Matriarchy at work

[dismal]

Who is being wrongly accused?

Read article I linked earlier. This is one case among many.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

BS. Treating men like second class citizens and treating women preferentially is matriarchy and essence of second wave Dworkinte feminism.

You should go cry to the predominately male executive, legislative and judicial branches of geovernment about it.

Since women are approximately 51% of the voting public, they might have something to say about the gender of those elected.

 

[Derec]

Prove it.

Show me the numbers.

Show where more women make laws

Show me where more women run the banks

Show me the numbers, show me the history, show me a reason to believe you.

Show me that your problems with the world have anything to do with women and not everything to do with you.

It doesn't have to do with the gender of people but the laws and decisions they are making.

When it's legal to charge men more for car or life insurance but not to charge women more for health insurance that is matriarchy.
When female birth control has to be covered but not male birth control that is matriarchy.
When only men have to register for selective service that is matriarchy.
When no corroborating evidence is required to convict a man of rape that is matriarchy.
When false rape accusers rarely get prosecuted and even then get a slap on the wrist that is matriarchy.
When "rape shield" laws effectively prevent men from being able to defend themselves that is matriarchy.
When a woman can get a man fired because she is offended by the kind of joke she overhears him saying that is matriarchy.
When colleges are forced to adopt rules that make it easier to expel innocent male students accused of rape that is matriarchy.
When those same colleges do nothing against known false rape accusers (like Jackie Coakley of UVA) that is matriarchy.
When women who murder their boyfriends or husbands often either get acquitted (Nicole Redmond) or get a slap on the wrist (Mary Winkler) that is matriarchy.
When women who cut a man's penis off not only get acquitted but become feminist icons (Lorena Bobbitt) that is matriarchy.
When men are routinely discriminated against in family and divorce courts that is matriarchy.
When divorce laws specify that lifelong alimony is to be given to the ex wife to enable her to keep her standard of living without working even if man's standard of living goes down that is matriarchy.
When women make 60% of college students but are still beneficiaries of affirmative action and women-only scholarships and grants (including NSF grants) because women are not at least 50% in every possible major that is matriarchy.

 

[Derec]

Who is being wrongly accused?

The man who is not the father whom the female judge is forcing to pay $30k in child support.

The man voluntarily let the woman declare him as the father.

That is far from certain as it is only found in one source and not others. In any case the law gives women the power to declare any man the father and he has no power to not "let" her.

If you don't want to be on the hook for child support if you're not the father don't allow the mother to list you as the father.

The law given women the power to list any man as the father whether or not he is and whether or not he even had sex with her. And if she can run out the clock without him finding out he was thus listed he has no recourse to prove his innocence and she is not going to be prosecuted for fraud either. How is that sort of sexism just?

And why are they passing those laws? Because they think women are more fragile than men and in need of more protections. Again, classic patriarchy.

Nonsense. People defending these matriarchal laws are feminists, including those feminists on this forum like yourself.

 

[dismal]

The man who is not the father whom the female judge is forcing to pay $30k in child support.

The man voluntarily let the woman declare him as the father.

That is far from certain as it is only found in one source and not others. In any case the law gives women the power to declare any man the father and he has no power to not "let" her.

Regardless, no one seems to be arguing he has been convicted of any crime here.

That sort of thing is what would matter to those who care about quaint notions like "due process".

 

[Derec]

Regardless, no one seems to be arguing he has been convicted of any crime here.

That sort of thing is what would matter to those who care about quaint notions like "due process".

This is not a criminal matter but that doesn't make the injustice inherent in the decision ok. It's the same thing as with the whole college "rape" decree by the Obama administration where the supporters of the edict argued that because it's not a criminal matter any denial of due process is ok.

 

[dismal]

Regardless, no one seems to be arguing he has been convicted of any crime here.

That sort of thing is what would matter to those who care about quaint notions like "due process".

This is not a criminal matter but that doesn't make the injustice inherent in the decision ok. It's the same thing as with the whole college "rape" decree by the Obama administration where the supporters of the edict argued that because it's not a criminal matter any denial of due process is ok.

If ksen wants to hang his hat on the idea this guy committed welfare fraud it's a criminal matter.

I think you actually need to convict someone of welfare fraud before you start punishing them for it. If you believe in quaint notions such as due process.

 

[Derec]

If ksen wants to hang his hat on the idea this guy committed welfare fraud it's a criminal matter.

And in that case they both committed fraud so blaming one party while letting the other off the hook because of their respective genders is very much sexist.

I think you actually need to convict someone of welfare fraud before you start punishing them for it. If you believe in quaint notions such as due process.

I agree.

 

[Toni]

I still do not see why her life choices should place the burden of proof on the man or men she accuses. And there is no downside to her to accuse any man even if she never had sex with them. In fact, she stands to profit from accusing the richest man she knows because that means most child support for her.
If she had sex with several men in the relevant time window she should come clean and admit there are several possibilities instead of categorically stating that one of them is the father.

You realize that I was stating a hypothetical, right? In my hypothetical, there was more than one man who was potentially the father, which she came clean about and provided the names of all possible candidates.

