English HTML DOC PDF

Dutch HTML DOC PDF

European women V.S. American women

There is a culture difference between American and European women.  Most European women want some life outside the relationship, while American women want to do everything as a couple.  Most European women prefer to have a healthy, active lifestyle, while only a small percentage of American women do.  Most European women would rather pay for their own dinner, where in the USA it is expected that the guys have to pay for all expenses.  Most European women prefer to be financially responsible.  They are not materialistic.  In Europe it is common that couples live together and have sex before they get married.  In America that is a taboo especially around Christian's who look down at those who live together or are sexually active with there loved ones before they are married. How can someone make a lifetime commitment before knowing what they are getting into?  European women make first moves a lot.  They know what to expect out of a guy.  They respect men for being men, and expect the same respect back and know when to say no to a man.  European women grow up way faster than American women and do not date a bad boy.  European women just want to get an education and find nice men instead of being in a rocky relationship with a bad boy.  American women find out when it is too late that the nice guy has given up, but the European women can see through the niceness and see the roaring sex.  Most European women are very independent; they want to have some life outside of the relationship. American women want to do everything as a couple. Once American women got married they gain weight. They blame it on childbirth and on the husband.  They then divorce him.  European wives, several months after childbirth, were back to their previous weight without even trying but just because of their healthy lifestyle.  No wonder that many American men will no longer consider dating American women and prefer dating European women. Only a small percentage of American women are that way in comparison to most European women.

Most American women won't stand by you when you hit hard times. That pretty little designer face will turn into a twisted nagging grimace and it won't be pleasant! The majorities of European women are very strong, submissive women and are raised the same way as Michelle Obama. The only difference between women in Latin America, Italy, Spain, and Portugal is that is that they speak a different language and eat different foods, mostly they are Catholic and live the same lifestyle.

My friend who is an Italian national says he can find out if a women or a man in USA is raised this way by having a 30 minute meeting with them so he can get to know them.  A psychiatrist in the US should be able to do the same. A psychological profile predicting future behavior is to understand past behavior.  The women must be able to integrate in Sicily or Italy if she wants to even if she only speaks English and does not understand Italian or Sicilian. Like the 20 percent of American women like Michelle Obama (the same goes for American man, like Barack Obama), most parents and staff and children in Catholic schools in the United States can integrate in Sicily or Italy.  If they are not raised this way that you can never achieve a good diplomatic career for the United States Foreign Service abroad.  This is the case with most children and their parents that go to expensive private schools in the USA (for Kindergarten to 12th grade).  There are also many children that live in poverty that are also raised in the United States.  It is basically the religion that causes this.  That is because most times they behave like diplomats and have a good family life. Like most European women they prefer to be finically responsible, rather pay for there own dinner, have a healthy, very active lifestyle.  They usually make the first moves a lot get an education. They find nice men instead of being in a rocky relationship with a bad boy.  They are very independent and want to have some life outside of the relationship. No wonder that that many American men will no longer consider dating American women and prefer dating European women.  Only a small percentage of American women are that way. They are also very strong, submissive women and are raised the same way as Michelle Obama.

It is in the nature of American culture that makes Americans "stick out" it is generally very hard for Americans anywhere in the world to totally fit in.  Europeans have a much better time with this mostly due to proximity.  As for integration, Language differences between Belgian and Sicilian, food, climate, and many other factors may make a Belgian stick out in Sicily as well.  Integration is not so easy and takes a lot of time.  I would be willing to bet that an American of 1st generation Italian/Sicilian would have an easier time integrating then a typical Belgian.  In parts of New York City for instance, the Sicilians stick together in the same neighborhoods and speak in Italian etc. They go back and forth to the point where integration would be very easy.  

As for "fault" it is in the nature of all cultures to be "different" from every other one in terms of food, language, music, arts, life ways, religion etc. That is why we can "identify" one culture from another.  

People, who live in culturally diverse areas like Europe where they have to interact with each other on a daily basis, tend to be much more open minded and flexible.  Americans, by the very nature of the "American melting pot" have taken a different viewpoint "of the greatest nation on the planet", this is accompanied by a certain arrogance which is widely interpreted as demand for more favorable treatment and "sticking out".  Europeans will generally be more diplomatic and less problematical because of their upbringing and proximity to so many other cultures.  Americans don't get this kind of education, not in school or at home.  

Strong and submissive women are raised where a man is a protector and a provider. They are raised to think that the man is the head of the home and don't question anything he says. Therefore they don't talk or have hardly any type of confrontation.  The only time you have an argument with them is legitimate, many American men say.  They are also not afraid to speak up if need be.

Most American women won't stand by you when you hit hard times. That pretty little designer face will turn into a twisted nagging grimace and it won't be pleasant!  80% of American women develop Postpartum Depression after giving birth.  This means that 80% of American mothers today are unfit mothers & housewives under Italian standards. 

The majority, but not all American women, sees a man as someone who must dedicate their lives to pleasing the woman. American women have been shortchanged by feminism and demand complete dedication by the man. They must always feel that they must always be independent.  In the United States today the women want to be the man in the relationship and expect their man to be the woman. Because of biology, this paradigm is doomed to fail. Nine out of every ten arguments are illegitimate most American men say.

Italian men expect a women to take care of her husband the same way a mother would take care of her son and any women that does not do that, is out of the door? The same man is supposed to be a good father to his children and give his wife the same respect that a little boy is supposed to give his mother?

An American (US born women) woman with a Italian born mother told me that 90 percent of Australian & American women suck. She became a naturalized Australian citizen before she moved back the United States.

Public form

Through my company, I haven lucky to have had the opportunity to live in different corners of the world and experience many different cultures. Getting to see multiple cultures ads more knowledge but also sometimes makes you ask questions.

While living in Europe I was lucky enough to have meet a very smart and gorgeous women, we dated for a few years when I asked her to marry me. After getting married I was relocated back to the US and my company took care of the paperwork and she moved with me.

One of the things that I can say happened personally to me and to some other co-workers is that we started preferring dating European women and no longer even consider dating American women.

Trying to figure out the cultural difference's between European and American womens to try to figure out "Why?", why we don't date American women. So we decided to post a topic to find out more.

Here is a comparison of what we have come up with, again this are just general and some of them might be a stereotype. But that is why we want to discuss them here.

- Most European women are very Independent, they want to have some life outside of the relationship. American women want to do everything as a couple.

- Most European women prefer to be financially responsible, like they would rather pay for their own dinner when in the US, its automatically expected that guys have to buy gifts and pay for dinner.

- European women prefer to be healthy, have very active lifestyle. Going to the gym, biking and walking is the thing to do. I am not saying that all American women are not into a healthy lifestyle but its certainly a small percentage in comparison. Unfortunately for some of my friends who married American women once they got married they gained weight... blaming it on childbirth and things like that when I can say for a fact from my and my friends European wifes that after child birth after some months they where back to their previous weight without even trying but just because of their healthy lifestyle.

- In Europe, its common for couples to live together and of course have sex before they are married, I think thats great because you get to know what it is to marry someone, no surprises. But I noticed in America that is a taboo specially around Christian's who look down at those who live together or are sexually active with their loved ones before they are married. How can someone make a lifetime commitment before knowing what they are getting into.

The guys I work with have discussed this greatly, which I think its great to know people I can be that comfortable with the only negative thing that has come out of it is that we have discussed this with other's at work who have divorced their American Wife and re-married European. I don't think thats cool but they are happier now.

All I can say is that I am madly in love with my wife, my wife means everything to me.

Courtesy: http://www.topix.com/forum/business/online-dating/T05BKAV2C9UKNM5F5

UNICEF, Child poverty in perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries, Innocent Report Card 7, 2007

See: http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc7_eng.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau

According to data supplied by the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 2,395,000 marriages in the U.S. in the 12 months ending June, 1997 (and 1,154,000 divorces in the same period). The 4,000 to 6,000 marriages involving international services represent, then, a tiny portion (.021 percent) of the women who marry U.S. men.

It is interesting to note that, based largely on data provided by the agencies themselves (along with the Commission on Filipinos Overseas report cited above), marriages arranged through these services would appear to have a much lower divorce rate than the nation as a whole, fully 80 percent of these marriages having lasted over the years for which reports are available."

The divorce rate for American men who marry American women: 57% (officially). But since the figures from several states (including California) are excluded, the true national divorce rate is likely closer to 65%. The divorce rate in California is over 70%.

The divorce rate for American men who marry foreign women: approximately 20%.

So you can marry an American woman and have a close to two-thirds chance of getting divorced, or you can marry a foreign woman and have at least a 75% chance of success.

Courtesy:  http://www.laborlawtalk.com/archive/index.php/t-6159.html

Will you be one of the lucky 1 out of 5 men who is relatively happy with marriage

Will you be one of the lucky 1 out of 5 men who is relatively happy with marriage? Not likely unless you and your future wife live your lives largely outside the mainstream American values and your wife is not a "modern western woman

1. Very religious people.

A lot of people in the US consider themselves to be religious, and that's fine. But for the purpose of this book very religious people have to be defined as people who strictly follow (and I do mean follow, not just talk about it) some form of traditional/conservative ideology as it relates to men/women and marriage. Think of a typical "modern western woman" as defined above. Then think of a traditional young Mormon woman from a very strict family (I am only using Mormon as an example, it can be any conservative religion). Now think about those two women as being on the opposite sides of the spectrum. Women I am talking about here are women on the traditional/conservative side of the spectrum.

2. People living in the rural South and rural Midwest.

Women there tend to be a lot less materialistic, self-centered, anti-male, and mentally unstable. Men there also tend to be in charge of their lives and they don’t put up with any BS from women. Sometimes I get emails from men who are lucky enough to genially not understand what all the fuss is about. These men say that their wives are great, then they say they don’t spend much time with their wives and spend their free time hunting, riding a Harley, doing things like that. If I ask them about their wives, it always turns out that their wives are closer to 50s housewives than to modern western women.

Perhaps a more accurate way to classify this group would be “people from mostly rural areas who marry early”. Not everyone in this group is in the South or Midwest. There are plenty of women like that living 150 miles from Manhattan. And not all women who marry early are from the rural areas; but for the sake of simplicity I will lump them all under this umbrella.

3. People choosing to live a simple lifestyle.

People practicing "simple living" live their lives largely outside the mainstream consumer society. There is a big difference between people choosing to live simple lifestyle and people who are "poor". People choosing simple lifestyle often live below their means and focus on what they consider "qualities of life" issues or other non-material issues that are important to them rather than on accumulation of material wealth.

4. Recent (mostly Hispanic) immigrants.

They were raised in more traditional cultures. You have to look outside the US (and the west) if you want a wife from this culture. There are not many single women immigrants in the US. Almost all immigrants are single men or families. If you are a normal American guy living in a large metropolitan area marrying a normal college-educated American woman who is looking for the American dream (a nice house, kids, good life), then realistically you probably have over 95% chance of either getting divorced or trapped in a miserable marriage.

Courtesy: NoMarriage.com Fourth Edition Copyright © 2005 Jon Hertzog & NoMarriage.com

Strong Women, Submissive Women

© Dr. Dennis Neder

Do you know a sexy, strong woman at your place of work? Perhaps she's a manager or business owner. Maybe she's a salesperson that works with your company or she represents a vendor. Do you want to know a little secret about her? She's very likely demure and submissive in the bedroom!

What's that? How can that be? She's a real ball-buster during the day!

Sure, that's her persona during the day, but studies show that the vast majority of women shift roles when it comes to their emotional/sexual lives; with a distinct direction: from dominance to submission. This seems like a strange dichotomy, but stick with me here.

While many women are terrified of others knowing this fact, most women prefer a submissive bedroom role. I'm not going to go into all the science behind this, but it's an important thing to understand if you're actually attracted to one of these "strong-by-day, submissive-by-night" types of women.

Let's say that you want to approach one of these girls. How do you do it? First, if you're already the CEO or VP of your company, you have a much stronger chance of being accepted than if not. It's unfortunate, but the stronger a woman is (and the higher her position within a company) the more men she'll cut out of her "potential date" list. That doesn't mean you have no chance however.

The approach here is one of strength and confidence - much more so than other women. The reason is that these women want to be with men they perceive as even stronger than they are. This is a critical element in the approach because it has to be just as strong and confident. If you waiver here, you're not going to get a second chance.

Your approach isn't one of "Hey, want to go have drinks after dinner?" Instead, you want to say something like, "I don't know what your plans are for Friday, but cancel them. I'm taking you out for drinks. I'll pick you up at 8 sharp." This is a very powerful position to take, but trust me; it's the correct one for this girl.

You have to be able to carry this confidence into dating too. When you date a strong woman be ready to show even more strength and have more direction than her! This is a tall order for many men, but having clear, concise goals and an understanding of these rules helps to make it easier. Be goal-oriented and know what you want with her. If you don't, she's liable to walk all over you and impose her goals right up to showing you the door.

One other thing you'll find with these strong women is that you'll get Tested () more often and with greater intensity. This challenge is simply to prove that you're still the powerful guy you appeared to be during the initial approach. It may last well into the relationship by the way! If you falter on these Tests, you might just lose her completely.

So, after all this work, what's the benefit to you? Simple - a devoted, loyal, willing and happy girlfriend! Someone that will easily take your lead anywhere you want to go be it in the relationship or in the bedroom. These women are very special and any man that can win her is in for a real treat. She tends to be sexually adventurous, creative and enthusiastic - more so than most women. She'll continue to give you reasons to trust her because she is paying you back for being the man of her dreams. She'll even become the woman you've dreamed of all your life simply because she wants to make you happy.

You just have to make it past all the initial suspicion and challenge you'll get; but trust me, it's worth it.

Why do these strong women want to be submissive in the bedroom and the relationship? There are many subtle answers but most of it comes right down to natural wiring. Feeling safe and secure in a relationship is a critical element for all women. If you think about this, isn't just about every aspect of men's relationships with women involved with proving this security? You bet it is!

Now, obviously this doesn't apply to every strong woman - especially if her strength is born out of fear of weakness; but it's true of most. You can safely approach strong women with the belief that they're looking for an even stronger man so that they can melt into the comfort of the willing, submissive role - until proven otherwise.

Best regards.

Courtesy: http://www.romancestuck.com/drdennisneder/strongsubmissive.htm

Michelle Obama as a submissive woman

By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist

Meeting with KC area women today, Michelle Obama said she told husband Obama "No way. Absolutely not," when he brought up running for president. But then what happened?

Michelle Obama caved. She gave in after -- she said -- she thought about her daughters' futures.

"I had no choice," she told the KC audience.

