Equal Parenting is bad law!

In every English speaking country and many where other language are spoken there must be a thousand discussion groups, on-line groups, support groups and other groups advocating "Equal Parenting." Among the many "equal parenting" advocacy groups are Fathers 4 Justice , AKidsRight.Org Equal Parenting Council , and many more. There are men's rights and parent's rights advocacy groups lobbying legislatures and parliaments wherever you go demanding equal parenting rights for men as well as women.

These equal rights groups are a response to half a century of very sexist decisions by evil bigot judges in black robes who have flouted the law and destroyed a millions of families and hurt a hundred million children. Some judges routinely decide 100% custody in favor of the female regardless of the facts of the individual case. Others decide only 80 or 90% in favor of the female. They ignore a mountain of scientific research which shows that almost all children are significantly hurt by being deprived of their fathers, and are much more likely to suffer child abuse in a single female headed home. Children who are now deprived of their father's love and guidance are doing less well in school, less well in relationships, less well in drug avoidance, get into crime and teen pregnancy at hither rates, and generally are hurt in every measurable way.

Every 6 minutes in the US another father takes his own life after his family is destroyed and his children are ripped from his life. Occasionally a distraught father goes totally berserk after the evil minion of Satan in the black robes takes away his family, like John Malvo, the "DC Sniper," for example.

In the US there are also millions of men who have been bound into indentured servitude, a form of slavery, under the name "child support." Slave chasers work tirelessly to catch those who rebel against the slave trade, or are unable to fulfill the ordered servitude. Debtor's prisons, long abhorrent in the US since England dumped debtors in Georgia, have been reopened and now hold well over 100,000 men. Some estimates place the number of men now in debtor's prisons closer to half a million.

In reaction to all the deprivation of families and the slavery of a million men there is a growing demand for "equal parenting" which would, in theory, restore some balance to the lives of men, women, and especially to the children. Equal parenting after a divorce would be a significant improvement compared to the current "Whatever the hell the woman wants!" approach used by the evil minions of Satan who now sit on the benches of "family" courts.

But is that the best we can do? Should we just accept divorce as a given and work on minimizing the destruction it causes? Or, should we start with the assumption that the "best interest of the child" is not to have a broken family in the first place? That is Bob's strong position.

Preservation of marriage and family should be paramount. The law should support marriage and penalize, not reward divorce. Under current divorce laws the woman is rewarded with possession of the family home, the car, custody of the kids, and 20 years of cash payments called "child support." She may or may not use the payments to support the children because there is no legal restrictions on the money, it's just a cash payment earned by getting divorced under current law. With these incentives there is little wonder that females file about 90% of divorces in the US, and comparable numbers in other countries. Women are PAID to destroy families and get divorced. To add to these cash benefits the government boosts the rewards with a long list of other benefits.

This is backward. This is stupid. This is insane. This is inhuman. This destroys families and hurts millions and millions of children.

The law ought to reward staying married for the sake of the children, if for no other reason, and penalize divorce. All the studies that I have seen show that, contrary to feminist political rhetoric, children do better in even the most fight prone families than in divorced families. Once a couple decides to marry, and has children, they have a 20 year obligation to maintain a decent home and raise their children. That is their moral obligation, and it should be their legal incentive as well. Now of course there will be individual circumstances that require divorce, but it should be discouraged, not encouraged by function of law. We should be penalizing divorce, not rewarding and paying parents who decide to end their marriage and file for divorce.

And what about the proverbial "abused wife?" you ask. Yes, that's the classic feminist dogma, but the truth is that the great majority of women get divorced because of reasons such as "to find myself." They are bored with their marriage, looking for excitement, can get paid fairly well for divorcing, and what the heck they have no reason not to go for it.

The big problem with "equal custody" is that it still rewards divorce as much as it rewards marriage. The adulterous wife who moves out, shacks up with the newspaper guy, and destroys the marriage still gets all the same benefits as the hard working husband who is trying to save his marriage and keep the home together for the sake of the children. That is very wrong. Here is how to make the law fair, and at the same time, promote stable families and take far better care of our children. It's not by "equal custody."

In most divorces, one but not both parents want a divorce. Usually one parent, far more often the father, is trying to keep the family together. The parent seeking to keep the family together should have preference on the home and custody of the children. The parent seeking to destroy the marriage and family by obtaining a divorce should have significantly less preference in award of the family home and custody of the children. It is more important to keep the family together, to promote and support marriage and family, than to give parents benefits for breaking up their marriage. Instead of "equal parenting" there should be preferences for keeping as much of the family together as possible, and disrupting the children as little as possible. The parent filing the divorce should be required to leave home, and with rare exceptions such as criminal conviction of child abuse, the divorce should not be considered unless the person filing the divorce has abandoned the home and given up custody of the children.

Exceptions to this rule should also be when there is lack of consortium or adultery resulting in other children. In either of these cases the guilty spouse has already abandoned the marriage and family and has no claim on the family. A wife bearing a bastard child has already formed a new de-facto marriage with the father of her baby, and deserves no benefits from the former marriage that she abandoned. The law should promote marriage and penalize divorce.

If both parents seek mutually agreed divorce then a presumption of shared parenting should be required for the sake of the children, but it has to be a workable solution. One "equal parenting" suggestion of residence by moving back and forth between homes on a weekly basis is highly disruptive for young people. In addition the family income that once managed to pay for one home of sufficient size for the children usually can't suddenly pay for two. No, a weekly back and forth "equal parenting" situation just isn't workable for most families.

If one parent decides to move out of town, to relocate to a different state perhaps, the focus should be on keeping the family together as much as possible. Children of a divorce need stability even more than do children of intact families. The parent who decides to abandon the family home, or hometown, and move away should have to go by herself. The law should encourage families and penalize those who break up families. In no case should any theory of "equal parenting" be allowed to disrupt the children's home and take them away from their friends and their life unless both parents and the children agree to the move.

When the children become old enough to begin to understand the situation their own desires and interests should weigh very heavily on any decisions. Teenage children have significant rights and can make many decisions themselves. A young child may not be able to determine his best interest, but a teenage son of 15 or 16 sure as hell can. Bob has been there, had that problem, had serious problems with a very abusive custody and support orders, and even more than 40 years later feel very, very strongly about it. Especially in a divorced family the children need to have their needs supported instead of denied. You can not be supporting the children's human rights, needs, and interests when you categorically deny any consideration of their interests and desires. Children old enough to choose between parents should be allowed to choose, and then change their minds next week or next year.

Most teenagers will decide to live with one parent for a while and then likely want to live with the other. Some will want to start living on their own, and the parent's first job is to help the child grow up and become adult. Children should be encouraged to accept all the freedom and privileges that they can handle, and taught to handle those they can not yet handle. That is the parent's job, to teach the youth how to be an adult. I am very, very adamant about respecting the young person's desires, needs, and choices. Neither parent wants a war with their teenager, which is exactly what you have when you deny their desires. You want to support and encourage them, not start a war. A war in a family ends in disaster for everyone, especially the young. Only by acknowledging and supporting their actual interests, by asking and listening to their choices, can peace and maturity be the result. Bob has been there, been that kid, had that problem, had serious problems, and I still feel very, very strongly about it all these decades later. The child's rights have to be first, and those rights include legal process and a strong say in "custody." Any decision about "custody" other than his own violates his human rights to his other parent.

This is about the child's rights to both parents and a safe, stable home. The first decision in a divorce ought to be no divorce. That decision ought to be the one that is strongly rewarded under law. If the two parents can't manage to provide the safe family for the child then the one who files a divorce ought to bear the penalty for destroying that family. Any law that encourages divorce, of fails to penalize the destruction of a family is bad law.

