bit lacking for military history. Perhaps she will serve as a suiting example for other feminists who deign their words unquestionable enough to speak before thinking. Nothing is immune to scrutiny.I feel this Dellyism should end things on a lighter note:"Intellectual dishonesty drives me nuckin' futz."It sure does, Delly, it sure does.

>David's OP: many Anglo-American women consciously plan for a 'starter marriage' to fleece some unsuspecting male [which] proves that malicious misandry is rapidly becoming a female lifestyle-choice.You have to blame the legal situation in USA, Canada and UK, which makes it possible to ruin financially an ex-husband/father even decades after divorce.Interesting that non-English speaking countries within the EU, despite they are all deeply feminist orientated, do not have such 'alimony-for-life' laws. For example in Germany alimony is limited with 3 years.Please study legal cases like this one this one this one millionaire was ordered to pay his adulterous wife more than £200,000 – nearly 30 years after they were divorced.Builder Dennis North's wife Jean left him and their three children for another man in 1977 UK: She was cheating him, left him with 3 children, he pays her since 30 years alimony for life and now 30 years after divorce she is even asking for more money…And now? David is now concerned about those MRAs who are complaining about the legal situation in those countries? Are you joking, David?

> said… I don't think men should be drafted. I don't think anyone should be drafted. Feminists are thinking differently, at least those feminists who are openly into TRUE equality. However as we see, the majority of women is NOT into TRUE equality.See below the report of the FEMALE defense minister of Norway.Defense Minister Anne-Grete Strøm-Erichsen has lost her battle to force young Norwegian women into military service……..Strøm-Erichsen, faced with a shortage of military personnel, has been keen on drafting women into the military…..While some high-profile government ministers backed Strøm-Erichsen's desire to reduce male domination in the military, there wasn't enough support for the proposal.Feminism is about 'equality', but only when it fits me, me, me…

>Now Eoghan thinks Hitler was a black jew? And gay, despite the fact that the Nazi's reinstated harsh sodomy laws and sent gay men to the camps? As gay men were seen as undermining the 'strength of the race, primarily German gay men were targeted, under the belief that other gay men would be undermining the enemy. The number of deaths by of gay men in concentration camps is estimated at around 5,000-15,000. Approximately 50-100 thousand others were imprisoned. Some men who were not sent to the camps were castrated as punishment as well. In addition, the Allies sent gay holocaust survivors to prison after 'liberation' of the camps instead of to DP camps for treatment, so these deaths were likely high as well. Blaming Nazism on the gays, or making bullshit statements about gay men and nazism is not only blatantly homophobic, it is spitting in the face of gay holocaust victims. Fuck you, Eoghan, you bigoted asshole.@Yohan, I will talk about US law in regards to your alimony spiel, because you mention it and because I know it better than other alimony law. US alimony laws are facially gender neutral, the partner with the greater income pays. It is because of the wage gap, and because women are more likely to stay at home and raise children that men are more likely to be made to pay. A man who raised the children instead of working, or who had a lower income, would be legally entitled to just as much alimony. Not every state in the US has alimony laws at all, and enforcing alimony across state lines is difficult. Also, not every state in the US has 'alimony for life', most states allow the court to rule for temporary alimony. Over 90% of US divorces are not contested, which means the party makes the arrangements out of court, so much of what happens between divorced couples in the US is the result of private settlement, not alimony law enforcement by courts. In addition, US women are not economically better off after divorce. Women's standards of living generally lower after divorce, whereas men's increase. The longer the marriage has lasted, the greated the discrepancy. And you know what else? 80% of single mothers recieve no support for their children at all from the father in the US, let alone windfalls. Also, responsible people support their children. You ex isn't ruining you by making you have to help feed your own damned kids.On the draft issue, you have failed to show a feminist with an inconsistent position. If someone likes the draft and thinks women should be drafted too, that is a consistent view about equal participation (you will find a minority of feminists who are more pro-military and do have this position). It is also consistent to oppose the draft in general for both men and women, which is David's stated position. This position is also consistent in a call for equality in participation, it just has different underlying views about political or social issues. You don't just get to take everything you don't like and blame it randomly on feminism.

>Yohan, was that post at all relevant to me? I can't decide if you agree with me, disagree with me, decided to randomly insult me, or just used my comment as a jumping-off point.Irry-baby, you're ignorant of history. Full-stop. Everything you said is either outright lies or twisted by your egotistical desire to obscure the truth.

