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.
Even if we take all your claims at face value that doesn't equal male oppression. If you don't like the child custody/support laws then change them.
What laws have you changed recently? Men are shaped by evolution to protect and provide for the golden uterus. Modern womanhood takes that genetic determination to cleaners. Paternity fraud is 100% legal, yet they lock up people for life for stealing a candy bar. Family law is a racket institution designed to rob men blind. In truth few men see purpose in life outside of acquring and serving women, that's probably why the system is so skewed to benefit women. Collective "Real" man derives pride and pleasure from being used and screwed by women, laws reflect that.
When parents are unmarried, Mother has custody of any child born out of wedlock. Furthermore, Father has ZERO parenting rights by default. What that means is that Dad is not allowed to see the child at all- not even 15 minutes- if Mom does not allow it. In fact, Dad will be arrested if he tries. The only way Dad can get any parenting rights at all is to file in court, which usually results in some small token amount. Almost never does Dad get custody in this situation.
So you have a situation where one gender is given 100% full rights, and one gender is given 0 rights. Nothing, zip, nada. Imagine if you will a scenario where the script was flipped, and it was decided that moving forward Dad was granted 100% parenting rights (Mom zero) when parents are unmarried. That story would be on the cover of every newspaper, it would be the lead on every news show, and it would be discussed on every radio show. Yet this subject is rarely if ever discussed now.
I believe that this policy rises to the level of a large scale human rights violation (remember, not only are Dads rights being trampled on, but also all children born out of wedlock). It's really not that dissimilar to slavery, or anti semitism, or discrimination against people that are handicapped. Perhaps the best analogy would be many decades ago when women were not allowed to vote. Of course that was wrong, why should one gender be given full rights and the other 0? How is this policy any different then women being prohibited from voting?
By the way, I have never been personally effected by this policy. I do have one child from a previous marriage, but I was married to Mom at the time so this has nothing to do with me being effected personally.
It is the truth, so of course you will lambasted for daring to state it. There are these crazy myths going around lately (actually for awhile now) about "male privilege" relative to women, which we know empirically is nonsense. If you are a woman, you get the breaks and get the protection relative to men. If you are black or brown, you get the whole world willing to do you a favor and help you out just because of your skin color. If you are white or male, and especially if you are both, you get to live in "the real world" where nobody is cutting you any breaks and you are expected to take full responsibility for all of your actions.
What laws have you changed recently? Men are shaped by evolution to protect and provide for the golden uterus. Modern womanhood takes that genetic determination to cleaners. Paternity fraud is 100% legal, yet they lock up people for life for stealing a candy bar. Family law is a racket institution designed to rob men blind. In truth few men see purpose in life outside of acquring and serving women, that's probably why the system is so skewed to benefit women. Collective "Real" man derives pride and pleasure from being used and screwed by women, laws reflect that.
I couldn't care less about changing child support/custody issues. My husband had a daughter before we were married and he was assessed with 25% of his income while we were married because the mom went on public assistance. He was pissed but I reminded him that his amount wouldn't even cover daycare. She lied and said he wasn't paying anything so he got assessed with back support as well. We provided proof that he was and they dropped that but not before they had taken our tax return. We bought all her clothes in addition to child support because his support was going to reimburse welfare because the man his ex married took off on his 2 kids and never paid. What are you going to do?
Later his daughter came to live with us. We continued to pay for an entire year while she lived with us because we didn't want to rock the boat and she was safer at our house.
We could afford to do this because of my golden uterus earning about twice what he did so it really wasn't that big of a deal. Bottom line: kids are expensive and it's a pain in the ass for both parties when the parents aren't together.
I see a lot of bitching about how it's so unfair to men but you don't seem to give a **** about your kids.
Even if we take all your claims at face value that doesn't equal male oppression. If you don't like the child custody/support laws then change them.
So forcibly keeping Dad's away from their children isn't oppression? Would you feel the same way if government agents showed up at the hospital and removed Mom's babies by force (just go to Court if you don't like it, I'm sure they would say)
As to changing the laws, here it comes....
drumroll.....
As I have explained before, this is a specious claim because it assumes that fathers would be granted custody if they only asked for it. The reality is that men’s lawyers counsel them on their real expectations of the process and advise them to take the best deal they can hope to get. This is a classic case of what economists call bargaining in the shadow of the law. As the working paper No-Fault Divorce and Rent-Seeking explains:
…spouses engage in ‘bargaining in the shadow of the law’ (Mnookin and Kornhauser, 1979), where the existing law becomes a threat point for one of the spouses.