Bob

Slave Catchers are at it again

A century and a half after slavery and any form of indentured servitude became unconstitutional in the US, it has been restored under the euphemism "child support." Slave catchers are at work every week to catch runaway slaves.

Runaway slaves are punished by a variety of means and often slammed into cages where they are beaten or killed. Estimates of the number of men now in cages for failing to fulfill the terms of indentured servitude in the US are well over 100,000 and maybe as high as half a million. These evil inhuman slavers have no place in a society of decent human beings.

Bob

Men fighting men

Bob has noticed that a good percentage of so-called "men's" groups are little more than washed over feminism. One of the hot topics among men lately is the many problems that fathers face. The feminized divorce industry is very discriminatory against men, so much so that a father probably loses his children and his money for the next 20 years. Hundreds of thousands of men rot in debtor's prisons for failing to pay as much legalized extortion as the feminists order fathers to pay. It is a very problematic issue, and there are now several men's groups trying to address these very abusive problems.

But the father's groups are getting nowhere, and worse, are not addressing the underlying problems that are the causes of their problems. For most of human history, until feminism, a father's children were recognized as his by the society and the law. If the mother abandoned her family she was not allowed to break up the family. Feminism changed all that and substituted the false premise that children belong to their mother while the father is a walking wallet who may be forced to pay her for destroying their family under the radical feminist social experiment called "child support." Instead of confronting the failure of "child support" head on and demanding restoration of sanity and decent human values to families, most so-called "men's" groups now argue only one of two feminist issues. One, they concede the whole shebang and argue about the formula used to determine the amount of indentured servitude that the father must pay the mother for breaking up his family. Or, two, they argue for "equal parenting" which concedes the feminist destruction of the family. Either way they have conceded the underlying tenets of feminist dogma that the female may break up the family take the children, and be rewarded for doing so. Most of today's support groups disallow a man who speaks against these feminist positions. Most of today's men's groups would rather kowtow to women, and encourage female members, than take a political stand for men and children. Most of today's men's groups are little more than warmed over milquetoast feminism.

In PoliticallyActiveDads@yahoogroups.ca, someone wrote: "Message understood, loud and clear, but what do you think can be achieved in groups that are dominated by an agenda that is clearly little more than "tweaked feminism"? Seems almost as soon as a dads group get off the ground.. the women seem to move in and change it to suit them! And the leaders of the groups seem to show preference to women members!"

Bob answered, "You are so right there. The "men's" groups are usually very pro-women and are quick to ban a man who speaks for men. Often they have a feminist female doing the censorship and make no bones about it."

Bob was recently banished from the MensNewsDaily forum because the feminist female moderator, Navyblue, because she read some of Bob's anti-feminist opinions on Bob's blog. Bob was not allowed to post on the Men's News Forum because he supports men's rights and opposes feminist domination of men here on his blog. The feminist female moderator didn't wait for Bob to post similar anti-feminist opinion of the MND forum, she took action and banished a men's rights supporter immediately.

Bob just got deleted from Yahoo groups "Million Dad's March" for some unknown reason but likely for having men-supporting opinions. As you who read Bob's blog know, Bob does not mince words speaking out for the rights of men.

Bob has previously banished from Yahoo "KRightsRadioemailgroup," another "fathers' rights" group and action forum that has become more women centered than men centered. Kids Rights Radio proports to be a support group for men who have had their families destroyed by the feminazi judges and evil CPS bigots. Bob learned quickly that the feminist moderator of KRR group support women members from posting a lot of common men-bashing dogma about how their "bad" husband want's to see his kids. The feminazi moderators banish a man who posts anything that objects to the usual feminist dogma and men-bashing.

Bob has never joined Fathers 4 Justice but I have read numerous complaints from the UK by men who have been booted out of that organization.

In Australia most "reputable" men's groups renounce the Blackshirts because they are too adamant about their support for the rights of men. The "reputable" men's groups seem to be more about getting along with the feminist status quo than demanding the rights of men for our families.

We seem to live in an age where even the "men's" groups are pro-feminist. It's time for MEN to stop kowtowing to feminist dogma, stop accepting the whole feminist program, stop arguing over the best way to implement the feminist program (like arguing how to assign "child support") and start supporting MEN.

Divided we will fail. United we have no equal.

Bob

Criminal gangs in the streets.

Somebody asked Bob about the blue gun thugs. Why is it that Bob is so opposed to gun thugs in blue suits. "Aren't they really good people, good fathers, and all the rest of it?" he asked. "Aren't the (blue gun thugs) just doing a job tough job to protect people?"

That's the fiction they like to pump out, but when they come to your door, beat the crap out of you and destroy your family you get the real picture.

The Mayor of Albuquerque, Marty Chavez, became concerned last year because his city was losing tourists due to blue gun thug violence being repeatedly shown on the reality TV show COPS. Instead of doing something about excessive blue gun thug violence in his city, he stopped allowing COPS to be filmed in Albuquerque. One night in Albuquerque a distraught mother asked the blue gun thugs for help. Her mentally troubled teenage son had been playing with a BB gun (non lethal) and had gone off down the street. She asked the blue gun thugs to help locate him and assist in bringing him to mental counseling. The son had found a church a few blocks down the street and stopped to pray with a women's church group. When he came out of the church he was shot to death, gunned down in the street, murdered by the blue gun thugs. That's what they do. They are trained to kill. The blue gun thugs, of course, called the murder "justifiable." The mother will never have to worry about her son again. She won't be needing any more of their "help."

But Albuquerque is no different at all from any other city. The blue gun thugs everywhere are much the same. In NYC they can shoot an unarmed man in the back 40 times and call it "justified." In LA they surround a drunk and beat him senseless and call it "justified." In small towns or big cities a blue gun thug is the same everywhere. He is a member of an armed gang trained to hurt, kill, and destroy. Government cause of death statistics lump "murder and police" into one category so the public never can learn how many unarmed citizens are callously murdered in the streets by the blue gun thug gangs.

A friend told me that when he was younger he had become a blue gun thug, but had quit because he couldn't stomach the brutality and continual mistreatment of "civilians." He was a good family man like you and me. He quit. The rest of the blue gun thug gang that he couldn't stomach are the ones that Bob is talking about.

"Isn't it just a few bad apples," he asked. "Isn't it just a few bad (gun thugs) making the rest look bad?"

It's not a few bad apples, it's the whole bad system. You can't make wrong into right by doing wrong more effectively. If a man is a truely good man he wouldn't be working there long. He would get out, like my friend. And the whole thing is probably illegal, unconstitutional, as well. http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

It's a amazing how some men can live a double life. A man may be a good father at home, but if his job is that of a blue gun thug, his job is robbing, beating people, hurting families, destroying lives. Even a "routine traffic stop" is armed highway robbery designed primarily to take people's money and fill the budget of the local authority, it pays the gun thugs' salaries. Some call it the "traffic tax." When Bob lived in Seattle the city budget was 1/3 financed by traffic tax. A special "traffic" division of blue gun thugs specialized in tax collection, and all the other blue gun thugs were required to rob one motorist every shift. In most cities they keep these figures secret, but they are not different. There was a time when armed highway robbers were rounded up and hanged by decent people. Now they work for the femernment. People got along fine without them for a million years. Blue gun thug gangs were only invented about a hundred years ago, and every year they get worse. We don't need them, we don't want them, and we would all be a lot better off without them.

The rise of blue gun thugs in western civilization mirrors the rise of feminism. They are the feminist army. Their job is to take away the power of husbands and other men, break up families, and enforce feminist state domination.

"Shouldn't we fight back against the parties truly responsible for the wrongs done to us and our children, instead of the blue gun thugs?" he asked.

When you are in a war, you have to kill the private in the other army. It may be that a private or a blue gun thug has no ability to decide who he attacks and kills, he's just following orders, but he is very much the enemy. If he's a conscript you may feel sorry for him, but he's the enemy you have to kill. The blue gun thug gangs are all volunteers. No one should be sorry to see any of their sorry hides rotting in the sun. It would be nice if you could fight all wars by fighting only the enemy generals and political leaders, but no war is ever fought that way. The blue gun thugs are the shock troops of a very violent and very evil feminist war on men. May the all be sent to hell.

[Hoists a glass] Here's to all the dead gun thugs. May there be many more.

Bob

Frankenstein Kids

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is considering a "child-support" (slavery) appeal from a mother (Mrs. Ferguson) who has bound the "sperm donor" father into slavery to support her after her divorce. While she was married, Mrs. Ferguson entered into a "sperm donation" contract with a Mr. Joel L. McKiernan for sperm to fertilize "test tube babies" by method of "in vitro fertilization." Both the trial court and the appellate court have called Mrs. Fergeson's actions "despicable" Bob also believes that the actions of Mrs. Ferguson are despicable, but probably for different reasons.

Writing an opinion piece on Men's News Daily, noted "i" feminist Wendy McElroy says that it's a bad case that will likely result in bad law. Ms. McElroy calls it "bad" because the outcome will likely make it more difficult for single mothers to whelp bastards by purchasing sperm at low cost. To a feminist, any kind of feminist, females ought to be able to have unilateral control over all aspects of child bearing and families. To a feminist all fathers are "sperm donors" who can be used and bought to satisfy a female (a feminist's "person") desire for children. To a feminist, the rights and needs of her child for his father do not matter. To a feminist, the rights and needs of the father for his children do not matter. Fathers, and even children, are not "persons" to a feminist. "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people." Feminists, all feminists, do not consider that any non-people (children and men) have rights, or even matter.

To Bob, and millions of other fathers, what matters is the wellbeing of our children. The whelping of bastards, with or without the aide of Frankensteinian medical measures, is child abuse of the worst kind. Fathers are not just some interchangeable "figure" that females can play with and trade like some "Ken" dolls. Fathers are a very real and very important part of every child's life. When a child is deprived of his own real father, he (or she) is hurt for life in very important ways. Long lists of studies show that children who do not have their own father do worse in every measurable way, worse in school, worse in relationships, worse in drug addiction, worse in crime, worse in every way you can measure. When a child is unavoidably deprived of his father by death or other non-preventable accident it is a human tragedy. When a child is deliberatly deprived of his father by conscious choice, it is willful child abuse and ought to be prosecuted under child abuse statutes. In this case Mrs. Ferguson intended to deprive her children of their father, Mr. McKiernan, and substitute another "father figure," Mr. Ferguson, into their lives. Well, she was worse than that. Her husband, Mr. Ferguson, didn't accept her sexual dalliances and off the rack kids, so he filed for divorce on the same day she bought the test tube kids. She had some imposter attend meetings with Dr. Frankenstein because a real husband wouldn't be so unfeeling. Nevertheless she put Mr. Ferguson's name on the children's birth certificates, expecting to lie to the children about their father's identity. With the help of Dr. Frankenstein she chose to create children in a laboratory, and to raise them without their father. Decent people find that practice completely abhorrent.

Another part of this case that Bob finds very, very troubling is that such Frankenstein kids are now becoming common. More and more females turn to "fertility" clinics because they have followed the feminist life plan and put off their families until their natural fertility is rapidly declining. See Take back the society! in Bob's April 2005 blog archive . Of course, there are plenty of amoral Dr. Frankensteins who will do absolutely anything at all for money. Children created in "test tubes" and "in vitro" in laboratories are deprived of the spiritual union of man and woman that exists when normal children are created. Like the fabled monster in Mary Shelley's original novel, these children are created without spiritual union and have no soul. But unlike the original Dr. Frankenstein, today's doctors have no ethics or moral foundation. Mary Shelley's original Dr. Frankenstein suffered severe remorse for playing God and creating life from body parts in a laboratory. In the end he was driven mad. She could not conceive of the shocking and callous attitude that today's medical industrial complex has toward such horrible and tragic practice. Every day they willfully create life in their laboratories, little Frankenstein kids, kids who are deprived of the spiritual union that comes from the joining of father and mother. The people in the medical industrial complex are without souls and without conscience. They are not driven mad by their crimes against humanity as the original Dr. Frankenstein was.

It is time for good people, people who care about children, people who care about the soul of children, people who care bout families and fathers, all people of good conscience, to put a stop to these inhuman Frankensteinian malpracticing medical mad men. Creating a Frankenstein child in a laboratory is as wrong now as it was when Mary Shelley wrote of the horror that drove Dr. Frankenstein mad. The madness needs to stop. If the medical industrial complex, and their organizations like the AMA are not able to stop themselves, then good people need to make them stop. Grab your pitchforks!

McElroy says that the case will be "bad" law because it will stop foolish young men from "donating" sperm to the medical industrial complex for females to use in the Frankenstein programs. Cowshit! It will result in good law because females will no longer be able to buy sperm at the corner "fertility clinic." Old feminist females who turned away from motherhood and didn't bear children when they were young will find it much more difficult to buy a Frankenstein child off the rack.

The bad part of the court case is because it supports the false feminist lie called "child support." The judicial decisions are all based on the feminist hate myth that a female is entitled to be paid by men for bearing children. As Bob has said before, the failed radical feminist experiment called "child support" is hateful and hurtful to children, men, and other living things. It ought to be recognized as the destroyer of families and fraudulent user of children that it is, and thus be ended. Mrs. Ferguson should be severely punished for her destruction of her marriage and family, depriving her children of their own father, her lies when she obtained sperm by false promises, for obtaining of children from Dr. Frankenstein, and for failing to support her kids.

I have little sympathy for Mr. McKiernan either. He made a huge mistake in thinking that he could create children without raising them, and "donated" his sperm to Dr. Frankenstein for use in a laboratory child factory. If this court case puts the brakes on bad fathers like Mr. McKiernan, or causes them to stop participating in this disgusting and immoral practice, it will be good law.

This case is another example of judges doing all the wrong things for all the wrong reasons. The law upon which the case will be decided is based on men being bound into servitude, slavery, to pay females. Feminists like Ms. McElroy hate the outcome because either way it's decided it's likely either to limit a female's right be paid by men, or limit the females' ability to buy children off the rack from the medical industrial complex. The whole case is a sordid example of how truly bad our society has become. Our laws are bad. Our judges are bad. Our medical people have no moral or ethical limits. Our children are the ones who are always hurt.

Bob

Addendum: The voters in Italy have apparently outlawed the creation of Frankenstein kids much to the disappointment of Droctors Frankenstein. Oh that we could have such rational laws here.

It wasn't men

To women who "aren't feminist," but think we ought to get along.

It wasn't men who started the feminist hate war on men. If a lifetime of feminist hate makes a few men angry, the women who have supported feminism have nobody to blame but themselves.

It wasn't men who created the 50% divorce and destruction of our families.

It wasn't men who changed "family" from a father, mother and children into "a mother and her children."

It wasn't men who created the misandrist "sexual harassment" laws that make our jobs into hostile environments.

It wasn't men who created forty kinds of "rape" prosecution with punishment far beyond the severity of the crime and convictions usually based on false accusations.

It wasn't men who created the "domestic violence" hate laws that make it dangerous for men if a female ever has a hissey fit.

It wasn't men who created the "child support" nightmare that uses boys as pawns in a game of legalized extortion, and makes fathers into indentured servants (slaves).

It wasn't men who demanded that normal manly behavior be called criminal, and millions of men convicted of false crimes.