Sorry, not exactly true.

Michelle Obama did have a choice. She's not a wallflower. She's an accomplished professional herself.

So Michelle Obama could have tried a number of tactics to get her husband to stop his plans to run for presidency.

The big one, of course, would have entailed walking out the door.

But she didn't do any of that. Why not?

First, I'm sure she thinks Barack would do a great job as president.

And second, it's apparent that Michelle Obama likes the spotlight, wants to talk about important issues and doesn't mind at all being given large forums to do that.

Read more: http://voices.kansascity.com/node/1620#ixzz0nTcKLq3G

Courtesy: http://voices.kansascity.com/node/1620

Good sex makes you better at your job: study

Published: 4 Jun 09 17:12 CET

Online: http://www.thelocal.se/19880/20090604/

A new Swedish study shows that a healthy emotional and sexual relationship can significantly reduce stress at work.

Ann-Christine Andersson Arntén is a psychology doctoral student from the University of Gothenburg. She conducted a five-year-long study on the effects of partner relations on work stress. Andersson Arntén said that people’s home lives can either help alleviate stress at work or push people over the edge.

“Either you come home to something that gives you a possibility to rewind and recover or you have a relationship that makes you more troubled,” she told The Local.

“If that’s the case than you cannot recover, and your whole system physically and mentally will become unbalanced. It will start to become more and more unhealthy and could end up in depression, anxiety, or sleeping problems.”

About 900 male and female participants completed surveys in which they were asked to categorize their relationship in one of three categories: good, average, and bad.

They were then asked to rate whether their relationship had a positive or negative effect on their work life. The results for women were as expected. Women in good relationships had less stress at work, and ones in bad relationships had more work stress. However, the surprise finding was in the men’s group.

“With men we found the average group experienced the most stress-related problems at work,” Andersson Arntén explained.

“When we talked to the men, they said that when it’s in-between, you have to put more effort into it. You keep doing that until the relationship either becomes better or hopeless. When you get to that point, it doesn’t really affect your health anymore.”

The study also found that men were often more interested in the frequency of sex than women, who were more inclined to value the quality of sexual relations.

Andersson Arntén said the survey results also dismiss the myth that men completely separate work life and private life. She said that men are not the only ones who can benefit from the results of the study.

“People should look at the whole picture,” she said. “For employees, there is an interaction between work and family. If the family life is bad, you pay the consequences. You cannot separate the two.”

She also had a few words of advice for people who are struggling in their relationships.

“Sometimes you need a nutmeg of passion, an extra thing to spice things up in the relationship.”

Andersson Arntén will present her dissertation about this study on Friday at the University of Gothenburg. She will also conduct another study in late August to get a better picture of why this study had the unexpected results.

Laura Xiao (laura.xiao@thelocal.se)

Courtesy: http://www.thelocal.se/19880/20090604/

Gender equality in Sweden

Sweden has one of the highest levels of gender equality in the world. This is based on the belief that a more just and democratic society results from women and men sharing power and influence equally. A well developed welfare system makes it easier for both sexes to balance their work and family life.

Gender equality is a cornerstone of Swedish society. It means that women and men have the same opportunities, rights and obligations in all areas of life. It implies that they can work and support themselves, combine work and care of their children on the same terms, and that neither sex in a relationship need worry about being subjected to abuse or violence.

In the Global Gender Gap Report 2008, Sweden was one of the world leaders in equality. The report, drawn up at the initiative of the World Economic Forum, measures equality in four areas: economics, politics, education and health. It can be read at www.weforum.org.

Parental leave

In Sweden, a parental allowance is paid out for a total of 480 days when a child is born or adopted. Women claim most of the days. In 2008, men claimed about 20 percent of parental leave.

Parental allowance is taxed like other income and counts toward pensions. For 390 of the 480 days, the amount is the same as for sickness benefit; 80 percent of benefits-based income, depending on how much you earn. The maximum parental allowance is SEK 874 (about USD 110) a day. For the remaining 90 days the allowance is SEK 180 a day in the case of children born on July 1, 2006, or later, otherwise the allowance is SEK 60.

Each parent has 60 days of leave reserved specifically for him or her, which means these days cannot be transferred to the other parent.

The father of a newborn baby gets 10 extra days’ leave in connection with the birth of their child. With the birth of twins, a father is entitled to 20 days’ leave. A parent adopting a child is entitled to take leave from work for 1.5 years from the time the child comes under his or her care.

The educational system

Gender teaching is increasingly common in Swedish preschools. The aim is to give children the same opportunities in life, regardless of their sex, through teaching methods that allow each child to grow into a unique individual.

The Swedish government has appointed a committee of inquiry to plan and implement measures aimed at boosting gender equality in school, upper secondary school and adult education. On average, girls in Sweden have consistently higher grades than boys. In the past two decades, girls have caught up with boys in mathematics and science.

A greater proportion of women than men complete their upper secondary education. Women constitute roughly 60 percent of all students in undergraduate university studies.

Almost two-thirds of all degrees are awarded to women. Significantly more women than men participate in adult education. In postgraduate studies, women now constitute almost half of all new students.

They also account for about 48 percent of doctoral degrees, a figure that is steadily increasing.

Four ombudsmen become one

The Discrimination Ombudsman was established in 2009 to replace the Equal Opportunities Ombudsman, the Ombudsman against Ethnic Discrimination, the Disability Ombudsman and the Ombudsman against Discrimination because of Sexual Orientation.

At the same time, the seven anti-discrimination laws were replaced by a single law, the Discrimination Act. These legislative changes were introduced to give citizens stronger and broader protection against discrimination. New provisions were introduced prohibiting discrimination due to age and transgender identity or expression.

The Discrimination Ombudsman reviews rights concerning gender equality in the workplace, in the school system and in certain other areas, including employment.

The ombudsman oversees compliance with the following government laws:

1. The Discrimination Act combats discrimination due to sex, transgender identity or expression, ethnicity, religion, disability, sexual orientation or age.

2. The Act concerning Equal Treatment of Students in Higher Education

3. The Act Prohibiting Discrimination and Other Degrading Treatment of Children and School Students includes preschools, schools for students with intellectual disabilities, and childcare facilities.

4. The Parental Leave Act mainly concerns the prohibition of discrimination against one sex or the other.

Sweden has come a long way in making sure that women and men are treated equally in the workplace.

The Discrimination Act has two main sections dealing with gender equality in the workplace. First, there is the requirement that all employers must work actively and pursue specific goals to promote equality between men and women. Second, the law prohibits discrimination and obliges employers to investigate and take measures against harassment. Employers should not treat unfairly any employee or job applicant who is, has been or will be on parental leave.

Pay differentials between men and women can largely be explained by differences in their profession, sector, position, work experience and age. There are also pay differentials that cannot be explained in this way but may be attributable to gender. These are called unjustified pay differentials. On average, women’s monthly salaries are 93 percent of men’s when differences in choice of profession and sector are taken into account. Pay differentials are most pronounced in the private sector.

Economic and political power

The government’s gender eqality policy is twofold: to ensure power and resources are fairly distributed between the sexes, and to create the conditions that give women and men the same power and opportunities.

In professional life, the proportion of women in top posts is increasing. The percentage of women heading Swedish private limited companies (with more than one employee, excluding the managing director) was 26 percent in 2007. This represents an increase of 17 percentage points since 1990. The proportion of women on the boards of listed companies is also increasing, having risen from 6 percent in 2002 to 18 percent in 2006. The figures are higher in the public sector.

The majority — 52 percent — of managers in municipal, county council and central government are women. Almost half (47 percent) of all Swedish members of parliament and 10 out of 22 government ministers are women. Among elected politicians in municipalities and county councils, women comprise 41 percent.

Mainstreaming

Mainstreaming is a term used in Sweden and elsewhere to describe the incorporation of a gender equality perspective into the work of government agencies at all levels. The idea is that gender equality is not a separate, isolated issue but a continual process.

Thorough statistics

In Sweden all official statistics are collected, analyzed and presented by gender. Quantitative gender equality means equal distribution (50/50) between men and women in all areas of society. Qualitative gender equality means that the knowledge and experience of both men and women is to be taken into consideration and made use of to promote progress in all areas of society.

Violence against women

In 2008, about 28,000 cases of male violence against women were recorded. The number of reported cases has risen over the years, with more women daring to make a complaint. Legislation in this sphere changed in the early 1980s, making it impossible for women to withdraw an allegation.

Women who need help can turn to Roks, the national organization for women’s and girls’ shelters in Sweden, the Swedish Association of Women’s Shelters or All Women’s House, Sweden’s largest shelter association.

There are some 160 shelters in Sweden, largely run by volunteers. In Stockholm, Operation Peace for Women also promotes cooperation between agencies and organizations that are in contact with women exposed to violence.

Courtesy: http://www.sweden.se/eng/Home/Society/Equality/Facts/Gender-equality-in-Sweden2/

Government Investigation Reveals Fundamental Flaws Sweden Backs Off U.S.-Style Child Support Reforms

May 11, 2003

by Roger F. Gay

1975-2000 was an era of radical international child support reform, beginning in the United States. Swedish investigation into the effects of U.S.-style child support reform revealed the creation of massive debt and a high percent of fathers forced into poverty. A new government report suggests corrective action. The article below explains why we should not be surprised that Sweden was among the last to fall to radical child support reform arguments and the first to begin the process of restoration; while the U.S. record of reform is an ongoing embarrassment.

In 1975, a federal office of child support enforcement was created within the Department of Health and Human Services. This was a rather dramatic development in the United States. Child support is a state issue (just as it is in the European Union). The new office was brought into being by an amendment to more popular social services legislation. When signing the bill into law, President Ford stated that the amendment took the federal government too far into domestic relations and promised to suggest corrective legislation. Gerald Ford was not re-elected in 1976. (He pardoned Nixon.) As with many bureaucratic organizations, the Office of Child Support Enforcement became its own best lobbyist, and began the process of empire building; accumulating higher levels of funding and greater powers.

In the late 1970s and 1980s, the man who became known as the grandfather of child support reform, Irwin Garfinkel, suggested adopting sweeping systemic reforms based on the Swedish socialist and Russian communist models. Up until approximately 1990, child support reform advocates argued that the United States had fallen behind in the international race to provide women and children with progressive welfare entitlements. At the same time, feminist groups were arguing for an increased share of their ex-husbands' wealth. Feminist PACs were strategically pumping millions of dollars into political campaigns and had developed their own system of manipulating the press.

By 1990, the U.S. had implemented a brutal and manipulative child support regime that was more Russian than Swedish, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the U.S. Constitutional framework for interaction between the individual and the state. Amounts ordered as child support are arbitrarily controlled by state committees. Collection tactics include everything from workplace harassment and car booting to armed police crashing through doors and massive midnight raids to cart off truck-loads of fathers from poor neighborhoods.

Meanwhile, billions of federal tax dollars began flowing into the pockets of divorce industry insiders. Everyone involved got a piece of the action. State child support bureaucracies grew, judicial retirement accounts expanded, and newly created private child support collection agencies profited from both federal tax dollars and the ability to skim approximately one-third of the child support debt – much newly created by the reforms – from child support payments. The picture presented to the American public however, was tailored to political taste.

Despite the fact that fathers subject to child support orders in the United States had a better record of payment and paid more on average than in any other country, they were demonized as "deadbeats" who abandoned their children financially and emotionally leaving taxpayers with responsibilities that they should bear. It was claimed that taxpayers would save money by "forcing fathers to pay." This laid the foundation for presenting extreme leftist reforms that would intrude into family life and trample individual rights as "conservative" within the American political spectrum; one of many ironies. Similar arguments were given at the end of the Bolshevik Revolution as Communist Party members explained the need for heavy state involvement and control over individual wealth and behavior.

The bureaucratic rules of the welfare system were extended to cover all cases in which private child support is involved. Individual rights were abandoned, giving way to arbitrary en masse manipulation by central committees. Private and government special interests recognized opportunities for profit and power and quickly took control. Unmitigated self-interest provided the engine to sustain the regime against opposition and reason. Ironically – given earlier arguments that the United States was behind the progressive political curve – it became an exporter of radical extreme leftist social, economic, and political reform. The domino effect, feared throughout the Cold War era, had found a new protagonist. Great Britain, Australia, and Canada were among the nations that fell quickly to "deadbeat dad" propaganda and the argument that reforms would reduce welfare costs. They lied. One of the most dramatic changes the reforms brought was the inclusion of non-welfare cases in the new system; which increased the cost of administration without any possibility of lowering welfare costs.

It took longer for the new child support reform movement to effect Sweden, a country that had been mentioned as a model for reform in the United States. In 1996, Sweden's child support formula was adjusted so that low-income parents (usually fathers) would be required to repay more of the state's basic support entitlement. The change was projected to create savings in the welfare system. Within two years, it was widely recognized that the reforms had created serious problems and the government promised an investigation. Low income parents really had low income. Instead of paying more, they were forced into debt in large numbers and could not get out. The traditional distinction between fathers and mothers was apparent. Entitlements were providing a secure economic situation for mothers and children, and the entitlement system was forcing fathers out of mainstream economic activity and into long-term poverty.

The investigation ordered by the government was publicly released on April 28th. (1) It recommends what is in effect a reversal of the previous reforms. Amounts that many noncustodial parents are ordered to pay will be reduced and much of the accumulated debt will be forgiven. In addition, the report recommends that mothers and fathers should share in some of the entitlements previously offered to only one parent. Working parents should be allowed to keep enough of their income to support themselves. Fundamentally, both parents have an equal responsibility to support their children. And regular contact between children and both their parents should be encouraged, not sabotaged by removing economic support from one household.

The additional recommendations are aimed at joint custodial parents rather than all divorced and never-married parents. But an unusually high percent of divorced and never-married parents in Sweden have joint custody, and reforms over the past few years have been aimed at increasing that number. Ideally, Sweden is aiming at joint custody as a norm; with sole custody being granted only in cases in which both parents agree to it or if contact with a parent poses a serious danger to the children.

Historically, Sweden has had one of the most well-thought out and comprehensive child support systems in the world. It is integrated with their general and comprehensive welfare entitlement system, as well as the general and comprehensive mechanisms of social and economic enforcement that go with it. Despite the unconstitutionality of the socialist approach in some respects, Sweden and the United States along with many other countries had shared a common fundamental understanding of the state's authority to impose upon individuals to support their children. On the basis of Delaware law, the Swedish child support formula was nearly reproduced by family court Judge Melson (ca. 1987). Appropriately adjusted for a narrower band of welfare entitlements, it became one of the first legislated state-wide child support guidelines in the United States.

