Lost custody to a lying lesbian cop

My local paper had this stupid advice column today (alternate link):

Dear Amy: I am stuck in a no-win situation. Two years ago, I ended my marriage after five years with "John" when I met my (now) partner "Jane," who is a police officer. The last two years have been a roller coaster, as John and Jane do not like each other.

Lesbians do not like men. No one likes lesbians.

John stayed an involved father, making sure our sons were taken care of and visiting them whenever he could. Meanwhile, Jane was trying to prove that she could take John's place and provide all the same love, care and material possessions that John could, while also rubbing John's nose in it whenever possible.

Jane is not the dad. Trouble is coming.

Six months ago, I was awarded sole custody of my two sons when I was injured in an accident and Jane filed a police report saying that John came to our home while drunk and beat me up. (This didn't actually happen.)

Jane's relative represented me in family court and very quickly filed the motion through the court, barring any contact between my sons and their dad on the grounds of domestic violence and alcoholism.

What a nightmare! Why did our society ever decide that lesbians should be cops and parents?

Maybe we are being trolled here, but Amy believes this story. The system is broken when a story like this is even plausible.

Personal update

I have quit posting personal details of my life on this blog. Actually I never did personal details about me or anyone else, except for what had been involuntarily put into the public record by others.

That is, if someone was making public accusations against me in open court, then I would describe my defense against those charges. I did this to defend myself, to help others, and to expose systematic problems with the family courts.

While I was exercised my First Amendment rights, I wasn't just claiming free speech or free press rights. I was mainly using that last clause in the 1A, where I have a right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

A lesson I have learned is that our legal system heavily favors sole custody of a child. A parent has constitutional rights to his or her child if there is sole custody, and not otherwise.

My biggest complaint is not the actual child custody decisions. The last time I was in family court, the judge denied that they ever make final child custody decisions, just as they never make final child support decisions. Nothing is ever final, nothing is ever appealable, and all parents are subject to continuing micro-management by the court.

In my case, the courts repeatedly (and temporarily) zeroed out my parental rights at the discretion of the judge, and without having to prove that I was a substandard parent at all.

I eventually did get joint custody of my two daughters. They are now more grown-up than most adults, so they do what they want anyway.

I now also have two sons, and permanent sole custody of them. I am not fighting the system any more. I am doing what is strongly encouraged by California public policy.

Unfortunately, the local Child Protective Services (CPS) disapproves. They harass me a regular basis. They make announced and surprise visits to my home, both day and night. They ask me to bring the kids to their facility for inspection. They interrogate day care workers and inspect the kids there. They give vague gripes and threaten to put my kids in foster care.

If you want an example of a dopey CPS agent, see this previously posted one who argued that zero calorie sodas have empty calories. The ones who investigated me were just as bad, and said things just as dopey.

I do not want to post the details. The attacks have been ordered at the highest levels of CPS, and they have a lot of power. I do not know why they hate me so much, but I do not want to inflame them anymore. If you are living in a town run by gangsters, do you insult the crooks in charge?

According to one CPS agent, the attacks were ordered by Melissa Delgadillo. I never met her, and do not know what she would have against me. I asked him if she was doing it maliciously, and he just nodded. But she could have been ordered by higher authority, for all I know.

At one court hearing, the County lawyer went into a half-hour rant against me, and ended with:

Nietzsche said, "What doesn't kill us, makes us stronger."

I do not know what point she was trying to make. Maybe it was some sort of anti-German slur, as I have a German-sounding name. She did not make much sense.

So far the judges have dismissed all of their complaints as being completely without merit. One time, the judge lectured CPS and County Counsel for an hour about bringing a frivolous complaint over ordinary parenting choices. The complaints are too stupid to repeat here. If I summarized, you would think that I was joking, and if I quoted them, I might be accused of violating confidentiality. Most of what they say does not even make any sense. The court hearings are held in secret, and are not on the public record.

Since there are no complaints against me on the public record, I do not see much need to respond on the public record. There are no pending non-public complaints against me either.

CPS is run by bullies who are used to getting their way, but it has failed to get its way with me. I forced them to remove me from the state abuse database, and they lost their court actions against me. I could be the only one who has defeated them in both these ways.

If you want to read about unreasonable CPS harassment, then follow the story of Danielle Meitiv. I have posted about it before. My story is more outrageous than here, but she is eager to fight this issue:

But now Danielle is going a couple of steps further. First, she’s writing a book about her family’s experiences with CPS and the police. Second, she’s starting a non-profit organization to combat the encroachment of governmental authorities into family life in the name of protecting children.

My parenting has been scrutinized more than any other person, to my knowledge. There are 100s of pages of reports about me.

Of course some of these reports were written by gay psychologists and illiterate CPS agents, and they show no knowledge of child rearing. No criticism of me ever quotes any textbook, or research, or personal experience, or generally accepted principles.

If you want to know about the evils of CPS, there are plenty of other sources. For example, see the Legally Kidnapped blog. Or read earlier postings on this blog. I do not care to publicly document my private Hell anymore, as I really just wanted to document public actions. I am only posting this as a courtesy to my regular readers who have asked about my case.

Abandoning this blog

I announced in January:

I started this blog just to vent, and maintained it for 2 reasons: (1) to publicly defend myself against false accusations in public court, and (2) to protest the family court and support a movement to reform it.

I no longer think that the system can be reformed.

I continued to post news and commentary about modern social destruction, but I stopped the details about my personal saga. I hope the previous details were helpful to people. I will leave it all online, in case anyone else might be helped.

But the stories of what's wrong with the family court, divorce law, legal and social trends, etc. has been told many times. Some tell it better than I do. If the available info does not convince you that we are doomed, then additional posts from me won't either.

Even people who witness the horrors first hand often do not grasp the extent of the evils.

So I am abandoning this blog, taking the red pill, and going my own way. "I don't expect you to agree. I don't even expect you to understand."

I will post some sort of brief update on my personal situation. It will clarify my attitude.

