Extorting, threatening and imprisoning men for fun and profit


21 July 2006


THE DEADBEAT dad who slouched in front of Judge Leonard A. Ivanoski looked like a thousand others.

In shabby clothes and a hangdog expression, the man reeled off a list of reasons why he had failed to pay almost $16,000 he owed in child support.

But Ivanoski, a diminutive, silver-haired Common Pleas senior judge with deceptively friendly looks, wanted to hear no more.

“You’re just giving me a song and a dance,” he barked. “You had the ability to pay when you should have and could have. There’s willful, civil contempt here.”

Two months in prison, Ivanoski sternly decreed. A uniformed deputy slapped handcuffs on the flabbergasted father.

The Matriarchal system of the West and it’s multiple ways of wringing money out of men or, if they can’t afford to pay, stuffing them in prison.

With a pleased nod, prosecutor Maria McLaughlin stood, left the courtroom and chalked up another victory for Philadelphia Family Court and the Child Support Enforcement Unit, a branch of District Attorney Lynne Abraham’s office that McLaughlin supervises.

Yeah, I bet she was pleased. Another man stripped of his liberty and thrown in prison for not coughing up money he clearly doesn’t have to a woman. Best of all, in her view, her lapdog buddy on the bench did what any judge involved in a Matriarchy should do; ignore the defence of a man and refuse to even listen to him, just throw the poor sod in prison. Well done judge, pat on the head from your fembot overlords for you.

Let’s face it, as mentioned even in this article, women are not in any way obliged to prove what they spend their Child Support on. Furthermore – and a lot of people still don’t know this – Child Support in the US is based on presumed income. If they presume that, with your qualifications and experience, you could be earning, say, $4,000 a month, they can declare you have to pay a quarter of that. It doesn’t matter if you only earn $2,000 a month, or $1,000, or are unemployed or off work sick with no income; doesn’t matter. Tough. You have to cough up that $1,000 each month or off to debtors prison you go.

It’s basically Woman Support.

These modern Western Women who, despite being so strong and independent, still seem to be completely unable to support themselves and their own children. Or they are able too but just can’t be bothered because they would rather live parasitically off a man. It has to be one of those two reasons.

As I’ve pointed out in the past, if a man is a deadbeat for not providing financially for his child, then surely a woman is a deadbeat for applying for Child Support because, in doing so, she’s admitting she is not willing or able to support her child either. There’s no point in anyone pointing out “but women have to care for the child” because that’s bollocks, they’ve got their free daycare and in any case kids are in school most of the day by the age of four. They’re just lazy skanks who can’t be arsed supporting themselves or their kids.

This whole article is a piece of filth, nothing but propaganda that gives a token nod to criticisms of the whole repulsive system, but otherwise bombards the reader with the endless term “deadbeat dad.”

That lock-’em-up strategy – along with aggressive garnishing of deadbeats’ finances, from paychecks to lottery winnings – led Family Court to collect a record $196 million last year. McLaughlin projects that collections will top $200 million this year.

Philadelphia’s success helped Pennsylvania rank fourth nationally – behind California, Ohio and Texas – in state child-support collection. Such success is rare in a nation where $106 billion – including $2 billion in Pennsylvania – is owed to custodial parents, according to the federal Administration for Children & Families.

It truly is a gravy-train; $106 billion due to be transferred from men to women.

Still, McLaughlin’s unit has its critics on both sides of the birthing bed. Some custodial parents complain that prosecutors don’t do enough to collect every cent, and some deadbeats feel unfairly demonized.

McLaughlin shrugs off such claims.

Well of course she shrugs off the claims; she’s not in any way accountable and, like any one who works in family courts and Child Support agencies, is clearly uncaring and devoid of a conscience.

“Ninety-nine times out of 100, the dads romp around with a woman, she gets pregnant, and that’s the last she sees of him. It’s the ‘free-ride club,’ ” Abraham said.