This changed dramatically in 1990 when in response to federal reforms, states arbitrarily increased the amount of child support noncustodial parents were ordered to pay. The savings for taxpayers promised by reformists did not follow. Initially applied in low-income and welfare cases, it was quickly discovered that arbitrarily high payments were sometimes more than the total net income of low-income fathers. Although still handled in a way that is tragically irrational, payments required in welfare cases were reduced. States were instead promised a larger share of federal funding for ordering arbitrarily high payments in non-welfare cases. The reforms cost taxpayers billions of dollars a year. Media reports however continued to claim the reforms would save money by "forcing fathers to take responsibility for their children."

1991-1994, the Swedish Social Democratic Labour Party experienced one of the few periods since 1932 in which it was not in power. Keen to win the election in 1994, consultants were called in from far and wide. Among them were some of Bill Clinton's political advisors from the United States. Right-wing opposition complained that Social Democrats taxed so much that families could not live on what remained of their pay, creating the need for higher government pay-outs and reducing personal freedom. The argument helped a right-wing coalition into power in 1991, and it was at least reasonable to believe that it might work again on the still heavily taxed population.

A page was borrowed from the American political play-book. Social Democrats promised that the government would no longer shoulder the burden that divorced and never-married fathers should bear. An immediate reduction in taxes could not be promised, but savings would be on the way as soon as they were in charge again. Votes for the socialist bloc were barely sufficient to form a three-party coalition government. The Social Democratic Labour Party was by far the largest of the three. By 1996, they made good on their promise and increased the share of child support entitlements that noncustodial parents are required to repay; announcing a projected savings. But Sweden is a different place. The ultimate reaction to the reform has not been what U.S. political advisors would have expected.

A system of checks and balances in the U.S. was strategically written into its constitution. In theory, an error in law that sufficiently infuses government too far into private issues in a way that undermines individual rights must be corrected. If a law is found to be unconstitutional in only one single case, the courts must declare it unconstitutional for all. Thus, the benefit extends to everyone, rich or poor. Replacing the constitutional system of checks and balances in practice with an unchecked socialist bureaucracy in the United States effectively eliminates normal non-violent cultural responses to injustice. The other response – through the ballot box – became impotent when both the Republican and Democratic parties pledged full support for the reforms, which were made enormously popular through a sustained media propaganda campaign.

Fathers in the United States, as a politically defined group, were slow to respond to changes in child support law because the need to define themselves as a political group had not previously existed. Until approximately 1990, legislators were forced to remain within the bounds that the Constitution set for them. Fathers could demand basic rights individually. Because of a 200+ year history of legal precedents, it was by then rarely necessary to put domestic relations law through constitutional tests. The necessity emerged in response to the federal decision to intrude in family life much more vehemently than ever before, and to impose arbitrary "obligations" on parents. But for reasons beyond the scope of this article, courts have been more than hesitant to meet their constitutional obligation to check the assault; opening the door to what could be the largest "social policy" scam in U.S. history.

Sweden does not have such a strong liberal foundation and has little in the way of guaranteed individual rights. As a result, they are better at being socialists than Americans. Their system of checks and balances was developed and tuned by decades of relatively humane democratic socialism. Many Swedes are quite proud of this accomplishment. They have advised other countries to adopt their bureaucratic controls, and made it a serious issue in reforming the European Union. To understand the important distinctions specified in the following paragraphs, it is vital to keep the first three sentences in this paragraph in mind. Sweden has never had a strong political foundation in individual rights. They are more dependent on other mechanisms of "democratic life," some of which are available in the United States, but do not form the primary cultural response to injustice in the minds of most Americans. The differences are not theoretical. There are pronounced cultural differences that developed through Sweden's unique history that have significant practical effects.

Open government: Democracy in the Swedish sense fully expects citizen participation. Registered fathers rights organizations (among others) are invited to review and comment on legislative proposals of interest before they are submitted to the parliament for consideration to become law. It was difficult to demonize fathers who had the opportunity to look them straight in the eye and respond to negative propaganda.

Awareness of the powerful effects of government policy on individuals. No sooner did the new rules appear on the table, than did existing fathers rights groups, backed by sociologists, economists, and political scientists begin public criticism. Articles appeared in newspapers, fathers and children's advocates were interviewed on radio programs, and all sides were represented in regular public televised debates.

Checks and balances exist within the bureaucracy. By the time the next election season began, state accountants had already discovered that a much higher percentage of Swedish men were paying child support through the state collection system. Rather than receiving a financial benefit, the state had merely driven more fathers into poverty. A large portion of the expected benefit simply appeared as a mountain of child support debt that would eventually be forgiven under specialized bankruptcy laws. The state was paying an extra cost of secondary management of the child support debt. More fathers were driven out of mainstream economic activity. Nothing about the reform was good. The same Social Democrats who had promised reform during the previous election found themselves promising an investigation and likely reform of the reform.

Pluralism. At present, seven political parties hold seats in parliament and command public attention. Any of them can criticize the positions and policies of the others, making it less likely that dishonest or malformed policy will continue without scrutiny. Many of the members of these parties are also fathers.

Limits to free speech in the absence of strong protection of individual rights. Swedes are more limited in granting the right to express an opinion than allowed under the U.S. Constitution. People can feel hate toward groups of people in the privacy of their own homes, but they are not legally entitled to threaten groups through public display. Socialism is obviously oriented more toward groups than individuals. But in Sweden, a politician would not last long once the impression was set that they were demonizing a group for political gain. Simply put, it is too difficult to drive policy by treating all men with disdain. In response to increased political discussion and debate, the majority of domestic relations reforms passed in Sweden over the past five years have increased the legal rights of divorced and never-married fathers.

The same problems with child support policy exist in the United States, but have become the subject of political spin rather than honest analysis. The Office of Child Support Enforcement uses rising debt and collection activity to justify its existence; the more the better. Incumbent politicians claim increases in "collections" from people forced into debt during their time in office as an accomplishment, while challengers claim the rising debt is proof that government has not gone far enough. Each side consecutively pushes the other peddle to keep the bicycle moving in the same direction.

The recently released Swedish investigation falls short of promising individual justice. Socialism is satisfied by improved statistics. But it does make an honest first attempt to reduce the number of parents who are financially destroyed by the reformed child support system. Parents should be allowed to keep enough of their own income to support themselves, a comparatively difficult task due to relatively low Swedish paychecks and high taxes. The investigators do suggest that some opportunity for corrective action should be offered to those who still find themselves entrapped by government manipulation.

Low income noncustodial parents whose cases may be dealt with fully by bureaucratic agencies may have it easier than higher income parents who seek adjustments and corrections to court orders. Sweden has a relatively underdeveloped judiciary. It can take years to conclude relatively simple child support cases in the courts; sometimes forcing irrational agreements just to create closure. By signing agreements, parents give up a large measure of their legal right to pursue adjustment later should circumstances change; even if the system makes exercising their rights excruciatingly difficult.

The problem is exacerbated by lack of serious oversight for the country's generous state sponsored legal services entitlements. Ironically, Sweden's laws are designed to be as concrete and formulaic as possible. But lawyers can stretch minor cases in which pursuing agreement is irrational into years of senseless theoretical discussion and psychological play until the full amount of the entitlement is used up, even while litigants on both sides are begging for completion. Unethical behavior by lawyers can be reported, but the statistical record on disciplinary action shows that lawyers operate with impunity. Once an action starts, parents are often stuck with lawyers that are working against them. Administrators typically deny continuation of legal services entitlements when a lawyer is dismissed; making the entitlement one for lawyers instead of litigants. Many parents cannot afford to unravel the tangled legal webs their lawyers create and also pay for the service that they should have received to begin with.

The lack of comprehensive fundamental rights in Sweden also weakens the purpose of appeal to the extent that some people speculate that higher court judges do not always read cases before rubber-stamping lower court decisions. This underscores a basic difference between the culture of unlimited government rooted in socialism and the liberal ideal that the state must take care to limit their actions against individuals to those that are clearly and specifically justified. "Due process of law" also incorporates a basic understanding regarding the efficiency of the process: Justice delayed is justice denied. Parents awaiting adjustments to child support orders years after relevant circumstances have changed experience the injustice of delay first-hand.

The new Swedish investigation starts out ahead of the United States by admitting there is room to pursue a more just and rational treatment of the child support issue. Suggested reforms are a path to a better statistical result than the United States has now. Recognition of the problem by the Swedes marks the first open contradiction to the forced movement of almost three decades of international child support reform. The system developed within the context of local political institutions and culture is better than what the international child support reform movement has to offer. When and how will other countries, including the United States, respond?

Early last year, a judge in Georgia declared the Georgia child support guidelines unconstitutional. He specified three fundamental constitutional requirements for child support decisions. Roughly; child support is child support (not alimony or a way of increasing federal funding), both parents have an equal duty to support their children, and relevant circumstances must be properly accounted for in the formulation of child support decisions. In short, the amount of child support awarded cannot be arbitrary. The decision was recently overturned by the Georgia supreme court, effectively canceling individual rights protection against arbitrary state control as required by the state and federal constitutions. [See related article.]

If the courts do not work, there are two alternatives. Either the people of the United States accept the loss of the fundamental rights and the transition to socialism at a fundamental level; perhaps replacing Congress with a Swedish-style representative parliament, or dramatic steps are taken to remove the Republican and Democratic party politicians from power; replacing them with people who will take their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution seriously.

By the way; the child support reforms didn't work in Russia either. When the population there demolished the power structure, they angrily toppled the statues of divisive group-oriented reformers.

1. Ett reformerat underhållsstöd, Betankande av Underhållsstödsutredningen, Statens Offentliga Utredningar, SOU 2003-42, Stockholm 2003; ISBN 91-38-21998-0, ISSN 0375-250X

Roger F. Gay

Roger F. Gay is a professional analyst and director of Project for the Improvement of Child Support Litigation Technology. Other articles by Roger F. Gay can be found at Fathering Magazine and the MND archive.

Courtesy: http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/g/gay/03/gay051103.htm

Child Support Payments and Getting a U.S. Passport

Section 51.70 (a) (8) of Title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations states, in part, that if you are certified to Passport Services by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to be in arrears of child support payments in excess of $2,500, you are ineligible to receive a U.S. passport . If this applies to you, Passport Services strongly recommends that you contact the appropriate State child support enforcement agency to make payment arrangements before applying for a passport. This is because:

* The State agency must certify to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that acceptable payment arrangements have been made.

* Then, HHS must notify Passport Services by the removal of your name from the electronic list HHS gives to Passport Services. (Passport Services cannot issue a passport until your name has been deleted by HHS.)

Please note that it can take 2-3 weeks from the time you make payment arrangements with the State agency until your name is removed from HHS' electronic list. Passport Services has no information concerning individuals' child support obligations and has no authority to take action until HHS removes your name from its list.

Courtesy: http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppi/family/family_863.html

Top Ten Reasons Why American Women Suck

1) Selfish - to the point where they don't know the difference between love of self and plain downright greed--and drilled into believing that whatever happens is the fault of whatever man is in their life because of the feminist crud drilled into them by the cadre of asexual closet cases called "therapists" who appear on "Ricki", "Oprah" or other such electronic drivel

2) Deluded - into thinking they "deserve" a rich, model-handsome husband who will "take them away from all of this"--whatever the "this" might be--and leading to resentment when they discover that the universe does NOT revolve around them

3) Angry - ALL the damn time about things which are so far out of their control as to be nonsensical--and constantly wanting to "discuss" this mind numbing drivel ad nauseam

4) Psychotic - multiple personalities in the same woman - as "Nomad" put it in the "Star Trek" episode: "Woman...a mass of inconsistencies...", and also when the feminist voices in their heads start with the regrets and victim acculturation

5) Worthless - anything that does not immediately resolve itself in her favor or to her benefit is meaningless to her, especially husband and family

6) Lazy - drilled into their head that they "deserve" a maid, nanny and personal slave to take care of every detail - and that their husband/boyfriend is REQUIRED to cater to their each and every mindless whim

7) Resentful - especially of other women who have things that they do not, in material, spiritual and esoteric senses

8) Greedy - to them, "housekeeping" means getting the house in the divorce (thanks to Zsa Zsa for that immortal line) and sucking the guy for every last cent, even if they had nothing to do with the building of the nest egg

9) Mindless - constant, irritating, idle prattle about topics they read about in some women's magazine and then become instant experts--particularly pop psychology and the latest crap they see on "Oprah" or "Ricki"

10) Vain - believing that they are irresistible to everything in pants and therefore are allowed to behave sluttish and without any honor.

Courtesy: http://web.archive.org/web/20080822112644/http://www.americanwomensuck.com/

American Women and Marriage: a Sacred Vow (Why I Will NEVER Marry an American Woman)

The idea of marrying an American woman literally terrifies me.

Can I not handle having sex with one person for the rest of my life? Am I incapable of settling-down? Am I afraid of commitment? Well, no... not exactly. It's because marrying an American woman is most likely prepping your marriage for failure.

It's a sad fact that in America, more than 60% of marriages end in divorce. Even more sad is that roughly 75% of divorces are initiated by the woman over the man's objections (the remaining 25% are either mutually-agreed divorces or divorces initiated by the husband over the woman's objections; those two categories are about half and half within that remaining 25%). These are all conservative numbers, by the way; they've been rounded-down for the sake of simplicity. So, if 60% of marriages end in divorce, and 75% of those are initiated by the woman, we can do the math to combine these percentages: (.75(.6)) x 100 = 45.

There is at least a 45% chance that whenever a man gets married to an American woman, the woman will want to divorce him at some point. You have better chances at surviving Russian roulette!

Furthermore, a man is many times more likely to commit suicide in the two years following a divorce than the average male. Russian roulette, indeed. American females literally become man-destroyers.

The biggest disincentive for marriage lies within the women themselves. The numbers reveal that they are family-wreckers. Marrying an American woman is a risky activity for us guys. What do American women want more: a husband or a house full of fancy appliances? They often act as if they think their appliances are worth more than the useless human lumps they're currently saddled with.

Think about it: there is a more than two in five chance that an American woman is incapable of mustering the love and commitment needed to make a marriage work! The numbers show they make lousy wives and they don't even think their marriage vows mean very much. Why marry one? Honestly now- why the flaming hell should you even consider marrying one?! Would you ever stick your hand in a garbage disposal if there's a more than two-in-five chance that someone will suddenly hit the 'on' switch?? It's putting your face in the fire! It's asking for trouble, plain and simple. Marrying an American chick is probably one of the worst things you could ever do with your life. Just do a simple cost/benefit analysis; that's what the numbers show!