There is no ranking of men by wealth in that scenario.

She is also not well paid for her work at Walmart (or wherever) and will need to rely on some public assistance to help provide for her child. The system is insisting she name the father of her child. She cannot name the father of the child as she is uncertain which man fathered the baby. The system insists she provide names of candidates, so she complies.

She didn't provide the names of "candidates" she flat out stated that the victim here was the father even though she knew he wasn't. That is fraud and she should be prosecuted.

Again, my post was about a hypothetical situation.

This is not falsely accusing any of the men who turn out to not be the father of the child. It is not falsely accusing anyone of a criminal act. It is using established medical science to determine the biological male progenitor of the child.

She did accuse him of being the father. And at that point, the matriarchal law states that it's up to the man to prove he is not the father. That is bullshit and should be changed.

Again: my post was hypothetical.

It is not 'matriarchal' to require an appropriate sample from possible biological parents in order to establish biological parenthood. It's the way that biology works. As it happens, there is rarely any question about the maternal biological parent but that is biology.

Everyone contributes a blood sample or more probably (and with less accurate results) a cheek swab.

He wanted to but the courts didn't allow him to because since his guilt is presumed the clock ran out. If the burden of proof were on the woman there would be no fatherhood assignment until such DNA proof was obtained. Instead her word is taken as fact unless proved otherwise within a narrow time window.

Again, I was writing about a hypothetical, not the real life case in the OP.

If the facts are as laid out in the news story linked, then it is wrong to pursue for child support a man who has always claimed not to be the father and who attempted to establish that fact over many years. It is wrong that the court system has done nothing to help him or the child over the many years.

I understand the reasoning behind the laws that say that whoever is established as the legal father has the rights and responsibilities, including child support of fatherhood, whether or not he is the biological father. The law favors the best interests of the child who is held blameless and does not deserve to have support ripped from him/her because someone who willingly took responsibility for the child changes his mind. BTW, the same principles should apply to the mother.

 

[credoconsolans]

I still do not see why her life choices should place the burden of proof on the man or men she accuses. And there is no downside to her to accuse any man even if she never had sex with them. In fact, she stands to profit from accusing the richest man she knows because that means most child support for her.

Well, that didn't take long.

The woman doesn't know who the father is, so she cannot burden the men with her accusations of them as the father.

And that's because she's a slut (her "life choices" as you so euphemistically put it) and a gold digger anyway since she's going to 'profit' from the wealthiest man paying her child support.

 

[Toni]

The man who is not the father whom the female judge is forcing to pay $30k in child support.

So you believe a male judge would have ruled differently because he is male? Would that ruling then be patriarchal?

The gender of the judge does not determine whether a ruling is evidence of a patriarchal or matriarchal society. If the laws are enacted, enforced and carried out by only one gender, it is perhaps a case of matriarchy or patriarchy. Clearly, that is not the case here.

The man voluntarily let the woman declare him as the father.

That is far from certain as it is only found in one source and not others. In any case the law gives women the power to declare any man the father and he has no power to not "let" her.

This is not true. He can challenge her claims legally and can insist on testing to determine paternity. Likewise a man can (and often does) claim not to be the father despite knowing that he is indeed the father of a child and forces the mother to incur expensive legal costs, etc.

In this case (assuming the OP link is accurate in facts stated), the man was not given the appropriate aid or counsel in establishing that he is not the biological father, which is a terrible thing. It is indicative of the fact that our legal system tremendously favors those with money over those who do not, particularly those who have been incarcerated.

If you don't want to be on the hook for child support if you're not the father don't allow the mother to list you as the father.

The law given women the power to list any man as the father whether or not he is and whether or not he even had sex with her. And if she can run out the clock without him finding out he was thus listed he has no recourse to prove his innocence and she is not going to be prosecuted for fraud either. How is that sort of sexism just?

Men are pretty darn good at evading child support for children they father. They do it by moving out of state, quitting jobs, disappearing, threatening to take the mother to court--a serious threat if she is barely scraping by--and claiming that she is unfit because she is always at work (to support his kid). How is that sexism just?

And why are they passing those laws? Because they think women are more fragile than men and in need of more protections. Again, classic patriarchy.

Nonsense. People defending these matriarchal laws are feminists, including those feminists on this forum like yourself.

The laws are passed in an effort to best serve the needs of the child, not the needs of either mother or father.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The claim that women are paid less than men for equal work is a myth. When adjusted for actual types of jobs, experience, education and hours worked the much quoted "73 cents" wage gap disappears in a puff of faux-liberal myths.

The 73 cents is a myth. It is more like 90 cents.

derec doesn't understand that these types of things are also symptomatic of patriarchism. Because in patriarchism women are treated like property that must be protected.

BS. Treating men like second class citizens and treating women preferentially is matriarchy and essence of second wave Dworkinte feminism.

Men... second class citizens in the US?

Today on Discovery Channel, we delve in the terrible conditions that men must subject themselves to daily in a Matriarchal Society, where women live with high privileges, while men, the untouchables in America, are subjected to living in squalor conditions, in order to be able to afford to pay child support for women that they've never met, whom also have never had children.

