I'm going to top-post because the comments below are getting
lengthy.

I agree with your comments, Phil, about the instilling of
prejudice against men via the media. I stopped watching the TV
sitcoms, and most other TV shows, quite some time back. However,
when my daughter was living with me (and watching these shows) I was
reminded of all the dreary, politically correct drek that they pump
out. No wonder they're losing viewers at a great rate!

However, I disagree with your analysis of the reasons for this
situation. I don't think there's any big, organized government
propaganda effort here. There's no U.S. equivalent of Goebbels.
Instead, we have TV scriptwriters who -- in addition to lacking talent
and creativity -- are intimidated by every special interest group that
they think is out there.

Why are women, homosexuals, Latinos, or blacks handled with
kid gloves in TV shows -- and in the TV commercials? Because the
writers and the directors know there will be a prompt and vociferous
reaction from the relevant special interest group if they aren't.

Conversely, why are husbands/fathers/men depicted as fools
who need to be rescued by the heroic women with whom they are
associated? Because there's no special interest group representing
heterosexual men that will make a big stink about such a depiction.

Several years ago a group called the National Council of Free
Men was successful in protesting to Hallmark about some egregriously
anti-male greeting cards that they were selling. However, I haven't
heard of any similar successes recently.





On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:16:48 -0500, "Phil"
wrote:


"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
news
"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:33:24 -0500, "Phil"
wrote:


"DB" wrote in message
om...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"DB" wrote in message
...
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3807


Forget taxes and the price of gas, this is the top issue for
all to
be concerned about.

When Paulette McDonald and her husband were splitting up, she
went
to a divorce lawyer, and describes the smorgasbord she found
there.
"On the menu was child support, spousal support, pensions,
extraordinary expenses, education costs and the list went on.
It was
all there and ripe for the picking."

What DB isn't letting on about is the fact that McDonald didn't
go
for the jugular. She, unlike many, many vengeful, spiteful and
revenge crazed former spouses, kept things amicable.

It's not just the ex spouses that use the system for the purpose
of
ultimate retribution, but they are encouraged by the legal hounds
to
suck as much blood as possible. With Futures and Careers at
stake,
why is this not a huge political issue? Their has to be some
form of
cap put in place to limit control on these legal leeches!

Perhaps it's just better for men not to get married and have to
walk
that tight rope of financial destitution?


Instead of socialized medicine, why not socialized legal
representation?
Everyone would have the same chance to be assigned a good or bad
lawyer
AND the lawyer gets paid the same whether they win, lose or
actually
play fair, which would stop some of the gouging.
Phil #3

Socialized legal representation is almost certain to be VERY
costly to the taxpayer. In the U.S. it already costs a lot to
provide
legal assistance to the indigent in criminal trials.

In the U.K. some years back the law was changed to allow
lawyers to charge contingent fees (under which the lawyer collects
a
proportion of the damages) -- something that had been prohibited
before, although the contingent fee system has been used in the
U.S.
for many years. I was very surprised that this was done,
considering
the U.S. experience that contingent fees greatly encourage
litigation.
I found out that the reason for the change in Britain was that the
cost of providing taxpayer-funded legal aid to poor people had
become
astronomical. The same would happen if publicly funded legal
assistance were widely available in the U.S.

I take the point Phil is making about gouging. However, in my
view, the way to reduce the amount of divorce litigation is to
remove
the present incentives for wives to divorce their husbands. In the
U.S. today, the vast majority of divorces are instigated by wives
over
their husbands' objections. To counter this, community property
laws
should be changed so that assets belong to the spouse who created
them. In addition, an end to the glass ceiling on paternal custody
and reform of the "child support" system would help greatly.

My suggestion was actually tongue-in-cheek as I want LESS government
involvement into everything instead of more. The situation we have
created is we have elected lawyers to the position to make laws
which conveniently promote legal disputes. The surest way to screw
up something is to let the state, or worse yet, 'feddle gummit' to
"fix" it.
In regard to the property laws, I simply refused to marry again,
thereby hopefully protecting what has taken decades after divorce to
reacquire. It's stupid to have to resort to such drastic measures
but it is the best way to protect myself and even then, it's not
fool proof since the government is the fool.
Phil #3

The government group is an unstoppable force not to be challenged.
The only way to stop the evil deeds of this most powerful group is
for the behavior of its participants to change. Since it is unlikely
that anyone within it will change, the only alternative is for new
people to join the group. Only problem is, righteous folks, by
nature, want nothing to do with government. A dilemma of sorts.

Unstoppable? Hardly. The political lawyering we have going on have a
nasty little document still fully in effect that stands between us and
them - the Constitution. If the politicians don't start backing off
soon, we always have the option of exercising our First Amendment
rights by flexing our Second.
But just like Hitler and Goebbels did in the 30's and 40's, the American
political system is using entertainment (TV, movies and talking heads)
to keep people entertained with prejudice while instilling even more.
This is subtle but observable in the local and national news and
astoundingly obvious in shows like Oprah and other sexist/racist
propaganda machines. This propaganda is even more pronounced in shows
like King of Queens, Raymond, etc., where the husband is the typical
fool and the smart, level-headed wife fixes all his mistakes. By
continuing to show this type of behavior, people actually start
believing it is "normal", therefore, in their thinking, husbands/fathers
are subconsciously seen as fools and mothers/wives are seen as heroines.

Phil #3