Women often plan their divorces in advance; the husband always seems to be the last to know and many men say they are stunned when the bomb suddenly drops. Many had no idea the marriage was even in trouble... Naturally, the assumption for everyone is that men must be boneheads to not pick-up on the subtle cues that their marriage is in trouble. But is it really because men are insensitive, unfeeling idiots or is it because women are simply quite good at being secretive in their machinations? Despite the fact that women claim it is men who can't communicate, many women deliberately lie to their husbands about the state of their marriage until the last minute.

In a reply to a readers' response way back in the past, I once described getting the girl in the end not as a victory, but as a booby-prize or a defeat wrapped inside a victory. Well, here is one of the grandest ironies of the American female: if you are the type of man who can put-up with her bullshit and win her in the end (and fall in love with her and marry her) then there's a very good chance that she will want to cut the marriage short(!)

I can only conclude that marrying an American woman is nothing more than poisoned candy! She will only be with you as long as she can get pleasure or utility out of you. And whenever it strikes her fancy, she will drop-kick you to the curb after she's done. And even then, some of these divorcees will smugly sneer that it is men who 'can't commit'.

Perhaps the reason why they claim men can't commit is because women find it pretty darn easy to get-out of commitments in the way that somebody might change a pair of socks? But nay, nay- it must be the man who is at fault. If she divorces her husband, then it was because the man was the problem and certainly not the person who actually contacted her lawyer to request divorce papers.

It's Sacred Vow Time...

Today, I am formally declaring a sacred vow. I might've hinted this in the past, and I don't think I've ever actually formally said it until now... but here goes. Let it be heard now and forever: I will never allow any American woman to ever marry me!

That's right. Here and now, I'm officially writing-off the entire American female populace as being a group which is unfit for the commitment of marriage. Chances are, they just aren't capable of holding a marriage together. Chances are, they are inept when it comes to fulfilling their marriage vows. Odds are, they lack the basic human skill of recognizing their partner's unfulfilled needs. They are, in short, unsalvageable human beings. Yes, I've suggested something along those lines many times before, but I'd always left-open the possibility that maybe by some miracle there might be some American woman out there who doesn't suck. (And yes, there indeed might be one or two American women out there who don't suck.) But those statistics... and they're from rounded-down numbers! *Shiver.* I'd much rather pursue a lower-risk woman. A woman who actually takes marriage seriously. It's just too risky a proposition.

American females just do not offer satisfactory or stable relationships!!

It's a shame, because I know I'd make a great husband one day. I want a successful marriage, and there is a more than sixty-percent chance that the act of marrying an American woman will guarantee my marriage will not be successful... and furthermore, there will be a more than two-in-five chance that no matter how committed I am to the relationship, the woman will still try to bail-out on me at some point. Between her career aspirations, her need for independence and the fact that the average female American likes to regard males as uselessly redundant anyway- there is simply no room for a stable marriage within that kind of conflicted psyche.

Yes, some countries have even higher divorce rates than those in the U.S. Some countries in the former Soviet Union have divorce rates in the high 60th percentiles... most of those countries, however, have experienced extreme levels of economic strife, social dislocation, political turmoil and heightened levels of crime. Naturally, there are many reasons to explain why families are under stress in places like the Ukraine and Belarus. But America is a society with a relatively functioning economy where public services aren't breaking-down left and right and where lawlessness isn't rampant... In short, women in the U.S. have no extreme circumstances that would put their families under such a huge amount of stress. So why are American women breaking-up their families in such numbers?

I'm certain there are perfectly legitimate reasons for a woman to want to leave her husband... but is the man always necessarily the problem? I don't think anyone can ever get an honest answer as to why women divorce- women don't know how they reach their own conclusions half the time! But you can be sure that whatever her reasons, she will justify her divorce with X number of accusations; she will always have an excuse handy. She's feeling trapped in an unhappy relationship perhaps, or not enough of her needs were being met by her husband, or her husband spends too much time at work...

Or sometimes women marry because they just want to have kids. Once the kids are raised, the man is of no further use and can be safely discarded. He's extraneous, as far as she's concerned.

And you'll notice: whenever a divorced woman talks about her ex-husband, it's always unequivocally his fault that she decided to terminate the relationship. Her overweening belief in her own righteousness will start to bleed-through quite clearly. She will be able to gab on and on about whose fault it was (and it's never her). This all goes back to the whole issue of females despising accountability. Women would rather believe the flimsiest of manufactured excuses than even think that they might have had some responsibility for their divorces.

Think about it: even if the woman planned the divorce, initiated it and carried it out, never does any responsibility for planning, initiating or carrying-out the decision ever fall on her shoulders. Or in some cases, she might make-up complete fabrications about the man abusing her and the kids; I know for a fact that some of the more crooked divorce lawyers secretly encourage their clients to do this. The man must always be the evildoer, and she the victim who needs help and sympathy. Not once will she admit things like: 'I found another man I liked more' or 'I was bored with the relationship.' Nay, it must be her no-good ex-husband's fault. That's how she terminates the marriage with a squeaky-clean conscience. They can not pity their ex-husbands; indeed their ex-husbands must always be the most horrible pigs on the planet. We don't want these poor women feeling guilty, do we?

To make matters worse, the legal system gives the woman a financial incentive when she divorces. There are a huge number of greedy, opportunistic lawyers in America who earn their daily bread by stripping ex-husbands of their wealth. After your divorce, a huge hunk of your property and future earnings is basically considered up for grabs. And don't ever get behind in your monthly payments: over the last few years the federal government has been relentlessly chasing 'deadbeat dads' with a vengeance. Within marriage and outside of marriage, men are just walking wallets.

And worst of all, many men find that after divorce they will lose contact with their children while still being obliged to support their ex-wives financially. About 85% of the children of divorce end-up in the custody of their mothers... and the few children in the custody of their fathers only became so after the father had spent thousands of dollars on legal fees trying to prove why they should be given custody. (In Journal of Marriage and the Family, J. A. Seltzer published a 1991 study called "Relationships between Fathers and Children Who Live Apart" which found that a third of children had seen their non-resident parent at most once in the previous year.) Doesn't this arrangement count as a type of involuntary servitude? Having a percentage of your income stripped-away from you to subsidize somebody else sounds a lot like a form of forced financial bondage, doesn't it? (And perhaps this is a question for law students, but doesn't the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution say: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except for punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States..."? So, is being an ex-husband supposed to be a crime now?)

So, to sum-up: by marrying an American woman, there will be a more than 45% chance that, against your will, your marriage will end and you will lose contact with your kids... on top of it, you will be hounded by lawyers and required to support your (former) family financially. You've gotta be an idiot to take that kind of risk!!

If love is blind, the American marriage has lost all five senses

As for you American guys: if you're a guy who gets personal satisfaction from making your woman happy, you've probably noticed that American women aren't happy for long, no matter what you do for them. (Have you ever been accused by your girlfriend of not showing enough affection when you've actually been exhausting yourself in a vain attempt to please her?) They'll always have another unquenched demand lying around. They always want you to buy them another useless and expensive gift... and they end-up dumping you because of what you can't give them.

But naturally, you want the best girl you can get because you know you're a great person and you really have a sincere desire to to build a lasting and true relationship. If an American girl ever rejects you, be grateful she did it before you were married. Hell, she'd rather be with Mr. Asshole anyway. I say: if that's what she wants, let her be with Mr. Asshole!

It's not a big secret that women have a huge amount of ability to command extralegal power and entitlements in the United States. In fact, it is women who set the general rules and conditions of the system of dating, mating and marriage that you must follow (their sex cartel, for starters). One of the things that women need to perpetuate this arrangement is a hardworking yet quiescent and disposable population of males to follow their self-serving rules. So, why be quiescent?

Divorce law is a system which is ruthless beyond the capacity of any single individual's resistance; it is a mean system designed to chew you-up and spit you out for the woman's exclusive benefit. You can't out-mean their system, don't even try. But you can out-think it, and there is safety in numbers. One of the things that you can do to make life uncomfortable for predatory women is not be quiescent before marriage. There are lots of ways of doing that; even just asking pointed questions to the woman you're dating can have an effect.

But my main point is, one way to not be quiescent is to think about some numbers: American women represent 5% of the global population of women. Chances are, they're at the bottom 5% in terms of quality because they're probably sexist, self-centered and demanding as hell... and they will divorce you at least 45% of the time you marry them, guaranteed. With odds like that, you can't go wrong by looking abroad! Are you lowering your standards or selling-out? Absolutely not! By looking abroad, you're merely widening your search for the finest woman you can possibly find. It allows you to make better decisions.

Or, if you're a real gambler and you're willing to risk marrying an American chick, at the very least insist on a prenuptial agreement and talk to a lawyer about what other divorce laws you should be aware of, for Gods' sake. If your fiancée refuses to sign a prenup like mine did, then you'll get an idea of why she's marrying you.

You have the ability to say 'no' to the folderol that female Americans have set-up for you to swallow. And believe me, it is true folderol. You should always question their bullshit and refuse to accept their bullshit. And you can take comfort in the fact that you can just say 'no' and just walk away. Whatever an American woman might claim about herself, remember: she is probably unfit to be your wife.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"American woman, stay away from me

American woman, mama let me be

Don't come here hanging around my door

I don't want to see your face no more

I got more important things to do

Than spend my time growin' old with you..." -- Guess Who, "American Woman".

Courtesy: http://www.the-niceguy.com/articles/MarryAmerican.html

American women can't compete with foreign women!

Are foreign women really better than American/Western women? The answer should be determined through each man’s own personal experience. The best way to find out is to spend several months in one of the many countries that are known for being non-man-hostile.

I have spent several years learning about foreign countries and their cultures, and in fact have spent substantial time in foreign countries. My personal observations are that the answer to this debate is in the numbers. In countries such as Mexico, most countries in Central and South America, the Philippines, and certain other countries the pool of decent women is much larger than in the US. In the US, less than 1% of young women are decent by comparison. America is a man-hating culture where you never hear any woman denounce the hatred of Misandry/Feminism. It’s been my observation that in the foreign countries that I’ve mentioned, about 25% of the women are of similar character to American/Western women. In the foreign countries that I’ve mentioned, about 65% of the women are noticeably better than American women. Even if you date this 65% of foreign women in their country, without them be poisoned by Misandry/Feminism, you will feel like a king, just because you won’t constantly be treated with hostility. At least 10% of foreign women are so great, that you will not believe it unless you experience it first hand… They will in fact denounce the hatred of Misandry/Feminism. My point is that foreign countries offer a substantial pool of decent women, America does not. A pool of decent women does not guarantee success. However, dating American women does almost certainly guarantee eventual misery.

My personal observations have been that about 80%-90% of all men that I know of who married foreign women (that they met in a foreign countries that I mentioned, not in the US) report being very happy. Conversely, of the thousands of men that I’ve known in my life who’ve married American women, less than 5% report being happy. When I was a very young man, I thought that all of my friends, guys that I worked with, guys that went to church with, etcetera… guys everywhere were all part of some big conspiracy to scare single guys. After several years of horror stories from friends who confided in me about how miserable they were being married to American women, and my own personal experiences dating American women, I realized that they were telling the truth. After all, guys like to brag about how much sex they are getting and how well their girl friend or wife treats them. Guys do not like to “brag” about getting no sex and being treated badly. They complain about that to other guys, because telling their wife makes things worse, and they have to tell somebody to keep from going in sane.

Misandrists/Feminists will tell you men who date and marry foreign women are weaklings and losers who are looking for submissive women because they can’t deal with strong women. In reality, it takes a lot of strength and courage to swim against the current, take the unconventional path, learn about foreign cultures, and travel the world for true love, and many men are finding it worth the effort.

Misandrists/Feminists will tell you that most foreign women are gold-diggers. Fact is that many of the most successful men are dating and marrying foreign women, and finding that those gold-digger accusations are false. Fact is that foreign women are much more willing to reciprocate than American/Western women and reciprocating is inconsistent with being a gold-digger.

Misandrists/Feminists will tell you that most foreign women that marry American/Western men are poor, uneducated women who “don’t know any better”. Fact is that the majority are profession women with college degrees. The divorce rate of American men who marry foreign women and bring them to the US is 20% compared with a 60% divorce rate for American men who marry American women. The divorce rate of American men who marry foreign women and move to her country is near 0%. All of the above characterizations by Misandrists/Feminists of foreign women who marry American/Western men are bigoted, hateful, and untrue. Misandrists/Feminists simply hate foreign women because American/Western women can’t compete.

Courtesy:  http://ihatewhitewomen.blogspot.com/2009/10/american-women-cant-compete-with.html

More men explain why they are sick and tired of American women

Here are some more comments from various American men about how they are so tired and disgusted with American women:

Why are American women so promiscuous? America loves to talk about her values, but in reality America is a deceitful slut, "Americans suffer from negative health effects brought on by their sexual conduct at a rate that is three times higher than other economically advanced countries, according to a study published in Sexually Transmitted Infections." The average American female loses her virginity at 15 years of age, and indulges in fornication with multiply sexually partners before reaching her mid-20s. Why is this so? "According to a study featured in the Journal of Sex Research, various studies have shown that a majority of adolescents first engage in sexual intercourse before they graduate from high school." America loves to talk about conservative Christians values. But in reality true Christians values regarding sex is align to most American "Christians." The Bible teaches people to be abstinence before marriage, yet to most American "Christians," casual sex is seen as the norm and is practice regulary by most women, and men. Why is this so? Why are American women such sluts?

Have you ever heard of a place called the Middle East? People living in that region of the world don't have sex with millions of people before getting married. American women are prostitutes compared to Middle Eastern women.

Why do american men put up with american bitchy women? When he could get more respect by going to a country like Brazil or Japan or parts of europe and find a women that would be a better wife and hotter with no kids then an american women?? Way settle for single moms?? I just see guys stress out and tell me how american women are, then why put up with a fat loud mouth? American women do tend to be much bitchier than women in other countries. So many of them strive to be shallow princesses like Paris Hilton here. Talk about a stupid role model.