Good luck to everyone.

He needs to sit down and shut up

My local newspaper prints an advice column, and of course these are always anti-male advice from women for women. Here is today's Ask Amy:

And then there is the assumption that standing up to urinate is some form of sacred law of manhood that must never be violated. There is absolutely no reason a man cannot urinate sitting down. My husband took to sitting down years ago so that he would not make splashing noises.

Not Revolted needs to stop rationalizing inconsiderate behaviors and start thinking of others. As my husband put it very succinctly, "He needs to sit down and shut up."

This is responding to some other letter that I did not read, but this is the future of the feminist state. Already manspreading is illegal in the New York City subway, and if Hillary Clinton is elected President, we may not be able to urinate standing up anymore.

The only good news today is that Ellen Pao has been fired. She was famous for losing a lawsuit where she was paid a lot of money but still claimed sex discrimination. At her next job, she because very unpopular for trying to censor free speech on Reddit, and for firing a popular female employee.

Judge ships kid to out-of-state boarding school

Law prof. E. Volokh writes:

Many parents are reluctant to send their children to boarding schools, because they think that spending more time with their children is good for the children (as well as good for the parent). But what if the parents have split up, and one wants to send the child to boarding school and the other doesn’t? That’s the subject of an interesting decision from the Arizona Court of Appeals last week, in Baker v. Meyer:

The dad persuaded a family court judge to break the shared parenting agreement and send the kid to an out-of-state boarding school. The appeals court reversed, saying that the mom's central concerns were ignored.

There are lawyers who love to gloat about cases like this, because they say that shared parenting can never work unless it is supervised by a judge.

The unfortunate fact is that it is impossible to agree to a binding parenting plan because one side can always break it later if he convinces a meddlesome judge. And that it exactly what happened here, until the appeals court stopped it.

I wish I could say that the appellate decision upheld parental rights, but the judge can just make the same decision anyway, and explain the reasoning a little differently.

One commenter argues that the dad's choice of school is a "better school", and adds:

I have complete respect for parental rights; ...

And I would have a lot more respect for all parties if they would just agree on something and get it out of the court system. They are wasting their time and money.

That said, you are right about one thing; the world would be a better place if I was the dictator. ...

"You side with the judge because of your own opinion about the better school."

I side with no one. My opinion in these matters is always the same- people need to settle their issues. 99.99% of the time, it isn't worth the time and money. It is a waste of the family's resources to bring this before the court, and the only people to benefit are the attorneys. More often than not, it is a continuation of a dysfunctional dynamic- often, the same one that made the divorce. Get over it. Nobody- not you, not the other person, and certainly not the child, wins in family court.

"You are like a medieval serf who cannot imagine life without a king."

I appreciate the sentiment, but I am closer to the King than the serf.

The family court is infested with worms like this guy. He has contempt for parents and likes dictating their lives. He claims to believe that people are better off outside family court, but he strenuously argues for the policies that bring them into court. That is, he wants one parent to be able to break an agreement by appealing to the prejudices of a judge.

If it is really true, as he says, that the child never benefits from these legal actions, then the logical conclusion is for the court to refuse to hear them. The court has no business holding a hearing on which school is better.

Thomas Paine wrote a book in 1776 called Common Sense that convinced the American colonists that they did not need a king. Is there anyone today who can convince Americans that we do not need judges and experts micro-managing our families? Can that lawyer quoted above be convinced?

Hillary Clinton is announcing her candidacy for President, and her most famous book is It Takes a Village. It advocated government control of child rearing, and an end to family autonomy. Barack Obama campaigned on The Life Of Julia, and incorrect portrayal of government dependence and male elimination. No self-respecting man would vote for either one of these creeps.

We had more common sense in 1776.

Quantity or quality parenting time

I follow the scientific evidence on parenting practices, and the sad fact is that there is barely any evidence for some practices being better than others. Nearly all parents believe that their nurturing is making a positive difference, but we cannot prove it, so the difference is almost surely a lot less than you think.

Here is the latest, from economist Justin Wolfers in the NY Times:

The latest salvo in the mommy wars is that all that time you spend parenting just doesn’t matter. But it’s a claim that, despite the enthusiastic and widespread coverage by news media outlets that include The Washington Post, Vox, The Guardian, The Independent, The Globe and Mail, NBC News, The Chicago Tribune and The New York Times’s Motherlode, does not hold water.

The claim that parenting time doesn’t matter is the bottom line of a single recent study by a team of sociologists who suggest that child outcomes are barely correlated with the time that parents spend with their children. It’s essentially a nonfinding, in that they failed to find correlations that could be reliably discerned from chance.
This nonfinding largely reflects the failure of the authors to accurately measure parental input.

Wolfers hires a high-end nanny to take care of his kids, so he is convinced that the extra money is worth it.

This study has been reported as reassurance to moms that quality time can substitute for quantity time.

His main complaint is that the study used statistical sampling. Of course all the other social science studies do also. Wolfers is just an economist, and not an expert on child-rearing.

This is why most high-quality studies of parenting time focus instead on how often parents read to their children, play with them or help them with homework over a period of a month or longer — long enough to represent their different approaches to parenting.

Those high-quality studies have never been able to show any benefit for parents reading to kids or helping with homework.

For the evidence that nurturing is irrelevant, see the book, The Nuture Assumption. excerpted here and discussed on PBS TV.

For evidence that genetic influences are much more important, see JayMan.

In animal studies, it has been noted that some species invest a lot of resources into a small number of offspring (K-selection), and others just produce as many offspring as they can (r-selection). You see these differences in people also. This is quality v. quantity again.

These trade-offs now are a lot different than for primitive societies. Today almost all kids get enuf nutrition, care, and schooling to become prosperous adults. Rich families prefer to have very few kids, and to spend a lot of money on nannies and private schools. It is debatable whether all that money is of any significant long-term benefit to the kids. As JayMan explains, the major influences appear to be genes, then maybe the external non-family environment, and then random unexplained factors.

