Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think that it is discussed enough actually, and your intent to quash the male voice is evident.
The problem is that this issue has not been brought up NEARLY enough.
A more involved parent? You have to be JOKING! Don't come at us with an assertion that we as men are not involved in the KANGAROO court to the degree that our resources (both financial and administrative) have been exhausted.
Don't come at us with assertions that we don't make good beggars to the judge and our ex wives by pleading with them for time with our children.
In reality is ALL UP TO THE PARENT AND JUDGE as to whether or not you can proceed to be the more INVOLVED PARENT as opposed to the rosy picture you paint.
If I don't let the mother and the Judge do what THEY want to do, then I AM THE CRIMINAL, there really is no escaping that reality no matter how much you try and sugarcoat it.
Anyone with reasonable intelligence will ultimately discover that once the judge effectively says it's all over because you are a man IT IS OVER.
This applies to just about anything in life and is analogous to traffic court. I wasn't speeding but the cop says I was. The Judge will side with the cop and then it is OVER. Everyone accepts that corrupt system and you move on.
Let's say the picture was as rosy as you paint it.
THEN:
ALL THE SYSTEM CARES ABOUT is whether or not I pay CHILD SUPPORT and by cutting my hours and working part time bla bla bla, I'd reduce my ability to give the system what it wants making me a CRIMINAL.
ME IN THE MATRIARCHIAL COURT: JUDGE I LOVE MY KIDS, PLEASE LET ME SEE THEM!
JUDGE IN THE MATRIARCHIAL COURT: GO POUND SAND
LAWYER 1/2/3/4/5/6/7 IN THE MATRIARCHIAL USA COURT BEFORE GETTING MY MONEY: Don't worry man, we will force her to let you see your kid.
LAWYER 1/2/3/4/5/6/7 IN THE MATRIARCHIAL USA COURT AFTER GETTING MY MONEY: I told you that the system is biased against fathers.
ME IN THE MATRIARCHIAL USA asking my ex wife for visitation via phone: CLICK
ME IN THE MATRIARCHIAL USA asking my ex wife for visitation via email: NULL VALUE
A male entitlement thing to get TRUE joint custody with no child support involved by default?
A female entitlement thing to divorce you just to get half because she is spoon fed and encouraged to do so. I THINK SO!
Are you quite through whining?
To the contrary I encourage the male voice and activism in the court system. Problems and solutions are seldom discussed but similar rants such as yours are what is more often heard. As I stated I do feel need for change in family court. I have spent years watching my son go thru exactly the type scenario you describe and what I have come to conclude is that he, like yourself made up excuses and laid out his self fulfilling destiny by coming to conclusion before he even asked the question.
On the other hand I have seen fathers have their voices heard and stay in there and fight and they do get heard.
It is no different than court in general, those who get the good attorney and are tenacious win in court and those that dont, well better have a jar of Vaseline handy.
But as I suggested if fathers took a more active role in parenting to begin with they would be seen as actual equal care takers of their children and would more often receive primary custody or equal physical custody.
Are you quite through whining?
To the contrary I encourage the male voice and activism in the court system. Problems and solutions are seldom discussed but similar rants such as yours are what is more often heard. As I stated I do feel need for change in family court. I have spent years watching my son go thru exactly the type scenario you describe and what I have come to conclude is that he, like yourself made up excuses and laid out his self fulfilling destiny by coming to conclusion before he even asked the question.
On the other hand I have seen fathers have their voices heard and stay in there and fight and they do get heard.
It is no different than court in general, those who get the good attorney and are tenacious win in court and those that dont, well better have a jar of Vaseline handy.
But as I suggested if fathers took a more active role in parenting to begin with they would be seen as actual equal care takers of their children and would more often receive primary custody or equal physical custody.
Oh, I love labels like whining. Now you are using getting conservative on me. That is a start I'd guess.
Keep your mouth shut, but talk (as long as it is what I'd rather you say). I am so sorry that my post has a factual basis. As a female you wouldn't have to live with the stated scenario if the shoe was on the other foot.