American girls will divorce you and sue you for everything you have, and leave you with nothing. American women are feminist assholes that do not know how to take care of a man. They don’t know how to cook good food. One reason why so many americans are fat, because the women are lousy cooks and don’t know anything. I recently married a woman from the Philippines. We been together for a long time. She is a wonderful wife, and her native food is very healthy. She dosen’t need to diet in order to look beautiful, because her native food is sufficient. The only thing American women know how to prepare is healthier burgers LOL. Too busy for anything so they try to make fast food into something healthy, like convenience food. Sure, there are alot of nice looking American girls, but that dosen’t turn me on at all. I can just look at a beautiful horse or a well-groomed cat, it is just the same LOL. But the Asian women, especially Eastern European are the best, very beautiful women, with the good attitude along with it. They make good wifes, they are family oriented, friendly, without that western attitiude crap you see from western women. Alot of guys are looking overseas for a companion because they are sick of the bullshit from american women. American women have snotty stuck up attitudes, and that is enough to put a man in an early grave. My filipina wife treats me with dignity, respect, and also take care of me, and because of that I also do the same for her. Respect goes both ways. American women are feminist pigs who thing men are scum of the earth. Well, you can only live up to their expectations, they think we are pigs, then we can only live up to their expectation of us and act like pigs. You go to other country and meet other women, they are so different from American women in all ways. Men, don’t marry an american woman. Don’t do that to yourself. Keep your options open. Expand your horizons.

Over the years people in foreign countries have complained about the attitude of American women. Now that I am overseas I notice this with the women. American women have such bad attitudes when it comes to dating. You give them all that you could and more. You put all you can into a relationship to make things better for both of you. And yet these women are never satisfied. Another thing, why do women complain about men when they constantly date losers??? If the guy treated you like crap why did you date him in the first place???? And if he continued to treat you like crap, why didn't you just leave him??? A smart woman would never do something that dumb!!! A smart woman wouldn't blame every man on the planet for their problems!!! A smart woman would date someone more decent! Are there a lack of intelligent women in the US or something? Outside of the US, women tend to be more down to earth and humble. You could actually talk to someone and not worry about them giving you an attitude. Women actually say "thank you" or "oh I'm sorry" or "hi how are you", ect!!! These women also appreciate a good conversation and actually have manners. A WOMAN WITH MANNERS....IMAGINE THAT......YOU COULD ONLY FIND SOMETHING LIKE THAT OUT OF THE UNITED STATES!!

Virgins are looked down upon in America. I know that from personal experience. Most American women want men that have had sex with millions of women, yet the same stupid women complains about men cheating on them. That's a stupid hooker's mentality. The truth is, most women in America getting married for the first time are not virgins. When women wed, most have had sex with millions of men, and their husband are getting leftover. The sounds like a slut to me!

I agree American women are sluts.....look at all those women who are having premarital sex and they are Church going women. So if the Church going women are having out of wedlock births then you know the rest of the women are giving it up. If you ask me, you can't turn the average American women into a respectable human!

My repulsion for a lot of American women is mainly because of their promiscuousness -- that is what I was saying in my first post. Before the average American woman reaches the age of 25, she has had sex with multiply guys tons of times. Now, that is disgusting, and, yes, I’m singling out American women because immigrant women aren’t like this, from what I observe.

Actually American chicks are sluts. I came to the US on a student visa and noticed a big different over my country(Spain). Here, it seams parents dont give a sh1t what their kids are doing or where they are. I had friends here in the us that lost their virginity as young a 11. Many american parents even have their young daughters/son's partners in their house like it's second nature. They even let them hang in their bedrooms. If I were to try to slip a foot into my girl's house her dad would kill me. In the US, my first girlfriend I had fully exposed herself to me after only a few days and we were having relations in less than a week. In spain, I had to ask for permission to even date my lady and didn't receive a kiss till a few months after dating.

Courtesy:  http://ihatewhitewomen.blogspot.com/2009/12/more-men-explain-why-they-are-sick-and.html

PART 1- Why American men should marry foreign women and not American women

Marrying an American woman is the dumbest thing a man could ever do. Save your money and marry an asian woman or a eastern European woman. You won't be disappointed. At least a foreign woman isn't going to divorce you as quickly and easily as an American woman, and most of them make great moms. Hell, most of them will cook for you and enjoy it, too. American women are pathetic. American women are easy to hate, they are stupid, ignorant, and arrogant and now they're even going broke. What's there to like about them?

I say don't get married period. But if you must be a hardhead, I believe outsourcing is the best idea. Foreign women are comfortable in their femininity. As a male I am attracted to this. I believe that American women have priced themselves out of the marketplace. Too needy, too many headgames, too easy to divorce. Not many foreign men want American wives either. Plus nowadays you hear American women using terms like "starter husbands". Don't do it guys. What a crude women American girls are. American men are considered the best husbands in the world. They sure put up with more than most men in other countries do. That's why women from around the world try so hard to marry an American man. American women become very bitter divorcees.

In a woman's mind, equality does not mean you are equal. It means that the woman always gets her selfish way. Actually, a growing number of American men are marrying foreign brides, especially given the divorce epidemic in America. Many American men just no longer desire American women anymore. Do you know that most American men now prefer foreign brides over American women? Hey ladies, I would STRONGLY encourage you to consider lesbian relationships with each other because you know what, American men no longer find you desirable.

My wife will be 40 this year, and looks like she is 25. Why? Because she takes care of herself. Eastern European women look good for their man. American women look good for the attention of OTHER men. They have to know that they are always wanted by someone else to make them feel better about themselves. And the ones that don't care get fat, and let themselves go. Then wonder why their man is starting to look at other women. An eastern european woman doesn;t have to worry about these things. She looks good, can cook good, is an excellent mother, and excellent wife. And the best part, there is not one thread of jealousy in them. They don't need to be jealous. They know their man is not going anywhere.

I think American women started going downhill after the mid-80s. Before that, they were okay. Maybe it has something to do with the rebellious pop culture that evolved during that time (I don't know for sure), but the end result of what they have become is despicable. And now karmic law has kicked in and they are paying the price for what they have become. What's so ironic is that so many of them have the nerve to bitch and complain when us guys go after prettier, better women. Go figure. American women can have all the "rights" in the world and it isn't going to help them find a good guy. You American woman are hard to sell because you are low quality and over-priced. Many foreign women are high quality and much cheaper. I think you get my point.

Yep, America let the American woman off the LEASH, some 35 years ago. And they really showed the world what they are capable of...

lesbianism, up 250%...

murders against children by their mother's, up 400%...

Prison population increase of women, up 100% since 1975,increased at a faster rate than the number of male inmates.

Yes, American girls, you really showed the world what your capable of when left to your own devices. lmao.. american woman are so much dangerous now. careful folks!

The fact that american women don't want to fold socks is evidence that they suck. Think about it. Why should I be with you if I still gotta do it. I gotta pay the mortgage AND do my own laundry? Eff that. Rather have a chick from the pueblos of Mexico that is hot, young, nice, cleans, and will actually take a pan from the cupboard and are you ready for this? She will put edible objects inside and get this! She will turn on the flame and COOK THEM SO THAT HER MAN MAY CONSUME THEM. A very bizare concept to the American woman yes I know.

We all know how an American woman will play with your emotions, and will use it to her advantage. After she does everything she can get a man into a rage, she will call the cops and tell them that she fears for her life. The man will go to jail, and the woman sits at home, smiling because she won. Then if a divorce is involved, she will rape you for everything you have, financially and mentally, for the rest of your life. Then will use your need to see the kids as a weapon. No wonder men go elsewhere to find a woman.

Actually American men marry foreign women because they are more "accomodating" to men's needs, they tend to be more "forgiving" of men's mistakes AND they are less likely to divorce their husbands at the drop of a hat. Given our numerous options we just don't find American women desirable anymore. As you are aware, the anti- American women sentiment among men runs very very deep in this country - I mean, just look at the countless number of foreign bride and anti-American women websites in the internet, and not to mention the numerous anti-American women threads on Topix. Hon, in this day and age, we American men just don't want you gals anymore. There is no hate among American men here - it's just that we don't find American women desirable anymore and instead, we prefer foreign brides. Why do American women acti so angry and scornful? Don't men have the right to say who they find desirable and who they choose to marry?? I don't understand why American women are all up in arms over this discussion - it seems to me that many of you American gals have rather low self-esteem.

Courtesy:  http://ihatewhitewomen.blogspot.com/2009/12/part-1-why-american-men-should-marry.html

PART 2- Why American men should marry foreign women and not American women

American men fall in love with the women not the nationality. Yes yes. And American women demand much while giving little back in return (cooking, cleaning, being hot,not nagging), have emotional baggage, are over priced, and are generally bitchy. So why would we fall in love with that? When they are nice, we love them no matter what nationality- no doubt about that -but right now, at this point in time, it aint American women. That is why men should live without women. Let her take care of herself since you will have to cook and clean for YOURself anyway. Makes sense to me. To those women who wish to be sexually emancipated and treated just like "one of the fellas" I say, more power to you, enjoy yourselves, but don't expect an intelligent, refined gentleman to consider you marriage material...

I'm pretty sure most american men don't want a slave. With the divorce rate so high, most men are doing it all for themselves anyway. You can ride through my neighborhood, and the men are either working in their yards, or working in their shops repairing things. They cook and clean for themselves, and some are single fathers with kids. The problem is, women DO NOT want a good man. To them a good man just is not attractive. The bad boys seem to get all the action. A GOOD man will catch his wife banging his best friend. A GOOD man is weak in a womans eyes. An asshole gets all the ass, while a good man........ well, he just gets f##ked.

You know I gotta say, a lot of American women really suck. Not all of them do, but a lot. They just go crazy with the whole stupid feminist bullsh*t, trying to prove they are just as manly as men, trying to take control of the relationship. Women aren't men, stop trying to act like it, it pisses us off! The more and more women try to take control, the higher the divorce rates get. Think that's a coincidence? The nice thing about foreign women is that they are far more respectful of the man's place in a relationship. Many American women have no respect for men, and for that reason they suck.

Learning by the observation of others works like a charm. I have seen this pattern of American women using men, and the courts facilitating it since the early 1980's. It's all about need versus desire. Do I desire women, Yessiree. Do I need one to fulfill my life, Hell NO. You don't need to stick you're hand in the rattlesnake pit to know that you WILL be bitten. I've seen too many of my friends working their asses off to pay alimony and child support. And I ask each one of them if they would have done anything differently. The answer is almost always "Don't get tangled-up with any of these american female monsters!!" I'm single and happy to have never made that mistake.

American Women want to cut the balls off a guy. Want to spend our money but not theirs that belongs to them. Sit around bashing each other and complaining what a s.o.b. they deal with. Want us to just say yes dear and work ourselves into a early grave. Guess what women from other coutries have been raised to help their spouses and to be a asset to their marriage. Not some overindulged spoiled little princess who will call Daddy everytime she doesn't get her way. Many American women do not pay any respect to men, even the one's who deserve it. I respect women as people, but I don't like it when they don't pay us proper respect. That is a growing problem with American women.

The vast majority of American women suck. A general statement because it is generally true. No mystery to that. So I say just eff them. Hell they're so sexually liberated now so why not take advantage of it. I'ts not like you're abusing them, or giving them the raw end of the deal. They WANT to get boned and thats what us guys are here for. No harm no foul. Just don't marry one.

If American women are so great why aren't men from all over the world wanting to marry them like foreign women do with American men? Face it, the only men that can put up with your shit are American men and even we are getting tired of it. Serioulsy, where is this great demand for American women? It's just not there. You crazy American broads can yell and scream about how all these women just want us for green cards, but what it comes down to is numbers. Lot's of foreign women want to get with American men while the deamand for American women is very small when compared to that for American men. Again there is very little demand for American women outside of the USA. Make of it what you will but it is the truth. The fact that there are desirable men out there dating foreign women should scare the crap out of American women. Which is probably why this issue brings out such intense emotions in them. I would say most guys that have the means to travel are almost always happier with dating overseas than here. It's like prison food, if thats all you know it probably starts to not taste that bad, but once you are out and get a taste of a good steak you never want to go back to what you were eating in prison. How many websites sole purpose is so foreign men can meet American women? Not many. Lot's of websites where foreign women are looking for American men though. American women have a horrible reputation throughout world, way worse than that of American men. If you want to get in a deabte about who is considered more desirable to the outside world American men or American women I will have that debate with you.

I have dated both American women and the native Russian (and Asian women) overseas and I believe that these foreign women are much more accomodating and attune to men's needs and they would definately make superior partners. It seems to me that an increasing number of American men are "side-stepping" American feminist women and instead, they are dating or marrying foreign women. Now for the first time in the U.S. history, EVER, more than half of the American women remain unmarried and can not even find their partner. So for any of you single ladies over 40 years old who are still hoping to find that special MAN in your future, I say keep on dreaming, baby! Frankly, I wouldn't even touch these old spinsters with a 10 foot pole! LOL!

Courtesy:  http://ihatewhitewomen.blogspot.com/2010/01/part-2-why-american-men-should-marry.html

PART 3- Why American men should marry foreign women and not American women

American women say they welcome the competition but lets be a little bit more honest shall we, you can't compete. Plain and simple. Oh yes I know you are a strong independent woman with a mind of her own, but let's try and be a bit more honest shall we? If we weren't so isolated from the rest of the world over here in America and you really had to compete you would lose. Of course I'm guessing you are single now, so it really wouldn't be any different would it? The fact the you're another crackpot feminist who thinks American women are desired throughout the world? You can't show me any stats or any proof that foreign men are looking to marry or date American women. So I'm sure while in your mind you are highly desired wherever you go, it's probably more your pychosis then it is that you are wanted and respected in these countries. If American women could compete they wouldn't need all these laws protecting them.

You are right. While there are THOUSANDS of international dating sites that help to match AMERICAN MEN with FOREIGN WOMEN, I haven't found a single site that matches american women with foreign men. Apparently, there is NO demand for American women among the men around the world. Even in the U.S., this demand for American women (except for very young, attractive ones) are continually declining, while the demand for foreign brides has literally exploded over the years. The word is out ladies, many American men are now saying "I want a foreign woman, not an American woman!".

The point is Tiger Woods chose a beautiful Sweedish model over an American woman. He could have had his choice of any woman in the world, why not choose an American woman like yourself? Probably because most of you are a bunch of delusional, angry, pychos would be my guess? American men are side stepping American women? More like running these days:) This is the attitude of an american woman. My best friend has been married for 26 years to the same woman. He took care of her, bought a house, bought her cars, etc etc etc. Last year he got hurt on the job, and gets disability. This ball busting, scum sucking bitch starts complaining to him about not having enough money, and left him. I am married a great belarusian, and he wanted the same. I introduced him to one of my wife's old friends in Belarus. They hit it off right away, and are doing real good. His words, I have heard from so many men. "I will never, ever marry an american woman again". I said these same words. Thousands of American men are learning how manipulative, and evil an american woman can be, and are just damn sick of it. At the rate it is going the American woman will live alone, while every American men will be happily married. In the next 20 years years single men will have ass galore.