>As an aside, it's interesting, David, how MRAs have developed a tactic of using citations and links as a bludgeon. Having myself used links as a form of intimidation, and having found where people will cite studies improperly*, I find it strange how it has been so widely adopted as a means of silencing disagreement. Few people have the time or means to read distorted interpretations of research or articles that only briefly touch on the subject, and it's rather draining. I fail to understand why it remains popular.*This one example, among many, specifically comes to mind: In an article on why vegetarianism was supposedly unhealthy for humans, a study cited by some Weston A. Price dude turned out to be a study on how kittens thrived on raw meat. I'd never have known had it not been my veterinarian friend, who'd read the study and recognized it.

>P.S. Irry-baby, I'm specifically not responding to you because I have done research on the subject, and I have no conviction that you will address:- How a list of the dead, wounded and captured implies that there was "no fight to the death" in Poland;- How an assertion that "many" Aztecs deserted to the Spanish can be taken seriously without context of time, circumstances, and consideration of the fact that the Spanish would offer protection to their families in return;- How the Mongolians were really all that savage when, in actuality, they were much nicer to those who didn't fight; and- How any of this can be construed as "surrender when threatened" instead of "willful assimilation".If you refuse to abandon the typical MRA tactic of merely asserting beliefs instead of explaining they they are relevant, then you are dumber than most rocks.

>"Interesting that non-English speaking countries within the EU, despite they are all deeply feminist orientated, do not have such 'alimony-for-life' laws"It's interesting that you say "despite" when, perhaps, it is because they are all deeply feminist oriented.The links provided: wasn't awarded the new compensation that she was requesting, so that seems pretty fair to me. enjoyed some of the comments on the above article:"Only yourselves to blame.If she stays home on her butt as a "stay home mom" then expect to lose everything you have. If she is a working mother then she has proven she can support herself and the children. Men who have stay home wives should think twice about the cushy lax life they are allowing their wives to get used to because in a divorce situation you will pay through the nose. The wife should be expected to help support the family, if not you have set a precedent by which she will get way more than she is entitled to."Way more than she is entitled to because, of course, she stayed home on her butt as a stay at home mom. Ya gotta love THAT sentiment."Why even get marriedI didn't realize getting married meant that you would have to support your spouse for the rest of their life"In a marriage that's in keeping with traditional gender roles, or role reversals for that matter, how could one not realize that that's what getting married meant??"I feel so sorry for this poor man. The system truly is broken. Most financial problems after divorce (for men and women) are related to women stopping work to care for family. Often it's a family decision -the person who makes the least quits their job, and it's usually the woman. Years later these women are very difficult to employ and need help, and husbands often can't afford to give it. The solution is equal sharing of parenting duties and both parties maintaining employment credentials through the marriage, even if they take a little time off to be with the kids. If the marriage breaks down there may be an adjustment period, but both parties will be able to get back on their feet in a couple of years."The above is probably one of the closest ones to my own perspective, although I wouldn't necessarily say that the reason it's typically the woman who stops work to take care of the family is because the decision is based on who makes the lesser income. the above, it's absolutely ludicrous that the court awarded her what they did, and from the comments on the article, I don't see any women (I'm basing my assumption on the names under each individual comment) agreeing with it, either. But I don't know if it's as much malicious misandry as it is amor nummi (not only on the part of the wife, but of the courts and the lawyers) in these cases. Seems to me that it's when the marriage is based on the "traditional" gender role model, the more likelihood that husbands get "fleeced" (words quoted in David's original post, not mine) in divorce settlements."Feminists are thinking differently, at least those feminists who are openly into TRUE equality. However as we see, the majority of women is NOT into TRUE equality"But that doesn't mean that the majority of women who are not into true equality are feminists. Perhaps on some issues, traditionalism is being conflated with feminism.

>Delianth said… Yohan, was that post at all relevant to me? I can't decide if you agree with me, disagree with me, decided to randomly insult me, or just used my comment as a jumping-off point.I have no intention to 'insult' anybody. I used your comment as a jumping-off point.You said, nobody should be drafted. OK, I respect your opinion, I think, that's a good argument.Most feminists however find nothing wrong, if men will be drafted and women will not.In this case the female defense minister of Norway, a staunchly feminist country supports the MRAs. It's the first time I read something like that. That's true equality. To force women for obligatory defense services to reduce male domination in the military, she said.Of course all the other feminists in Norway are against her, as equality and reduce male domination goes only as far as it is convenient for the general feminist mindset – and of course, also in future, obligatory military services in Norway will be for males only.About USA we need only to open the body-bags coming back from abroad. For sure the bodies inside are not 50/50 men and women. So much about 'reduce male domination in the military' ….