Parents are more eager than ever to get their kids into an elite college and pay immense tuitions, but NY Times columnist Frank Bruni has a book out on how this is all a foolish waste.

Razib Khan also cites The Nuture Assumption, and writes:

But one thing bothers me about these treatments in the press: the totally confounded nature of causality. Consider:

The one key instance Milkie and her co-authors found where the quantity of time parents spend does indeed matter is during adolescence: The more time a teen spends engaged with their mother, the fewer instances of delinquent behavior. And the more time teens spend with both their parents together in family time, such as during meals, the less likely they are to abuse drugs and alcohol and engage in other risky or illegal behavior. They also achieve higher math scores.

The implication above is that “time engaged with mother” → “less delinquent behavior.” But we don’t know that that’s causal at all. Rather, it could be a correlation between a third factor, term in “prosociality,” and these two variables. More generally if you look for references to genetics in the original paper you won’t find it. It strikes me that one of the reasons that parental investment doesn’t seem to matter so much is that there are many outcomes they just aren’t effecting, because their primary contribution in heritable, with a major secondary contribution to the environmental context in which children grow up (the “non-shared environment”).

Yes, the causality is probably backwards. The lesser dilinquent personality is causing the greater engagement with the mother.


Update: The Dilbert cartoonist has some sensible comments, and a link to the original study:

Today I read an opinion that I didn’t understand, criticizing the media for not understanding a study. So I read that study. I didn’t understand it. And I still have an opinion. Because this is the Internet, damn it.

The topic of the study is whether or not the amount of time a mother spends with a kid matters to the outcome. Seems important to know, right?

Maybe not.

It might be better NOT knowing the truth in this case. Because the truth is about an average. And no individual is average.

If you tell mothers that the average mom does X to get a good result, peer pressure causes all moms to do X, or to feel guilty for not. Even if it kills the kid. Music lessons are a valuable learning experience for some kids and torture for others.

What are the odds that one flavor of parenting will be the right fit for every culture, every kid, every parent, and every situation? I’m going to say zero.

Let’s try this experiment: If your kids are well-behaved and mine are not, let’s switch kids for a month and see what happens. Will your awesome parenting fix them? Good luck with that, sucker!

The sameness illusion is what makes most management fads start out smart and morph into pure ridiculousness. The thing that worked for Apple is not necessarily going to work for… well, anyone else.

Career advice has the same limitation. I could tell you every trick I used to become a famous cartoonist but it would not help you become one. You and I are different people in different times and different circumstances. Your strategy needs to be crafted for your situation.

I am a big believer in scientific research, and we have some legitimate resarch on parenting methods. But most of it is nearly worthless for giving practical advice to parents.

Huff Post says better to be a single mom

Kerri Zane advertises herself as a "Single Mom Lifestyle Expert" and explains in the Huff Post:

Although the gold standard in child rearing has traditionally been a dual family unit, being a single parent has a myriad of benefits. Rather than navigating the treacherous territory of constant parental compromise, you can independently make choices for your children that you feel is best. Eleven years ago, when my former husband and I split, I saw my divorce as a glorious opportunity to parent solo. ...

In fact, based on the latest Census Bureau statistics, there are over 14 million single parent households with children under the age of 18. That is a lot of people and a good reason to celebrate. Which is why, March 21 has been designated as National Single Parent's Day. ...

I would like to honor the day and offer you five solid reasons why it's better to be a single mom or dad then half of a parenting pair.

Return of Kings http://www.returnofkings.com/59694/5-reasons-its-better-to-be-a-divorced-parent-according-to-the-huffington-post:

Here are Zane’s five excuses she uses to justify her terrible life choices and convince you to do the same:

1. You always get your way
2. You Can Encourage Your Daughters To Pursue An Inflated Ego
3. Teach Your Children To Die Alone
4. You Get To Be A Slut!
5. It Motivates You To Lose 30 Pounds

Apparently Zane is so self-focused that attracting new dick is more motivating than pleasing the man she promised forever and ever. Maybe she’s losing so much weight because now she has to work an actual job instead of watching Lifetime tv movies all day.

The best way to handle the inevitable life shifts is to stay positive, reach out for support from your friends and family, relish the time you spend with your children and most importantly, create a daily space for some much deserved me-time.

If this doesn’t summarize the narcissistic entitlement of the author, I don’t know what does.

Her advice would have been considered nutty a few years ago. Now it reflects the breakdown in our society.

Ellen Pao trial continues

I mentioned the Ellen Pao lawsuit, and here is a report:

I’ve been attending the Kleiner Perkins gender discrimination trial for the past week looking for irrefutable examples of gender discrimination, but so far I haven’t seen the bombshell disclosures that would lead me to think Kleiner is sunk. ...

After talking to experts on the issue of gender and bias, the lack of a smoking gun is not surprising. Instead, these cases are tough to prove because they are often filled with small, everyday examples from the workplace. There is the dismissive tone in emails, the bawdy chitchat in breakrooms, the office layout with the power corridor, and seating charts at conferences.

In other words, there is no overt discrimination, and you have micro-analyze trivial behavior to allege them.

A typical complaint is that the men were once discussing a porn show. Or maybe it was just an HBO show for mature audiences.

“Standing alone, the examples don’t seem that significant,” said Jason Knott, a litigator with Zuckerman Spaeder in Washington who focuses on business and employment disputes. “But when you stand back, it can look discriminatory.”

I thought testimony about the review process produced some of the most interesting detail about the small, subtle stuff of gender bias. Pao was told she was too timid and not commanding enough. But she also had her knuckles rapped for being seen by co-workers as shrill, abrasive and not nurturing of others. Male co-workers were praised for traits that did not sound all that different.

It is possible for a woman to be both timid and shrill. And less likely for a man to be.

If men are more likely to be team players, as research has shown, is it discrimination to promote the team players?

