Matriarchy at work

[Ford]

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.

The case this thread is (or was) discussing was used to prop up an utterly absurd notion that this country is a matriarchy where men are being systematically victimized by a dictatorship of the vaginatariat.

It is SOP for the OP...find a case where it appears men are being treated unfairly and use it to paint all men as an oppressed class. Apparently some people never learned to "take it like a man."

 

[Derec]

The case this thread is (or was) discussing was used to prop up an utterly absurd notion that this country is a matriarchy where men are being systematically victimized by a dictatorship of the vaginatariat.

The case is pointing one instance where men as a whole are being discriminated against - issues concerning child support. Same goes for other issues I have listed in this thread. Those are very real and not "utterly absurd" and you engaging in mindless exaggeration ("dictatorship of the vaginariat") rather than engaging with areas where women are given preferential treatment (by law or custom or both) is par for the course.

I used the word "matriarchy" as a riff on feminists using the term "patriarchy" to rail against anything they dislike about society, usually much more trivial than the issues than being forced to pay for a child that is not yours. But I have not seen you ridiculing those feminists as being "utterly absurd" for imagining that the US is some sort of "dictatorship of the dicktariat".
But such double standards are to be expected from the Left.

It is SOP for the OP...find a case where it appears men are being treated unfairly and use it to paint all men as an oppressed class. Apparently some people never learned to "take it like a man."

And here it is. Discrimination against men is not something to be combated as far as feminists are concerned. No, men have to learn to "take [sexist discrimination] like a man". The goal, in other words, is not gender equality but maintaining all the legal and social advantages women enjoy in this country simply by virtue of their gender by painting any man who dares to protest as somehow less of a man for not taking it lying down.

 

[Togo]

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.

Yes you did, which is why I provided a quote showing that you wrote exactly that. (See post 82.)

Didn't tell the court he wasn't the father? That's not the impression I got

It's mentioned in the article cited. You have to read all the way to the end though.

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.

The defendent says otherwise. He says he wanted to bring it up, but was advised not to, and has since discovered that he could have done. Again, it's worth reading the primary source. The impression I get was that this was poor legal advice, but that doesn't fit with the narrative, which is about woman being evil.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The case is pointing one instance where men as a whole are being discriminated against - issues concerning child support.

Prove it. Prove that more men than not are being discriminated against in family court, that the discrimination is historic and systemic and that women developed, built, and executed said system across time and space for the benefit of women.

Otherwise your title and premise are false.

We will wait.

 

[Derec]

The case is pointing one instance where men as a whole are being discriminated against - issues concerning child support.

Prove it. Prove that more men than not are being discriminated against in family court, that the discrimination is historic and systemic and that women developed, built, and executed said system across time and space for the benefit of women.

Otherwise your title and premise are false.

We will wait.

There are zero women who have been forced to pay child support for children that are not theirs. Zero. That's because the laws do not allow men to name random women as mothers and then expects those women to prove they are not.
The law also allows men who fall back on child support to be put in prison.
Also according to Census, women are much more likely to be awarded custody and when they do have custody much more likely to be awarded child support (55%) than custodial fathers (30%). Why this large discrepancy (almost twice as likely to get awarded child support when having custody) other than sexism by family courts?

 

[dismal]

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.

The case this thread is (or was) discussing was used to prop up an utterly absurd notion that this country is a matriarchy where men are being systematically victimized by a dictatorship of the vaginatariat.

It is SOP for the OP...find a case where it appears men are being treated unfairly and use it to paint all men as an oppressed class. Apparently some people never learned to "take it like a man."

So it's not people's fault they have abandoned principles they allegedly hold like "justice" and "due process" because Derec lulled them into doing it by using the word Matriarchy?

 

[Togo]

The case this thread is (or was) discussing was used to prop up an utterly absurd notion that this country is a matriarchy where men are being systematically victimized by a dictatorship of the vaginatariat.

It is SOP for the OP...find a case where it appears men are being treated unfairly and use it to paint all men as an oppressed class. Apparently some people never learned to "take it like a man."