No one has fought harder than me. Your feminist perspective makes it impossible to affirm that you can't just tell the JUDGE NO YOU ARE WRONG and DEFY THE JUDGE. This is what you are asking us to do. Your attitude is by design and willful.
The system is corrupt by design. Judges are by design forced to rule so that someone (guess who that someone will be?) will pay child support since the Federal government provides ENORMOUS financial incentives to the State for every dollar collected in child support.
I guess that all attorneys are garbage and that by some incredible coincidence we all just happen to wind up with them, but they suddenly turn great when representing a woman. I just can't believe that you are insinuating that we just have bad attorneys.
I feel bad for your son. I hope that he doesn't let you influence him with your willfully flawed feminist perspective. I hope that he stays strong and remains firmly grounded in his understanding.
Sex is one of the most basic human needs, up there with food, water, and shelter.
Forgive me for straying off point for a bit, but this post reminds me of a quip I once heard some time back.
A child-minder was bathing two 3 year olds, a boy and a girl, in the same tub.
The little boy pointed at his penis and snorted, "Ha ha, you haven't got one of these!"
The little girl said, "No, but I've got one of these, and my big sister said that if you have one of these, you can get as many of those as you want."
Oh, I love labels like whining. Now you are using getting conservative on me. That is a start I'd guess.
Keep your mouth shut, but talk (as long as it is what I'd rather you say). I am so sorry that my post has a factual basis. As a female you wouldn't have to live with the stated scenario if the shoe was on the other foot.
No one has fought harder than me. Your feminist perspective makes it impossible to affirm that you can't just tell the JUDGE NO YOU ARE WRONG and DEFY THE JUDGE. This is what you are asking us to do. Your attitude is by design and willful.
The system is corrupt by design. Judges are by design forced to rule so that someone (guess who that someone will be?) will pay child support since the Federal government provides ENORMOUS financial incentives to the State for every dollar collected in child support.
I guess that all attorneys are garbage and that by some incredible coincidence we all just happen to wind up with them, but they suddenly turn great when representing a woman. I just can't believe that you are insinuating that we just have bad attorneys.
I feel bad for your son. I hope that he doesn't let you influence him with your willfully flawed feminist perspective. I hope that he stays strong and remains firmly grounded in his understanding.
You prove my point by not addressing any actual problems, existing laws, or actual biases or the suggestion about being a more physically and emotionally involved parent but instead remark on child support and resort to name calling.
You use paying child support and not getting custodial custody of your children as a basis that women have it easier than men. Do you take into account that at one time children were the property of the father and mothers had no legal claim to them. Do you take into account that it was not until 1975 that men were made to help support their children. It took from the beginning of recorded time to 1975.
Are you taking into account that all this began to evolve because men did not take care of their children and the mother and children became impoverished and had to be supported by the parrish and later state while the fathers profited.
As with many of the claims of women having more resources: battered women's shelters, education, child support, judicial leniency, and character representation in the media, it is a response to a greater need that exists for such services or making up for the lack of such services that has existed. If men had not been beating and raping women to a great extent there wouldn't be a need for more shelters and protection, if women had equal opportunities for education women would not need educational services more than men, if men had provided for their children women would not need family court, etc. etc.
Sounds like your working a self fulfilling prophecy.
It does not matter what other people think and honestly for most jobs I dont believe employers are hung up on what university you attended as long as it is accredited and your grades are good.
Set a goal for yourself and take the steps to reach that goal. Life is not easy for a woman or a man but did anyone promise you it would be. All the discussion about who has it easier. Women today have it easier than they have ever had it as far as opportunities and legal standing. The only thing holding you back is you.