One unusual thing about this case is that the jury is allowed to ask questions of Pao and the other witnesses. 9 of the 12 have to agree.

I don't see how they can side with Pao. She was paid $400k a year, and seducing one of the married partners. No other female employees are suing. Just this homewrecker.

On another matter, I have discovered that there are limits to the feminism at Jezebel. A post last year said:

Looking for practical advice about your relationship? You may want to avoid the Wendy Williams Show, because the talk show host just told an audience member it's okay to trick your husband into getting you pregnant if he promised you a second child. "Men have never been in control of our bodies," Williams tells the star-struck fan before telling her that she'd never suggest anyone trick a spouse in this way.

The audience agrees that the woman should trick her husband into another child.

And the war on free speech continues, with the NY Times reporting today:

The University of Maryland in College Park revealed on Thursday night that its officials had learned of email sent last year, apparently connected to a different fraternity, containing racist and sexist slurs, and that the university was investigating.

The university says that it has been investigating this email for 15 months! Apparently we have gotten to the point where a college kid cannot express an opinion in an email. Unless he is black and reciting rap music lyrics, of course.

The article also says the guy in the picture "said he was once turned away from a fraternity party because of his race." If the fraternity was so racist, why did he want to party with a bunch of racists? Maybe because the hot white college girls do not attend the black parties. Just guessing.

Advice for the new year

Yesterday's newspaper advice is for the dad of a girl that the mom has alienated:

Ask Amy: My daughter won't speak to me. Should I cut off the college money? ...

DEAR SAD: Unethical parents who engage in a campaign of alienation set it up as a power play and they place their children in untenable circumstances.

I'm asking you to see this from your daughter's point of view. She is behaving as if she is afraid of having a relationship, and imagine how high-stakes this is for her -- if she is close to you, she risks losing her mother.

If you withdraw funds, you will be punishing your daughter for her mother's choices and confirming her lack of trust in you.

It's hero time. Rise to this difficult challenge not to give up on your daughter.

She will not even talk to him and she expects him to pay for her college?

She is in college, and she is a legal adult. She should understand that this is wrong. He is a chump to keep writing those checks.

Unfortunately, depending on the state, he may not have the right to cut off the money.

This "hero" advice is similar to what the manosphere calls white knight. The idea is that a man should do whatever he can to save/defend/rescue a damsel in distress, no matter how irresponsible her behavior is. I am coming around to the view that this is not such an admirable quality. By paying the money, he is turning his daughter into a spoiled brat.

One blog says, "Perhaps no archetype within the Manosphere is more reviled than the White Knight."

A left-wing site complains about some advice on Fox News:

‘Listen up ladies’: Fox News kicks off New Year with absurdly sexist advice for ‘catering to your man’

The hosts of Fox & Friends started the New Year on Thursday by telling women that they should “cater” to their man by stroking his ego, cooking him meals, and massaging his feet. ...

“Well, how about this one?” Doocy continued. “When he gets his ego stroked, he’ll be more inclined to love you more.”

“That’s true!” Earhardt exclaimed.

Watch the video. The advice comes from a guest, not the host Doocy, and no one says anything unreasonable.

Okay, this is a little sexist, but I am going to give some advice. If a woman wants to have a happy marriage, it is pretty simple. Most men are easy to please. All she has to do is to figure out what he really likes, and then be sure to do it the way he likes it. Maybe he likes his ego stroked. Maybe he likes his favorite sandwich. If she is not sure, she can just ask him, and he will say. If she does it right, it might take only a few minutes a day, and she will be hugely rewarded.

Women are not so easy to please. They rarely say (correctly) what they want, and sometimes they become whiny and bitchy and ungrateful no matter what you do for them.

But how is it that we have gotten to the point where such simple advice gets attacked as "absurdly sexist"? There is set of views, sometimes called liberal political correctness and various other names, that wants to deny human nature and practical ways of dealing with human differences.

The same site has a nasty feminist rant by Amanda Marcotte. It attacks an article by MIT professor. There is more explanation here and here.

The kerfuffle started when MIT's best teaching professor, an 80yo retired physicist with millions of YouTube hits, exchanged some emails with some allegedly inappropriately flirtatious remarks. The girl was watching his online videos, and complained about a tweet saying "queefing is yours". I don't even know what that means. The Obama administration put pressure on MIT to respond to complaints with zero tolerance. Since he was retired and not teaching on campus anymore, they revoked his "professor emeritus" title, banned him from the campus, and took down his physics teaching videos.

A young computer science professor Scott Aaronson posted some comments on his blog that taking down the videos only hurts the millions of future physics students, including girls, who want to learn physics for free. The videos are great, and have no offensive remarks. He explained that he had typical Jewish liberal Democrat views, and supported feminists 97%, but this was going too far. Most commenters agreed, until a Jewish feminist Amy started posting scatter-brained comments about how she was sexually harassed a few times and Aaronson was supporting the patriarchal rape culture by defending the physics videos.

Aaronson reiterated his feminist credentials. He read the feminist literature, supported abortion rights, and abhors sexism so much that he would be okay with jailing those with sexist views and giving life sentences for rape. But he was a shy nerdy guy who went to college at age 15 and was afraid to ask a girl out on a date until he was 25. By the time he overcame his shyness, MIT had sent him to sexual harassment seminars where he was intimidated to never make a forward comment. His frustration sent him to psychiatrists and others, none of whom offered him any help. He is now happily married to a fellow academic he met in Israel and has a baby, but no thanks to our anti-male-nerd culture.

Aaronson probably thought that baring his soul would earn him some sympathy, but he was wrong. The more he said, the more he was attacked by feminists. For example, Amy attacked him for wanting life sentences for rapists. She explained that she has had a lot of sexual experiences with different men, and some qualify as rape according to modern feminist definitions. However sometimes the sex was good, so she would not want those guys to be imprisoned.