The problem is most American women have had Daddy call them princess and given them everything they can afford to give. Todays American women wiggle around playing the temptress and vamp. Thinking becuase they have a vagina men owe them something.

American women just accept the ho hum approach to housekeeping and child rearing.

Don't want to cook and gossip about their husband with their female friends and just bad mouth him for never being enough. Foreign born women are greatful to find a man to love them to fulfill their dreams of being a good wife,lover, and mother. American women want to rule the roost and just be petty and vindictive and let's face it a femi nazi. Foreign born women are exotic and beautiful and want to fulfill their every dream to become a mother,a wife and a lover otherwise a sucess to herself and her family. Sorry American Women but your losing the battle of the sexes.

There is a reason why American women get so angry anytime the subject of Asian women marrying and dating American men is brought up. These women are crazy for white guys, and there are many happy, normal relationships between American men and Asian women. Men don't want an American woman on top of them. The sheer mass would break most men's bones. All the stupid tv shows where American women are shown as the brightest, most beautiful, and toughest women on earth. The rest of the world knows this is false, and the only ones who buy into it are the idiotic American women living here in the States. I know it pisses off American women that most of the world sees you and the rest of your clan as a bunch of selfish, narcissists, but the quicker you can accept this as fact, and that they really don't you see as intelligent, strong women, the closer you will be to living in reality, and not this fantasy land where you are a desired, beautiful, tough woman. And you ladies spend to much time watching Oprah and reading magazines like Redbook that only tell you what you want to hear, and how "special" and "great" you are. I have no idea what statistics you are talking about that prove that American women are these shining lights of beacon to the world, but I'm guessing you probably heard it on the View or some other daytime talk show that caters to American women and their narcissism.

American women are like spoiled children. They are self-focused, insecure and irrational. They crave drama and games. They demand constant attention, reassurance, and above all, power in relationships. And, like children, who ceaselessly push limits to see just how much they can get away with from their parents, American women relentlessly test men. Go to any Asian country and you will see the difference between the American women's dating life and American men's dating life. It pisses you off that WHITE AMERICAN MEN are wanted by asian women so you come up with every excuse in the book. "They can't get quality American women," "they just want the green card," "my gf told me this was so." It's obvious that you can't handle that asian women are attracted to WHITE MEN and this pisses you off to no end. On the other hand, many American/Western women living in Asia are single, can't get a date, can't find a man, and are totally miserable. I have no idea how many of the Forbes 500 are married to American women. But I can guarantee you that very few foreign billionaries, and other men throughtout the world who have money want to, or are married to American women. If you compare wealthy American men who are married to foreign brides, to the rest of the men in the entire world who have wealth and are married to American women, you will finally realise that no foreign man, rich or not, wants to end up with a nightmare like an American woman. There is and never will be any great demand by men outside of the U.S. to marry or have anything other than easy sex with American broads. No one wants you, and the only reason you are able to get laid here is because men have no choice but to sleep with women like yourself. It's basically skanky, sort of skanky, bitchy, angry, or really skanky. What a choice we have.

American women are sad because they don't want a family a husband or a home. They want to be on their own and alone. Yes they want to live a modern life. Play games and use men for their money and what they can have. But when the man expects anything from them it is no way Jose for them. The femi nazi's have told women behave like a man to get a man. Most single women want a guy they can push around and then say there are no real men out there. They want their men to nothing more then a fluffed up poodle being carried around in their handbag. Women will start a fight with another guy and expect the boyfriend to stand up for them. So Now you know why men are not marrying American women. They are spoiled self centered little witches who love nothing more to cause trouble. Now all you single women know why a guy dates you and after a couple of weeks dumps you. It is because you are shallow,sad and just a plain old b!tch who thinks your julia roberts but in reality your like Roseann Barr white trailer park trash. That is why you are sad,jaded, and bitter towards every single man you meet. You sit at home eating gallons of ice cream with whip cream and tears streaming down you face in the candlelight reading your romance novels. But remember those guys aren't real just like your expectations of men. That is why your alone.

Courtesy:  http://ihatewhitewomen.blogspot.com/2010/01/part-3-why-american-men-should-marry.html

PART 4- Why American men should marry foreign women and not American women

Rarely do wealthy men outside of the USA look to marry or date American women. Quite often these days wealthy American men are looking to date overseas. So, I'm not sure how you figure American women have more options. You are confined to the States, and your chances of ever snagging a wealthy European I would put at about 0.0000000000001%.

Survial of the fittest? Women have become experts at filing discrimination lawsuits in this country. Most disputes between women and men are now settled in a court of law that favors women. I would hardly call that survival of the fittest. Women need the American government to set up laws that favor them. So anytime they feel they have been wronged they can just run to big daddy, and more times than not they end up the winner. Hardly survival of the fittest.

Here are the facts:

1. A U.S. Green Card is valued by at least some foreigners.

2. There are MANY THOUSANDS of websites matching American men with foreign women.

3. Despite the value of a Green Card, there are NO sites matching American women with foreign men.

Conclusion:

1. There are ENORMOUS desire/demand for American men from foreign women.

2. There is NO desire or demand for American women from foreign men (shame on you, ladies!).

3. It is likely that foreign people perceive American men to be BETTER than American women.

To the feminist, the American woman is highly sought after while the American man is only wanted for his money. Or he is just a walking green card. This line of thinking is so played out and false that it's not even worth talking about anymore. Have fun living in your little world where all the men on this planet desire you, and us men are seen as nothing but a way to a better life. Whatever gets you through the day ladies. Of course most of the women I have met in Asia had no desire to leave their familes and come take up your way of life. So yeah, you are wrong, but then most American women have no concept of family, marriage, or anything other than what the ladies on the View have to say about evil men and their foreign brides. There is no demand for American women outside of this country. Lot's of demand for American men though. I think all those drugs you have taken for your various STDs are starting to have an affect on the brains of the idiotic American women.

American women are known for being easy to get in the sack. And when they are traveling, forget about it. It's like shooting fish in a barrel for foreign guys. So I wouldn't equate American women being easy, with guys in Europe finding them attractive. It's usually just a case of you putting it out there and them enjoying an easy lay. I doubt much of it has to do with them holding American women in high regard. 1 in 4 teenage girls in America now has an STD. Well, at least we are number 1 in something.

Angry bitter American women can't handle the fact that not only American men, but most of the men in the world see their type as nothing but bitchy, arrogant, selfish, and not worth the time of day. Men throughout the world have a negative view of American women and the only ones who can't accept this as fact happen to be American women. Again, I know you can't and probably never will understand that the world we live in does not see American women as anything but vile creatures, but I would suggest you leave your little bubble and try and see what people are really saying about the women in this country. The last place a man should look for a soulmate is here in America. So yes, while I desire a soulmate I have no interest in arrogant, bat shit crazy American women. I have read plenty on the different cultures I have visited and enjoy traveling. China and Japan are far from third world countries and I have met women here who are educated, smart, and some of them happen to be quite attractive. Men from developed countries infact do not have any interest in American women, unless these women are traveling in their country and they want an easy score. Even when the men from these countries you are thinking about are interested in meeting women outside of their land rarely is it ever to come over here and meet American women. These cultured worldly men that you think have such an interest in American women, in reality have no interest in the American female, and tend to spend their time in third world countries when they travel to meet women outside of their own country. So in reality they are just like the men you despise over here. Strange isn't it?

American women get angry over the fact that a lot men in this country are tired of them and are looking elsewhere. So-called strong and independent women like them get angry over this, because they know deep down they can't compete with foreign women. If the majority of men in this country had the choice or the means to look elsewhere, believe me they would. And so you American gals need to release your anger and biterness over this fact. You do realise the obsity rate is higher for women than it is for men in this country, right? Yeah, foreign men are just dying to get with women who resemble Jabba the Hut. They find the cellulite all over your thighs and ass sexy. And they thinks it's hot how so many of you desperately need lipo. Oh, and don't even get them started on your Burger Kings diets. That really gets them going.

Besides, if American women really could handle competition, they would repeal IMBRA. IMBRA prevents American men from marrying foreign women. It was created by jealous feminists when they discovered American men were rejecting them. Thus, IMBRA was created, under the false ideas of "protection" and "abuse prevention," gaining support using falsified information and misleading testimony, and passed with no debate, no questions answered and no violence statistics presented comparing violence rates. Senator Maria Cantwell in particular, claimed that international dating sites were involved in human trafficking of women to the United states (The department of justice had actually found no correlation at all).In reality, these laws make room for more violence against women and makes it easier for the green-card scammers to succeed. IMBRA is responsible for ruining 10,000 marriages due to "indefinite delays," many of which were between VETERANS and foreign women they met over seas. Veterans risked (and plenty of them lost) their lives fighting so we could live the lives we live today. Given all they've done, having feminazis deny them their right to marry foreign women seems like a pretty poor way to repay them, and proves how spoiled and ungrateful feminists truly are. But their refusal to give men repeal IMBRA just proves that they cannot compete foreign women, and have no intention of improving themselves to do so.

The wealthy men in this country who have foreign brides, compared to the number of wealthy foreigners who are married to American women is a number that should tell you all need to know about how desirable foreign men consider you. Marrying an American woman is the biggest mistake one can make. They are like maintaining a white elephant. They are most likely to ditch you in old age. Why do American women talk through their noses? You know, that horrible whiney nasal delivery that so many American females affect. Personally I find it so grating and unpleasant that I often have to turn off newscasts and videos as I can't stand listening to it. Listen to a German woman or a Japanese woman or to any other kind of woman talking. They speak normally from the mouth and throat. But from the nose? Yech!

Courtesy:  http://ihatewhitewomen.blogspot.com/2010/01/part-4-why-american-men-should-marry.html

Only marry foreign women.

"Now you understand why US men prefer foreign born women: THEY TREAT US BETTER, RESPECT US, APPRECIATE THAT AFFECTION WE SHOW THEM, AND ACKNOWLEDGE OUR EFFORTS TO PROVIDE A BETTER LIFE."

A huge percentage of American women are selfish, flighty, insecure, needy and psychotic, and quite capable of concealing those traits during the dating phase

White 'career' American chicks are the bottom of the barrel marriage-wise.

Foreign women from South America, Eastern Europe, and Asia are at the top. Only guys who travel (in other words, guys who are successful and ambitious enough to travel a lot) find these. But they never, ever go back.

Foreign-born women living in the US are the next best. They get married early...they are highly sought-after by American guys for their wifely skills (hell, any women who has ANY ability to be a wife is better than your average American chick, who knows NOTHING about being a wife)

Bottom of the barrel---white American chicks. Yecch.

Here's a story: I knew a guy who was Hungarian (parents emigrated) who tried for 15 years to find a half-decent women to marry. He's a doctor, by the way. Finally after 8 psycho-weirdo US chicks, he went back to the 'old country' to find a wife. The people there were lining the women up for him to meet...he's a rich American guy...they are considered the best husbands in the world.

He found this lovely wife. She is a total gem, and he's happy as hell. 2 kids. Happily ever after.

I will go one step further and differentiate between Western women vs. non-Western women. This is not just an American phenomenon, most women in Western countries have that cold, bitchy, superficial, stuck up attitude. A lot of Western women hold themselves as the pure center of the relationship. If the men don't fit a rigid and unrealistic criteria or she doesn't feel the man can take care of her enough (even if she has a higher paying job) then she will drop him like a hot potato, regardless of his character or commitment to the relationship.

Popular Myth: Western men looking for foreign wives are only seeking subservient slaves.

Truth: Most Western men today are evolved and modern and truly believe in the 50/50 system. Most Western men are dismayed by the lack of sincerity of Western women. I can do my own laundry and cooking thank you!

Yes, Latin American and Eastern European women do make better mates because both come from more conservative and family oriented cultures where relationships and commitment are actually revered.

I was absolutely blown away by the quality of women on my trip to eastern Europe. Classy, cultured, traditional values, how could you ask for more?

One year with my Japanese girlfriend

So far...

-No fights.

-Great sex every night.

-She cooks a delicious meal every night (unless I take her out).

-No guilt trips for going out with the guys.

-Thin and absolutely beautiful.

Think I've finally found myself a keeper. One thing's for sure; I'll never go date an American girl again.

Latin American women seem to make decent wives. My friend married a hot girl from Venezuela. Sweet, beautiful, cooks, cleans, and is the perfect wife. Like how American women were in the 1950s America.

As I said, it's a competitive marketplace. We're not looking to marry other men. The real world is not about what is fair, but what you can get.

American men have options. American women do not. So the American women huff and puff, and scowl at the incoming foreign brides who don't demand the feminazi equality bullshit. You WISH American men didn't have choices. You're like a labor union that's pissed off because the company is hiring non-union employees.

Honestly I wish I could have found an American wife with all the qualities of my foreign wife. I could not, because they do not exist. Here is a partial list of her loveliness

1: Sensible and good with money.

2: Genuine commitment.

3: Very family oriented.

4: She enjoys housework.

5: Hard working.

6: She does not have to diet to look great

Foreign women are comfortable in their femininity. As a male I am attracted to this. And I love her with all my heart.

I believe that American women have priced themselves out of the marketplace. Too needy, too many headgames, too easy to divorce.

Not many foreign men want American wives either.

American women..

- highest maintenance (I've never heard of a foreign bride demanding her husband buy expensive house & cars)

- fattest in the world

- most likely to cheat

- highest rate of divorce (60% - US-US marriages; 20% - US-foreign marriages)

- largest payout in divorce court (you'll be ass-raped for everything you earned, plus most of what you will earn for years to come)

- bitchiest

- most likely to nag constantly

- most likely to believe in feminism and "equality"

- most likely to hate men

- spend least amount of time with her children

- worst at cooking and cleaning

- fucked & chucked by tons of guys before tricking you into marriage

3 reasons to marry an American woman

1. You actually believe BBW = big BEAUTIFUL wife.

2. You believe nagging is essential for personal growth.

3. You really look forward to the day your BBW wife divorces you and you gladly fork over 50% over your hard earned assets, plus child support and alimony (a lard ass bitch for sure is not going to have a good job). Then after that you have to figure out how to live on 20% of your income.

Every foreign girl I've met was superior in every conceivable way to any other girl I've known, from attractiveness to personality.

I have a foreign Latino girl and she blows away American women. This web site are 100% true; I can speak from experience of living with my girl for a month. I could never go back to American trash women. I also use to think web sites like that were stupid until I had the experience for myself. It has changed my life for the better, made me look at American women in a different light.

