You don't seem to know what you posted. This is why I counsel men to make and get a commitment BEFORE plunging his penis into her vagina because it gives him better (but not perfect) protection. Every man should realize that whenever he has procreational sex he is exposing himself to significant legal liability. It's best to have a contract first. (marriage contract) This is also why denigrating the traditional definition of marriage is deleterious to society. That's what you said. Marriage will not absolve a man from his financial obligations to his children.
Are mothers more committed to their children than fathers, or is it only the law and social acceptance that is on the mothers' side? Have you seen anyone who creates a child for the child's sake/benefit/anything?
It's that mothers tend to be more committed. Not always, of course, but by and large. No and I never will. People have children because they want them.
Good heavens...Where did I say a marriage contract would 'absolve a man from his financial obligations?' Why would you make such a leap? Is the feminazi brainwashing that pervasive? Good God...It's worse than I thought!
So, would you agree that it is women who drive the child creation process, not men, by and large? And if so, then how is it a fair legislation that every father can be swiftly removed from any family by simply the mother "changing her mind" and initiating a divorce?
There is a difference between a mother/father and 'mom & dad.' The former describes a biological function, the latter describes loving committed folks. A 'sperm-donor' is not necessarily a dad and a womb-provider is not necessarily a mom. The denigration of marriage has a lot to do with vague statements like "mothers tend to be more committed".... Women who can't have children due to physiological reasons will probably never have children. Women who are able to have children but just don't want children stand a 50% chance of becoming pregnant even with contraception. Is it more responsible to a) rely on abortion when conventional contraception fails or b) have oneself sterilized? (I am not referring to you at all, please don't misunderstand, your statement just piqued my interest in the subject)
Then, how can one understand this whole thing? If a woman has no child, she will go until eventually she gives birth to one. The same way, if a man has no woman, he will go until he eventually finds one. Where is the part where men must be (legislatively) punished? And why do women want to do that? The only thing I can come up with for an answer is that current legislation makes it more economically profitable for women if they have multiple men with a child from each but keeping them out of the relationship to secure a set of child support incomes. This seems incorrect though. Why are we shafted? (Any guesses?)
Women and children were lumped into the same category for so many years with the underlying assumption being they ae weaker and less able to fend for themselves than men are. Now that women's rights have been enacted ( a good thing in many ways), women have been acknowledged to have the ability to fend for themselves, but only when it is to their benefit. There are also still lingering old school oriented laws and perspectives that allow women to have all of the freedom with none of the responsibility. Abortion laws are a great example.
Those invalid legal assumptions were made by ignorant men based on their ignorant gynophobia. Women are slowly taking back the power to disabuse them of their fears.
On what evidence do you base that? This whole category is about women who choose not to have a child by terminating an unwanted pregnancy I have no idea what you're on about. You aren't making sense. Men have to help to financially support their children, as must women. That is all.
No, absolutely not. It is against the law to do so. You have been misinformed, which is not surprising.
Yeah, that's what I said. BUT there are still enough of their old prespectives and laws to allow women to avoid responsibility in some cases, like abortion for example.
It is against the law for a woman to move out and move the children away from their father? YOU are clearly the one misinformed!!!
Yes and, if the woman wants to get rid of him and stay in her comfy house that he helped provide AND get part of his paycheck, all she has to do is say he abused his children and he'll be moved out regardless if he is innocent or not.
It is certainly against the law for a woman to move her children away from the father. He has the right to equal custody,
No, that would be you. You think the woman can move interstate or overseas if both she and the father share custody? She can't. The father can prevent it by taking her to court.
I chose California's laws at random: http://www.ehow.com/list_6786151_california-regarding-children-custody-agreements.html
LoL. YEah. LET's TRUST women. Especially you women. http://weaselzippers.us/2012/02/23/...rk-to-liberation-of-nazi-concentration-camps/ photo included. They shouldna done that. Under another name she tries to hire someone to fatally shoot or slit the throat of some random fur wearer. Isn't there a topic in here somewhere about WHAT has happened to women? I think this sorta answers that question. They've been crazed by the leftist philosophy. Another poster says in so many words 'find a conservative woman for marriage'. Cause your chances of survival are so much better.
So does that law say a woman cannot take a man's child from his household when she decides to divorce him? Show me where.