Most of all, he was attacked for beta male entitlement. Several feminists explained, altho not exactly in these words, that they like being sexually harassed by alpha males, but not by beta males. They are disgusted by Aaronson's attitude that social mores should have allowed him to think that he should have been able to ask a girl for a date. That is for alpha males, and not for shy nerdy losers in the sexual marketplace like him.

I guess Aaronson was lucky to somehow find a wife who was not infected with American feminism. Good for him.

You probably think that I am exaggerating or making this up. Just read the pages at the above links. In many ways it is worse.

Our society is FUBAR. I cannot rationally deal with crap anymore, and I am going to quit posting it. If you cannot see that this is wrong, I cannot explain it to you.

Aaronson thinks he is a feminist, but that has several definitions. CH defines:

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

That does seem to describe the feminists who attack Aaronson.

When Aaronson was a 16yo in college, a brother or mentor or counselor or frat buddy or someone should have taken him aside and explained the red pill to him. And then demonstrated it, because he would not have believed it. He still does not believe it. His only problem here is that our society has lied to him about male-female relations all of his life. And that feminists despise him for what he is.

Update: Vox Day responds:

What Scott Aaronson said got discovered by feminists, and they tarred and feathered him for it. Despite his clear language to the contrary, he’s accused of everything from being a MRA to being a misogynist just because of his Jewish faith. Despite his attempts to explain himself over and over again, people on Twitter are saying that female MIT students should be afraid to take his classes.

Never give feminists an inch. Don't agree with them, don't tolerate them, show them no mercy whatsoever. Feminism is a Satanic, anti-Christian, anti-reason, anti-science ideology that destroys literally everything it touches and everyone who embraces it. Reject it and its adherents the way you would reject someone offering you plutonium on their bare hands; to accept it is to begin to die a slow and painful death.

The problem isn't merely that feminists are ugly and hateful, or that their ideology is incoherent and deluded, but that by mere toleration of them, through mere intellectual contact with it, you are permitting your life to be infected and degraded. We've seen this in the Christian churches, which in their attempts to tame the feminist cancer and turn it into a pet, have been mortally stricken.

Reject all of it. Reject their appeals to equality. Reject their pretense to intellectual standing. And most of all, personally reject all of those who subscribe to it in any way, shape, or form. Any man who calls himself a feminist is ideologically transgender and mentally unstable.

The system cannot be reformed

I started this blog just to vent, and maintained it for 2 reasons: (1) to publicly defend myself against false accusations in public court, and (2) to protest the family court and support a movement to reform it.

I no longer think that the system can be reformed. That is what I learned in 2014.

The reasons are long and complex. I once thought that if people knew how the family court and CPS work, then they would recognize the gross deprivations of basic rights, and obvious harm to kids. But I have posted the most outrageous stories, and found that many people do not necessarily agree with me. Support for political reform has not materialized.

The political trend is to make things worse. The leading candidate for President in 2016 is Hillary Clinton, and she is known for being a feminist First Lady and writing a 1996 anti-parents-rights manifesto.

Maybe someday we will have a French Revolution, but I will be escaping to another country if that happens. The family court and CPS officials are all scum, and deserve to burn in Hell. I cannot think of a single one who is worth saving.

I noted last year:

The men's rights movement seems to have split between the reformers and the drop-outs. The reformers want to change family law to give a better shake to fathers, and use political action, persuasion, social science research, etc.

The drop-outs sometimes use the phrase Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW). The idea is that if marriage is a lousy deal for men, then the simplest solution is to just not get married.

Henry Laasanen describes the split slightly differently, and says that the manosphere is divided between the traditionalists, equalists, and individualists. So the reformers could seek a return to the traditional family or an egalitarian society, and the individualists go their own way.

I am no longer a reformer, and more of a MGTOW:

Men/Man Going Their Own Way.

MGTOW is basically the statement of self-ownership and saying that only you have the right to decide what your goals in life should be.

It is saying that, as a man I will not surrender my will to the social expectations of women and society, because both have become hostile against masculinity.

If my previous postings have not convinced you that the system is hopeless screwed, then I doubt that I can convince you.

Trying for moral high ground by apologizing

I say people are innocent until proven guilty, and I try not to jump to conclusions based on hearing one side of the story. As an example, the recent Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture is completely one-sided. It claims that no actionable intelligence resulted from CIA torture (aka enhanced interrogation) of al Qaeda suspects. CIA officials say that is false, and that the Senate did not even interview them to get their explanation.

I do not know who is right. But others jump to conclusions, such as this opinion:

How The CIA's Torture Program Is Destroying The Key Foreign Power The US Had: The Moral High Ground ...

The basic stated values of the US are something worth spreading and perpetuating. But the only way you can legitimately do that is to admit when the country has strayed from those values, and that means a true and honest accounting of where things went wrong, along with a transparent and concrete plan for dealing with those failings and making sure they don't happen again. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be happening, and many in power don't seem to understand the damages this is doing to the US's power around the globe.

Huhh? I am not sure that things did go wrong. If the US Senate cannot get to the bottom of this, then how are people on the other side of the world to know whether we strayed from our values or not?

I am straying off-topic for this blog, but the above opinion seemed similar to yesterday's Ask Amy advice column in my local newspaper:

DEAR AMY: Quite some time ago, before we were married ... He eventually admitted this to me.

The story was that on a weekend trip with several of our friends there was heavy drinking. A flirtation (with no physical contact) developed.

She has told many people that he made a genuine pass at her and she refused. Everyone that was there refutes this, but my husband admits he may have been so drunk that he did it and doesn't remember. ...

My husband loves my children from a previous marriage and is everything I ever hoped for in a partner. I have truly forgiven him, but I can't stop torturing myself. How do I let it go? — An (un)happy Wife

This problem is all in her head. She found her Mr. Right to support her kids from a previous marriage. She should count her blessings. Even if the allegation is true, it was merely a drunken flirtatious comment before they were even married. It was a triviality. And the evidence is that the allegation is not even true. But Amy gives this advice:

I suggest you ask him for a sincere apology and a guarantee that this will never happen again.