I would like to believe that but there are plenty of people who have admitted online that they as employers throw degrees away if they see the word Phoenix. Now I'm not one to believe something just because I read it esp online but I can't understand why someone would lie about that when they know that's going to make people see them in a very negative way. Maybe some of those people have self hate issues idk but it seems like a lot of people saying this just so they can be hated. Plus, when people IRL discover that I went to Phoenix they kinda just go "oh that's nice" like they don't want to be judgemental but in their head they're not impressed. You could say maybe they do think that but they don't let it cloud their decision. But the fact is there are disability laws because employers do discriminate so it stands to reason that if employers discriminate for disability then they could easily discriminate for what school people go to because there's not even a a law against it.
This could all be a minority and just seems like a bigger issue than people say it is but I haven't seen evidence to the contrary. Employers never tell you why they don't hire you. They simply say you're not a good fit. I'm not sure why because they look more like an ahole to me not telling me why but that is how it goes. Some of them don't even contact me to let me know I didn't get the job so I wouldn't put it past them.
And you could say if they're so judgemental why bother worrying about the degree when they can judge you for other reasons but that makes it worse they already are counting me out the degree just makes it worse. When I have interacted with employers, they have the vibe that they are looking for reasons not to hire me. I simply ask about my status they act like I'm bothering them.
Maybe the degree has nothing to do with it but the fact of the matter is they are counting me out for something I cannot help. I always tell them as best as I can why I'd be good to work there but it's never enough. I'm never good enough. One interviewer when I asked what his concern was about hiring me he said that I stuttered. He said he might have to put me as cashier. I explained to him that's fine but he got quiet like he wasn't okay with my answer. But he had acted like he liked me other than that because we had spent a long time in there talking and he even laughed at a funny comment I made..yet I still did not get hired.
I have enough life experience to know that the world is a cruel cruel place and employers are part of that world. I have been taken advantage of significantly in my life so I can't buy that employers aren't doing that to me too. If they hired me I would think differently and you could say there was just someone better than you but why were they better? It could be because they were neurotypical. I know a lot of people are just good at BSing so they're not truly better. It is every single job that I apply for. No one gives me an offer and without my coach I don't even get interviews anymore.
I know I don't have much work experience but that's due to my disability that I didn't even know I had because I had no idea what to do. Also I don't apply for higher end jobs..I have applied to retail stores that I feel like I can fit in at.
To make this more on topic, women may have it easier than they did before but it's still too difficult from where I'm standing. I am not transgendered but I know that if I was a man I would have more opportunities available to me because I could do manual labor. I'm a stereotypical woman but yet not at the same time and that holds me back. What I mean is I lack the stamina that most of them do but at the same time I'm not one that could use my looks to get someone to hire me. I have a baby face. I have nice legs but I wouldn't even know how to be that kind of person.
Also again as a woman you have to be careful what you're doing in your personal life because almost no one wants to hire a pregnant woman. It is easier in the sense that women are taken care of more by the state once they have children but that doesn't fly with career oriented women. Even if they did hire you actually you have to be faced with the fact that physically you may not be able to work because you are just too tired all the time.
Don't try putting words into my mouth. Maslow's hierarchy of needs addresses the needs of an individual.
I *wasn't* putting words into your mouth. I was asking a question. That's what question marks denote. But anyways, I got my answer.
It's obvious that his work can be interpreted differently since one other person has already posted and said that the "sex" part was referring to the species as a whole (paraphrased). This is what I think, as well. So I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree.
and what about the silly men who fall for all these wiles as you say.. arent they just gullible.. women learned early on that men are easily kidded by compliments.. as some are so full of themselves and confident... that they believe anything that makes them feel good about themselves... maybe thats what you meant.... hahaha..
But see if a guy uses his charm to get something from a woman HE'S the bad guy yet the woman isn't called out for being just stupid for falling for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
Use their feminine wiles to deceive and trick.
Men are not deceived and tricked. I'm going to give men the benefit of the doubt and say they are not stupid as you suggest to be so easily deceived and tricked. They know exactly whats up it just that the little brain veto's the big brain.