 

[dismal]

I still do not see why her life choices should place the burden of proof on the man or men she accuses. And there is no downside to her to accuse any man even if she never had sex with them. In fact, she stands to profit from accusing the richest man she knows because that means most child support for her.

Well, that didn't take long.

The woman doesn't know who the father is, so she cannot burden the men with her accusations of them as the father.

And that's because she's a slut (her "life choices" as you so euphemistically put it) and a gold digger anyway since she's going to 'profit' from the wealthiest man paying her child support.

I admire the emotion you put into that post. But meanwhile, a DNA test proved this guy is not the father.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You should go cry to the predominately male executive, legislative and judicial branches of geovernment about it.

Since women are approximately 51% of the voting public, they might have something to say about the gender of those elected.

Women vote in majority for Democrats. So umm... it doesn't appear that right now their power is that overwhelming.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So the problem is insufficient female solidarity?

 

[Jarhyn]

Even if true, they both perpetrated the fraud with her being the beneficiary. So they should both be punished, with her most severely. Instead only he is punished and she rewarded. I do not see why our system is giving immunity to women perpetrating paternal fraud.

- - - Updated - - -

This isn't an example of anti-male bias like you're making it out to be. Rather, it's the fault of our legal system being so focused on procedure. He didn't know how to correctly challenge it and couldn't afford to hire the legal help he needed and thus was stuck with a bad result.?

I disagree. The procedure itself is biased against men. It doesn't prosecute women who lie about who the father is. It allows women to name any man as the father and the state than places the burden of proof onto the man to prove his innocence rather than on the woman to prove the man's guilt. All those things need to be changed.

Damn right! Next thing you know, that cunt manager of mine will be trying to ship me off to the child support extraction camps, where they do nothing but feed you Viagra 24/7 and pump out a man's precious 'vitality' all day long, and then forces him to dig diamonds up for use in producing sensible heels. The horror!

 

[laughing dog]

It doesn't have to do with the gender of people but the laws and decisions they are making. ..

Nope, you are spouting nonsense. What you seem incapable of recognizing is that when you persistently resort to such rhetorical tactics, it undermines any legitimate point you may be making. For example, the fellow in the OP is being mistreated. That mistreatment has nothing to do with matriarchy. It is due to a combination of factors, some of which are the result of his poor decisions. That does not negate the mistreatment.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Suppose a woman is involved in an intimate relationship with more than one man. Perhaps it is a polyamorous relationship; perhaps she has more casual relationships with more than one man; perhaps she picks up random men and has sex wit them. Any of those scenarios.

She discovers she is pregnant, despite being on birth control pills. She does not know which of the men is actually the father of her child. It is impossible for her to know as she had sex with more than one man within a few days time.

She is also not well paid for her work at Walmart (or wherever) and will need to rely on some public assistance to help provide for her child. The system is insisting she name the father of her child. She cannot name the father of the child as she is uncertain which man fathered the baby. The system insists she provide names of candidates, so she complies.

This is not falsely accusing any of the men who turn out to not be the father of the child. It is not falsely accusing anyone of a criminal act. It is using established medical science to determine the biological male progenitor of the child.

Everyone contributes a blood sample or more probably (and with less accurate results) a cheek swab.

In the first case she certainly can name a short list of prospects.

If she makes up a name she's making a knowing false accusation, she belongs in jail.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When a woman can get a man fired because she is offended by the kind of joke she overhears him saying that is matriarchy.

No. I've seen a woman fired this way.

 

[Toni]

Suppose a woman is involved in an intimate relationship with more than one man. Perhaps it is a polyamorous relationship; perhaps she has more casual relationships with more than one man; perhaps she picks up random men and has sex wit them. Any of those scenarios.

She discovers she is pregnant, despite being on birth control pills. She does not know which of the men is actually the father of her child. It is impossible for her to know as she had sex with more than one man within a few days time.

She is also not well paid for her work at Walmart (or wherever) and will need to rely on some public assistance to help provide for her child. The system is insisting she name the father of her child. She cannot name the father of the child as she is uncertain which man fathered the baby. The system insists she provide names of candidates, so she complies.

This is not falsely accusing any of the men who turn out to not be the father of the child. It is not falsely accusing anyone of a criminal act. It is using established medical science to determine the biological male progenitor of the child.

Everyone contributes a blood sample or more probably (and with less accurate results) a cheek swab.

In the first case she certainly can name a short list of prospects.

If she makes up a name she's making a knowing false accusation, she belongs in jail.

In my scenario, she willingly made up a list of potential fathers.

I think jail is way harsh for providing the name of a man she knows cannot be the father.


There can and often are real reasons to avoid naming someone as a potential father, including rape and incest or in case of abusive relationships. No one should be compelled to be tied in any way at all to someone who is abusive. I agree that it is wrong to give the name of someone who you know cannot be the father. I also know that sometimes women, especially very young women, are placed in really terrible situations where they are being forced to provide names and the 'right' name can only bring them and the child a great deal of pain. That is also wrong.