What?! She owes him an apology for making a big issue out of a triviality, for interrogating everyone involved, for distrusting him, and for not giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Instead, Amy suggests demanding an apology for something that probably never happened, and that he does not remember.

What I get out of this is that the feelings are more important than the facts.

Much better advice would be for him to flirt with women at every opportunity until the wife quits bitching about it. If she wants to destroy the marriage over this, then he is better off without her and her kids. She probably gets excited about the possibility of him hitting on other women, and does not want to admit it.

I have read a bunch of online stories where the man says he had a lousy marriage because the wife was always nagging him to apologize for weird crap like this. Then he stumbles across some online advice saying that the marriage counselor advice is usually backwards. The complaint is not the complaint. She is reciting the complaint to test him. She wants a man that she can look up to, and if he does not have the balls to stand up to her stupid BS, then she loses respect for him. In the above story, some gossipy bitch is threatening to undermine their marriage, and she wants him to be strong enuf to stop the threat. The men report having much better marriages after understanding this aspect of female human nature.

So what do you do? Seize the moral high ground by apologizing for things that you did not even do, or be a man and show that you can deal with threats appropriately? You decide.

Merry Christmas

And Happy New Year.

Bad advice on managing joint custody

I sometimes post bad advice that women commonly get, and here is another example. This mom has joint custody, and needs a man to be in charge of her child-rearing. Either the ex-husband or the boyfriend would be an improvement. But the columnist Amy advises neither, and to rely on some stranger instead. Furthermore, she suggests undermining the joint custody.

DEAR AMY: I am divorced and have two young children. Their father and I share equal custody. I have had a boyfriend for a year. He has a young child of his own and we all live together as a blended family. This man is kind, sensitive, supportive and loving, everything my ex-husband was not.

There’s one problem. My kids tend to act up a lot and I’m not sure why. His child NEVER acts up. She’s helpful, listens, is easygoing, etc. My kids are the exact opposite!

This past year, my boyfriend has really been working with my kids on discipline and setting good examples, and so have I. I am an easygoing person but their dad is not. I think they get this trait from him. I don’t really know what goes on when they’re with him. When they come back to us, I feel like we’re going backward. My daughter (age 10) doesn’t act her age. She whines like a 3-year-old, is unhelpful around the house and with her younger brother, etc.

Now my boyfriend is showing hostility toward ME because of their behavior. I honestly do my best at disciplining them, but because his child is “perfect” he does not understand. I know I’m trying but he doesn’t see that. What should I do? -- Challenged Mom

DEAR MOM: You should take your kids’ behavior not as a sign that they are “bad,” but that they are very stressed. Your daughter’s regression does not mean that she is immature, but having trouble coping.

You should establish consistent routines, make sure they get plenty of healthy food and sleep, and treat them with firm, unflappable, loving kindness. Their routine of switching households is extremely challenging (could you do it?). You, not your boyfriend, should be the primary disciplinarian. Let him teach you how.

Your whole crew could benefit from some professional mentoring. The kids need to see your family as a “team,” with good days and bad days, but always on the same side.

Most important, your daughter should get some private counseling with a child therapist. Because you are not willing/able to communicate with her father, you should make sure she is safe and well cared for when she is in his household. Her behavior could be a red flag that there is a serious problem.

Note that the mom does not actually say that she cannot communicate with her ex-husband. Amy just assumes that, as well as assuming that the ex-husband is a problem.

Talking to a counselor is just crazy. Why is Amy being paid to give advice, if she is just going to tell everyone to go get advice from someone else?

The kids are not necessarily over-stressed. Maybe they are not stressed enuf.

You would think that advice-givers would encourage steps to make joint custody work. For example, this mom could ask her ex-husband to take charge of the child discipline, and promise to back him up when the kids are with her. But Amy does the opposite, and suggests that there is something wrong with the his care, and that the mom should interfere with him.

Yes, it is possible that the behavior differences are largely genetic. There seem to be some genes for bad behavior. If so, it is foolish to try to blame food or sleep or the joint custody.

I post nonsense like this just to illustrate the bad advice that women commonly get.

Singles in parks are suspects

The Australian news reports:

AN ENGLISH theme park has barred all single people from entering — just in case they are a paedophile.

Puxton Park, a family-friendly theme park in a coastal town west of London, has a policy of not allowing single men or women through its gates in order to protect the children inside. ...

The park’s managing director, Alistair Mead, has defended the rule, which has been in place since it opened seven years ago.

“There is a lot in the headlines about paedophiles and things that are going on with children,” he told the Western Gazette.

“We have done our research and, in line with all other parks, we don’t let single men or women in.

All men near kids are suspect. That is life today. When I was a kid, I would sometimes see signs saying that kids had to be accompanied by adults. Now the downtown Santa Cruz California park has a kid play area, and the sign says that all adults must be accompanied by kids.

If they are scared of pedophiles, I might expect them to be scared of that pig mascot at the front door.

Here is how deep the paranoia is. Here is yesterday's stupid newspaper advice:

DEAR AMY: I am a mother of two and I am blessed with a wonderful, caring partner. I come from a big, close family and my partner comes from a small, distant family.

We see my family more often than his, because I keep my kids away from his family -- his dad in particular. I have this gut feeling that he could be a child molester.

The problem is that my mother-in-law wonders why we never visit or call. I don't see how she can act so clueless about her husband's wandering eyes.

Worried Mom

DEAR MOM: It is vital to follow your instincts when it comes to the people your children come into contact with -- but your narrative is a little hollow. Let's say you truly believe your children aren't safe around their grandfather. Why don't you call their grandmother on the phone? Why not invite them to do things with you in public? Why not invite the grandmother to spend time with you alone?

You are leveling a serious accusation against this man, and you do so couched in vague terms.

You must be open with your partner about your instincts, and you and your partner should try harder to find ways to be in contact with this grandmother -- even from a distance.

She has somehow decided that her father-in-law is a child molester based on nothing but the look in his eyes. It is impossible to detect child molesters that way.

No, it is not vital to follow such paranoid instincts. Paranoia is a psychological disorder. Amy acknowledges that this is the vaguest possible accusation, and yet she urges her to keep her kids away from their granddad anyway.

This is today's world. It is not just the crazy paranoid moms who treat men as child molester suspects, but it is public park officials and newspaper advice givers.

Suggestion to leave a hostile place

The Dilbert cartoonist writes:

In my prior post I suggested that if a person lives in a hostile place, that person should leave. ...

The loser worldview is that whoever is causing the problem needs to fix it for you.

The problem with the loser worldview is that in many cases the only person who CAN fix the problem is you, even if you had nothing to do with causing it. A winner in that situation fixes his own problem. A loser sits indefinitely waiting for others to solve it for him, even knowing that won't happen. ...

If you want to see a good example of winners, look at the Asian and Indian population in the United States. The country handed them the usual boatload of intense discrimination with one hand and the promise of unlimited education with the other. Who's your valedictorian now? That's what winners do. No blame, just personal responsibility.

The subject started with a very widely circulated viral video of a women on the 10-hour walk in New York City. The video was edited down to about 5 minutes of unwanted comments to her.

You find it and commentary by googling catcall video, even tho there aren't really any catcalls on the video.

The most striking thing about the video is that the whites and Asians leave her alone, while all the rude comments come from blacks and Puerto Ricans or other Latinos. She looks as if she is walking thru Harlem, with unemployed black men loitering in the streets making comments. The video could be a KKK recruiting video.

Dilbert has probably gotten a lot of flak from feminists, but surely that is the conclusion that most women have come to -- if you don't like rude comments from loitering black men, then don't go for long walks in Harlem.

Sure, she has a right to walk wherever she wants. But others have free speech rights. There are lots of safe places to walk. Given the choice between (1) walking in a safe or friendly place, and (2) trying to reform the manners of unemployed black men loitering in Harlem, which would you choose?

Dilbert would probably tell me that it is stupid to complain about the family court, because there is no realistic chance of winning. It is more practical to just leave the hostile place.

Time-outs allegedly cause brain damage

The current dogma among child shrinks is that time-outs are good, and spanking is bad. However some say that spanking is physical abuse, and a time-out is emotional abuse. Here is a Time magazine article:

In a brain scan, relational pain — that caused by isolation during punishment — can look the same as physical abuse. Is alone in the corner the best place for your child?

Time-out is the most popular discipline technique used by parents and the one most often recommended by pediatricians and child development experts. But is it good for kids? Is it effective? Not according to the implications of the latest research on relationships and the developing brain.

Studies in neuroplasticity — the brain’s adaptability — have proved that repeated experiences actually change the physical structure of the brain. Since discipline-related interactions between children and caregivers comprise a large amount of childhood experiences, it becomes vital that parents thoughtfully consider how they respond when kids misbehave. Discipline is about teaching – not about punishment – and finding ways to teach children appropriate behavior is essential for healthy development.

So what about time-outs? In most cases, the primary experience a time-out offers a child is isolation. Even when presented in a patient and loving manner, time-outs teach them that when they make a mistake, or when they are having a hard time, they will be forced to be by themselves—a lesson that is often experienced, particularly by young children, as rejection. Further, it communicates to kids, “I’m only interested in being with you and being there for you when you’ve got it all together.”

Here are some psychologists disagreeing:

Unfortunately, none of the authors’ conclusions regarding the rejection of time-out or the use of “time-in” are directly supported by research evidence, nor do they reflect a clear understanding of correctly implemented time-out.

Decades of carefully controlled studies support the efficacy of time-out when used correctly with regard to the child’s developmental and emotional status and in the context of a broader behavioral management program. Time out appropriately used involves explaining to the child during a non-crisis time how and why the procedure is being used. At the end of the time out the child should be praised and rewarded for following the procedure, a parent hug works well at this point—akin to what Siegel and Payne Bryson refer to as Time In.

Maybe so, but Decades of carefully controlled studies also support the efficacy of spanking when used correctly.

I am just trying to follow the science here, and from what I see, there is very little evidence that any one parenting strategy is better than any others. I have my preferences, but I cannot prove that they are best. The so-called experts who try to tell us what is best are not following the science.

This NPR This American Life podcast discusses a related problem in schools:

Stories of schools struggling with what to do with misbehaving kids. There's no general agreement about what teachers should do to discipline kids. And there's evidence that some of the most popular punishments actually may harm kids.

Choosing male therapist over dad

Slate's Prudie advice column says:

Q. ... I am a single mother with a 14-year-old son. ... I am losing sleep and I don’t want to succumb to letting his father deal with this, but what should I do?

A: First, watch the coming of age movie, The Squid and the Whale, then read Portnoy’s Complaint for some background on teenage boys ... Your son should see a male therapist—he needs intervention with someone who can be a trusted, calm, helpful adult.

I am skipping the details, because they are implausible, but I agree with CH:

Prudie’s (aka Emily YOFFE’s) answer is mostly anodyne, though she can’t resist the femtard compulsions to demonize the biological father and rationalize cutting him out of the picture, and to suggest “therapaaaaaah” for the boy. Yes, that’s the answer to all the problems that boys cause empowered, independent women: Therapy. While you’re at it, why not pry his eyeballs open and have him watch 48 hours of uninterrupted footage of suffrage marches and The View?

“I don’t want to succumb to letting his father deal with this”

Gotta love the pathological, unrelenting selfishness of single moms. Yes, don’t succumb to letting the kid have a talk with his real dad about something that his dad would intuitively understand. Better to yell at him for soiling your cuntrags.

I post this as an example of today's simple mom mindset. Not only does the mom avoid the dad, she gets advice to prefer a male therapist for the boy.