It wasn't men who demanded the VAWA with special government programs to search out and prosecute men.

It wasn't men who created the so-called "child protective services" that destroy children, families, and fathers.

It wasn't organized masculism that was responsible for the violent pernicious hate war on men that virtually 100% of all women now fully believe to be "just" and "right."

If a few men are angry, and some are very angry because of the lifetime of hate that each and every woman now expects as her "rights" it would not be surprising at all.

If any woman doesn't like the anger of men, she has nobody to blame but her hate mongering sisters and her own support and belief of the hate programs of feminism.

There is a very active and very violent war being fought against men in this country and in all western countries. It's going to get a lot more violent when the men start actually fighting back.

It's not enough for "non-feminist" women to stand on the fruits of a century of hate war and ask men to accept it all without complaint. Men are going to be angry. If you don't like the heat, hon, get out of the kitchen.

Men's News Daily: Round 3

Update:

Here's what the lovely feminist moderator of MND "men's" forum, "Navy Blue," has to say about Bob in what she thinks is behind his back. Bob, you see is not allowed to read her words. See if you can find anywhere in this forum where Bob said the things that this feminist female accuses him of. Of course we expect Bob's opinions to terrify and offend feminists, and NB is no exception. See if you find anything on this blog that a MAN wouldn't agree with.


Bob Allen:
I read your blog that masquerades as an MRA platform. You advocate for the boinking of "hot nubile" female minors by 60 year old men such as yourself and assert that male exposure and any penetration should never be criminalized unless there is proof of 'physical harm'. And you have the audacity to come in here and moralize to me about my use of the word 'bullshit'? I grew up in Texas. Bullshit is bullshit, Bob. It should be characterized as such. You believe any male regardless of his age should be legally sanctioned to have sex with a female as young as 14. Let's see how many from the Amen section here now cheer, 'You go brother!' In the meantime, I've banned you because you're a bigot and an embarrassment to MRA and your brand of 'men's rights' will not be associated with Mike LaSalle's work. Adios.


Navy Blue has gone totally ballistic on the MND forum. She went into a long raving rant, so typical of feminist hysteria, in which she condemns all men who express men's opinions about feminism and the women who believe in and promote feminist goals. Much of her hysterical rant was libelous ad-hominem attacks on particular regulars who's masculine opinions she doesn't like. I have deleted their names and identification from my copy below.

Here are some exerts from her hysteria:


Author Message navyblue
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2005 7:13 pm
The jihad continues, eh?

We are precisely where we were in January of 2004. But this time, most of the minions are only lurking and railing about what a cunt I am on their own forums because they were all banned after their last celebration of the collapse of Western civilization as wrought by women.

Here's the program for those that just tuned in and missed the last suicide mission of extremists on MND.

Who can hear your real pain when its pseudo-version only surfaces in public ranting geared toward an audience of minions that step forward to cheerlead you and shame me for not 'listening' to you?

Get some professional help for Christ's sake.

I have zero respect for you.

Same story. You lurk when a hot thread starts, then offer a single hit and run 'You go Brother XXXX!' hate missive on why you can't be in a relationship and vow to refrain from sex with women for life. We here at MND owe the powerful image of a burning woman you wouldn't bother to piss on to your uniquely construed version of Zen.

This forum is a cess pool again. For all the 'It's navyblue's fault it's not a real MRA environment, that programmed b*tch!', men, decent thinking men, PM me and say they can't stomach tbe woman hating, the excuses, the self-loathing, the vile venomous projection of fault onto the entire female sex, and the trashing of marriage and functional intimacy with women.

It seems the only men you are willing to listen to are the ones that crawl like cowards out of the woodwork of other forums at opportune times to cheer your flaming or, those here that hate themselves, females, and the thought of giving up their similar coveted rant.

I've watched so many of you twist, invent, rearrange, intellectualize, and just plain lie to continue coveting the treasured rage you love more than the possibility of a life well lived, should you give up the dance of alienation.

I am now embarrassed again, as I was the last time this forum was turned into a toilet, to have been decent to those of you that piss on the efforts of men like this and give in to the mentality of suicidal lunatics out to see the best of what life has to offer obliterated.

I have no respect for any of you who promote in the name of men's rights, the abandonment of what brave men have defended. It is unacceptable to give into bitterness.

It's a harbor for those that don't want change or healing but rather pursue with zeal, self-deprecation that is projected onto others and promotes the lowly ideal of giving up and surrendering to stultifying ideologies that kill hope.

They want a forum that is about their issues, not what f-ing assholes and pukes women are. So given that, here is where we are.

I will not surrender this forum to another demise because of the select few that trash it and rail on a daily basis that I and all women are their problem, that demand all females concede they are a piece of excrement and perpetually disavow themselves of what caused you to suffer, and whatever else you insist is required.

I will ban every last damn one of you if that's what it takes to start fresh and re-direct what Mike pays freight on for the sake of men that want sane discourse and a place to begin dealing personally and politically with the abusive paradigm feminism has erected.

Those of you that want your insane jihad, have it, I don't care what your lot is. I've been a friend to some of you only to have you stab me in the back or erupt in public lashings that boast to your ilk that you trumped a woman.

I have lost all respect for you based on your own conduct and wash my hands of you. So save the navyblue couldn't handle the 'truth' fests for the zenpriest et al forums. I could give a damn what your contorted version of 'truth' is. Those of you that participate in the many versions of the behavior described herein are some of the most dishonest dishonorable individuals I've come across. God help you.

This is again a time of house cleaning as it was in January of 2004 when the adrenalin kick of raving about what sh*t women are reached its peak and Mike personally gave a number of people the boot.


When will it all end? Stay tuned.

Bob

Men's News Daily continues to censor men's opinion. Round 2

Update:

Yesterday Bob reported that he has been banned from the "men's" discussion on the MensNewsDaily forum by "Navy Blue" the feminist female moderator.

Bob has learned that the reasons Navy Blue gave for banning Bob was that she read this blog, "The World according to Bob," and was offended by the manly opinions stated here. Most forum moderators only banish someone who violates the rules of their forum. I've never heard of men being banished because the feminist forum moderator objected to his anti-feminist posts elsewhere. But there it is. This blog is so offensive to feminists that even saying these taboo opinions will get Bob banished from what claims to be a "men's" forum.

Bob has also learned that Navy Blue has resigned as the moderator of the MND forum. The owner of MND, Mike, has posted a message asking for volunteer moderators. Bob, of course, is available and has suggested to Mike that a real man ought to be put in charge of a "men's" forum. Will Mike have the balls to make the change? Will he wimp out and try to find another feminist or closet feminist to moderate his forum? Stay tuned.

Bob

Men's News Daily continues to censor men's opinion.

The web site called Men's News Daily (www.mensnewsdaily.com) continues to be dominated by females and feminist opinion. Their forum discussion is moderated by a female feminist, and the news site is run with the view of avoiding a world view that actually supports real men.

Bob was banned from the forum of Men's News Daily today. He made the mistake of pointing out the use of feminist dogma, misandry, and anti-men tactics by "Navy Blue" the female feminist moderator of the MND forum. Among other things Bob objected to her use of such classics feminist tactics as "your mother" and "attack the person." Bob would like to post the whole text here, but Bob has been banned from their web site.

Bob joined the MND forum a year or so ago during a time when "Navy Blue" was banishing several men's activists from the forum for arguing too strenuously with feminists. The MND forum has been a pretty quiet place, devoid of much serious controversy or discussion because all the activists had been banned previously. Today Bob made the mistake of objecting to "Navy Blue's" pro-feminist rant and her feminist ad-hominem tactics, and was denied access.