A lot of Child Support requests will be a result of divorces. Women initiate 70% – 80% of all divorces, usually on a No Fault basis, so obviously a lot of these cases are going to be women who ditched hubby on a whim and then her ex is hit with a bill to fund the break-up of his family.

Also, if a dad “romps around with a woman” then surely the woman is romping around with him! It’s the usual crap whereby women are assumed to play no part in any of this. Well, they do. The woman chooses to have sex. She can demand the guy wears a rubber, or she can use the contraceptive pill; y’know, that thing feminists insist liberated them. Or they can use the morning after pill. Or get an abortion; after all, the would-be father has no say in it.

Women play a 50% role in a child’s conception, and have 100% of the choice to have an abortion, but men are lumbered with 100% of the blame and responsibility.

“Since we don’t have the ability to make a father love his children, we at least have the legal authority to make them support their unloved, unwanted children. It’s a shame we have to order people to do that.”

Yeah, a real “shame”, whatever. And you expect us to believe you cry yourself to sleep at night too?

This prick can’t fool us, people like him live off of extorting money from men to give to women, it’s how they make their living. They do their best to encourage family break-ups and out-of-wedlock births. It keeps them on the gravy train to doshville.

Note the sickening propaganda this shithead uses too, insisting all non-custodial parents (i.e. fathers, often divorced by their wives) don’t love or want their children. The vast majority do. That’s why guys rarely initiate divorces relative to women; they know they’ll probably lose custody of their kids. I’ve heard of plenty of men who put up with the most nightmarish of wives just to ensure they can still have a role in their children’s lives, something that would cease if they dared to file for divorce. They stay in a miserable marriage just so make sure they don’t lose contact wit their children. That doesn’t sound like they don’t love or want their children.

Furthermore, if they can force men to support these children, why do we have abortion? After all, if a woman doesn’t want a child she can abort it, or dump it. So they can discharge their responsibilities to a child but a man can’t. Oops, I forgot…women have choices, men have responsibilities.

(Of course, before anyone points it out, I certainly accept there are guys who willingly get a woman pregnant and dump her, or who walk out on their children for their own selfish reasons. These are genuine deadbeats. However, as mentioned, most divorces are initiated by women, an increasing number of women are dumb enough to get knocked up by losers and thugs who anyone with a shred of intelligence could tell wouldn’t stick around, women play just as much role in the creation of a child and in any case a growing number of women are becoming single mothers by choice. Besides, we’re told women can have it all and don’t need men; if that’s the case, they don’t need our money either. Right?)

“You’re supposed to look at your child’s needs before your own,” she said. “When you have a child, there’s nothing more important than that.”

The usual ploy of women and feminists; insist that not following their rules will harm children. Once again, however, women are allowed to put their needs before their child’s – aborting the baby, dumping it a Drop-Off point – but men aren’t.

Many defendants whom Esmonde challenges seem to be reading from the same script:

I’m a good father. I’m not a deadbeat dad.

I don’t have any money. A friend gave me bus tokens to get here.

If I wasn’t in court today, I’d be at my job interview.

“They walk in and think they’re the only guy who told that story ever, but they’re like the third guy that day,” Esmonde said.

Well, why don’t you pull your head from your rectum and perhaps consider that it probably isn’t a coincidence that they all tell similar stories, that they can’t afford the outrageous amounts demanded of them. As proved at the start of the article, they’re not there to give men a chance to have a fair hearing, they’re there to wringe money out of the man and if he doesn’t have the cash they can shove him prison which, of course, is still good for the State because it ensures the prison budget is raised further and keeps more prison officers in jobs.

Parental poor-mouthing often is just a lie told by defendants calling judges’ bluff, McLaughlin said.

“More than half of the defendants sentenced to prison never reach the jail because they ‘miraculously’ come up with the money” for the purge factor, McLaughlin said.