See above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
This has been discussed to death and I do see need for changes in family court. But to address your complaint there is a solution to being a non custodial parent or visitor as you put it and its really quite simple. Be a more involved parent. Don't put/or let, whatever the case may be, leaving your job or going part time to take care of the baby all to your wife. You be the one to cut your hours and your pay and your promotions for flexible hours to care for your children. You be the one that takes them to school or daycare and gets to know their teachers and friend. You be the one that takes them to the Dr. appointments, dance recitals, ball games, etc.
And yes you do have to be proactive in the court, you have to fight for what you want. Women had to fight their way up what makes you feel because your a man you dont have to do the same. Is it a male entitlement thing?
And what if a guy has a woman that keeps pushing him to work more, to make more to get more stuff? Or what if he has a job that necessitates him being away for long periods such as the Military, traveling a lot, etc.? And don't say "just find something else" because if men just went for "family friendly" jobs/careers the world couldn't function, unless of course women would be willing to take up such jobs and men get to spend more time with their kids, but I would hope men would get the same huge advantage come divorce that women always get.
You prove my point by not addressing any actual problems, existing laws, or actual biases or the suggestion about being a more physically and emotionally involved parent but instead remark on child support and name calling.
You use paying child support and not getting custodial custody of your children as a basis that women have it easier than men. Do you take into account that at one time children were the property of the father and mothers had no legal claim to them. Do you take into account that it was not until 1975 that men were made to help support their children. It took from the beginning of recorded time to 1975.
Are you taking into account that all this began to evolve because men did not take care of their children and the mother and children became impoverished and had to be supported by the parrish and later state while the fathers profited.
As with many of the claims of women having more resources: battered women's shelters, education, child support, judicial leniency, and character representation in the media, it is a response to a greater need that exists for such services or making up for the lack of such services that has existed. If men had not been beating and raping women to a great extent there wouldn't be a need for more shelters and protection, if women had equal opportunities for education women would not need educational services more than men, if men had provided for their children women would not need family court, etc. etc.
I didn't prove your point, but you continue to prove mine. Your requirement for us to spend all day providing URL(s) to support a given claim is a waste of time when you can look that stuff up yourself....and you already KNOW all of this stuff. Google is your best friend. I am not going to cater to your need for female entitlement. Other posters went that way, and you quickly disregarded those claims to meet your agenda as anticipated.
You State that losing your kid for life (and even other levels less than TRUE joint custody) because a woman raises her pinky is not a basis for establishing that women have it easy than men. If that is not a basis, I don't know what is.
Sorry, but men should not have to support "their" children if the child is no longer effectively yours. Remember, it is the MATRIARCHIAL system which you are in part supporting during your posts that calls men VISITORS to our children after a divorce. Heck, I am just a VISITOR (not a parent) if I am fortunate enough.
As stated previously, if there were TRUE joint custody in the first place, THEN CHILD SUPPORT WOULD NOT EXIST, but as you undoubtedly know someone *MUST* pay child support or the State won't get incentives from the Federal Government. The man will get hosed with it and be demonized with existing propaganda.
If a woman wants to be both parents and kidnap a child using the corrupt court system, then they should ACT LIKE IT and BE both parents in EVERY way including FINANCIALLY. Now that would be real liberation for women instead of STILL being dependent on a man.
The subject thread is entitled "Is it easier being a woman than a man as opposed to WAS it easier being a woman than a man?"
Besides, USA courts of equity are based on primitive, obsolete, old English Law.
Even the UK has it better than the USA now. You won't let me see my kid, oh ok I won't pay you child support. No harm, no foul....well not really but better than the USA.
It is no coincidence that the MATRIARCHIAL system states that there is no relationship between child support and (YUCK I hate that word)....visitation. Men get to pay even when visitation is withheld....but oh no a woman can't withhold child visitation because a man isn't paying. Sure, right. How will a man visit his kid when he is sitting behind bars for failure to pay?
Your additional points only validate mine. There is a need for men to have the services you stated which we are almost invariably not entitled to.