>Pam said… (Yohan)"Interesting that non-English speaking countries within the EU, despite they are all deeply feminist orientated, do not have such 'alimony-for-life' laws"It's interesting that you say "despite" when, perhaps, it is because they are all deeply feminist oriented.OK, let me explain:Living outside of the English-speaking region I got the impression, any discussion anywhere else related to feminism/MRM is much less hateful and much more reasonable compared to USA/UK related forums and blogs.Considering the legal situation, nowhere else I found laws so feminist-biased and so openly against men than in these 2 countries.I wonder why. Even in the feminist fortresses of Scandinavia it's never like that. PAM: Seems to me that it's when the marriage is based on the "traditional" gender role model, the more likelihood that husbands get "fleeced" Nowadays, there is 'no fault' – divorce is a lucrative business for malicious women and greedy lawyers. That's especially true in US and UK. The divorce paradise if you are a female.A divorce regarding a traditional marriage was based on fact-finding considering the argument of 'fault' – a malicious woman never could make a business out of divorce in the past.It is feminism, which gives a married woman the right in many Western countries to remain married AND at the same time to refuse any sexual relationship with the husband AND to sleep with her boyfriend next door. – Mothers even got the right to force their ex-husbands after divorce to pay child-support to THEIR children despite their ex-husbands are not the biological father but were cheated. A woman has the right to kick her husband out of his house (VAWA in USA) – either he leaves anyway or by using false allegations – not really the legal way to go, but there is no punishment so why not to try it out? Further step will be alimony even for life, to demand child-support even if the children are not living with the mother …etc. etc.And you are surprised that men are against feminism? MRAs are working hard to try to find support to change some of these bad laws.

>" to remain married AND at the same time to refuse any sexual relationship with the husband " Wow, way to throw in some random rape apologism. "AND to sleep with her boyfriend next door." Men have just as many affairs as women, and, guess what, that would not justify raping them or stripping them of basic legal protections either."A woman has the right to kick her husband out of his house " So now the house is only HIS, even though most households in the US have two incomes? Also, VAWA does not do this, restraining orders are the only thing remotely close to this. VAWA only applies in this area post-conviction for the actual crime. "Mothers even got the right to force their ex-husbands after divorce to pay child-support to THEIR children despite their ex-husbands are not the biological father but were cheated." Many husbands like these laws. I know several men who maintained child custody because of them. States that give full responsibility in this area also give full rights. As much as it may shock someone like you, some men actually want to continue parenting their children. For every man upset by the states that have these laws making him pay support, there are five more who are glad that they did not loose custody of their kids when they got the DNA test results."to demand child-support even if the children are not living with the mother " This is never true in the US, unless the person owes back child support because they failed to pay previously when ordered. If a child moves to the custody of the state or of a relative, child support goes with the child."alimony even for life" Applies to male spouses as well as female ones." That's especially true in US and UK. The divorce paradise if you are a female." In the US, women who divorce have a decrease in socio-economic status, not an increase. Also, US divorce laws are facially gender neutral, males can collect the same benefits if they are in the same situations.

>DarkSideCatIf divorce was an unfavorable option for women and great for men, 66% of divorces wouldnt be no fault and divorce wouldn't be such a strong predictor of male suicide, men have been known to set themselves alight on the steps of the court house.

>@Delianth:"Wow, ScareCrow, that is fucking dishonest."No, it isn't.Hatred is a blunt instrument. It has all the grace and eloquence of a bulldozer. Labeling things like this as "hatred" (i.e. homophobia) only have the effect of cheapening and masking the genuine article.I would expect nothing less from reclusive intellectuals who clearly have lead very sheltered lives.

>DarkSideCatDont swear at me and call me names because you have an information gap, so typically feminist of you. Calling me a bigot is rich considering feminism is THE utopian hate movement de jour.Hitler was who had Jewish and African dna, thats a fact as it is a fact that much of the Nazi leader ship were ultra masculine gay men that persecuted more feminine gay men.

>DarksideCat: (Yohan "Mothers even got the right to force their ex-husbands after divorce to pay child-support to THEIR children despite their ex-husbands are not the biological father but were cheated.") Many husbands like these laws. I never heard about men who like the idea of paternity fraud. MRAs are supporting DNA testing immediately after birth of a child to make clear from beginning on who is the father and who is not.