Probably because they end up selling some of their stuff, borrow money off of friends or go to a loanshark.

This is simply organised extortion, blackmail and enslavement by the State, all in what is increasingly inaccurately named the Land of the Free. Yeah, free for women but not for men. The UK isn’t quite as bad, but its getting that way, with the new improved Child Support Agency scheduled to have similarities with the American model, such as taking money direct from salaries and revoking passports and driving licences from men unable to cough up the money demanded from him.

“I have one guy – the child was named after him – he petitioned for custody of child, and he witnessed the birth of the child. But he won’t pay support,” said Esmonde, who began battling the deadbeat in 1993. “These cases never go away, they don’t end.”

What does it matter that he petitioned for custody of the child but didn’t pay support? Again, it could be that he couldn’t afford it, but even if he could afford it, why the hell should he anyway? If a guy can’t have custody of his child then why should he be obliged to support the child? We’re not needed in a child’s life but our money is? I suppose that’s the point, of course, but Child Support collectors and legislators will never admit it.

Also note how, bizarrely, in this supposed world where genders roles are destroyed and men and women are equal, for some reason us men are still lumbered with the breadwinner role. This applies all over the West. The State doesn’t force women to stay at home, do housework and have babies, but it forces men to do our traditional role of being the provider, even to the point of providing for ex-wives and children we don’t – sometimes can’t – see. And let’s not even get started on the increasing number of cases of men being told to cough up support for children proved to not be their’s, or of boys as young as 12 who have been raped by an adult woman and then, to add insult to injury, hit with Child Support orders for the child their rapist subsequently had.

Still, after all that, there’s no real point in arguing against these people. Feminists don’t have any capacity for logic, and these C$ collectors only care about their jobs and are safe in the knowledge they are immune from accountability. As stated in this article, they “shrug off” any criticism. Absolute scum they are.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 4:55 PM

At 6:50 PM, Anonymous said…

Please note how Family Court is designed like Tax Court or a Guantanamo Military Tribunal. A Star Chamber. Rules of evidence do not apply.

Brilliant dissection of her arguments Duncan, but I think you can do this stuff in your sleep by now. It’s like being given a block of Swiss cheese and asked to find any holes. Are they kidding?

Their arguments are so filled with contradictions and double standards (e.g., if men have money then why not give men the custody of the kids?, audit the finances of men but not the finances of women getting this supposed ‘child support’?), but always lead to the same conclusion. Whatever Benefits The Woman. Know what device also acts like that. A Pachinko machine. The ball bounces around all over the place, but always ends up on the same result.

The Family Courts, and press whores who don’t shine a light on the daily injustices going on there, are all just part of a huge machine designed to rip the society apart at the family/interpersonal level.

Women (99% of them) don’t see a problem with this because, by nature, a woman’s daily thought processes life revolves around “Me, Me, Me” and “Now, Now, Now”. Just like a child. Women (99% of them) are intellectually no different than children. Anybody who doesn’t believe this compare and contrast the thought processes and behavior of children to women and you will be shocked. They can’t see the damage being done, because the shopping mall (toy store) is still open and they got money (from Daddy) so what’s the problem??? There will be no help coming from women. They just don’t possess the logical thought processes, much less any sense of honor and integrity.

Women are NEVER going to wake up and say “What are we doing to our children? Our men?? Our society??? Our future????”. They DO NOT possess the intellect.

It’s obvious that a solution is to ostracize the current generation of women. Give women a 100 year time-out. Starting to scare the shit of them and their whorlings in the press, courts, and legislatures wouldn’t hurt either. All those people are basically bullies and cowards. Strike enough fear into them, make their life scary enough and they will piss their pants. BE CREATIVE FOLKS!


At 7:05 PM, Anonymous said…

Inside every man there is a deadbeat struggling to get out. The sooner all men start paying the better. Bring on the man tax.