As an analogy, imagine a criminal court system where there was virtually no chance of being acquitted if you were part of a specific unfavored class, no matter how strong your case is. If you offer unfavored defendants in this scenario the chance to plead guilty to receive a lower sentence, they will nearly always take it because they have nothing to gain by trying to make their case for innocence. Yet you couldn’t take a 90% (unfavored class) guilty plea end result as proof that a system is fair which finds the unfavored class guilty 99% of the time cases go to trial. They are simply two sides of the same injustice.
I couldn't care less about changing child support/custody issues.
Of course not, you are one of the people benefitting from the injustice.
Quote:
Bottom line: kids are expensive and it's a pain in the ass for both parties when the parents aren't together.
And? What does this have to do with anything? Because it's a pita, we should oppress an entire gender? Not to mention the children themselves that suffer from the injustice.
Quote:
I see a lot of bitching about how it's so unfair to men but you don't seem to give a **** about your kids.
Really? You actually went there. You actually have decided to stoop this low, and demonstrate your complete lack of integrity.
Since you brought it up, how did you come to this conclusion? As I mentioned in the very first post, this legal policy does not affect me personally. So because I posted a well documented and provable legal policy, you attack the love that I have for my children?
I would say that if you support the policy of keeping unmarried Dad's away from their children by default, it is you that doesn't care about kids, not me.
So forcibly keeping Dad's away from their children isn't oppression? Would you feel the same way if government agents showed up at the hospital and removed Mom's babies by force (just go to Court if you don't like it, I'm sure they would say)
As to changing the laws, here it comes....
drumroll.....
Where are they bringing the baby until they decide? Are they going to lock in it a cage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysgenic
Of course not, you are one of the people benefitting from the injustice.
How? I married at 25, had my child at 29. My husband and I are still together and my kid is 22. You know who benefits? People who don't get married. Had I not been married the tax savings alone could have paid my mortgage. Can't eat your cake and have it too.
[/quote]
Quote:
And? What does this have to do with anything? Because it's a pita, we should oppress an entire gender? Not to mention the children themselves that suffer from the injustice.
Nice you got around to bringing up the kids. Yes, I have no respect for people who don't financially support their children. That includes women too. Like Judge Judy says "YOU PICKED THEM."
Quote:
Really? You actually went there. You actually have decided to stoop this low, and demonstrate your complete lack of integrity.
Since you brought it up, how did you come to this conclusion? As I mentioned in the very first post, this legal policy does not affect me personally. So because I posted a well documented and provable legal policy, you attack the love that I have for my children?
I would say that if you support the policy of keeping unmarried Dad's away from their children by default, it is you that doesn't care about kids, not me.
I couldn't care less about changing child support/custody issues. My husband had a daughter before we were married and he was assessed with 25% of his income while we were married because the mom went on public assistance. He was pissed but I reminded him that his amount wouldn't even cover daycare. She lied and said he wasn't paying anything so he got assessed with back support as well. We provided proof that he was and they dropped that but not before they had taken our tax return. We bought all her clothes in addition to child support because his support was going to reimburse welfare because the man his ex married took off on his 2 kids and never paid. What are you going to do?
Later his daughter came to live with us. We continued to pay for an entire year while she lived with us because we didn't want to rock the boat and she was safer at our house.
We could afford to do this because of my golden uterus earning about twice what he did so it really wasn't that big of a deal. Bottom line: kids are expensive and it's a pain in the ass for both parties when the parents aren't together.
I see a lot of bitching about how it's so unfair to men but you don't seem to give a **** about your kids.
I wrote a few posts above about that. There are two kinds of men: a) men who get free procreation ride from womanhood because women really like their freeloading, I give no damn DNA (it was/is a good indicator of the right stuff to move up the food chain), women really treasure a gift of sperm from those guys to the incredible point of not capitalizing on the provided by the system money extracting tools. b) all the rest, men who not only pay their child support, they pay taxes to help raise the kids of Type A guys, they pay child support for the kids they didn't father. Mule men in short. And I sense that many men wise up to the parasitic world as it is and refuse to participate as mules. At some point their number will reach a critical mass. Until then we can only ***** and do our best to contribute absolute minimum to the feeding frenzy.
I wrote a few posts above about that. There are two kinds of men: a) men who get free procreation ride from womanhood because women really like their freeloading, I give no damn DNA (it was/is a good indicator of the right stuff to move up the food chain), women really treasure a gift of sperm from those guys to the incredible point of not capitalizing on the provided by the system money extracting tools. b) all the rest, men who not only pay their child support, they pay taxes to help raise the kids of Type A guys, they pay child support for the kids they didn't father. Mule men in short. And I sense that many men wise up to the parasitic world as it is and refuse to participate as mules. At some point their number will reach a critical mass. Until then we can only ***** and do our best to contribute absolute minimum to the feeding frenzy.
You have a very bizarre way of looking at things.
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.