I wouldn't even consider dating an American women, the majority are bitchy prudes that only put out when they think they can cash in. I for one will never spend a huge amount of money of some stupid bitch just to get laid. Mexican and Asian women are a much better choice and they look better than American chics too.

After many many years of dealing with American women, I've hit an interesting point. I've lost ALL sexual interest in them, in fact I just about puke walking down the sidewalk on any day, seeing all those shitty, rude, mean, snotty American women.

Strange thing, cause for so long I've been quite a horndog, chasing women at all levels. I'm still totally attracted to foreign women...Indians, Orientals, Europeans.

But show me an American chick and I basically couldn't care less. Tell me how "beautiful" she is...doesn't matter. I suppose from an intellectual viewpoint I can see the beauty, but it's not any more attractive to me than...let's say...admiring a beautiful horse or a well-groomed cat. OK, admirable, but not sexy folks.

They say that sex is 90% mental...well, my mind has rejected American women completely.

Since I've been traveling overseas I have met many nice Japanese, Russian, and Spanish women. I can tell you this....the women are so much better. I want a lady that, when I get home from work, would rather kiss me than scream at me for some trivial reason like I didn't mow the lawn. I can do without the nagging thanks. To all my fellow American men... American women are easily replaceable...go Asian, or Russian, even European (except British, Italian, and French women) and you can't go wrong. Experience is the best teacher.

I can not date white American women anymore. I was in the navy and I have seen the light. Women from other countries just look better and treat you better too! I didn't pay for shit when I was overseas and I pay up the wazoo here. Any rational person can figure it out from here.

American women are high-maintenance primadonnas with attitudes. I'd take a foreign born Russian or Latina woman any day. They are much nicer and normally MUCH SMARTER than most American women - plus they don't watch Rosie and Ricci Lake - they go to the library or perform outside activities.

Dating or being married to an American woman is like driving a beat-up Ford Escort. If you are only used to driving a beat-up Ford Escort, then you have no idea what it feels like when you drive a Bentley or Ferrari. You need to at least test-drive a Ferrari, so you'll have a reference point on what a real car feels like.

Courtesy: http://www.nomarriage.com/why_foreign_women_are_better.html

Does International Dating Force American Women to 'Submit to the Patriarchy'?

May 7th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families

Background: Fox News columnist Wendy McElroy and others have criticized the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 (IMBRA) for being anti-male.

According to McElroy, "the IMBRA requires American men who wish to correspond with foreign women through private for-profit matchmaking agencies to first provide those businesses with their police records and other personal information to be turned over to the women. Corresponding with a foreigner is legal. Marrying a foreigner is legal....Now American men who wish to pursue a legal activity must release their government files to a foreign business and foreign individuals."

A group has formed to protest the anti-male IMBRA--Online Dating Rights (ODR). The ODR criticizes the IMBRA, and notes "this is the first time in US history criminal background checks have been required for two people to communicate."  To learn more, click here and here.

Some American women perceive international dating as weakening American women's position within the marriage market. For example, prominent feminist blogger Amanda Marcotte labels foreign women who marry American men "scabs." She believes that international dating may induce American women to "submit to patriarchy." In other words, international dating undercuts American women's never-ending struggle for equity in their relationships with men by providing men with "scabs"--women who can be substituted for American women who don't submit to male domination.

I don't buy it. There are probably some men who date internationally because they want a genuinely submissive wife. However, I believe most men who date internationally do so because they want to avoid America's divorce epidemic--an epidemic which has not spread to some foreign countries. The vast majority of American divorces are initiated by women, not by men. Is it so wrong that a man might want to protect the stability of the family he wants to create by choosing a woman who he believes will be less likely to initiative a divorce? It seems fair enough to me, particularly for men who have already gone through a divorce.

I'm skeptical that the IMBRA has much to do with a need to protect foreign women from American men--I think American women's advocates don't like men being able to date internationally. My overall view of international dating for men is that I don't recommend it nor do I oppose it. It's their lives, they  should be allowed to date whomever they want.

Courtesy: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=567

Lawmakers push for mail-order bride restrictions

Posted: 7:32 pm Mon, January 4, 2010

By Associated Press

ANNAPOLIS — Maryland lawmakers are pushing for tighter regulations on the mail-order bride industry.

A bill sponsored by three dozen House delegates would require the agencies that pair clients with brides to conduct a criminal background check on prospective clients.

Del. Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio, R-Talbot, said the bill would close the loopholes in current federal law and alert would-be foreign brides, who often come from poorer countries, of the criminal history of their suitors.

The federal International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 requires marriage agencies to disclose to potential brides the criminal record of interested clients before they communicate or meet.

Natasha Spivack, who owns the mail-order bride agency Encounters International, said the federal law requires clients to only self-report their criminal histories. Her agency doesn’t do its own search.

Haddaway-Riccio said such a voluntary system is vulnerable to abuse, and mandatory background checks are needed to help the foreign brides have a better idea of who they might marry.

“That way she can at least make an informed decision,” she said.

The proposed bill also requires that agencies provide human rights and immigration information to potential brides in their native tongue.

Women’s rights groups have been critical of the federal government’s efforts at enforcing laws regulating the mail-order bride industry. A 2008 report from the Government Accountability Office, Congress’ investigative arm, found that overseas brides weren’t getting all the information about their prospective suitors as required under federal law.

Haddaway-Riccio pointed to the 2004 jury verdict against Encounters, which was based in Bethesda at the time but has relocated to the District, as a reason why more oversight of the mail-order bride industry is needed.

In the case, the jury ordered Encounters to pay $433,500 to Nataliya Fox, a mail-order bride from Ukraine who was beaten and threatened by her Virginia husband. Court records chronicled the abuse committed by Fox’s then-husband during their marriage, including him biting her finger and holding a gun to her head.

Spivack said few of her clients have criminal records and many of them are government officials. She said the real loophole in federal law is that it allows foreign-born brides to more easily obtain green cards by falsely accusing their husbands of abuse. “I would prefer the legislation to concentrate on citizens, men who are without any protection at this point against false accusations,” Spivack said.

Courtesy: http://mddailyrecord.com/2010/01/04/lawmakers-push-for-mail-order-bride-restrictions

The following two articles apply mainly to the United States.

New Study: Men on Marriage Strike Because They Fear Divorce

June 2nd, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families

In my co-authored column Have Anti-Father Family Court Policies Led to a Men's Marriage Strike? (Philadelphia Inquirer, (7/5/02) six years ago I postulated that men were on a "Marriage Strike" because of the way they get manhandled in divorce. A new study supports that view. According to Reuters' Men prefer being solo over a bad marriage: study (6/2/08):

[Carl] Weisman, 49, conducted a survey of 1,533 heterosexual men to research a book aiming to give women an insight into why some smart, successful men opted to stay single -- and help lifelong bachelors understand why they are still the solo man at parties.

He concluded that most men were not afraid of marriage -- but they were afraid of a bad marriage.

"Men are 10 times more scared of marrying the wrong person than of never getting married at all," Weisman told Reuters in a telephone interview.

"This is the first generation of people who have grown up with bad divorces. People assume there is something wrong if you don't marry but these are men who have made a different choice and not given in to social pressures"...

But while 72 percent of respondents said they were not afraid of marriage, about half of them said the situation that scared them most was marrying the wrong person...

Weisman also found that financial issues, both positive and negative, played a large part in men's fear of commitment...

"[T]hose who are financially sound were terrified what a bad divorce could do to them."

Another one the study's findings, and a sad one, is this:

"Those with little money said they would have nothing to offer a partner, with some suffering self-esteem issues and withdrawing from the dating pool," said Weisman.

One thing I found a little surprising is this:

Weisman said his research blew away any idea that single men were unhappy.

"A compelling issue was how many of them had found contentment in a never-married life," he said. "They had created lives full of careers, friends and ambitions. It was not like they walk around all day worried about not being married."

I'm of the general opinion that marriage and fatherhood is a good thing for men, and that unfortunately it has been poisoned to some degree by our anti-male family law system. Perhaps more of these bachelors are happy being single, as this research suggests.

One thing that disappointed me about the study's findings is this--men apparently worried about losing their money in divorces but not losing their kids. This means either one of two things, neither of them good:

1) The men weren't that concerned over losing their kids.

2) The men didn't realize how common it is for fathers to lose their kids.

Courtesy: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2250

Source Page

Included here are many of the facts I use in my articles and radio appearances about fathers. The facts are in bold and the source or sources are below it. The facts are not listed in any particular order. Where possible, I’ve included URLs so the reader can go directly to the source and examine it. This page is a work in progress, and I simply have not had the time to refine it as much as I would like. If readers have questions about any of these facts and/or sources, feel free to write to me at Glenn@GlennSacks.com.

Best Wishes,

Glenn Sacks

#1: “Two thirds or more of all divorces involving couples with children are initiated by mothers, not fathers.”

Source: Margaret F. Brinig and Douglas A. Allen, "'These Boots Are Made For Walking": Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women" American Law and Economics Review 2 1 (2000): 126 169.

Source: John Tierney, "A New Look at the Realities of Divorce," New York Times, July 11, 2000.

Source: Sanford Braver, Marnie Whitley, and Christine Ng, "Who Divorced Whom? Methodological and Theoretical Issues," Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 20, 1993, p. 1.

Source: Cathy Young, "The Sadness of the American Father," The American Spectator, June 2000. See http://fact.on.ca/news/news0006/as000601.htm.

#2: “A randomized study of 46,000 divorce cases published in the American Law and Economics Review found that in only 6% of cases women claimed to be divorcing cruel or abusive husbands, and that adultery was cited by women as a cause of divorce only slightly more than by men. Surveys of divorced couples show that the reasons for their divorces are generally a lack of closeness or of "not feeling loved and appreciated."

Source: Margaret F. Brinig and Douglas A. Allen, “These Boots Are Made For Walking": Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women" American Law and Economics Review 2-1 (2000): 126-169.

Source: John Tierney, "A New Look at the Realities of Divorce," New York Times, July 11, 2000.

Source: Beuhler, "Whose Decision Was It?" Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 48, pp 587 - 595, 1987.

Source: Cathy Young, "The Sadness of the American Father," The American Spectator, June 2000. See http://fact.on.ca/news/news0006/as000601.htm.

#3: “Studies show that the overwhelming majority of steadily employed divorced fathers pay their child support. While there are a few well heeled divorced dads who stiff their children, most non paying dads are either poor, unemployed, disabled, or incarcerated. According to a US Government Accounting Office report, two thirds of those fathers who do not pay their child support fail to do so because they are financially unable to do so.”

Source: Judi Bartfield and Daniel R. Meyer: "Are There Really Deadbeat Dads? The Relationship Between Ability to Pay, Enforcement, and Compliance in Nonmarital Child Support Cases," Social Service Review 68, 1994, pp. 219 235.

Source: "Deadbeat Dad Image A Myth, Study Finds," New York Times, May 5, 1999. See: http://sharedparent.freeyellow.com/ddiamsf.pdf. Look for "Divorced moms reported."

Source: Cathy Young, Ceasefire!: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality, The Free Press, 1999, pp. 206 207.

Source: Kathleen Parker, "Deadbeat dads more myth than reality," The Orlando Sentinel, Jan 24 1999. See: http://www.dadi.org/kpdbeat2.htm. Look for "Census Bureau."

#4: “There are almost as many unfaithful wives as there are unfaithful husbands. Research generally estimates that for every five unfaithful husbands, there are four unfaithful wives.”

Source: Maggie Scarf, “Intimate Partners: An examination of the underlying architecture of love relationships—the influence of the past, the causes of infidelity, and the systems that couples create,” The Atlantic Monthly, November 1986. The article can be viewed here. Look for “Emotional Triangles: Infidelity.”

Source: John Przybys, “Unfaithfully Yours: Men, women have differing ideas about fidelity,” Las Vegas Review Journal, March 29, 1998. The article can be found here. Look for “Paul Wulkan.”

Source: Jennifer P. Schneider, Richard R. Irons, and M. Deborah Corley, “Disclosure of Extramarital Sexual Activities by Sexually Exploitative Professionals and Other Persons with Addictive or Compulsive Sexual Disorders,” Journal of Sex Education and Therapy 24:277 287, 1999. The article can be found here. Search in the text for the word “infidelity.”

#5: “Domestic violence research overwhelmingly shows that women are just as likely as men to initiate and engage in domestic violence, and that only a small percentage of women's domestic violence is committed in self defense. Studies show that women often compensate for their smaller size by their significantly greater use of weapons and the element of surprise.”

Source: Richard J. Gelles, Ph.D., “The Missing Persons of Domestic Violence: Male Victims,” The Women’s Quarterly, Fall, 1999. See Gelles.

Source: References Examining Assaults by Women on Their Spouses or Male Partners: An Annotated Bibliography by Martin S. Fiebert, Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach. See http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm.

Source: Patricia Pearson, When She Was Bad: Violent Women & the Myth of Innocence, Penguin Books, 1998, pp. 119 123.

Source: David Fontes, “Violent Touch: Breaking Through the Stereotype,” David L. Fontes, Psy.D., CEAP See http://www.safe4all.org/essays/vtbreak.pdf.

Source: Cathy Young, Ceasefire!: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality, The Free Press, 1999, pp. 91 96.

#6: “Official Department of Justice statistics show that men commit 70% of all murder of intimates. However, when other factors are accounted for, including unsolved murders, poisonings mistakenly classified as heart attacks, and contract killings classified as "multiple offender killings," women have been shown to be at least as likely as men to murder their current or former spouses or intimates.”

Source: Dershowitz, Alan M. 1994. The Abuse Excuse: And Other Cop outs, Sob Stories and Evasions of Responsibility. Boston: Little Brown, pp. 311 313. See the pages "Wives Also Kill Husbands  Quite Often" at http://www.uiowa.edu/~030116/158/articles/dershowitz3.htm.

Source: 1994 95 U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics Publications Catalog, publication #. NCJ 43498, “Murder in Families.”

Source: Warren Farrell, Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say, Penguin Putnam Inc, 1999, pp 150 151.

Source: This is also explained in detail in my column "Let's not 'Learn' the Same Lessons From Blake That We Learned From OJ" which can be found at http://www.glennsacks.com/lets_not_learn.htm.

#7: Most child abuse and parental murder of children is committed by mothers, not fathers.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, Child Maltreatment 1997: Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (Washington DC, :GPO, 1999). See: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/ncands97/s7.htm. Child abuse perpetrators are 62.3% female. Child fatality perpetrators are 62.8% female. The mother/father ratio is actually greater than this, because many of the male abusers counted are not the biological fathers but instead step fathers, boyfriends, etc.

Source on murders of children by single parents: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, Third National Incidence Study Of Child Abuse and Neglect: Final Report Appendices (Washington D.C., U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1997, pp. A 63 A 64. The estimated total is 264 parental murders of children committed by single custodial mothers and 11 by single custodial fathers. There are roughly five times as many single custodial mothers as single custodial fathers.

Source: Warren Farrell, Father and Child Reunion: How to Bring the Dads We Need to the Children We Love, Penguin Putnam Inc, 2001, pp 75-77.

#8: Access and Visitation Denial Three-quarters of divorced fathers surveyed maintain that their ex-spouses have substantially interfered with their visitation rights.

Source: Joyce A. Arditti, "Factors Related to Custody, Visitation, and Child Support for Divorced Fathers: An Exploratory Analysis," Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 17, 1992, pp. 34, 39.

A study of children of divorce found that 42% of children who lived solely with their mother reported that their mother tried to prevent them from seeing their fathers after the divorce. However, only 16% of children who lived solely with their father reported similar obstruction.

Source: Glynnis Walker, Solomon's Children: Exploding the Myths of Divorce (New York: Arbor House, 1986), p. 83

Source: Cathy Young, Ceasefire!: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality, The Free Press, 1999, p. 209.

In another study, 40% of divorced mothers admitted that they had interfered with their ex-husband's access or visitation, and that their motives were punitive in nature and not due to safety considerations.

Source: p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing Fulton) "Frequency of visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in Reports by Fathers and Mothers," Sanford Braver et al, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1991.

Source: J.A. Fulton, "Parental Reports of Children’s Post-Divorce Adjustment,” Journal of Social Issues 35, 1979, pp. 126-139.

Source: Cathy Young, Ceasefire!: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality, The Free Press, 1999, p. 209.

#9: Prosecutions of fathers who violate child support mandates are common, whereas prosecutions of mothers who violate visitation orders are rare.

Source: Neil Chethik, “Law Backs the Right to Parental Visits,” Detroit Free Press, May 28, 1995, p.2J.

Source: Cathy Young, Ceasefire!: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality, The Free Press, 1999, page 209.

#10: The vast majority of accusations of child sexual abuse made during custody battles are false, unfounded or unsubstantiated. Source: Douglas J. Besharov and Lisa A. Laumann, "Child Abuse Reporting,” Social Science and Modern Society, Vol. 33, May/June, 1996, p. 42.

Source: Blush, Gordon & Ross, Karol, 1986, The SAID Syndrome. Sterling Heights, MI: Family and Conciliation Courts Review.

#11: Nationwide divorced fathers are ten times as likely to commit suicide as divorced mothers, and more than twice as likely to commit suicide as married fathers.

Source for divorced fathers vs. married fathers: Augustine J. Kposowa, Ph.D., "Marital Status and Suicide in the National Longitudinal Mortality Study," Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, March, 2000, Volume 54, No. 4, pages 254 261 See http://wizard.ucr.edu/~akposowa/Status.pdf. Search for "divorced men."

Source for "10 times as likely" is Warren Farrell, Father and Child Reunion: How to Bring the Dads We Need to the Children We Love, Penguin Putnam Inc, 2001, pg. 174 & 279.

#12: The rates of juvenile crime, teen pregnancy, teen drug abuse, and school dropouts are tightly correlated with fatherlessness, often more so than with any other socioeconomic factor.

Source: The largest predictor of juvenile crime is the presence of a father is from, among others, “Douglas A. Smith and G. Roger Jajoura, “Social Structure and Criminal Victimization,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 25, Number 1, February 1988, pages 27-52. In this study children of poor and wealthy families had equal juvenile crime rates if there was a father in the home.

Source: The largest predictor of drug use is from, among others, Robert H. Coombs and John Landsverk, “Parenting Styles and Substance Abuse During Childhood and Adolescence,” Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 50, May 1988, p. 479, Table 4. The study considered various factors, including race, social class, gender, etc., and father presence was five times more important than any other factor.

Source: The teenage pregnancy statistic is from, among others, Frank F Furstenberg, Jr. and Kathleen Mullan Harris, “When and Why Fathers Matter: Impact of Father Involvement on the Children of Adolescent Mothers.”

Source: Father presence and education is discussed in Warren Farrell, Father and Child Reunion: How to Bring the Dads We Need to the Children We Love, Penguin Putnam Inc, 2001, pp 31-34. The presence of a father in a child’s life has more impact on a child’s educational achievement, beginning, in early elementary school, than race, social class, gender, etc.

#13: Children are 88% more likely to be seriously injured from abuse or neglect by their mothers than by their fathers.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, Child Maltreatment 1997: Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (Washington DC, :GPO, 1999). It is discussed in Father and Child Reunion by Warren Farrell, page 76.

#14: “Prosecutions of fathers who violate child support mandates are common, whereas prosecutions of mothers who violate visitation orders are rare.”

Source: Neil Chethik, “Law Backs the Right to Parental Visits,” Detroit Free Press, May 28, 1995, p.2J.

Source: Cathy Young, Ceasefire!: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality, The Free Press, 1999, page 209.

#15: “Fathers have a much better record of paying court-ordered child support than mothers do.”

Source: John Siegmund, “Preliminary Analysis of the Database of the DC Office of Paternity and Child Support Enforcement” compiled for the Children's Rights Council, November 9, 1999.

#16: “The government spends $340 on enforcing child support for every $1 it spends on enforcing visitation rights.”

Source: The actual numbers are $3.4 billion on child support enforcement and $10 million on visitation enforcement. The $3.4 billion figure comes from “Child Support Enforcement is Working Better than We Think” by Elain Sorensen and Ariel Halpern, The Urban Institute, Series A, No 31-A, March 1999, page 4.

The $10 million figure comes from The Department of Health and Human Services, “93.597 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs.” (http://www.cfda.gov/static/93597.asp)

Source: Warren Farrell, Father and Child Reunion: How to Bring the Dads We Need to the Children We Love, Penguin Putnam Inc, 2001, pp 182-183.

#17: Other fathers have suffered at the hands of "move away moms" who permit or even use geography to drive fathers out of their children's lives.

Source: Maura Dolan, Legal Affairs Writer, "Justices Ease Relocation of Children in Divorce Cases," Los Angeles Times, April 16, 1996, p. 1. Three out of every four custodial mothers move within four years of divorce, for various reasons.

#18: "Men win custody in only 10% of contested custody cases"

(Note: To avoid confusion: the sources below do not all indicate 10%--some indicate 15 or 20%, some indicate less than 5%. As a whole, the average is around 10%.)

Source: Eleanor E. Maccoby and Robert H. Mnookin, Dividing the Child (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992), pp. 104-105, 149-150.

Source: Stephen J. Bahr, J.D. Howe, M. Morrill Mann, "Trends in Custody Awards: Has the Removal of Maternal Preference Made a Difference?", Family Law Quarterly, Vol, pp. 247-267, Summer 1994.

Source: Wendy Reiboldt and Sharon Seiling, "Factors Related to Men's Award of Custody," Family Advocate, Winter 1993, pp. 42-44. Published by the Family Law Section of the American Bar Association.

Source: William T. K. Dolan, Esq., Empirical Study of Child Custody in Divorce Decrees in Arlington County, Virginia: July 1, 1989--December 30, 1990, © 1991.

Source: Rich Blake, "Father Says System is Unfair to Men in Custody Battles," Alexander (VA) Gazette Packet, October 22, 1992 .

Source: Robert Seidenberg, The Father's Emergency Guide to Divorce-Custody Battle, JES Books, 1997, pp. 11-15, 60-61.

John P. McCahey, J.D., LL.M, et al., Child Custody and Visitation Law and Practice. Matthew Bender, New York. Volume 3, 1983, Section 13.01.

#19: The commonly cited factoid that “men win custody half of the time or more when they contest it” is a myth.

Source: "Do fathers have the edge in divorce?," Cathy Young, Detroit News, December 10, 1996. See: http://www.vix.com/menmag/youngdet.htm.

Source: Robert Seidenberg, The Father's Emergency Guide to Divorce-Custody Battle, JES Books, 1997, pp. 11-15, 60-61.

#20: "According to a long-term study conducted in the United States and in New Zealand and published in Child Development, a father’s absence greatly increases the risk of teen pregnancy. The study found that it mattered little whether the child was rich or poor, black or white, born to a teen mother or an adult mother, or raised by parents with functional or dysfunctional marriages. What mattered was dad."

Source: "Father's Absence Increases Daughter's Risk of Teen Pregnancy," Health Behavior News Service, May 26, 2003

#21: "When Arizona State University psychology professor William Fabricius conducted a study of college students who had experienced their parents’ divorces while they were children, he found that over two-thirds believed that 'living equal amounts of time with each parent is the best arrangement for children.' His findings were published in Family Relations in 2003."

Source: Fabricius, W. V. (2003). Listening to children of divorce: New findings on living arrangements, college support and relocation that rebut Wallerstein, Lewis and Blakeslee (2000). Family Relations, 52, 385 – 396.

#22: "The new report, What About the Dads? Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to Identify, Locate, and Involve Nonresident Fathers, examines the foster care systems of four states. The report contains a shocking finding: when fathers inform child welfare officials that they would like their children to live with them, the agencies seek to place the children with their fathers in only 8% of cases."

Source: What About the Dads? Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to Identify, Locate, and Involve Nonresident Fathers, The Urban Institute, April 2006. Under the heading “Father Involvement” the Institute notes that half of the nonresident fathers with whom they had been in contact were interested in having their kids live with them, but that in only “4% of cases the child's case goal was placement with the father.”

#23: "According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' new report Child Maltreatment 2004, when one parent is acting without the involvement of the other parent, mothers are almost three times as likely to kill their children as fathers are, and are more than twice as likely to abuse them."

Source: Child Maltreatment 2004, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. According to Figure 4-2 “Perpetrator Relationships of Fatalities, 2004 Child Maltreatment 2004” here, child fatalities perpetrated by mothers or by “mother and other [not father]” comprise 40.6% of all child fatalities. Figure 4-2 also shows that fatalities perpetrated by fathers or by “father and other [not mother]” comprise 15.6% of all child fatalities. According to Figure 3-6 “Victims by Perpetrator Relationship, 2004 Child Maltreatment 2004,” here child abuse perpetrated by mothers or by “mother and other [not father]” comprise 45.6% of all child abuse. Figure 3-6 also shows that abuse perpetrated by fathers or by “father and other [not mother]” comprise 19.5% of all child abuse.

#24: "What About the Dads? makes it clear that many child welfare workers treat fathers as an afterthought. The report found that even when a caseworker had been in contact with a child’s father, the caseworker was still five times less likely to know basic information about the father than about the mother. And 20% of the fathers whose identity and location were known by the child welfare agencies from the opening of the case were never even contacted."

Source: What About the Dads? Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to Identify, Locate, and Involve Nonresident Fathers, The Urban Institute, April 2006. In the research summary here the Institute says “One in five fathers whose identity and location were known at case opening were nonetheless never contacted by the child welfare agency.” The Institute also compared the caseworkers’ knowledge of information about the mothers and about the fathers with whom they had been in contact. They write “Caseworkers much more often answered ‘don't know’ to questions about a child's father when they had readily available similar information on the mother. Typically, caseworkers reported not knowing information about mothers 1% to 5% of the time, depending on the item, while for fathers with whom they had been in contact, ‘don't know’ responses were more often around 15%." Since the range they gave for mothers was 1% to 5%, I took the middle--3%--and compared it with the figure for fathers, 15%.

"According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' new report Child Maltreatment 2004, when one parent is acting without the involvement of the other parent, mothers are almost three times as likely to kill their children as fathers are, and are more than twice as likely to abuse them."

Source: Child Maltreatment 2004, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. According to Figure 4-2 “Perpetrator Relationships of Fatalities, 2004 Child Maltreatment 2004” here, child fatalities perpetrated by mothers or by “mother and other [not father]” comprise 40.6% of all child fatalities. Figure 4-2 also shows that fatalities perpetrated by fathers or by “father and other [not mother]” comprise 15.6% of all child fatalities. According to Figure 3-6 “Victims by Perpetrator Relationship, 2004 Child Maltreatment 2004,” here child abuse perpetrated by mothers or by “mother and other [not father]” comprise 45.6% of all child abuse. Figure 3-6 also shows that abuse perpetrated by fathers or by “father and other [not mother]” comprise 19.5% of all child abuse.

#25: "A study by psychologist Joan Kelly, published in the Family and Conciliation Courts Review, found that children of divorce 'express higher levels of satisfaction with joint physical custody than with sole custody arrangements,' and cite the 'benefit of remaining close to both parents” as an important factor.'"

Source: Kelly, J., Current research on children's postdivorce adjustment. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 31.29-49, 1993

#26: "A Harvard University study of 517 families conducted across a four-and-a-half year period measured depression, deviance, school effort, and school grades in children ranging in age from 10 to 18. The researchers found that the children in joint custody settings fared better on these indices than those in sole custody."

Source: Buchanan, C., Maccoby, and Dornbusch, Adolescents After Divorce, Harvard University Press, 1996.

#27: "According to psychologist Robert Bauserman's meta-analysis of 33 studies of children of divorce, which was published in the American Psychological Association‘s Journal of Family Psychology, children in shared custody settings had fewer behavior and emotional problems, higher self-esteem, better family relations, and better school performance than children in sole custody arrangements."

Source: Bauserman, R., "Child Adjustment in Joint-Custody Versus Sole-Custody Arrangements: A Meta-Analytic Review", Journal of Family Psychology, Vol. 16, No. 1, (2002) 91-102.

#28: "Even after controlling for all major socioeconomic factors, including income, teens not living with their fathers were twice as likely to abuse drugs as those living in intact, two-parent married families."

Source: Hoffmann, John P., and Robert A. Johnson. "A National Portrait of Family Structure and Adolescent Drug Use." Journal of Marriage and the Family 60 (August 1998): 633-645.

#29: "A published Harvard review of four major studies found that, accounting for all major socioeconomic factors, children without a father in the home are twice as likely to drop out of high school or repeat a grade as children who live with their fathers."

Source: Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 41. The four national surveys reviewed were: The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, the High School and Beyond Study, and the National Survey of Families and Households.

Courtesy: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?page_id=1000

According to the US Dept. of Health & Human Services study, "Survey of Absent Parents" over 60% of mothers regularly violate the access rights of fathers, cutting off all contact between the children and their fathers within five years.  Unlike child support, mothers are not jailed, even with multiple Contempt of Court ruling against them for violating the fathers' court ordered visitation rights.