Matriarchy at work

[dismal]

It's OK that plainly innocent people are railroaded by the system into punishments for things they didn't do because they can't afford lawyers to help them navigate the process?

No, again, I would welcome better legal aid, and a reform of the legal system to make it more process-driven and less based around confrontation. I'd also welcome a better use of various concepts from the English common-law system, such as proportionality and universal reasonableness criteria, that are not a feature of the US system, largely because they are seen as an attack on an individual's right to form contracts

However, you're not campaigning for court reform, nor for better welfare provision for single parents. You're far more concerned about blaming woman and feminism than about actually changing the system.

How about the old "not assuming people are guilty and requiring them to prove their innocence" thing? You OK with that too?

You understand that's not what happened here?

And maybe you should read my actually posts. I don't recall having blamed any of this on feminism.

Regardless of what causes it, I am capable of recognizing it as a failure of justice and due process.

 

[Togo]

No, again, I would welcome better legal aid, and a reform of the legal system to make it more process-driven and less based around confrontation. I'd also welcome a better use of various concepts from the English common-law system, such as proportionality and universal reasonableness criteria, that are not a feature of the US system, largely because they are seen as an attack on an individual's right to form contracts

However, you're not campaigning for court reform, nor for better welfare provision for single parents. You're far more concerned about blaming woman and feminism than about actually changing the system.

How about the old "not assuming people are guilty and requiring them to prove their innocence" thing? You OK with that too?

You understand that's not what happened here?

Well, that's the criminal standard of law, and this isn't a criminal case. He's been deemed liable for the support by failing to mention that he wasn't the child's father in 25 years of court cases. It's the same principle as having a time limit to register tax refunds, protest speeding tickets, and so on within a certain time limit. I don't like it as a legal principle, but it's nothing specific to child support, or to female judges.

And maybe you should read my actually posts. I don't recall having blamed any of this on feminism.

You blamed it on matriarchy, which you then defined as radical feminism. Hence:

Neither is it under radical feminism, aka matriarchy/

Regardless of what causes it, I am capable of recognizing it as a failure of justice and due process.

Excellent. So do I. When you've quite frothing about woman and feminism, then we might be able to see about sorting out a change in the law. Until then, I'd really rather not have your support.

 

[dismal]

Well, that's the criminal standard of law, and this isn't a criminal case. He's been deemed liable for the support by failing to mention that he wasn't the child's father in 25 years of court cases. It's the same principle as having a time limit to register tax refunds, protest speeding tickets, and so on within a certain time limit. I don't like it as a legal principle, but it's nothing specific to child support, or to female judges.

Regardless of what you call it the government is jamming this guy for a large penalty for something that he didn't do.

And they are still doing it even after he proved he didn't do it.

And this is not an isolated case. See link I provided earlier.

You blamed it on matriarchy, which you then defined as radical feminism.

No, I didn't. Again I suggest you try reading what I wrote.

 

[NotBuyingTheBsAnymore]

This kind of story doesn't surprise me. As the marriage strike continues to accelerate, you're going to see more and more underhanded things like this come up. More and more feminist, emasculating women are judges now, but the female judges are nothing compared to the emasculating white knights and chivalrous men.

Feminism inadvertently freed men from their traditional male roles. Now, men aren't forced to provide for and protect women. Because of this, women are going to get more and more desperate in terms of how they transfer men's wealth to themselves. As more and more women enter the military - fewer and fewer men's lives will have to be sacrificed for women's rights. Women cast off their traditional roles and now men have done the same. Hope no one's surprised.

Marriage for men has always been slavery. Marriage is nothing more than a gynocentric trap in which men are destroyed. Society shamed men into providing for and protecting women and "her" children. In days past, a man that didn't have a wife had difficulty finding employment and one that didn't provide for a woman's children was deemed defective. Men were also sent to war to fight and die for their rights - rights that were given to women without any cost. Men that didn't go to war were branded cowards - by both men and women. These things are still somewhat true today, but more and more, men are standing up to this misandry and male disposability. Marriage, for all intensive purposes, has always been about the exchange of sex by women for provision and protection by men. To a large extent, society still enforces these roles.

In the past 40+ years, in the US alone, tens upon tens of millions of men have been destroyed through marriage. As a result, hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of those men have committed suicide. This is the real reason for the decline in marriage. All across the globe, men are waking up and opting out.

Because of the above, we are moving toward a more equal society in which one gender isn't forced to sacrifice themselves for the other. To continue this trend, white knights and chivalrous men must be removed from the male ranks. These are the men that will gladly throw other men under the bus to gain favor with the gynocracy. White knights and chivilrous men pander to the gynocracy and look down on men that stand up for themselves. These men are relics of dark days past (for men) and need to be called out and removed from any gender equalized society.