>DarksideCat:(Yohan: "A woman has the right to kick her husband out of his house ") So now the house is only HIS, even though most households in the US have two incomes?So now after divorce the house is only HERs, even though it was HIS before marriage?

>DarkSideCat: "alimony even for life" Applies to male spouses as well as female ones Is it so? Many divorce agreements provide for alimony or spouse-support payments, which is separate from child-support payments. Americans gave $9.4 billion to former spouses in 2007, up from $5.6 billion a decade earlier, according to the Internal Revenue Service. Men accounted for 97% of alimony-payers last year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, although the share of women supporting ex-husbands is on the rise. and Theresa Taylor were married for 17 years. He was an engineer for Boston's public-works department, while she worked in accounting at a publishing company. They had three children, a weekend cottage on the bay and a house in the suburbs, on a leafy street called Cranberry Lane. In 1982, when they got divorced, the split was amicable. She got the family home; he got the second home. Both agreed "to waive any right to past, present or future alimony." But recently, more than two decades after the divorce, Ms. Taylor, 64, told a Massachusetts judge she had no job, retirement savings or health insurance. Earlier this year, the judge ordered Mr. Taylor, now 68 and remarried, to pay $400 per week to support his ex-wife."This is insane," Mr. Taylor says, adding that the payments cut his after-tax pension by more than one-third. "Someone can just come back 25 years later and say, 'My life went down the toilet, and you're doing good—so now I want some of your money'?" The problem about alimony is that the divorced ex-wife is coming back to the ex-husband even 25 years after divorce and she will get it…As I said MRAs want such laws to be changed and it seems there is now some support about this issue.

>@Yohan, from the exact same article you cite"Last month, Massachusetts representatives heard testimony from Brenda Caggiano, a 70-year-old retired first-grade teacher who supports her ex-husband, Robert, a certified public accountant. When the Caggianos divorced in 2003, they split their assets. He got their home on Cape Cod. She got their home in a Boston suburb, and paid him the $57,000 difference in the value of the homes. Ms. Caggiano earned more at the time, so the court ordered her to pay $125 in weekly alimony until her death or her former husband's remarriage. Since Massachusetts is a "no-fault" divorce state, it made no difference that it was, as both parties acknowledge, Mr. Caggiano who left home. Ms. Caggiano says she's living pension-check-to-pension-check and has had to tap a home-equity line of credit to fix her roof. "It's a disgrace that this man is taking my money when he's perfectly capable of supporting himself," she says. "The state you are decrying is applying the same law to women who make more money. The reason men are more likely to pay is that women are more likely to stay at home or work part time while raising the children and there is a significant wage gap amoung US workers. US alimony laws are required to be facially gender neutral.As to the DNA tests, who is going to pay for these? They are very expensive and not covered by medicaid or insurance. In a disputed paternity case the person who 'looses' (i.e. was proven wrong by the results) pays this cost. Not all out of marriage cases involve disputed paternity either. There is absolutely no law prohibiting a couple from paying for a DNA test at birth. Also, most states require the husband to have signed the birth certificate and 'acknowledged paternity' via doing so (or by other legal means of acknowledgement) or the law cannot be applied. And it is absolutely true that some men use the 'husband automatically is legal father' laws that exist in a minority of states to gain custody or visitation rights. Preserving the rights of these fathers is considered one of the main reasons for having these laws.@Eoghan, you are a fucking bigot and your last comment just further confirmed it.