Your argument reminds me of being able to have BET but not WET because of what happened in the past.
White Entertainment Television...(NOW THAT IS AUTOMATICALLY RACIST).
I didn't prove your point, but you continue to prove mine. Your requirement to spend all day providing URL(s) to support a given claim is a waste of time when you can look that stuff up yourself....and you already KNOW all of this stuff. Google is your best friend. I am not going to cater to your need for female entitlement. Other posters went that way, and you quickly disregarded those claims to meet your agenda as anticipated.
If not having FAIR access to your children (and everything that comes with that) upon the basis of being a MALE is not clear evidence that women have it easier than men then I don't know what is.
You State that losing your kid for life because a woman raises her pinky is not a basis for establishing that women have it easy than men. If that is not a basis, I don't know what is.
Sorry, but men should not have to support their children if the child is no longer effectively yours.
As stated previously, if there were TRUE joint custody in the first place, THEN CHILD SUPPORT WOULD NOT EXIST, but as you undoubtedly know someone *MUST* pay child support or the State won't get incentives from the Federal Government. The man will get hosed with it.
If a woman wants to be both parents and kidnap a child using the corrupt court system, then they should ACT LIKE IT and BE both parents in EVERY way including financially. Now that would be real liberation for women instead of STILL being dependent on a man.
The subject thread is entitled "Is it easier being a woman than a man as opposed to WAS it easier being a woman than a man?"
Besides, USA courts of equity are based on primitive, obsolete, old English Law.
Even the UK has it better than the USA now. You won't let me see my kid, oh ok I won't pay you child support. No harm, no foul....well not really but better than the USA.
Your additional points only validate mine. There is a need for men to have the services you stated which we are almost invariably not entitled to.
Your argument reminds me of being able to have BET but not WET because of what happened in the past.
White Entertainment Television...(NOW THAT IS AUTOMATICALLY RACIST).
All 120% true!! Sadly women will never admit to having such a huge advantage in society. And as I said above in order for the world to function someone (usually men) have to take jobs that require them to be away or out for long hours, it's not always a choice of just "cutting out hours" or "not taking that position". Women are lucky in that regard due to the fact they usually take jobs where they can afford to do such. But despite that, men do not get a fair shot at being with their kids a lot of the time.
But see if a guy uses his charm to get something from a woman HE'S the bad guy yet the woman isn't called out for being just stupid for falling for it.
See above.
Who says he is the bad guy?
IRL though, men are called players, and silly and some people will insult men and women are called hoes, and gold diggers and bimbos, etc. by some people and other people will not even take notice of such witchery and the charming of random strangers by other random strangers for personal gain and their lives are totally unaffected by these things. Its just a matter of personal responsibility really.
Quote:
And what if a guy has a woman that keeps pushing him to work more, to make more to get more stuff? Or what if he has a job that necessitates him being away for long periods such as the Military, traveling a lot, etc.? And don't say "just find something else" because if men just went for "family friendly" jobs/careers the world couldn't function, unless of course women would be willing to take up such jobs and men get to spend more time with their kids, but I would hope men would get the same huge advantage come divorce that women always get.
And they would because these laws that are designed as what is best for the child, not best for mom or best for dad, are not gender specific. The parent who has served as the primary caretaker and is best suited to care for the child's day to day needs is normally the one who would be best suited to be the custodial parent. Do you think a parent that is in the military, traveling and subject to deployment would be the best parent to have primary custody of the child? Again, it is personal decisions, personal responsibility. If being a custodial parent is that important to you after divorce it should be that important to you before a divorce.
There are no guarantees in marriage, and couples, if they are smart, discuss child care and work issues and do what they, together, decide is best for the family. Most men I know, and Im pretty sure interviews and statistics will corroborate, dont want to be a stay at home dad or dont want to downsize their job, although it is becoming more popular for them to do so. Many mothers are more than willing to keep such jobs and let dad take the family friendly job.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