 

[Rhea]

^^ That's funnyful, right there.

 

[ksen]

I like derec's new sock.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I lost a long post and don't have time to re-create. Two salient points:

1. Derec would go much further in supporting his case if he didn't claim that all instances of (perceived by him) injustice where (in his opinion) a woman is favored over a man are examples of matriarchy or some vast feminazi consipiracy. Surely he has access to a good online dictionary and online sociology and history sources that could explain the difference. The fact that he does not make use of better reasoning undermines his points and makes it seem as though he cares less about justice or even his point and more about the axe he has ground to a stump.

2. Re: Male only non-athletic scholarships. Try this thing called 'the internet.' You mention it above so I think you are familiar. I did a simple search for male only scholarships and found multiple (legitimate) sites. Also Boy Scouts of America. There are even scholarships for men to encourage them to go into non-traditionally male careers such as nursing. Google or even Foxfire will do fine in locating such.

He does go way too far and assumes everything that is unfavorable for a man is sexual discrimination. That doesn't mean there aren't real issues.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

2) The judge rules against the man for abusing the legal process through 25 years of court appearances in which he didn't declare he wasn't the father. This may well have been the result of crappy legal advice, but that doesn't make the ruling incorrect. It just means there is a very different problem around legal aid, and the legal system's treatment of the poor or ignorant.

3) The reason why he is guilty is because people in the past have insisted that taxpayers should not have to pay child support for single mothers, and so the focus has been put on tracking the absent father. Going 25 years without mentioning that you're not the father, and then using that as a reason to not pay the past money, would allow a loophole whereby the taxpayer could end up paying every time, just by identifying the wrong person.

Didn't tell the court he wasn't the father? That's not the impression I got--it sounded like he was telling everyone that he was in jail at the time and couldn't be the father. The problem is our legal system is very formalized, it's focused on procedure, not facts.

He could tell the court that he wasn't the father until the sun grows old and no judge would listen because the court had already found him to be the father and you don't get two bites at the apple. Rather, what he needed to do (and failed to due to a lack of knowledge + poor representation) was challenge the original determination based on bad service.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If your argument is that there should be more and better birth control options for men, I agree and so does every woman I know. Why have not men, who have been the ones who have been guiding, funding and carrying out most of the research not done a better job of finding better options for men?

Perhaps because it is medically not feasible? Women have their monthly cycle, i.e. they have a built in fertile/not-fertile periods which can be manipulated relatively simply with hormones. Men are always fertile and don't have a natural fertile/not-fertile cycle that can be exploited. They also do not have a uterus where you can put a foreign body (IUD) to prevent pregnancy.

It's not the monthly cycle that's being exploited so much as the pregnant/not-pregnant system that's being exploited. Hormonal contraceptives are based on telling the body "we're pregnant, don't try to make a baby".

 

[credoconsolans]

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.

We were talking in general, not this specific case.

 

[NotBuyingTheBsAnymore]

A middle aged man in the US married a twenty year old mail order bride from an impoverished country. He paid all of her bills, paid for all of her travel, paid for a huge wedding, paid for her college, etc. A year into the marriage, his then new bride started an affair with a wealthy, young, handsome man. The husband found letters that detailed her plans to run off with the other man once she obtained her citizenship. Upon finding out about the affair, the husband put a lock down on her personal life. He began spying on all of her personal communications and kept track of her whereabouts down to the minute. When he discovered that his new wife was continuing with the affair, he filed for divorce and had her deported. Of course, his now ex-wife was devastated. Most of her female, American friends ganged up on her former husband calling him a controlling, jealous, insecure and monstrous person for destroying this woman's dreams and future.

Now, depending upon what camp you're in (white knight/matriarch vs reality), some might agree with the husband and some might agree with those that despised him. See the point here? The guy was an idiot for ordering a bride from another country. Who doesn't know in this day an age how men with mail order brides end up? Any man stupid enough to do this deserves whatever he gets. Mail order brides are a scam foreign women use to gain American citizenship. Duh! On the other hand, this woman was one manipulative, greedy, ho-bag that was willing to take severe advantage of an extremely naive, delusional moron. She was exchanging sex for money and American citizenship.

You will never win with those that think with a gynocentric and/or white knight mindset. These people's view of life and the world is so twisted that no amount of reason can penetrate. The argument will span hundreds of pages because those that abuse the system to transfer wealth from men to women don't care how badly they damage the guy's life. Why? Patriarchy! In a lot of people's minds, the guy will always be disposable and his disposability will always be justifiable - especially if it's a straight, white man.