Why is it that so many "men's" web sites are actively anti-men? Why is it that Men's News Daily allows a feminist female to censor their forum? Why is that kind of feminist censorship so common in what passes for men's activist groups and forums today? Why do we have so many "white knight" men who can't even stop kowtowing to feminist females long enough to run a men's web site?

Bob

Historic Middle East Agreement.

We see in the news that Mrs. G. W. Bush has gone to the middle east to demonstrate in favor of "women's rights." The political climate in the US would no longer allow her to demonstrate for "women's rights" here without a huge negative reaction from conservative men. In Israel she was shouted down by both the Jewish and Muslim men.

At last they have found an issue where both Jew and Muslim can agree. Mrs. Bush and her "women's rights" misandry have to go. News story click here

Bob

Harvard must obey Title IX

OPEN LETTER TO:

U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Educational Opportunities Section, PHB
Washington, D.C. 20530


Subject: Harvard University's clear and public violation of Title IX

The currently published program of Harvard University is on it's face a clear violation of Title IX. Harvard University is openly and publicly flouting the law and violating the civil rights of all men who may wish to get an education in science. No university should be allowed to publicly flout the laws of the United States and openly discriminate against a whole half of the American people. It's illegal and we expect the DOJ to enforce the law. Public flouting of civil rights law is intolerable and unacceptable.

Thank you for your prompt action in addressing and correcting this public law violation.

Bob


------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE PLAINLY ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX

From USATODAY web site:
Harvard president commits $50M to programs for women

BOSTON (AP) — Harvard President Lawrence Summers was at a conference last winter when he suggested that innate differences between the sexes might explain why fewer women succeed in science and math careers.

The response was fast and fierce.
Summers hurriedly apologized for sending "an unintended signal of discouragement to talented girls and women," and less than a month later appointed two faculty task forces on women.
He made another gesture Monday, committing $50 million of Harvard's money over the next decade to programs — ranging from mentoring to child care to safe, late-night transport — recommended by those task forces.
"Universities like Harvard were

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE IX, WHAT THE LAW SAYS
From the DOJ web site:

TITLE IX OF THE EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972
20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 - 1688
TITLE 20 - Education
CHAPTER 38 - DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX OR BLINDNESS
 Sec. 1681. Sex.
 (a) Prohibition against discrimination; exceptions.
CHAPTER REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS
This chapter is referred to in sections 1132f-1, 1232, 3041, 3042 of this title; title 29 sections 206, 1577; title 42 sections 290cc-34, 300w-7, 300x-7, 708, 1988, 2000d-7, 10406.

Sec. 1681. Sex
(a) Prohibition against discrimination; exceptions
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, except that....

Second Amendment

Most modern analysis of the 2nd Amendment is done from a modern perspective and misses the point of the 2nd Amendment entirely. It has to be understood using the word definitions of the late 18th century, and the perspective of the authors who had just finished overthrowing a tyranical government.

Prior to the American Revolution the English had a history of outlawing arms among citizens for the purpose of maintaining government control in the colonies. Various English prohibitions against the ownership of arms in the Americas were one of the major bones of contention prior to the revolution. Many Americans needed arms on the frontier. They had been in a generation long conflict with native people who sometimes sacked villages or killed farmers, and had experienced a generation of religious warfare between the Protestant English and the Catholic French and their Indian allies. The need to own and bear arms, real military arms, was important to colonists for their own protection.

As anti-English sentiment heated up the English tried unsuccessfully to limit or eliminate armed colonists in America as they tended to do elsewhere. By the middle of the 1770s, armed groups of Americans who had already formed militias to defend against French and Indians now found themselves preparing to fight against what they viewed as English tyranny. In those days "arms" consisted of muskets or rifles, swords, and cannons. Muskets and rifles were also for hunting and sport, while the swords and cannon were exclusively for warfare. Taking away arms, and hanging men who owned them, was strongly contended between English and American colonists prior to and during the civil war.

When the war ended, and the winners were sitting down to draft the new Constitution, the problem of government tyranny was big in their minds. They went to considerable length in the new Constitution to try to prevent the new government from eventually becoming corrupt and tyrannical as the former English government had seemed to them. So, as the final part of the checks and balances against a tyrannical government, they wrote the 2nd amendment. These were the same men who had written the Declaration of Independence and had defended it with their lives. These were men who believed that the people had an absolute right to overthrow a tyrannical government as they had done, and the people had the right to posses the means to do so when that final action became necessary. The meaning of the 2nd amendment is about armed militias of citizens overturning a tyrannical government, it's not about hunting or sport weapons nor defending against burglers.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

First, the term "well regulated" does not mean being controlled by the government. In the language of 1776 and 1790, a "regular" army was a standing army like the English who had defended the king. They were the "regulars," and the Americans were militia. The regulars were usually well equipped and well trained. To be "well regulated" meant to be trained and equipped in the manner of the "regulars." A "militia" consisted of everyday citizens who come together in time of need to defend their homes and villages. It had nothing to do with government owned reserve armies because such a thing was unheard of in those centuries. The National Guard wouldn't be invented for more than a century later. A "militia" is not the reserves of the regular army, nor the National Guard of the states which are also "regulars" in some sense. The militia is ordinary citizens who own arms and do some training and can be called upon or get together themselves in times of crisis. So a "well regulated militia" consists of ordinary citizens who own arms equal to those of the regular army, and who have some training in the art of war.

Secondly, Jefferson, Washington, Adams, and his fellow revolutionaries believed that a free state is one that has overturned a tyrannical government by force of arms if necessary, as they had done themselves. Overthrowing the government may seem excessive to you and me, but to men who had done just that it was what good men do when necessary to ensure freedom. A "free state" is one that can not become tyrannical and oppressive to the people. They belived that it is necessary for the people to maintain a "well regulated militia" to ensure that any government which becomes too tyrannical can be replaced. This amendment is consistent with, and reflects the thinking of the Declaration of Independence. A "free people" is a people who can overturn the government when necessary. These first two phrases give the reader the reason for the right to own and bear arms. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to ensure to the people the right to maintain regular military arms in order to guarantee a state free from government tyranny.

The last phrase, the action phrase, tells the government that it is prohibited from defending itself by taking away the arms of the people as the English governors had tried to do. It does not talk about sporting rifles, nor hunting muskets. It's about ARMS! It's about the same kind and type of arms that the regular army uses. In 1776 that was swords and cannon. Today it would be TOW missiles, MBT-1 tanks, M-16s. and all the other arms that the "regular" army uses.

Of course the tyrannical government and their supporters are very afraid of the power of the people guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. The thought of an angry army overthrowing the government, tossing all the graft and corruption out of Washington, and restoring freedom to American terrifies them without limit. Neither the courts, nor the Congress, nor the President will allow the people to have the means to overthrow them and toss the rascals out. For most of the past two centuries the government has worked to decrease the rights and power of the people, and especially the ability of the people to overthrow the government.

All their laws against arms are illegal under the constitution. The rights accrue not to government, federal or state controlled regular armies, but to all citizens who choose to form militias or be ready to from a "well regulated" and thereby very well armed militia.

All the arguments about what kind of hand guns or long arms can be prohibited only argue how much tyranny the government can impose in violation of it's own basic law. They demonstrate how far from freedom the government has become. All such laws are illegal on their face. Government organizations such as the BATF are illegal because they enforce illegal law. It was a good try by George, Tom, John, and the others, but tyranny of government is darn hard to stop. It will always try to prevent the people from seizing back it's power.


Bob

"Gay marriage" is a contradiction

The whole notion of "gay marriage" is a contradiction in two words. Marriage is and has always been the biological union of man and woman that produces children, and the social institution that supports the bearing and raising of the next generation of the society. To argue in favor of "gay marriage" is to deny the meaning and purpose of marriage, to attempt to destroy marriage as it has always been.

