OK, misogynist or whatever, but there must be an argument possible that legislation lumps every man together in one category and this legislation is criminal, written by feminists. When "misogynist" men (*)(*)(*)(*)(*), no woman goes to jail, but when misandrists write laws, that's a THREAT of jail to every man. It is not really possible to construct an argument against misandry because we all are under the feminist mind control (including myself) but the threat is there. The misandrist threat is there everywhere even when a guy tries to get a drivers license to go to work and it is denied to him because he has no job to meet his alimony/childsupport obligations. A downward spiral. Now we know the true colors of feminism.
yeah, but misandrists don't write laws. obviously, you think its too much to expect men to take responsibility for their own actions. personally, I like most men are mature enough to do that.
I would never dare have sex with a woman without a condom, and I don't understand either why women trust pills more than condoms. It is important not to demage the life of the one you go to bed with. I am a guy and I am careful thanks to these technologies, but why do I have to be criminalized for my intentions to go to bed with women? When a feminist legislation provides the potential confiscation of my drivers license and even my ability to buy/sell/rent a house, I am declared guilty first then I must prove my innocense to receive basic human rights. I think that like all minority and special interest groups, after achieving their goals, feminists sold themselves out to semi-criminal schemes and use their legislative power for extortion in the above fashion. Will there be a time in the future again when a man can form a close relationship with a woman without halting the relationship for the well founded suspicions as per the above? (Or is this gone with old movies?)
Some women do so for exactly the same reason some men do. Some people are naive, uninformed, stupid or just too focused on getting their jollies that they don't think beyond that. How are we being criminalised? Such relationships happen all the time for countless couples. If you're unable to do the same, maybe you should reconsider the focus of your blame.
In other words "women are stupid". Nice! I always new that feminists really despise women, you just confirmed it!
How are we being criminalized? As I described earlier here, by taking away the necessities of life, such as a car to go to work, a roof to live under, and a reminder of prison. Nobody asks the question why a guy may be late with his childsupport/alimony payments, even if it is obvious in this economy. To assume that you don't pay because you just don't want to, when most people in this economy can't pay even if willing, is sinister at least if not a downright legislated extortion. But there are even worse feminist violations of the habeas corpus (see US constitution, UK magna carta). For example, if you want to bring a foreign bride to the US to live with you, you can't, unless you can prove that you had documented to her about your childsupport obligations etc BEFORE you first contacted her. (None of these apply to me, but what if you are in the shoes of a guy who wants a foreign wife?) If we were not criminalized, then mens' childsupport/alimony obligations would be defined as a % of their tax filings, sex offenders would be prosecuted for their crimes, non-offenders would not have to make declarations that they are not criminals, and, most of all, communication between a woman and a man would not be forced into government/criminal administration forms.
So if a man is late with a child support payment he is a poor put upon self sacrificing person who had other issues while a woman only gets pregnant to trap a man into child support in the first place Riiiiiiiiiiight!
Not all women, right? Then why ALL men are legislated against, criminally? (Finally this thread is arriving at its core question.)
Funny I was under the impression that women also had to pay maintenance if they were not the primary carers of the child
HAHAHAHA Your post is sooo funny! Not only are we having a dick tax for quite a while now, but also the women have auctioned away our dicks, and how will we get them back now? HAHAHAHAHA
That must be VERY rare, I bet judges don't waste their time talking to men when they rule about custody. I guess men get custody only when the woman has a substance abuse issue or some illness. In the UK by the way, there is a new volunteer legal group called "Fathers For Justice" which is dedicated to review judges decisions and to force them to communicate with fathers. I would like to propose that it is unfair to take advantage of men in court rooms this way. And I guess that legally speaking, the revange argument that men take advantage of women in bed so women take advantage of men at court should not fly. The courts simply exploit that society is more accomodating to the idea of a single mother than a single father, all this in this modern age of our matriarchal western societies. And why should it be a taboo to question the validity of the idea of doing the best forthe child?
Actually not a bad idea - since it has been proven time and again that men will not act responsibly to prevent pregnancy then it should be mandated that they are sterilised. After all we can always "keep some on ice" as it were if you want kids later on
Okay, entertaining this thought, I guess many men would have no objection, but we men would be afraid of this because what if our dicks won't get up after sterilization. I dated a medical student at some time and she came across this information that after castration 25 % of dicks remain active but 75 % will never stand up. I guess the follow-up question to this then is whether the new eunuchs would be happy in their new communities segregated away from women, like it was in ancient times. It may be possible, and I agree that a future to humanity by having children is overrated. I can't imagine though how castration would stop us men still seeking women's company. Interestingly, this solution is mentioned a few times in the Gospels and in Paul's Epistoles.
Who is using the "revenge argument"? some statistics http://singleparents.about.com/od/legalissues/p/portrait.htm
I am pretty sure the number of vasectomies would be considerably lower if it WAS the same thing! I've also not seen stats re impotence and vasectomies - hadn't heard of this through reliable sources, but about twenty or thirty years ago this rumour was floating about - and was presented as a good reason why women should have their tubes tied instead of husbands getting snipped. also ... back then I sometimes heard that men who had vasectomies would become .. I guess the word we would use now is "feminised" - maybe even grow boobs!
If anything most men report an increase post because it "frees" them from having to worry about pregnancy. But - you know - men and their doodles!!! You just can't believe that the SAME sex that worries about vasectomy and any thing near the "wedding tackle" also were responsible for the invention of a "Prince Albert"
Yes they do and concessions can be made. The fundamental responsibility remains though. The system is far from perfect (but then the situation is far from perfect) but the imperfection causes people getting away with not paying when they could as well as other way around. Your one-sided objection to payment, rather than an honest proposal for reform, is a key part of the problem rather than the solution. You're going to have to explain that in much more detail because at the moment, you're making no sense. Which legislation or regulations are you specifically referring to here? Child support and alimony orders take account of income level - I see no reason why it should be the sole factor. Sex offenders (male or female) are prosecuted - it's very difficult to do so successfully though. Everyone has to make declarations that they are not criminals in all sorts of circumstances - I see no problem with that requirement. Communications between individuals, regardless of gender, should only be forced in to "government/criminal administration" where it is necessary to protect vulnerable parties or the wider society - people get the specifics wrong all the time but the principal is consistent.
You know, it can really screw a kid up when their non-custodial parent is always moaning and groaning about having to pay child support. I dealt with this since the age of 7 to 20 (my brother is two years younger than me so I still heard about it 2 years after the cut off date for child support for me) and you know what? It made me miserable. I felt like a horrible BURDEN to my father. I thought he hated me and my brother for the longest time because all he ever cared about was the money. Sometimes I wished and wished he would just write us off and choose never to see us again so that he wouldn't have to dish out money every month to help us. Divorce sucks and had a major impact on my life since I was very young. That's another reason why I am a huge proponent of abortion. If a woman and a man don't get along well and are not in it for the long run they shouldn't be having children together because the entire divorce process and all the hurt feelings and hatred the parents have for one another spills onto us kids. Also from my experience with this I honestly believe that the courts should rule that both parents live in spitting distance of one another and have equal custody of the children. That would solve a lot of this whining, moaning and groaning child support business. Obviously they need to take into account abusive/dangerous spouses but still, my parents hated each other but they could have lived close enough and allowed a shared custody, but they had so much spite for one another they let that get in the way of what was best for my brother and me. *sigh* People suck...
Men are not being taken advantage of in courtrooms. Some studies show that men have the advantage in gaining custody if they ask for custody, but few men ask for it. In most cases, the men have more money in order to pursue legal remedies, and so have the advantage. Some judges are more likely to award custody of male children to the fathers.