 

[Ford]

You will never win with those that think with a gynocentric and/or white knight mindset. These people's view of life and the world is so twisted that no amount of reason can penetrate. The argument will span hundreds of pages because those that abuse the system to transfer wealth from men to women don't care how badly they damage the guy's life. Why? Patriarchy! In a lot of people's minds, the guy will always be disposable and his disposability will always be justifiable - especially if it's a straight, white man.

Well we've heard from the He-Man Women-Haters Club.


Of course this begs the question of whether it is a club if only one person is a member...

 

[Derec]

Well we've heard from the He-Man Women-Haters Club.

I guess to the feminist Left anybody disagreeing with the "we live in an evil patriarchy and thus must actively discriminate against men to compensate" doctrine (by for example making them pay for children not theirs) is a misogynist and a woman hater.

Of course this begs the question of whether it is a club if only one person is a member...

Well if you deliberately misquote people you might get that impression. Of course, that would be the same as if I labeled your post as coming from Toni or RavenSky or something.

 

[laughing dog]

I guess to the feminist Left anybody disagreeing with the "we live in an evil patriarchy and thus must actively discriminate against men to compensate" doctrine (by for example making them pay for children not theirs) is a misogynist and a woman hater.

I think your guess is off-mark. I suspect most rational people who see that claim wonder what planet the speaker or writer is on.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I guess to the feminist Left anybody disagreeing with the "we live in an evil patriarchy and thus must actively discriminate against men to compensate" doctrine (by for example making them pay for children not theirs) is a misogynist and a woman hater.

Close... If you are a misogynist and woman hater... you are a misogynist and woman hater.

Now decorum keeps people from calling others names here. So it is important to remember that if a poster here has for years, posted about rape and calling potential rape victims liars, harping endlessly about how the US is a matriarchy and, as a rule, men are the victims of women, constantly referring to -gates and women destroying the world that most of us have never heard of, sometimes even in completely unrelated threads... that doesn't mean we can call them a misogynist.

 

[Ford]

I guess to the feminist Left anybody disagreeing with the "we live in an evil patriarchy and thus must actively discriminate against men to compensate" doctrine (by for example making them pay for children not theirs) is a misogynist and a woman hater.

I think your guess is off-mark. I suspect most rational people who see that claim wonder what planet the speaker or writer is on.

Apparently the same planet where Christians in America are a persecuted minority and victims of the "secular left."

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I guess to the feminist Left anybody disagreeing with the "we live in an evil patriarchy and thus must actively discriminate against men to compensate" doctrine (by for example making them pay for children not theirs) is a misogynist and a woman hater.

Close... If you are a misogynist and woman hater... you are a misogynist and woman hater.

Now decorum keeps people from calling others names here. So it is important to remember that if a poster here has for years, posted about rape and calling potential rape victims liars, harping endlessly about how the US is a matriarchy and, as a rule, men are the victims of women, constantly referring to -gates and women destroying the world that most of us have never heard of, sometimes even in completely unrelated threads... that doesn't mean we can call them a misogynist.

QFT

 

[dismal]

I think your guess is off-mark. I suspect most rational people who see that claim wonder what planet the speaker or writer is on.

Apparently the same planet where Christians in America are a persecuted minority and victims of the "secular left."

Meanwhile, back in the case this thread is discussing the victim is a poor black guy who was assumed to be guilty of something he didn't do, unable to afford legal counsel to navigate the complicated process he faced, and required to pay a large penalty even after he had proved himself innocent.

if the left stands up for its principles any better soon they'll be calling for him to get the chair.

 

[Derec]

I guess to the feminist Left anybody disagreeing with the "we live in an evil patriarchy and thus must actively discriminate against men to compensate" doctrine (by for example making them pay for children not theirs) is a misogynist and a woman hater.

Close... If you are a misogynist and woman hater... you are a misogynist and woman hater.

Now decorum keeps people from calling others names here. So it is important to remember that if a poster here has for years, posted about rape and calling potential rape victims liars, harping endlessly about how the US is a matriarchy and, as a rule, men are the victims of women, constantly referring to -gates and women destroying the world that most of us have never heard of, sometimes even in completely unrelated threads... that doesn't mean we can call them a misogynist.

So I guess you neither have much decorum nor very good powers of recollection.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Close... If you are a misogynist and woman hater... you are a misogynist and woman hater.

Now decorum keeps people from calling others names here. So it is important to remember that if a poster here has for years, posted about rape and calling potential rape victims liars, harping endlessly about how the US is a matriarchy and, as a rule, men are the victims of women, constantly referring to -gates and women destroying the world that most of us have never heard of, sometimes even in completely unrelated threads... that doesn't mean we can call them a misogynist.

So I guess you neither have much decorum nor very good powers of recollection.

No... just a hefty optometrist bill caused by all the eye rolling stemming from Derec's posts about his hobby horse.