Here is another letter:

Q. Last Week’s “Want to Go Alone”: I’m the woman from last week’s chat who took a promotion and transfer without telling my husband. My husband is a big fan of yours, and he correctly guessed who had written that question. He’s upset, but our marriage has been shaky for so long that I think we’re both relieved. I wanted to mention that I did get help and a diagnosis of post-partum depression after our daughter was born. The meds I took only numbed my dark thoughts toward the baby. Even though I continued therapy after my maternity leave finally ended, I was still unable to develop positive feelings for her. I feel that my moving will be good for us all.

Huhh? This woman is so insane that she has to take anti-psychotic drugs to prevent her from killing her own baby. And she tells strangers than she is leaving her husband and daughter before telling them. No therapist tells her how sick she is.

Harry Potter girl rants at the UN

A dopey Harry Potter girl now speaks for UN Women:

Watch Emma Watson Deliver a Game-Changing Speech on Feminism for the U.N.

Earlier this summer, fresh from college graduation, Emma Watson, was named a U.N. Women Goodwill Ambassador. ...

The actress gave an impassioned speech on feminism and gender at the U.N. headquarters in New York this weekend to launch the “HeForShe” campaign which aims to galvanize one billion men and boys as advocates for ending the inequalities that women and girls face globally.

Watson’s speech, which was met with a thunderous standing ovation, ...

Here is her speech:

I was appointed six months ago and the more I have spoken about feminism the more I have realized that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating. If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to stop.

For the record, feminism by definition is: “The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes.”

I started questioning gender-based assumptions when at eight I was confused at being called “bossy,” because I wanted to direct the plays we would put on for our parents — but the boys were not.

When at 14 I started being sexualized by certain elements of the press.

When at 15 my girlfriends started dropping out of their sports teams because they didn’t want to appear “muscly.”

When at 18 my male friends were unable to express their feelings.

I decided I was a feminist and this seemed uncomplicated to me. But my recent research has shown me that feminism has become an unpopular word.

Apparently I am among the ranks of women whose expressions are seen as too strong, too aggressive, isolating, anti-men and, unattractive.

She says that feminism means equal rights and opportunities, but that has little to do with her gripes. Do boys complain about being called bossy or being sexualized? Did those girls have an opportunity to play sports? Does she really want those 18yo boys to express their feelings?

Here is the video.

In 1997, Hilary Clinton made a famous speech in Beijing about women’s rights. Sadly many of the things she wanted to change are still a reality today.

But what stood out for me the most was that only 30 per cent of her audience were male. How can we affect change in the world when only half of it is invited or feel welcome to participate in the conversation?

I am surprised that the male attendance was as high as 30%. Why would some Chinese man want to hear Hillary Clinton babble about women's rights?

Her web site says:

A Solidarity Movement for Gender Equality

Now it’s time to unify our efforts. HeForShe is a solidarity movement for gender equality that brings together one half of humanity in support of the other of humanity, for the entirety of humanity.

So gender equality means that one half the planet supports the other half?!

She does give some lip service to men's rights, but this UN group is not going to do anything about that. It is all about promoting special privileges for women.

If you like female rants, there are women's sites that are orders of magnitude more popular then the men's sites. Here are some recommended articles from one:

Bra Company May Finally Have Your Boobs Figured Out

You've Been Pooping All Wrong

We Need to Talk About Women Who Regret Motherhood

Over 22 Years Old? Men Find You Less and Less Attractive Every Day.

What Former Sluts Tell Their Daughters About Sex

Your Boobs Are Poised for a Major Breakthrough

Out With the Old, In With the New

​How to Get Over an Ex By Obsessing About Them Even More

Dear Men: Having a Daughter Does Not Make You a Girl Expert

You Prefer to Date Fat Guys So You Don't Feel So Bad About Yourself

There is some crazy stuff there.

Update: Dilbert criticizes her.

So does CH:

The first quote, from this past Tuesday’s gender equality speech (guffaw), reads “If men don’t have to be aggressive in order to be accepted, women won’t feel compelled to be submissive.”

(Never mind that this assertion makes absolutely no sense if you think about it for longer than a second.)

The second attribution, from two years ago, reads “But now Emma Watson has said she doubts she will date a British man ever again – because they are too shy. [...] Instead an American will come up to her straight away and suggest a date – a boldness she finds attractive.”

#HeForShe? More like #HeForHeadCases. ...

DON’T LISTEN TO WHAT WOMEN SAY, WATCH WHAT THEY DO.

He is right about that. Female advice is very often contradicted by behavior.

He may be right, but her feelings matter

If your wife seeks marriage counseling, she is likely to get anti-man advice like this from Ask Amy:

DEAR DISTRAUGHT: When it comes to this kind of behavior and the way it makes you feel, does it matter who is "right"? (Hint: You get to define the boundaries of the marriage you want to be in.)

Your husband's characterization of his activities as just being "a guy" is an insult not only to you but to guys in general.

You think that you are in the right and that the shrink will back you up? Forget it. Even if the shrink does think that you are right, she won't say so. Instead she will say that the wife's feelings are paramount, that the wife has a right to define her needs to suit her own narcissism, that the husband has a duty to cater to those selfish feelings, and that it is an insult for a man to act like a man.

Feminized advice on being a gentleman

NPR Radio has a series on How To Be A 21st Century 'Gentleman':

"I can open my own door," says college freshman Chiamaka Njoku, 18. "I don't see the point of opening up the door; most of these doors are automatic anyway."

Njoku has a different very attitude when it comes to the check.

"If a man wants to pay for the whole meal, I will not stop him," she says.

My problem with this show is that all of the opinions offered were from women, except for one guy offering tips based on same-sex relationships.

If you are listening to NPR to learn how to be a man, you should check your pants to see whether you still have two testicles.

Okay, I am belaboring the obvious. NPR is leftist feminist radio. Real men would not listen to it, or would not take it seriously if they did.

I say that if you want advice on being a man, then read stuff written by men for men. Women say that craziest things on this topic.