At 7:53 PM, Phoenix said…

Haha, and this is supposed to make me want to find a woman and get married? I don’t understand. Why don’t I just stay single, work a lot less hours, and enjoy my life?

This is also what happens when you allow women to be lawyers and journalists, you get bias and shaming language, and a hateful agenda. Maybe society had it right for the past 4,000 years, and maybe we’re the ones screwing everything up now. Just maybe.


At 8:51 PM, Bernie said…

In marriage, a woman is the
incubator for the man’s sperm
which becomes a baby human being.
The woman just provides the
“egg shell” for the man’s sperm
to develop in.
This makes the baby the biological
property of the father, and
marriage makes the baby the legal
property of the father.
Men used to want to marry
woman because it used to mean
the woman was acknowledging
to legally agree to father ownership of any children born.
State Feminism turned this upside-down.

The man could take the children
but he never did.
Now the Whores ( women )
can take the children and they always do.

Bernie B. Vancouver, BC, Canada
Good work Duncan, you’re awesome


At 9:44 PM, Anonymous said…

“If a guy can’t have custody of his child then why should he be obliged to support the child?”

That’s really the killer point, isn’t it? I completely accept that men have a duty to support their children. But if they want to raise and care for their children themselves, and aren’t allowed, then why do they have an obligation to pay someone else to do this?


At 9:59 PM, Man_Thropology said…

Phoenix said…

Maybe society had it right for the past 4,000 years, and maybe we’re the ones screwing everything up now. Just maybe.

Yeh, I’m coming ever closer to that conclusion myself.

The whole womens lib experiment has been a total failure.

Women have proven themselves to be just corrupt, just as greedy, just as predatory, just as destructive and just as indifferent to the pain of others as they’ve always accused men of being.

Yeh – it’s time to fight back and set things right.


At 4:37 AM, Anonymous said…

“Inside every man there is a deadbeat struggling to get out. The sooner all men start paying the better. Bring on the man tax.”

Dear ShitForBrains,

Patriarchies DO NOT create deadbeat men.

Matriarchies DO create deadbeat men.

Don’t believe me? Go visit your nearest ghetto, public housing project, or Indian reservation. Men spend their days laying around, drinking, fighting, having sex with multiple women, and fathering multiple children out of wedlock. All matriarchies.

Feminists wanted the Patriarchy destroyed. You got your wish. Be prepared to live with the results.

Don’t like it? Tough. When you destroyed the patriarchy you women fucked yourselves. Think your standard of living is starting to slip now? You ain’t seen nothing yet. Your Future: Haiti


At 4:50 AM, Anonymous said…

‘The woman just provides the
“egg shell” for the man’s sperm
to develop in.’

True. Many women used to die during childbirth. Apparently prior to modern medical technology (developed by someone … hmmmm… let me think. … Oh I know …MEN) nature deemed women expendable after birthing at least one child. I guess nature figured there were always plenty of other females around to attend to the feeding, bathing, etc… needs of the child, but men were required for the child’s advanced development (i.e., survival, planning, abstract thinking, problem solving). At least that is how MOTHER Nature had designed things.

Worry not. As things fall apart (i.e., a matriarchy CANNOT keep a modern technological society going) we will go back to the way things used to be. 🙂


At 5:06 AM, Anonymous said…

If any of you knew anything about x and y chromosomes than you’d be intellegent enough to know that your incubator theory sounds as stupid as it is illogical. Get your bio facts straight, townie. Don’t your basic cable channels show the Nature of Things? Oh wait, you were too busy watching your beer sit on your gut. If you’re going to leave a comment on a mildly well worded post, hold the brain farts as you do so.


At 5:11 AM, Anonymous said…

“The whole womens lib experiment has been a total failure.

Women have proven themselves to be just corrupt, just as greedy, just as predatory, just as destructive and just as indifferent to the pain of others as they’ve always accused men of being.”