So it's not people's fault they have abandoned principles they allegedly hold like "justice" and "due process" because Derec lulled them into doing it by using the word Matriarchy?

Can you point to a specific example? I feel that most posters have been quite clear.

 

[Derec]

Can you point to a specific example? I feel that most posters have been quite clear.

Yes. For example Ford was very clear that he thinks men should respond to sexist injustice against them by "taking it like a man".

 

[dismal]

So it's not people's fault they have abandoned principles they allegedly hold like "justice" and "due process" because Derec lulled them into doing it by using the word Matriarchy?

Can you point to a specific example? I feel that most posters have been quite clear.

You didn't notice that there was a fair amount of blaming this guy and lack of sympathy for the injustice heaped upon him that went on in the thread? A quick review took me as long as getting to posts #2 and #3 to find it.

 

[NotBuyingTheBsAnymore]

The case is pointing one instance where men as a whole are being discriminated against - issues concerning child support.

Prove it. Prove that more men than not are being discriminated against in family court, that the discrimination is historic and systemic and that women developed, built, and executed said system across time and space for the benefit of women.

Otherwise your title and premise are false.

We will wait.

There is nothing more damaging to the vast majority of men than white knight/chivalrous men. These men are naive fools. Men in power will gladly throw the majority of men under the bus to gain favor with the gynocracy, to keep their jobs (get re-elected) and to maintain the status quo. Alimony, child support and default maternal custody are constructs of men and constructs of a time when women could not support themselves financially. It was mandated by society that men be providers and protectors of their families, just like women were mandated by society to be homemakers and caregivers. Alimony and child support have been severely abused since the advent of women's lib. The patriarchal structure was designed to benefit women and those men at the top - and to make the majority of men disposable.

Many women are sternly against the end of alimony and child support, while few are all for it. Prominent women's group staunchly oppose the end to either. That women didn't initially create the patriarchal structure doesn't mean they didn't milk it for all it was worth. Feminists and anti-feminists are two sides of the same coin. Each hopes to hold onto the aspects of the patriarchy that benefit them the most while eschewing the aspects of the patriarchy that benefit them the least.

A feminist argument against mandatory child support...
https://www.facebook.com/salon/posts/10151732980311519

Maternal Preference in 19th Century American Law
http://gynocentrism.com/2013/12/16/maternal-preference-in-19th-century-american-law/

MRAs, tradcons, feminists, anti-feminists, the gynocracy, the patriarchy, liberals, the matriarchy and white knights all work to fit men into whatever slave mold best suits their agenda. Each works in the best interests of women and against the best interests of men. As long as powerful men behave in a chivalrous, white knight manner, the majority of men will suffer. The majority of men have always been the oppressed class. Keep clear of white knights and the feminist boots they lick. As feminists gain more and more power, expect them to be even more oppressive towards men than the powerful patriarchs they replace. Expect statistics to become heavily falsified to benefit women in law and policies (see 1 in 5 and 'yes means yes').

The Disposable Male

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov58o2xJqu0

As women have the option of terminating the fetus regardless of the father's choice, I'm personally for giving men the option to opt out of child support. I am also of the opinion that alimony needs to be ended post haste. If you want a divorce, get off your @$$ and get a job. When one party walks away from the table, so should the other, both free and clear of any responsibilities to one another. What does that mean? It means you keep yourself employable and don't leech off the productive. Take responsibility for your own standard of living.

The judge in the case being discussed should have fined and jailed the women in question for fraud. It's not as if she forgot that she was sleeping with multiple men at the time of her pregnancy. You'd have to be living under a rock to not know that women are just as naturally promiscuous and capable of betrayal as any man. It wouldn't surprise me if most of today's women have far more sexual partners than most men. Paternity tests should be a mandatory part of child birth. In this way, no one has to be the bad guy.

