Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.
View Active Topics View Your Posts Latest 100 Topics FAQ Topics Mobile Friendly Theme
Discuss issues related to government, politics, and law.
8 posts • Page 1 of 1
I work with a man who is divorced. It's one of those stories where his wife divorced him and took the kids. I don't know all the details. But he was talking about how toxic the justice system is in his system, along with other aspects of the government, in his home state. The judge who handles his children's child support claims used to be his wife's divorce lawyer before she was made judge, and she refused to recuse herself.
I hear the majority of family court judges are female. I went to family court once to testify... in another line of work... and the judge was female. That is not idea, but it may not be the worst thing in the world. But if the judge in a family court case is a man-hating, left-leaning feminist, that is a bad thing for men.
I had thought of a strategy state representatives could do. If they could get mailing addresses of divorced men, especially those with children, and send out a letter or flier targeted to them with their stance on some specific issues related to men, for example equal rights for men to custody and other issues, repealing or replacing 'debtors prison' laws for unemployed men who fall behind on their child support, and other matters, this could be very helpful.
Some jurisdictions put judge positions up to a vote. I would not be surprised if a fresh law grad might be able to run for a family court judge. I'd rather have an inexperience, but fair minded young man as a family court judge than an experienced left-leaning feminist. Of course, an experienced fair minded man would be better.
IMO, this is an area where MRAs could really do some good in trying to change the legal system, to focus on the local judicial system, voting in fair judges. Family law may attract more women. It isn't usually the area of law the more accomplished lawyers focus on. But an organization could take the approach of finding fair-minded lawyers in other specialties who have an interest in becoming judges, and having them run for positions in family court, if nothing else, as a stepping stone to a career in the judiciary or possibly politics.
Creating a national network to do this would be difficult. Though some evangelical leaders seem to use so-called 'white knight' rhetoric to some of the gender issues, I think evangelicals have a lot in common with men's rights activists. Evangelicals want to see fathers in the home, raising boys, and see divorce as a bad thing. It wouldn't take much convincing, IMO, to get some of them lined up with the same goals as men's rights activists. One organization I have heard of is the Christian Coalition. I believe it has some connection to Pat Robertson, or was in the past. I don't think the organization is that well funded. But I could see how issues like depriving men of seeing their children, giving custody to women who committed adultery, the ease of divorce, judges letting radical feminist lesbian adopt kids, and the dangers of having judges who are influenced by feminism and identity politics could be hot button issues for Christian conservatives that are in line with generic MRA type concerns. Maybe something could be worked out. If there were an evangelical conservative who wasn't anti-male running for a judge position occupied by a man-hating feminist, I could see how evangelicals and non-evangelical MRAs could be in agreement about supporting the judge. Divorced men who receive an ad in the mail may be interested in voting in someone fairer to handle their child support or alimony cases.
The MRAs are fighting a Quixotic battle in trying to change the legal system. They will never succeed.
The only way to win that legal game is to simply refuse to play, hence MGTOW.
When enough men choose to refuse to abide, the system will begin to collapse as it should.
I’m always amazed that there is no violence agains anti-family court shysters to speak of. They regularly ruing men’s lives and kidnap their children and nothing happens to them. If the bodies started piling up, it would likely result in some attitude adjustment.
Well, that escalated quickly. It went from voting strategies within the law to violating the law, to killing judges. Cornfed, you have rather violent tastes, from talk of killing blacks, to thinking it's funny to see a bull crush a midget, to this.
If you wanted to turn people off to your cause, killing women judges would do that. Of course, women are more prone to fear so that may keep women out of some of those roles. Still, if self-loathing liberal or antifa anti-male male judges took their places, the improvement may only be a slight one over man-hating feminists in a lot of these cases.
How many times have you seen men turn out of a men's rights protest? I saw a few guys dressed up like superheroes on a US college campus once. They shut down a construction site for a few hours. But we don't see men who are victims of the system coming out in the streets. The feminists have succeeded at getting women to do that. If men won't come out and protest, are they going to stop paying child support in mass? If the wife has the kids and they don't pay, who supports the kid? Do they take the kids all at once against judges orders?
Aside from the ethical issues of a breakdown in the rule of law, there is a practical issue with this approach. It is remotely like the prisoner's delimma in Nash's game theory. If all men could succeed at changing the system by not paying child support and storming into their ex's house and collecting the kids contrary to court custody arrangements if they did it at once, the one who did not do so would not have to face legal penalties. So each man has an incentive to let the other guys take the fall. It's kind of like each prisoner having an incentive to turn state's evidence in the prisoner's delimma.
I do not know how much money Democrats put into judge's elections. If MRAs could combine forces with another movement that has a larger network to concentrate their efforts to put forth decent candidates for family court judge positions and support them, the liberals might not see that coming. If there could be activist conservative judges like there are activist left-wing judges, that could be helpful as well. But judges at the level we are looking at wouldn't have much power to set precedent if they are at or near the bottom rung. But if they work their way up, they could be influential.
For a male lawyer right out of law school who isn't even in family law, but he could quickly become a judge because he had a group of men willing to support him, this could be a good break.
Perhaps I used a poor choice of words. MGTOW do not advocate violating the laws. Non-abiding means not abiding by the social mores of marriage and child-siring thereby starving the system into ruin.
When MGTOW say the only way to win is to not play, we mean never marrying in the Anglosphere (if at all), and never impregnating a woman in the Anglosphere so she can invoke state action against the man.
This is what is meant by non-participation.
Men's Rights Advocates have not scored one legal success and they likely never will. The West has no empathy for men and is only concerned with women wants and desires. That means MRA will always fail.
MGTOW means snatching your basketball off the court of play and refusing to play what is essentially a loser's game.
The only positive role MRA plays is agitating or making more men Red Pill Aware, nothing more.
Paul Elam, the most prominent MRA has a video on the subject:
I have an idea. When a woman gets pregnant, the government should automatically give custody to the man and support him with a wage equivalent to a middle class income. Women should never get custody or take the children out of their father's home.
If the government can support women just for having kids, why wouldn't it rather just support father headed households? Oh wait, because God actually wants men to head the household. So instead they give it to the woman.
Actually, that's a pretty good idea. Give the man first dibs. They could call it stripping men of male privlege by making them keep the kids. Maybe the liberal left would go for a Draconian quota where judges have to assign 50% to men and 50% to women.
Women could end up paying child support.
A lot of these women would have more incentive to have their babies murdered in the womb under this proposed system.
I’m not advocating anything - just making an observation. But what kind of sick bastard would mind commie shysters being returned to the hell that spawned them?