It was either a ‘failure’ or a stupendous success. It depends what the goal was. If the goal was to rip society apart at the most basic level then I think feminism has more than met its objectives.

Women, by nature, have always been greedy, destructive, manipulative, shortsighted, and selfish. Look at what television shows appeal to them. Soap operas. A 4 hour a day festival of backstabbing and avarice.

For the patriarchy to work and get men to care about women for more than one night of sweaty breeding the art of femininity was created to train and mold women into more palatable creatures (e.g., Charm School, Finishing School). Even then a husband was needed to control a womans short-sighted and destructive impulses. It’s no coincidence that the original definition of husband means:

“A manager or steward, as of a household. A prudent, thrifty manager. To use sparingly or economically; conserve.”


At 11:18 AM, Man_Thropology said…

It was either a ‘failure’ or a stupendous success. It depends what the goal was. If the goal was to rip society apart at the most basic level then I think feminism has more than met its objectives.

True –

But I was speaking from the perspective of those who have suffered under feminism –

which probably includes women too, it’s just that most women and most men even, don’t know it yet.

And feminism is not a real success story even if it has achieved it goals.

Destruction is never good for anyone.

If you’re invading a country to get access to it’s oil it doesn’t make sense to destroy that countries oil fields –

does it?

Just as destroying and corrupting the institutions that make the society you want to dominate viable makes no sense.

It’s a pyhrric “victory”.

Ultimately, you lose more than you gain.

So while I take your point, I’m not sure that in the final analysis feminism will have achieved anything but the destruction of feminists,

which will see the beginning of a female suppression that would make the Taliban look like amateurs to the practice.


At 2:04 PM, Anonymous said…

Makes me ashamed to be an American … but more determined than ever to avoid the marriage trap.


At 2:58 PM, Paige said…

“Women play a 50% role in a child’s conception, and have 100% of the choice to have an abortion, but men are lumbered with 100% of the blame and responsibility.”

Do you know WHY women have a choice to have an abortion? Because of FEMINISM.

These arguments you present crack me up…they’re so one sided. And the comments that you actually approve do nothing to help your case.

“Women (99% of them) are intellectually no different than children…There will be no help coming from women. They just don’t possess the logical thought processes, much less any sense of honor and integrity.”

Umm…really? Is this a proven fact? Because if you want to use it in your argument on why feminism is ruining the world, you’re gonna have to do a little better than some broad sweeping statement proclaiming that all women are the intellectual equivalent of children.

“It’s obvious that a solution is to ostracize the current generation of women. Give women a 100 year time-out. Starting to scare the shit of them and their whorlings in the press, courts, and legislatures wouldn’t hurt either.”

Trust me, the courts are already starting to scare the shit out of women. For example, the anti-abortion laws that are being passed in various states over here in the US…anti-abortion laws that would make abortion illegal even if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. Or how about the ruling that a pharmacist can refuse to dispense the morning after pill if they don’t morally agree with it? Or maybe how the government turns a blind eye to the fake abortion clinics that only exist to spread lies and misinformation to woman seeking an abortion…lies such as abortion causes breast cancer, birth control causes breast cancer, etc. (Which ironically, was brought up by a commenter as the reason women get breast cancer on your breast cancer vs prostate cancer post a few days ago.)

So let’s see what you’re proposing…a woman wants to have sex. She can’t use the pill, because she has been mislead into believing it will give her breast cancer. The condom breaks, but she can’t get the morning after pill because the only pharmacist in her small town doesn’t morally agree with it. She can’t get an abortion, because women have been given a “100 year time-out” and abortion has been made illegal, OR once again she’s scared it will result in breast cancer years down the road. So she has the baby, but she can’t collect child support from the father, because once again, 100 year time-out. And unfortunately, she can’t get a decent paying job to support her and her child, because feminism has been ruled as “evil”, therefore woman are allowed only to work in low-paying secretary jobs. She can’t even go back to school and try to better herself, because once again, feminism = certain downfall of man, so women aren’t allowed to go to school.