In this day when feminist fanatics have so badly hurt marriage with "no fault" divorce at will laws and payments to women who break up marriages the social institution is badly beatten. Most children struggle to grow up without the benefit of a safe stable family and suffer badly for the loss. Instead of trying to drive in the last few coffin nails into the institution of marriage, decent caring people ought to be working to strengthen and support families which protect and nurture our children.

I am deeply offended by the ACLU and similar organizations that have become hate groups advocating anti-men, anti-family, anti-children policies. I am offended by those who falsly claim that marriage is a religous institution while trying to destroy it. Marriage is far older than any currently popular religion. I am offended by those who try to turn marriage into some kind of cheap government entitlement program, because denying the purpose and meaning of marriage hurts every child. I am offended by those who put their own sordid sexual pleasure ahead of the needs of our children, our families, and our whole society.

Decent human beings need to support and nurture our marriages and our families.

Bob

ACLU, lies and misandry

Bob strongly supports the civil rights of all Americans as enumerated in the US Constitution, and as often violated by the government. Bob supports equal rights for all citizens, which is why Bob is so sadly disappointed that the ACLU has turned from it's lofty purpose and become a hate group pushing misandry and opposing the civil rights of so many Americans. The American Civil Liberties Union claims to be the supporter of freedom and liberty for all Americans, "The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty." They claim, "Our job is to conserve America's original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights." If only that were the case.

But let's look closer. To start with, the ACLU now opposes the civil rights of Americans to own and bear arms guaranteed by the Constitution of the US. The Constitution says, "The right to own and bear arms shall not be abridged." In contrast, the ACLU says, "The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it." Thomas Jefferson and his associates who wrote the 2nd Amendment guaranteeing the right to own and bear arms believed in and practiced the right of citizens to overthrow a tyrannical government. A major argument prior to the American revolution was the citizens ownership of military arms. The British feared, and rightfully so, that armed citizens might have the means to overthrow their rule, and they were proven correct. Today's government also fears that armed citizens might have the means to overthrow it's tyranny. The means to overturn a tyrannical government is as important today as it was for George, Jeff, and John in 1776. That's why they wrote the 2nd amendment. That is the purpose of the 2nd amendment. It has nothing to do with self protection, hunting, or sports. And the ACLU opposes the civil rights of citizens that Jefferson and the others tried to guarantee. They oppose, they do not defend civil rights.

Some decades ago the ACLU changed from an unbiased defender of civil rights for every American into the champion of hate and bigotry, for certain classes of citizens and against other citizens. They changed to an organization which champions the destruction of families with consequential harm to men, women and of course all of our children. What once was a noble organization with lofty goals has descended into the hell of hate and bigotry.

Look at their web site list of "issues." We see "women's issues" but no men's issues. We see "gay/lesbian issues" but no straight and family issues. Today there are hundreds of men's organizations demanding civil rights for men, but the ACLU stands squarely opposed to equal civil rights for men. ACLU supports such badly biased "Jane Crow" hate laws as the VAWA. They say, "Today, we ask you to join us in standing up for every woman's right to access the full range of reproductive health services," and concurrently oppose with all their money and lawyers any semblance of reproductive rights for men. They fail utterly to support the equal rights of the other half of the human race, men. After a century of almost totally discriminatory laws and public funding only women have rights or access to reproductive health products or medical procedures. There are no "pills" for men because of a century of total discrimination in research and health funding. There is no "choice for men" because of total "Jane Crow" discrimination in law. At the misandrist ACLU, only women are people and only women have rights. Millions of men in the US have been turned into indentured servants, a form of slavery, under the faux label "child support." All forms of slavery including indentured servitude are unconstitutional in the US, but ACLU and it's misandrist minions support slavery for men if it will pay women. Hundreds of thousands of men now rot in debtor's prisons in the US. Debtor's prisons were unconscionable and unconstitutional in the US ever since the British emptied debtor's prisons by dumping men in Georgia. They were illegal and unconstitutional in the US until the middle of the 20th century when feminists, with the support of bigoted organizations like the ACLU brought them back to punish men who are unable to pay the women who broke up our families. They have no "men's issues" page on their web site because they are misandrists who oppose, not support rights for men.

ACLU advocates on behalf of women who are tried and convicted of crime, but ignores the similar plight of men. Men make up 24/25 of people in prisons, and most of these men would not be in prisons if justice were equal that now given to women. From initial police reports to the parole board hearing, every step of the American Injustice System (AIS) is badly discriminatory against men. But despite the horrible prejudice of the AIS, the ACLU includes such advocacy as "death row from a woman's perspective" as an issue. The plight of the hugely larger number of men unfairly imprisoned is routinely ignored.

The ACLU sides in favor of continued discrimination against men in education despite women now taking over almost all of our educational institutions and men being relegated to 2nd class status. In issue after issue, at ACLU, only women matter. Men are notoriously absent from any of their issues, even when women already have much better chances in law and society. ACLU continuities to strongly support the end of family and marriage, when it will benefit women. The destruction of marriage and families was adopted by feminists attending the 1848 conference in Seneca, NY, and continues to be a major goal of organized feminism today. To date they are almost 50% successful in the destruction of marriage by "no fault" divorce and faux "child support" laws that pay women for destroying their families. But the ACLU isn't stopping there.

Marriage and families have always been about children. Marriage is the social contract of the society to support the biological union that creates and nurtures the next generation. Safe, stable families are necessary for children to grow up and succeed. Mountains of evidence shows that children growing up without their fathers are a social disaster of unprecedented proportions. Something over 80% of the millions of men now in US prisons were raised in single mother homes. But the ACLU is not satisfied with the rampant destruction of marriage and family that has already been accomplished. They turn their evil lieyers to the support of making marriage completely meaningless by advocating and promoting so-called "gay marriage." It's an oxymoron because marriage is the biological union that creates children, and the "marriage" actually is the child that is created by the biological union of male and female. The social custom supporting marriage always requires a presumption of biological union, and in many countries for many centuries the law didn't recognize a marriage until the child was conceived. ACLU in their hate of happy loving people wants to change all that. ACLU works to destroy the very basis and meaning of the few marriages left after the century of attack by their lieyers and femininazi friends. "The American Civil Liberties Union today announced plans to launch a national Marriage Campaign to persuade Americans that it is unfair to deny legal protections to the families of same-sex couples." Under the guise of "fairness" they wipe away the very meaning and purpose of marriage, putting the final nails into it's coffin, destroying the families of the remaining children who are lucky enough to be among the minority who still have good families and decent homes in America.

Everywhere you look on the ACLU web site they are pushing misandrist hate. They ignore 90% of death row inmates to focus only on women who kill, taking the side of the criminals and ignoring their victims. Women, it seems, can do no wrong in the eyes of a feminazi bigot of the ACLU. At ACLU, they never miss an opportunity to promote misandry. Feminist anti-men hate has been their official policy for many decades.

The one area where the ACLU still supports individual freedom is in religion. Thomas Jefferson actively worked in Virginia to eliminate religion as part of that state's government. George Washington learned military leadership serving as an officer in the Protestant English army fighting the Catholic French over religious issues. He has seen first hand the horrors that religious wars had cost. He wanted no part of religious wars for his new country. He and the other founders of the US tried to make the US government religiously neutral, neither requiring, promoting, nor prohibiting any religion. The first international treaty signed by the US government declared that the US is not a Christian nation, nor a Jewish nation, nor a Muslim nation, but is a secular nation that accepts all religions. Maybe it's because feminists are generally atheist that they do so. Nevertheless, we do not want religious wars in the US now any more than we did when George Washington was the only surviving Protestant officer after a battle at war with the Catholics. If you read their cases, ACLU seems to be far more likely to file suit when a girl's or woman's religious rights are violated than when a man's religious rights are violated. Even for a good cause they can't put their misandrist bigotry aside.

Today, we ask you, ACLU, to join us in standing up for every man's equal rights, to end your decades of misandrist bigotry and hatred of men.

Bob

Evil in the Court

If you are looking for minced words or PC pabulum you've come to the wrong blog. Please leave now. Bob tells it like it is.

A father CAN NOT kidnap his own child!

There seems to be no justice for fathers these days in a anti-men hate machine called the American Injustice System (AIS). There seems to be no sympathy for fathers these days in the anti-men hate machine called Associated Press (AP). In the following AP story a father is sent to prison for 10 years on a trumped up "gun" charge and is awaiting trial for "kidnapping" his own child. Firstly, the US Constitution prohibits all laws that abridge his right to own and bear arms. The AIS is operating in criminal contempt of it's own foundation when sending this man to prison. The prosecutor, judge, and the rest of their blue gun thug lackeys ought to be dragged out of the Bastille (and/or their courthouse) and beheaded by an angry mob of righteous citizens.

Second, fatherhood is the ancient and venerable institution that protects and nurtures our children. Every father has a fundamental human right to his children and every child has a fundamental human right to his father. The scum misandrist bigots who seek to hurt these children and demolish this family by taking the children away from their father are evil villains. Prosecutor Mike Sanders is a maggot infested pile of dog crap sweltering in the filthy heat of the AIS. U.S. District Judge Ortrie Smith is the evil daemon that lurks for you in your worst nightmare. There is no evil too despicable nor hate to vile for her to do in her quest to hurt men and children and destroy our families. She has broken her oaths to uphold the Constitution and openly commits crimes against her country in her zeal to hurt men. She is a notorious criminal in the eyes of decent human beings as she openly violates the basic laws of our country, the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. She sends this man to the horrors of prison for a trumped up unconstitutional faux "crime" of having a weapon, a false accusation that she knows is not why he's in her courtroom. She makes his sentence unusually severe for the purpose of depriving him and his children of their fundamental human rights to their family. And of course, it's not about the gun, it's about his family and her psychopathic desire to hurt and destroy a father and his children. Evil is like pornography for these daemons, it's how they get off, thinking about the men and children they have hurt and the families they have destroyed. Tar and feathers would be too good for evil child hating filth of her kind. She is the enemy of every father who ever loved his child.

Associated Press writer Matt Sedensky uses this occasion to write another misandrist story in furtherance of the AP campaign to spread hatred of men and destruction on families. He offers no sympathy for the children who lose their father, nor for the father who struggles to love and support his children. The evil bigoted Sedensky only pushes the usual misandrist description of the female's tears. Boo Hoo! If she had been bringing her children to their father for support as women have done for a million years before feminism she would not be having such problems. She has only herself, the evil misandrist feminists and hate mongers like Sedensky, Smith, and Sanders to blame for her troubles.

These evil minions of Satan are not alone. They are part of a grand conspiracy involving the whole of the AIS, the talking head media, and a host of other organizations. Their goal is to destroy men and our families. They have already succeeded in wiping out half of all marriages and causing millions of children to live without a father's love and protection. Our prisons are full of men who's primary "crime" was being born male. No other nation in the history of humanity has ever worked so hard to destroy men, and our children and families. No other nation in the history of humnaity has ever had so many men in prison.

It's time for good decent men and women to storm the Bastille. Lady G has a ton of work to do.

Bob

[Legal notice: All posts of Bob are rhetorical in nature only, and should not be construed in any other manner. Bob does not advocate insurrection, sedition, murder, violence, assault, or any other criminal or illegal acts. All opinions on this site are protected political speech under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.]

=====================================
Dad of Missing Children Sent to Prison
By MATT SEDENSKY
Associated Press Writer
KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) -- A man who refuses to reveal the whereabouts of his two children was sent to prison Friday for 10 years on an unrelated gun charge - a stiff sentence prosecutors hope will persuade him to talk.
Daniel Porter, 42, is awaiting trial in November on charges of kidnapping his children, who have been missing since last June, when he picked them up from his ex-wife, Tina, for a weekend visit. The youngsters were 7 and 8 at the time.
"Mr. Porter holds the keys to his jail cell," said prosecutor Mike Sanders said.
Porter was given a chance to speak Friday but said nothing, to the disappointment of his former wife.
"I want my children," she said. She sobbed as the sentence was announced.
Porter pleaded guilty in January to illegal gun possession by a felon.
"There seems to be no point at which Mr. Porter is willing to stop inflicting injury and pain on Mrs. Porter," U.S. District Judge Ortrie Smith said. "It almost brings me to the point of tears to think of the pain that those kids are experiencing."
Defense attorney Laine Cardarella pleaded with the judge not to consider the kidnapping charges, and to punish Porter instead "for what's here in front of you."

The quiet yellow revolt

In the 2002 film "About Schmidt" staring Jack Nicholson, the title and mostly valueless character retires from a long career in the insurance business. About Schmidt Within a few days his wife dies and Schmidt is left alone in his big house. Or rather, in his wife's big house, because it's always been her house, where he was marginally tolerated. We learn that he has been required by his now-dead wife to pee sitting down so as not to splash or spill on her bathroom carpets. Schmidt starts to sit down out of habit, and then realizing that he no longer has to do what she told him, he stands up to pee. Feeling freed from her domination while standing there peeing, he notices her precious carpet, and deliberatly turns sideways. The rest of the film is about how Schmidt begins to find himself after being freed from most of his life dominated by a wife, even being told how to pee. Through the rest of the movie Schmidt goes on a trip to "find himself" and what it means to be a man again now that he's finally able to make his own decisions again.

George is attending a conference in a fancy hotel on the water in Long Beach. That evening relaxing in his room he finds himself looking in the bathroom wondering where a man is supposed to relieve his bladder. At the restroom across from the conference center downstairs there are urinals for men, but up here in the room none are provided. Like many men, George does not articulate the deep sense of being ignored that he feels. The hotel obviously knows how to provide plumbing for men, they do so elsewhere, but they ignore him and don't provide for him here in his room. Out of a deep sense of aggravation he pees in the tub, then on the floor.

In a roadside motel somewhere off of Interstate 70, Mike is enjoying a coke and bourbon after a day on the road. Later he goes into the bathroom to relieve himself. He looks around and sees the usual 3 plumbing fixtures but no urinal, no place provided for a man to take a leak. Out of aggravation, frustration, and an unspoken soft anger he fills the coke bottle with golden liquid. Later that night the sits to take a shit and finds that the bowl is so small that his manhood would lean against the cold porcelain if he tucks it down, so he leaves it up on the seat. Upon relaxing his muscles to get on with business he finds that he needs to pee while he poops, so the floor gets a pint. He tosses a towel to soak up the water, and the maids clean it up the next day after he's gone on down the road. A little way out of town Mike pulls to the side of the road and tosses out the coke bottle. "Piss on them," he says to himself as he drives off.

Are these men unique? Is their frustration misguided? Maybe they are just nuts? Well, maybe they have become a little nuts, but they are hardly unique. The film about Schmidt works because Schmidt is every man in some sense, henpecked and frustrated, cooperative, trying to please, suppressing his own feelings for decades. Since the film came out I've heard form several men who also pee sitting down at home because their wife objects to the splash. Is there any man who hasn't heard the feminist complaint about putting the seat down? Women in homes "know" that the plumbing is theirs, and the man uses it only by concession. He's not allowed to suit his needs, so the seat always "belongs" down. She says so.

In addition to the common rant about putting the seat down there is the other female rant about "aim." Of course we men know that aim isn't a matter of mechanical precision. Each time is different depending on pressure, stimulation, etc., and sometimes it starts with two streams going different directions, or even a fan-like dispersion. On some deep level we're programmed to please women so in "her" home we try to make it hit the bowl, and feel bad when it doesn't. Then there is the question of hitting the water or trying for the less noisy area at the back. When I was young my mother complained about visiting another woman's home and hearing her son peeing in the bathroom down the hall. I got the message, boys and men should not pee so as to offend women with the noise. I got the message, the body functions of boys and men are offensive to women. Mothers have been teaching that message to boys and men all my life.

Then there is the question of splash. Every man who ever pissed in a toilet bowl while wearing shorts can attest that water, and whatever is in it, splashes out of the bowl. What is in the water is usually a thin soup of various harmful bacteria. The large drops contaminate the floor and surfaces around the bowl. Fine drops form an aerosol and drift around the bathroom depositing bacterial on sinks, towels, walls, etc. A bathroom engineering book that deals with this subject is "The Bathroom" by Alexander Kira, The Bathroom More recently the Mythbusters TV show studied toothbrushes in their bathrooms and found that they were all contaminated with harmful e-coli and other bacteria. If you're a man who doubts the splash phenomena, try pissing on a flat dry surface sometime. The resulting damp splash circle can be 10 feet in diameter. The dirty water from the toilet bowl travels an equal distance and carries all the microbiological contaminates with it. Most of the female complaints about "aim" are actually the result of splash. After a few weeks the floor, and surrounding surfaces get dirty and smell like piss, shit, and filth. She blames the nearest available man and calls it "bad aim," when most of it is splash from a fixture never designed for a man to take a piss. Some women demand that men sit to pee in "her" house. A man's place is left out of his home.

A growing number of men are just frustrated and harbor deep resentment at having to always comply with a world that ignores and minimizes us. One way this resentment is becoming quietly manifest is revealed by the growing frequency of bottles of urine found on roadsides. Some road crews blame long distance truckers (predominantly men), but others say that it's often 4 wheel drivers who bottle and distribute their body wastes. To be sure, some of it is probably long distance drivers who don't want to spend the half hour it takes to stop at a regular rest area, assuming one is available. Roadside bottles 1 roadside bottles 2 But there is a growing number of men who are quietly pissing on the world by placing jars of yellow fluid wherever it's convenient or most obnoxious. Boys who spend time outdoors learn that there is some primal psychological pleasure in standing on top of a mountain and pissing over a cliff. Perhaps the phenomena of bottled urine is related to the psychology of raining on whatever lives below. Maybe, like Schmidt, they are exercising a little freedom, like pissing on her carpet.

In my investigation of this topic, the lack of plumbing for men in the homes of men, I corresponded with the National Kitchen and Bath Association, an organization of plumbing manufacturers and installers. NKBA When I asked why plumbing for men is omitted from the homes of men I was told by their David Newton, "Women hate these things. I just finished a Bath Design Class today April 29th and the subjects of urinals came up and to a person, every woman in the class said that they would not want one in their home." In plain language, Schmidt's wife owns our home, owns the plumbing industry, and she dictates to men where we may and may not take a piss.

That's not good enough of an answer for me. Like a growing number of angry, frustrated men I want my home to accommodate MY needs as well as those of my wife. Providing plumbing for men in homes where men live should not be predicated on whether or not women think it's pretty. We have listened to women whine about "putting the seat down" for half a century, and it's time for men to take back our homes. They can have their seat down when home builders recognize that men live here too! It's fine that some plumbing manufacturers also make plumbing for men, but until it becomes standard in architecture and building codes it's not going to be regularly provided. It is unconscionable and misandrist for architects, plumbing manufacturers and building code officials to systematically ignore the basic bodily needs of men.

The NKBA says that they make urinals for homes available, but women won't buy them. So what? Being available is nice, but the large majority of homes, apartments, and hotel rooms are only going to have adequate plumbing that meets architectural and code standards. Saying that home urinals are available but not used or required for homes only emphasizes the general disregard for the needs of men by the plumbing and construction industry. My concern is not that I'm unable to purchase or fabricate expensive fancy plumbing for a custom bath. My concern is for the 99% of men who will always live with facilities designed according to established standards and codes. HGTV has shown a few "unusual homes" that had urinals in their unconventional bathrooms, but what about the other 99% of men? Don't they need to pee too? Today's established standards and code fail utterly to consider or provide for the bodily needs of men. The International Residential Code, legally adopted by most cities in the US, contains the following, "306.1 Toilet facilities. Every dwelling unit shall be provided with a water closet, lavatory, and a bathtub or shower." Residential Code Bathroom Requirements There is nowhere in a building code approved home, apartment, or motel room designed for a man to take a piss. He is still expected to go behind the barn and pee with the horses for all the architects and building officials care. Going behind the barn may have been acceptable in the 19th century when most men lived on farms and indoor plumbing was just being invented, but in the 21st century that was a long time ago. The standard American bathtub isn't large enough for a man's body either, and that needs to be addressed too, but that's another related topic.

Most men continue to go along, in public and in private. Most men accept and try to live with the growing frustration of living in a home without plumbing adequate for a man's needs. Most men accept the feminist criticism of "put the seat down" and "can't you aim!" If that's you, then I'm sorry, but I disagree and I won't go along any more. To me it is no longer acceptable to provide, as the standard, plumbing only designed for women. It is no longer acceptable to refuse to require indoor plumbing for men because women don't like the looks. That attitude by the NKBA, by the International Code Council, by the National Association of Architects, or anyone else is sexist and not acceptable. We men no longer should tolerate homes, apartments, or hotels that ignore the needs of men. It's just misandrist. Minimum architectural and plumbing code standards for homes, apartments, and hotel rooms ought to require adequate plumbing facilities for men, whether women like the looks or not. We live there too. Women will get used to it.

While we are on the topic of the NKBA, the manufacturers of bath fixtures, lets wonder why plumbing for men is so very expensive. You can get a high quality Kohler toilet bowl at Home Depot or elsewhere for around a hundred bucks. You can buy other brands for less, and elongated Eljer toilet including tank costs less than $100 at Home Depot. Urinals start at $300 to $400 plus the valve. There is nothing inherently difficult in the design or manufacture of a urinal that makes it 4 times as expensive to produce compared to a toilet bowl. The price difference is related to who uses them and the systematic exclusion from a woman's (and man's) home. Charging 4 times as much for men's plumbing is sexist discrimination against men.

Though men don’t rock the boat, going along with whatever women want, and accepting a century of disregard for the basic bodily needs of men, some growing number of men are not putting up with it any longer. Angry frustrated men are pissing on the floor of hotel rooms and the bathrooms of homes where they are invited guests. If she thinks "men can't aim," maybe it's because a man who didn't find plumbing for men in her home pissed on her floor. If the hotel maids have to clean it up every day, so what. Maybe the hotel chain will get the message after the 10th ruined carpet. Angry frustrated men are leaving yellow plastic "bombs" on highways and byways in increasing numbers all over America. Maybe men ought to start mailing a few bottles of yellow gold to the International Code Council, Inc. 5203 Leesburg Pike, Suite 600; Falls Church, VA 22041 International Code Council with a letter asking why there is no plumbing for men required in the residential building and plumbing codes.

If she, whoever she is in your life, complains one more time about "can't aim" or "leaves the seat up" take revenge in a manly way, piss on her floor next time, her bathroom floor, her kitchen floor, her living room carpet. If they don't provide you with an appropriate place for a man to piss in your apartment or hotel room, do what you can, piss on their floor and/or on their carpet. We men don't have to get violent, just quietly demand that our needs are met, we live here too. If they won't provide for our needs, piss on them.