This kind of coddling of women as children is an example of the patriarchal structure and the Victorian era. The same is true of 'yes means yes', AKA 'affirmative consent'. Feminists and anti-feminists are two sides of the same coin. Each hopes to hold onto the aspects of the patriarchy that benefit them the most while eschewing the aspects of the patriarchy that benefits them the least. Women are not sugar and spice and everything nice.

Queue claims of rabid misogyny in 5...4...3...2...

 

[thebeave]

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.

The case this thread is (or was) discussing was used to prop up an utterly absurd notion that this country is a matriarchy where men are being systematically victimized by a dictatorship of the vaginatariat.

It is SOP for the OP...find a case where it appears men are being treated unfairly and use it to paint all men as an oppressed class. Apparently some people never learned to "take it like a man."

I wonder if we can tell black people who have suffered an injustice to just "suck it up"?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Prove it. Prove that more men than not are being discriminated against in family court, that the discrimination is historic and systemic and that women developed, built, and executed said system across time and space for the benefit of women.

Otherwise your title and premise are false.

We will wait.

There are zero women who have been forced to pay child support for children that are not theirs. Zero. That's because the laws do not allow men to name random women as mothers and then expects those women to prove they are not.

Actually, it's because it is REALLY hard to make a false accusation of maternity stand up to anything resembling close scrutiny. If a woman claims she didn't give birth to a child someone else is raising, 99% of the time all she has to do is refer to her medical records. There are VERY few cases of a mother actually abandoning a child and then trying to deny ever having one, few enough that the child support issue just isn't represented at all.

Also according to Census, women are much more likely to be awarded custody and when they do have custody much more likely to be awarded child support (55%) than custodial fathers (30%). Why this large discrepancy (almost twice as likely to get awarded child support when having custody) other than sexism by family courts?

Because single fathers are less likely to ASK for child support. I strongly suspect that this is because the kind of men who would take custody of their girlfriend's children would also prefer to keep the girl too; not doing so either reflects a terminally broken relationship (in which case he'd just as soon walk away and never have to deal with her again) or a desire to eventually fix things (in which case suing her for child support is counter-productive). This happens often enough with women for the same reason.

The statistical difference probably results from the more frequent occurrence of women who give birth to children AFTER the father has already left the picture, either because they never had a committed relationship in the first place or because the relationship Titanic'd after (if not because) the mother became pregnant. The reverse case -- where a woman becomes pregnant and then walks out of the father/child's life before the child is even born -- is logically impossible with current technology.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The case this thread is (or was) discussing was used to prop up an utterly absurd notion that this country is a matriarchy where men are being systematically victimized by a dictatorship of the vaginatariat.

It is SOP for the OP...find a case where it appears men are being treated unfairly and use it to paint all men as an oppressed class. Apparently some people never learned to "take it like a man."

I wonder if we can tell black people who have suffered an injustice to just "suck it up"?

There have been several threads here suggesting exactly this.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Prove it. Prove that more men than not are being discriminated against in family court, that the discrimination is historic and systemic and that women developed, built, and executed said system across time and space for the benefit of women.

Otherwise your title and premise are false.

We will wait.

There are zero women who have been forced to pay child support for children that are not theirs.

Anyone who parents a child can be liable for child support, not just the biological parents. So, just as step-parents can be forced to pay support, so might grandparents who, with the intent of helping out their children, start parenting their grandchildren. Most grandparents don’t think that they may have to pay child support to their former in-laws just by “helping out.” But, this is something grandparents should think about.

Liability for child support is not based only on biology (or an adoption order). Natural (biological) and adoptive parents are always liable for child support for their children. However, anyone who assumes the role of a parent of a child also becomes liable for child support. If grandparents, stand in the place of a parent, meaning that you are more than just babysitters and take an active role in parenting the children, then the children’s parents can ask them to pay child support too.
http://www.devrylaw.ca/can-grandparents-be-forced-to-pay-child-support/

Zero.

You do realize that there are witnesses of the baby actually coming out of the woman's vagina? Your problem isn't with the law but human biology. Which makes you seem a little silly.

That's because the laws do not allow men to name random women as mothers and then expects those women to prove they are not.