It seems here that everyone is ignoring the basic fact that if it weren’t for feminism, women wouldn’t even have the option to try and support themselves, rather than depend on men to be the breadwinner. I agree, not everything is peachy keen on the way child support is collected, but no one here seems to be presenting any sort of compelling argument other than “woman evil, man good”.


At 3:39 PM, Anonymous said…

“Feminists don’t have any capacity for logic,…”

On the contrary, I think they have a good capacity for the kind of logic they’re interested in: the “logic” of power. That’s why they have been able to build up a lot of power. In fact, too much power.

I think that imbalance of power is the basic issue here for History shows most people -regardless of their sex, religion, race, etc- will abuse power if they can get away with it. And that’s why many women ignore men’s reasoning nowadays: they don’t need to do otherwise. (Some of them are true bigots, though)


At 4:44 PM, Man_Thropology said…

Women (99% of them) are intellectually no different than children…

Umm…really? Is this a proven fact?

No – but we can prove that

women are no different to children emotionally, which is far worse and which is why we are witnessing the social chaos we see all around us.

The social landscape is dominated by women who are selfish, narcissistic, manipulative, petulant, opportunistic, hypocritical, deceitful and anti-intellectual, whose world-view openly derides reason and embraces instead any passing faddish mysticism, people who have, in short, absolutely no right to claim any kind of moral or intellectual superiority.

In fact ya can’t even claim emotional superiority since you only exhibit the most basic “me want to feel good”, type emotion.

This is the wrong place to pull the “women have it tough” card.
You’ll have to do better than that, try arguing using sound logic rather than trying to manipulate with “emotive” bleatings.


At 5:22 PM, TQR said…

DO NOT get married…………EVER!
DO NOT have children……….EVER!
DO NOT give up your freedom…EVER!

The day you do, life as you know it will be over.

*Nice website by the way.


At 2:50 AM, Anonymous said…

“Do you know WHY women have a choice to have an abortion? Because of FEMINISM.”

Okay, this comment complains about the one-sidedness of the blog, but your comments are rather one-sided in themselves.

Overall feminism has become evil because it has gone unchecked for a long time and that can only ever cause a backlash against it.

When you say that noone has made a compelling ARGUMENT. They have because as you said, not everything is peachy keen. What I think you mean is noone has come up with a valid SOLUTION. You haven’t either, you know.

The obvious solution is a more gender egalitarian lobby, rather than one-sided ones.

At the moment the main lobby is feminist, because as you say, things are not peachy keen. The first step would be to swing the pendulum in the other direction.

That is what this blog and those like it does.

At 3:50 AM, Verlch said…

Yeah, I’m never going to marry and support one of these leaching American women.

Ex-pat baby.

Anywhere but here, who needs a woman that won’t stay together for the children?

Who needs to marry a leech that will keep her last name? Not me, I’m married in a shit filled American marriage now, never again. I’ve disowned my nations women. Lost hope in them all.


At 4:44 AM, Anonymous said…

This makes me want to get married. I never realized that the same men that are trying to get into your pants are the same men who do not want the responsibility of the outcome. So if the men aren’t paying and men are stating that the women do not use the $$$ for the children, then how do the children get clothes, shoes, healthcare coverage, etc. You men are a bunch of freeloading babies.


At 5:01 AM, Duncan Idaho said…

You men are a bunch of freeloading babies.

Unlike you Child-Support demanding leeching fucking women living on alimony/maintenance, right?

Us men have no obligation to support you women and your children.

That’s right, they’re you’re children now. That’s how it works. You women wanted the right to abortions on demand, you wanted almost automatic custody, you basically wanted kids to be considered yours, like in a true matriarchy. Fine. They’re your responsibility now. Don’t like it? Tough. Us men have better things to do than support you women and your kids.


%d bloggers like this: