Revealed - The Men Who Own and Run the U.S. Government 2011 Part 1 of 5 - YouTube

On a brighter note, at least when this story was posted on Yahoo news most comments blasted the judge as an idiot and the wife as a pampered princess.

Geez.....makes me wonder how much time I am in for?

I hope he decides to go to jail and stand his ground.

pzreb

On a brighter note, at least when this story was posted on Yahoo news most comments blasted the judge as an idiot and the wife as a pampered princess.

People are becoming more educated all the time.

Welcome to the fight, Mark Byron.

At this point I would like to insert that not one commenter has said anything about what might be going on with the little boy. That was the first thing I thought about when I read this article. This sort of thing is very hard on children, even (or especially) when they are too young to be lucid on the details of these adult dramas. I do know something about very young children and custody disputes, and my heart goes out to the child.

I have no interest in which of the two grownups is more culpable here, it just sounds pretty typical on both parts. Children, on the other hand, are not party to these conflicts, just victims of them. Did either parent put him first in making their decisions here?

Is this dialog here about being free to be the best men and fathers we can be, or something else?

Quote from dinohip51

Is this dialog here about being free to be the best men and fathers we can be, or something else?

On a site with the domain of 'antimisandry', it is about highlighting how men, i.e. adult male humans, are discriminated against, mistreated, socially, legally, by the media and in academia. It isn't about much else... including children. However, as we're largely fathers of children then the subject of their well-being frequently is addressed as a topic here, but by no means is 'children' as a topic the default position for this site.

Had this subject been about a boy in school being poorly treated, then that would have been the topic.

Quote from dinohip51

At this point I would like to insert that not one commenter has said anything about what might be going on with the little boy. That was the first thing I thought about when I read this article. This sort of thing is very hard on children, even (or especially) when they are too young to be lucid on the details of these adult dramas. I do know something about very young children and custody disputes, and my heart goes out to the child.

I have no interest in which of the two grownups is more culpable here, it just sounds pretty typical on both parts. Children, on the other hand, are not party to these conflicts, just victims of them. Did either parent put him first in making their decisions here?

Is this dialog here about being free to be the best men and fathers we can be, or something else?

I see, so if you go to jail for something that isn't a crime you aren't a victim as a man and we should totally ignore your situation. Call me from cell block d.

I did my homework before beginning to post on this site. As well as some pretty grownup perspectives on gender roles, it is also full of accusations against women, largely of the self-absorbed, her-first variety. I have seen criticisms of mothers for being too indulgent, too sheltering, of "gate-keeping", etc, all suggesting that how mothers go about their mothering is indicative of problems with a feminist-oriented society.

And, no one could agree more. I have seen all too much of bad mothering and anti-fathering and the courts' complicity in it first-hand, been under its thumb, stood up to it in more than one court.

So, what are we going to do about it, especially fathers? What does any oppressed group have to do in order to bring light to the justice of its cause? Be on its best behavior, plain and simple. Maybe the freight train shouldn't be there, or it's going too fast, or hauling the wrong cargo. But standing in front of it flipping it off has pretty predictable results. No one likes it, it isn't fair, but ask anyone who ever fought uphill for a just cause about the role of dignity, propriety, decorum and moral discretion, even above and beyond what seems reasonable.

Angry posts on social media sites when faced with a court order, right or wrong, are just poor decision-making. I'm awfully sorry the old boy went to jail. But, given the measure of the injustices we are fighting, drawing that kind of attention in that way bespeaks at least a need to choose better tactics, especially with a child involved. I know what it is to have my own child hear in school that I was in jail and ask me what it means. I know what utter injustice and powerlessness and restraining my absolutley justified outrage feels like all too well, and Facebook just doesn't seem like the place to go to vent about it. Nothing about Facebook seems safe or wise or discreet to me and I don't use it, or any other site that does not protect my anonymity.