And the gender of the people who wrote that law? And the reasoning behind these laws was to benefit women or cut social welfare costs or perhaps to ensure that the fathers of the women would not now be expected to support them? And how do these laws fit in with the entirety of society? See something like matriarchy would have to be pervasive throughout all of the culture, otherwise it is not matriarchy.

The law also allows men who fall back on child support to be put in prison.
Also according to Census, women are much more likely to be awarded custody and when they do have custody much more likely to be awarded child support (55%) than custodial fathers (30%). Why this large discrepancy (almost twice as likely to get awarded child support when having custody) other than sexism by family courts?

FAIL

 

[Ford]

The case is pointing one instance where men as a whole are being discriminated against -

It is SOP for the OP...find a case where it appears men are being treated unfairly and use it to paint all men as an oppressed class. Apparently some people never learned to "take it like a man."

And here it is. Discrimination against men is not something to be combated as far as feminists are concerned. No, men have to learn to "take [sexist discrimination] like a man". The goal, in other words, is not gender equality but maintaining all the legal and social advantages women enjoy in this country simply by virtue of their gender by painting any man who dares to protest as somehow less of a man for not taking it lying down.

Again, you've utterly failed to establish as fact that "men as a whole are being discriminated against." You pick a few instances and repeat them over and over again (Duke rape! Duke rape!) and tell yourself that you are part of a victimized minority.

You're not. You are (at least anatomically) a man. You're also (if I'm not mistaken) a white man. If you were a Christian you'd have the trifecta of privilege.

You aren't a victim of discrimination, Derec. Men aren't victims in general. You've found a few instances where the imperfect system made a mistake and have blown it way out of proportion in order to justify your feeling that you are somehow being treated poorly by society because of what's between your legs.

As for the phrase I used, I've always considered it to be synonymous with "act like an adult and not a child." A boy cries when his favorite toy gets taken away. A man deals with it like an adult.

You're acting like a boy. A child. Petulantly whining over cases which don't and will never affect you personally. Appropriating other people's misfortune and pretending it is your own isn't a very grown up thing to do.

 

[laughing dog]

The law also allows men who fall back on child support to be put in prison.

Can you produce any law that specifically uses gender-specific language that precludes putting women in prison for failing to pay child support?

Also according to Census, women are much more likely to be awarded custody and when they do have custody much more likely to be awarded child support (55%) than custodial fathers (30%). Why this large discrepancy (almost twice as likely to get awarded child support when having custody) other than sexism by family courts?

Since custodial mothers are much more likely to live in poverty than their male counterparts, the discrepancy in incomes may play a large factor. Unless you have some disinterested studies or data to support your claim, it appears to be the result of kneejerk emotion rather than rational analysis.

 

[Derec]

Can you produce any law that specifically uses gender-specific language that precludes putting women in prison for failing to pay child support?

That part is not due to letter of the law but due to sexist interpretation of holding deadbeat dads to a much higher standard than deadbeat moms. You are doing the same thing below!

Also according to Census, women are much more likely to be awarded custody and when they do have custody much more likely to be awarded child support (55%) than custodial fathers (30%). Why this large discrepancy (almost twice as likely to get awarded child support when having custody) other than sexism by family courts?

Since custodial mothers are much more likely to live in poverty than their male counterparts, the discrepancy in incomes may play a large factor. Unless you have some disinterested studies or data to support your claim, it appears to be the result of kneejerk emotion rather than rational analysis.

Just because a custodial father may not be living in poverty does not mean the non-custodial mother should not pay her fair share to take care of their child. Why are you in favor of mothers not paying their fair share?

 

[Derec]

Actually, it's because it is REALLY hard to make a false accusation of maternity stand up to anything resembling close scrutiny.

That's because close scrutiny is not required when falsely accusing somebody of paternity. A woman can name any man as the father and he has to prove his innocence.

If a woman claims she didn't give birth to a child someone else is raising, 99% of the time all she has to do is refer to her medical records. There are VERY few cases of a mother actually abandoning a child and then trying to deny ever having one, few enough that the child support issue just isn't represented at all.

Well the law doesn't allow the man to name any woman as the mother and then holds her liable even if she can prove she isn't the mother because of some technicality like happened here. =

Because single fathers are less likely to ASK for child support.

Citation needed.

I strongly suspect that this is because the kind of men who would take custody of their girlfriend's children would also prefer to keep the girl too; not doing so either reflects a terminally broken relationship (in which case he'd just as soon walk away and never have to deal with her again) or a desire to eventually fix things (in which case suing her for child support is counter-productive). This happens often enough with women for the same reason.

Custodial women are almost twice as likely to get awarded child support than custodial men. That is not right. Your claim that men do not ask for child support is mere speculation.

The statistical difference probably results from the more frequent occurrence of women who give birth to children AFTER the father has already left the picture, either because they never had a committed relationship in the first place or because the relationship Titanic'd after (if not because) the mother became pregnant. The reverse case -- where a woman becomes pregnant and then walks out of the father/child's life before the child is even born -- is logically impossible with current technology.

Ok, so she can't walk out in the first 9 months. She can definitely walk out in the following 18 years though and chances are if she does her husband will receive no child support from her because only 30% even get a child support order from the family court (while 55% of women get such an order) and only a fraction of those ever collect.
We need a more gender neutral approach to child support, not defenses of the sexist status quo.

 

[Derec]

Again, you've utterly failed to establish as fact that "men as a whole are being discriminated against."

I have listed many areas of society where men are discriminated against because of our gender. Just because you ignore it or think such discrimination is justified because of some misplaced desire to be a white-knight doesn't mean that I haven't established a pattern of discrimination.

You pick a few instances and repeat them over and over again (Duke rape! Duke rape!) and tell yourself that you are part of a victimized minority.

Duke Lacrosse is a very illustrative example given how quick the media, their university and many posters on FRDB were to crucify these innocent young men simply because they were white and male.

You're not. You are (at least anatomically) a man. You're also (if I'm not mistaken) a white man. If you were a Christian you'd have the trifecta of privilege.

The "white male privilege" is an article of faith on the Left and any evidence to the contrary is being ignored and anybody who challenges it is being attacked and/or ridiculed.

You aren't a victim of discrimination, Derec. Men aren't victims in general.

Tell that to the man passed over for admission or employment because of their gender. Or those discriminated against in family court. Or those wrongfully expelled because a woman decided to falsely accuse them of rape. Etc. Etc.

You've found a few instances where the imperfect system made a mistake and have blown it way out of proportion in order to justify your feeling that you are somehow being treated poorly by society because of what's between your legs.

There are areas of life where women are systemically privileged to men. You don't want to accept it because it conflicts with your ideological dogma of "white male privilege".

As for the phrase I used, I've always considered it to be synonymous with "act like an adult and not a child." A boy cries when his favorite toy gets taken away. A man deals with it like an adult.

Ignoring prejudice and discrimination (your strategy) is not dealing with it like an adult.

You're acting like a boy. A child. Petulantly whining over cases which don't and will never affect you personally. Appropriating other people's misfortune and pretending it is your own isn't a very grown up thing to do.

You are acting like there is no discrimination against men because it conflicts with prior ideological commitments. Also because you think adopting a radical feminist ideology will make it easier to get laid. And you are probably right on the second one. But then again, women who meekly accepted discrimination against them in the 19th century also had an easier time finding a mate. That doesn't make those injustices any more right.
The pendulum of gender relations has swung way too far in the other direction. If you want to act like an adult, you first must open your eyes.

 

[NotBuyingTheBsAnymore]

For those that wish to learn how oppressive a patriarchal structure is for men:

gynocentrism.com

For those that wish to learn how oppressive feminism can be towards men:

http://www.cotwa.info/

This one is my favorite. It exposes exactly how deep the rabbit hole of feminist lies goes:

https://www.facebook.com/ExposingFeminism