Dustbin wrote:
> Before proceeding with this post I should, in
> fairness, make it clear that, while I have a
> total f&^%ing bitch for an ex-wife I have no
> children and, therefore, no child support. Nor
> did we squabble over the division of the spoils
> - there was hardly anything to squabble over.
> This fact will make the following a little
> hipocritical but there it goes.
>
> What I suggest is that men REFUSE to co-operate
> with the courts at all. At the first sign of
> trouble move what money there is out of the
> country to somewhere the courts cannot get at
> it. Refuse, absolutely to pay child support
> etc., etc., etc.

This can only be done if you stop working.  If you have a normal job,
the government can intercept your money before it gets to you, much the
same way they collect your taxes.  Still, I agree with you.  When a
court tries to enslave a man, he should quit his job and do something
that gets him enough cash to scrape by.  He should either flee the
country or do his best to evade capture.

This would be civil disobedience, despite whatever nasty names women
would give it.

> This will lead to prison sentences for contempt
> of court. But, with 160,000 divorces per year
> and several million men being f&^ked over by the
> CSA the prison system will not be able to cope.

Moreover, the loss of all that workforce productivity would devastate
the economy, and the loss of all that tax revenue would drain the
government's reserves.

> There are, in fact, places for about 35,000 men
> in our prison system, which is grossly
> over-crowded. The chaos that would result if
> 3,500,000 simply refused to go along with this
> mayhem - would itself be mayhem.

People have talked about violent uprisings, but we don't need anything
that dramatic.  The most devastating thing we can possibly do is .....
nothing.  If enough of us stop doing whatever it is we're doing, the
economy collapses.

It's like having five people who meet weekly for dinner at a fine
restaurant.  One pays 60 percent of the bill, and the others each pay
ten percent.  But the others decide that the rich man is morally
obligated to pay more than 60 percent, so they verbally abuse him, and
they demand more money.  Then he stops showing up, and they no longer
can afford to eat at that restaurant.

Message to women:  If you drive off they who do the work, then their
work becomes _your_ work.

[=2E..]

> If there are 3,500,000 men being shafted by the
> CSA, this bill would amount to =A33,500,000,000
> per week! Or, put another way: =A3182,000,000,000
> per year. Or put another way: approximately
> 45.5% of Gordon Brown's entire annual budget!

And with men not working, they would have no way to pay the cost of
putting so many men in prison.

If men were to quit their jobs en masse, especially men whom the state
has made indentured servants, the government would be able to salvage
the situation, but to do this, they would have to make some sort of
compromise with men, and they wouldn't do it until things got really
bad.  They are so sexist that they would keep sticking it to us without
ever realizing that they need us.  Hence, we'd have another Great
Depression, and only when masses of people were standing in soup lines
would people realize that they must work with men, no matter what they
think of us.

> Finally, why is it that men are apparently
> unable to make clear to the government what they
> want and demanding it?
>
> Women get everything handed to them for hardly
> any effort.

It is unnatural for us to hold our hands out, but it is very natural
for women to hold their hands out.  We instinctively want to be
self-sufficient, so you won't find throngs of us holding picket signs,
chanting, and demanding that the government give us this or that.
Women naturally look to others.  They once looked to husbands, but then
they became "liberated" and looked to the government instead,
forgetting of course that most government funding comes from men.  If
they can get money from men via the government, they can convince
themselves that they aren't really depending on men.

> Now we hear that the labour party is proposing
> to give females who simply live with their
> boyfriends the same rights as married females.
> So, once again, men are getting screwed.

That's how it is in some US states, sort of.  They call it "common law
marriage."  If you live with a girl for a long enough time, you can
become her de facto husband, and a lot of men get burned by this.  Men
with live-in lovers have to guard against it.
[=2E..]



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/15/05 4:57:10 PM ---