>@DarksideCatWhile I understand what you want to say about alimony, gender-neutral laws etc., I think this is not really the reason why MRAs are complaining so much about this alimony-issue.Let me explain:My opinion is, that after divorce there should be a clear separation of these 2 persons. They should become independent again from each other – including their financial situation.It is just ridiculous, that a person has the legal option, after being 25 years divorced to show up again and to claim alimony from a former spouse.It is just ridiculous, that a healthy person in his/her 20s, who was earning less at that time than the other spouse and was married for a few years can claim alimony for life – basically that's a retirement allowance.I think, such laws have to be changed. they are outdated.Now in Central Europe (Germany etc.), since about 2008, the guideline for alimony is maximum 3 years. After that it's good-bye, also financially with no way to return.In USA and UK, considered by MRAs the 'divorce paradise for women', the trend is just to the opposite direction. Women (I do not know about a single case of a man) are showing up 30 and 40 years after divorce, claiming payments from their ex-husbands if they find out, he is in a better financial position than they are now – up to 40 years after divorce!Sometimes, not even divorced, it's about co-habitation for a few years, and in a single case in USA even about being only a girlfriend/mistress not sharing the same rooms.In the case I gave the link above, the person is claiming successfully alimony 25 years after divorce despite signing an agreement during the divorce procedure to waive any right to past, present or future alimony. What law is this, which has the power to nullify such an agreement?As I said, there is a strong movement within the MRM of those countries to change such laws, expecially to create a time-limit.—–Another angry issue with many MRAs is paternity fraud – to pay child-support to the ex-wife, but he is not the father of her child, he was cheated. Happens frequently.Interesting the fact, that the wife has the right to remain silent about the biological father. This guy is lucky NOT to pay child-support, and this is somewhat a legal loophole.The only solution MRAs see for cheated fathers is a regulation/law, which gives him the right to insist to DNA testing immediately after the birth before signing the birth certificate. I know a legal regulation about obligatory DNA testing is a complicated issue, but the present situation is really bad. The ex-husband pays child-support, but he is not the father, the ex-wife is living with her new boyfriend in co-habitation and he pays nothing but he might be the father.About the costs, while the fees for a legal procedure to force DNA testing by court order is very expensive, DNA testing fees in general are not high. Testing fees are around USD 500,- for father, mother and newborn totally. Much less than some fathers have to pay for child-support for one month.If it turns out, he is indeed the father, I think he should pay out of his wallet.But if it turns out, he is NOT the father, who will pay then? The man who is not the father, the mother, the biological father (if you can identify him), a feminist charity? Good question.

>@Yohan, only a few states make a proven non-biological husband potentially liable for child support. I agree that giving parental rights to a non-biological parent presents issues (including what happens if the biological father wants custody), but, the fact that states which require these responsibilities also give full legal rights cannot be overlooked. Are there men who do not want anything to do with the children they raised and want every avenue to get out of having to support them? Yes, but there are also many men who deeply love their children and would not want to loose custody in these cases. My professor had his infant daughter with him the other day, and it was very clear he loved her very much. I do not think that if he found out that she was not his biological child, his first thought would be how to make sure he did not have to ever provide her any financial support, but, rather, fear that he would no longer get to take care of her or be involved in her life. While you can argue that these laws hurt some men, ie men who do not want legal responsibilites, they also clearly help some men, those who want to maintain legal rights. The alternative system strips all legal rights from a person who has, quite possibly, loved and raised a child for over a decade, but it does not result in non-biological father paying support. Is that a better system? It still helps some men and hurts others, it just has different trade offs.On the alimony issue, In most states, duration of the marriage and the impact on earnings (such as being married for thirty years and raising four kids instead of collecting wages, gaining experience, accruing retirement benefits, etc) is a much greater determining factor. Most states allow temporary alimony and, if alimony is granted at all it is more often temporary. The issue with time limits is that they harm people who had longer marriages with greater wage impacts. There is no real way that someone can recoup the thirty years of lost wages and benefits that they spent as a stay at home parent within a three year span. However, only a very small percentage of divorced people actually get or pay alimony, and, it is most common amoung couples where one or both partner(s) is wealthy. Most of the US population has little interest in alimony law and little interest in any troubles it causes, because alimony is generally the province of the wealthy (the lesser earning partner makes $950,000? Well, we aren't really going to cry for either of them).

>Well, I cannot add very much to my comment and to your reply.About alimony, it should be made impossible, that a person can come back after 30 or even 40 years after divorce, claiming alimony from a former spouse.It's ridiculous to claim, my living standard is now different than yours after 3 decades, so give me money.There should be therefore a time-limit to make sure, that divorce means also to carry on your own life with your own responsibility – including managing your financial situation.—The DNA testing is a tricky issue, however while there is no doubt who is the mother in a birth certificate, the same should also apply to the father. As long as the marriage is working, and the husband does not know about his cheating wife, your scenario might work out, but for sure not after divorce. It should be clear from birth on, who is the biological father and who is not.About the rights, fathers do not have 'rights' regarding 'their' children, especially in case of divorce. This often includes the missing right of DNA testing in case of paternity fraud due to expired time-limits. They have obligations only, usually being an ATM. Maybe the right of DNA testing in case of divorce can be reconsidered and new time-limits should start with the date of divorce might solve this issue? Therefore MRAs think, men should have the right to DNA paternity testing even if the mother who is claiming he is the father, is against it.My concern is about why should the 'father' (who is NOT the father) pay for 'HIS' child, but the biological father is protected by anonymity by the cheating wife who remains silent – Somewhat strange to me that the real father cannot be kept responsible.It's somewhat about cheating again the cheated ex-husband after divorce.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.