I have been in the hot seat of court orders and forced separations more than once and for longer than I care to remember, and all the counsel I received from everyone trying to help me amounted to one thing: think first of your child. Is that what we are talking about here? Or just the right to be angry? Do we just see a man, any man, in trouble, any trouble, and stand up and start shouting "Victim!", and assume all the undisclosed circumstances were mitigating ones because he is male?

I thought standing down that sort of methodology toward us was, in part, why this site was created. Perhaps I was wrong.

So whats your answer. Sit on your arse and feel sorry for yourself?

Tempting, but ineffectual. Generally, to pick one's battles and fight them well is what I try to do. Standing up for yourself does not have to include making a martyr of yourself, much less vindicating or even tempting the angry=dangerous stereotype assigned to all of us. What I know of marksmanship says, never pull the trigger if you don't know where the shot will land. Facebook by its very nature is an exercise in indiscretion, and choosing it as therapy says more about a need for attention than a search for results.

Quote from dinohip51

Angry posts on social media sites when faced with a court order, right or wrong, are just poor decision-making. I'm awfully sorry the old boy went to jail.

You miss the wider picture.

The magistrate, different than a oath-sworn judge, made an arbitrary decision, which could equally apply to 100s of millions worldwide, where 'the law' hasn't caught up with vastly changing communication technology. There's serious questions as to how his position as a magistrate (one who presides over a private arbitration service - with shareholders) has any jurisdiction in the virtual world. A good lawyer/barrister would put this faux judge in his place as a starting challenging point!

I don't consider freedom of speech as 'poor decision-making, it is part of all of us as expressive beings.' If we allow such cases to make a (political?) precedent, then all our voices eventually become nullified and censored.

Supporting this 'old boy' is pivotal in insuring our own voices continue to be heard!

Quote from dinohip51

Tempting, but ineffectual. Generally, to pick one's battles and fight them well is what I try to do. Standing up for yourself does not have to include making a martyr of yourself, much less vindicating or even tempting the angry=dangerous stereotype assigned to all of us. What I know of marksmanship says, never pull the trigger if you don't know where the shot will land. Facebook by its very nature is an exercise in indiscretion, and choosing it as therapy says more about a need for attention than a search for results.

Agreed. One should not become a martyr. But who knows, if one is 65 and has months to live with cancer, martydom may be one option....

But back to my main point - so HOW do we fight? What battles do we choose to fight?

If I knew that, I would be raising my son and my daughter the right way, instead of how it is.

The last guy made some very good points about the law. I hate the power judges have more than I want to go into, because I have had enough of anger, and I have plenty to spare if I let myself go there. Generally I don't, because the system is just waiting like a vulture for an angry man. A man and his anger are just a cliche to those people.

I have seen it, on the faces of a cordon of officers, every one of them male, lined up across the back of a courtroom while I argued with a public defender that yes, whether she wanted to believe it or not, abducting a child is a crime, and no, I wasn't going to pay one more cent in child support until that was addressed. It was her legal trick telling the judge she had a conflict of interest and I needed thirty days to get another lawyer, that sent me home free that day. Those bastards in back wanted more than anything to cuff me and perp-walk me and knock me around a little, and they didn't get to. You should have seen the looks on their faces, like I had committed a crime against them for denying them their bit of fun with me. And it was a woman, who crossed to the next aisle in a store the next time she saw me, that got me free that day.

So no, I don't care to go in leading with my anger any more for that and a hundred other reasons just like it. Not because I don't deserve it, or because I am wrong to feel it, but because I am sick to death of the moralistic satisfaction people get and the looks on their faces that say, "better you than me, chump" when they see an angry man.

There has to be a better way, and if I ever find it I would sure as fuck like to finish raising my kids myself instead of pandering and apologizing and waiting for two women to dole out a little recognition for me as a father and a human being. And it isn't going to be some legal expert on a blog trumping a judge's crusading pettiness that changes any of that for me or my kids.

ramzpaul addresses the issue on YouTube: