Matriarchy at work

[Crazy Eddie]

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.

Actually, all he has to do is deny the claim in a timely fashion. Failure to do so is basically to plead no contest to the court's decision. IF he still contests the claim, the court may order a paternity test performed, in which case the court is attempting to prove the veracity of the MOTHER'S claim against the father's defense.

On the other hand, a man who shows up with a baby and says "She's the mother!" is going to have a much steeper battle against the "No I'm not" defense, primarily because of simple biology: being pregnant for nine months is not normally something that can happen to a woman without there being some record of it.

Well the law doesn't allow the man to name any woman as the mother

Of course it does. He just never HAS to because she is ALWAYS named at the time of the child's birth (e.g. the birth certificate which at least one parent has to sign). This is the case even if she immediately gives the baby up for adoption and vanishes an hour later. You always know who the mother is because the hospital is REQUIRED to know and the state requires the hospitals to keep track of that sort of thing.

You are trivially correct that a man can't come to court with his child in hand and say "This birth certificate is false. Trina's not the mother, Lucy is." Not without ALOT of explaining and possibly exposing himself to fraud charges.

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.

Which, again, has many reasons for it, one of which is that single fathers are less likely to seek child support than single mothers. It's been pointed out by others that this is also partly because they are less likely to NEED it, and even your own outdated statistics reflect this.

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...

That's assuming that she is, in fact, married to the father of her child, in which case it's an issue of divorce litigation, which varies state by state and is a much thornier issue.

A narrow majority of child support cases actually involve children born to parents who are not and were never married, where custody arrangement is not a particularly complex issue except where it comes to visitation and parental rights. Divorce courts often do not ask parents to pay child support who have agreed to play an active role in their child's life in other ways, such as tutoring, helping with childcare or a regular visitation schedule.

Here again your own statistics shed some light on that: males are much more likely than females NOT to be involved in the lives of their children, especially when they were never married to the child's mother. That again goes to the fact that fathers who take custody of their girlfriend's children more often try to find a way to keep the mother involved in the child's life in lieu of child support.

We need a more gender neutral approach to child support

We also need a set of statistics from more recently than 1987.

 

[Rhea]

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.

This is hilarious.

I _have_ been passed over for employment (twice: "we do not hire women to lift boxes")
I _have_ been passed over for advancement because of gender (more than twice, even when I am objectively measure to produce more finished work in less time)
I _have_ been discriminated against in court (we aren't calling this a assault because the man claims he knew her)
I _have_ been assaulted in my own home, by a stranger with no legal action taken even though he took a fucking baseball bat to the cars in the driveway and there were witnesses to all of it because, well, he said he knew me (he didn't).


So for all your examples, derec, I say, "welcome to my world (and the world of most women and minorities) - it took you this fucking long to notice the injustice? Get in fucking line." Or better yet, wake up, help solve the injustice and stop your whining that you are the only victim in the room. Wake up. Help solve the whole problem and stop expecting all of the people already fighting this widespread problem to drop everything and come to your rescue first. There are people bleeding a lot harder and for a whole lot longer than you."\

That's what I have to tell to your examples. Welcome to my fucking club. What took you so long in noticing the decor? Wanh. Fucking Wanh. Pardon me while I keep working on what I was always working on. You gonna help the whole problem? Or are you still just looking out for number one?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Or because they know that asking for custody or child support is asking for abuse allegations.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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.

Or because they know that asking for custody or child support is asking for abuse allegations.

Even in family court -- which is a parody of due process on its best of days -- those allegations can't be substantiated without some corroborating evidence. And I'm sorry to have to say that a lot of the "false" accusations of spousal/child abuse heard in such cases aren't actually all that false. Exaggerated, certainly, but exaggeration is hard to prove in court.

Have we considered the fact that some men KNOW that women are more likely to get awarded custody and are, perhaps, COUNTING on it so they can potentially dodge their responsibilities there?

 

[NotBuyingTheBsAnymore]

If women are so oppressed by men in business, why don't women build their own businesses? I'd be the first to support male/female only businesses. I hate working with women.

If minorities are so oppressed in this country, why don't they go back to their countries of origin? They'd have it so much better there, right? Can't blame the majority after that, right?

If women are so afraid of men on college campuses, why don't they build their own schools? I'd be the first to support male/female only campuses. Men were much better off when they had their own campuses, free of women. I'm sure women would feel the same way.

Why aren't there more women fighting for their rights on the front lines in war? Wouldn't women's arguments make more sense if the rights they have weren't handed to them by men? We should have male only/female only regiments, battalions, etc. In this way, there's no room for sexual harassment or rape.

When you drive down the road, how much of what you see was built by women? Women should really start building more things. Isn't it strange that women build close to nothing in this world?

When white men and women travel to some countries American minorities migrated from, aren't they generally kidnapped, raped and or murdered? I wonder why that is? As we all know, whites are treated oh so special in these nations.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If women are so oppressed by men in business, why don't women build their own businesses?

They do. Doesn't change the fact that they are oppressed by men in businesses.

I'd be the first to support male/female only businesses. I hate working with women.

I suspect the feeling is mutual.

If minorities are so oppressed in this country, why don't they go back to their countries of origin?

Assuming you're referring to ETHINC minorities? Because for most of them, their country of origin is the United States of America.

For that matter, what exactly is the "country of origin" for homosexuals? Greece, maybe?

Why aren't there more women fighting for their rights on the front lines in war?

Because "the front lines of war" is a precarious place to be fighting for ones' own rights.

When you drive down the road, how much of what you see was built by women?

Depends on the road.

When white men and women travel to some countries American minorities migrated from, aren't they generally kidnapped, raped and or murdered?

Generally, yes. I suppose that's probably why all those minorities are always emigrating to America from the boondocks of Rapestan, Murderania and of course, Greece.

 

[NotBuyingTheBsAnymore]

They do. Doesn't change the fact that they are oppressed by men in businesses.

I'd be the first to support male/female only businesses. I hate working with women.

I suspect the feeling is mutual.

If minorities are so oppressed in this country, why don't they go back to their countries of origin?

Assuming you're referring to ETHINC minorities? Because for most of them, their country of origin is the United States of America.

For that matter, what exactly is the "country of origin" for homosexuals? Greece, maybe?

Why aren't there more women fighting for their rights on the front lines in war?

Because "the front lines of war" is a precarious place to be fighting for ones' own rights.

When you drive down the road, how much of what you see was built by women?

Depends on the road.

When white men and women travel to some countries American minorities migrated from, aren't they generally kidnapped, raped and or murdered?

Generally, yes. I suppose that's probably why all those minorities are always emigrating to America from the boondocks of Rapestan, Murderania and of course, Greece.

So you're saying that men wouldn't be discriminated against in female dominated businesses? Women are the majority in college now - and you don't see the discrimination yet? You're saying that countries dominated by other races don't discriminate against whites? You don't think gays would discriminate against heterosexuals if gays were the majority? You don't think that women should fight equally on the front lines - given that men and women are equal?

See, the difference between your view of the world and mine is that mine deals with reality and yours doesn't. Nice objectifying pic.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

In other words, this is your interpretation of reality, not actual reality.

You are doing the same thing below!

Wrong again.

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.

You asked where the any other explanations other than sexism. I gave a possible explanation. It is certainly is at least as reasonable as your conclusion and certainly more on point that your response.

Why are you in favor of mothers not paying their fair share?

For the same reason you have not stopped beating your wife.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

So you're saying that men wouldn't be discriminated against in female dominated businesses?

Depends on the female. Depends on the business.

In general, though, I would say men are less likely to be discriminated against in female-dominated businesses than women in male-dominated businesses.

Women are the majority in college now - and you don't see the discrimination yet?

I see that freshmen college girls are apparently having a lot more sex than freshmen boys, and also seeing that college girls in general are FAR more likely to be involved in groupsex with sports teams than boys. In many cases, they're getting sex without even having to ask for it!

How come upperclassmen college girls aren't aggressively giving free sex to freshmen boys? That DOES seem pretty discriminatory. And even outside of colleges... I keep seeing statistics that say the overwhelming majority of rape cases that involve both a man and a woman usually name the MALE as a perpetrator and the woman as a victim. It's a damn discriminatory society we live in where women refuse to rape men.

You're saying that countries dominated by other races don't discriminate against whites?

I'm tempted to answer that they DO, but I can't think of a country where this is actually the case. Except for Japan and to a lesser extent China.

You don't think gays would discriminate against heterosexuals if gays were the majority?

Spend three hours in a gay bar and then come back and ask me that question.

You don't think that women should fight equally on the front lines - given that men and women are equal?

In many countries, they already DO. America is fairly unique in lagging behind in this realization.

See, the difference between your view of the world and mine is that mine deals with reality and yours doesn't.

The "reality" that white people are being generally raped and murdered whenever they travel abroad?

Something tells me you've never actually left the country.

 

[Draconis]

Some starkly polarised views on here, with examples open to interpretation. True equality is going to take some time methinks. And probably all groups are going to have to let go of some rights they previously took for granted.

Apologies for being annoyingly neutral.

 

[NotBuyingTheBsAnymore]

Depends on the female. Depends on the business.

In general, though, I would say men are less likely to be discriminated against in female-dominated businesses than women in male-dominated businesses.

Women are the majority in college now - and you don't see the discrimination yet?

I see that freshmen college girls are apparently having a lot more sex than freshmen boys, and also seeing that college girls in general are FAR more likely to be involved in groupsex with sports teams than boys. In many cases, they're getting sex without even having to ask for it!

How come upperclassmen college girls aren't aggressively giving free sex to freshmen boys? That DOES seem pretty discriminatory. And even outside of colleges... I keep seeing statistics that say the overwhelming majority of rape cases that involve both a man and a woman usually name the MALE as a perpetrator and the woman as a victim. It's a damn discriminatory society we live in where women refuse to rape men.

You're saying that countries dominated by other races don't discriminate against whites?

I'm tempted to answer that they DO, but I can't think of a country where this is actually the case. Except for Japan and to a lesser extent China.

You don't think gays would discriminate against heterosexuals if gays were the majority?

Spend three hours in a gay bar and then come back and ask me that question.

You don't think that women should fight equally on the front lines - given that men and women are equal?

In many countries, they already DO. America is fairly unique in lagging behind in this realization.

See, the difference between your view of the world and mine is that mine deals with reality and yours doesn't.

The "reality" that white people are being generally raped and murdered whenever they travel abroad?

Something tells me you've never actually left the country.

Alerts and Warnings, US Department of State:

http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/alertswarnings.html

Looks like I'm not the one with the lack of travel experience, sport.

Why do you even bother to reply? You know I'm right - you just don't want to admit the truth. The whole point of this thread is that some guy is being forced to pay child support for a child that isn't his? Under what circumstances should that ever be the case - regardless of his actions? That's discrimination against a man because he's a man. The woman in this scenario should be locked up for fraud. She knew she was sleeping with multiple men and should have pointed that out from the beginning. Under no circumstances should a man ever be forced to pay for a child that is not his, period. That she didn't make her promiscuity clear up front caused a lot of problems and perverted the course of justice. Her failure to disclose this fact is fraud and she should be prosecuted and locked up. All the other arguments here are patriarchal BS or feminist BS. No man, by law, should ever be made to pay for a child that isn't his. Are women ever made to pay for children that aren't theirs? If so, then that should be illegal as well.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Depends on the female. Depends on the business.

In general, though, I would say men are less likely to be discriminated against in female-dominated businesses than women in male-dominated businesses.


I see that freshmen college girls are apparently having a lot more sex than freshmen boys, and also seeing that college girls in general are FAR more likely to be involved in groupsex with sports teams than boys. In many cases, they're getting sex without even having to ask for it!

How come upperclassmen college girls aren't aggressively giving free sex to freshmen boys? That DOES seem pretty discriminatory. And even outside of colleges... I keep seeing statistics that say the overwhelming majority of rape cases that involve both a man and a woman usually name the MALE as a perpetrator and the woman as a victim. It's a damn discriminatory society we live in where women refuse to rape men.

You're saying that countries dominated by other races don't discriminate against whites?

I'm tempted to answer that they DO, but I can't think of a country where this is actually the case. Except for Japan and to a lesser extent China.

You don't think gays would discriminate against heterosexuals if gays were the majority?

Spend three hours in a gay bar and then come back and ask me that question.

You don't think that women should fight equally on the front lines - given that men and women are equal?

In many countries, they already DO. America is fairly unique in lagging behind in this realization.

See, the difference between your view of the world and mine is that mine deals with reality and yours doesn't.

The "reality" that white people are being generally raped and murdered whenever they travel abroad?

Something tells me you've never actually left the country.

Alerts and Warnings, US Department of State:

http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/alertswarnings.html

Looks like I'm not the one with the lack of travel experience, sport.

Yes, I see you have a great deal of experience traveling across the internet. You've even been to the State Department's website! That's impressive. (was the airfare cheap?)

Why do you even bother to reply?

Because I find you amusing. And it is just a matter of time before you skitter off into the sunset with the rest of the trolls.

I'm intrigued and puzzled by what it is you think you are right ABOUT. You seem to be on board with Derec in the belief that white anglo saxon christian males are the best thing that ever happened to the world and yet are being oppressed by everyone else because vagina. I'm sure it feels great to be right all the time, but you're not coming off as being particularly thoughtful.

No man, by law, should ever be made to pay for a child that isn't his.

The law pretty clearly states that a man can and will be made to pay child support if he assumes responsibility for that child, whether the child is his or not. Grandparents, adoptive parents, uncles, cousins, etc. When you agree to assume the legal responsibilities as a parent, the State will hold you to those responsibilities.

The tragedy is that the man in this case got some absolutely DREADFUL legal advice from a shitass attorney that was probably trying to clear his caseload faster and didn't feel like dealing with the paperwork. There are too many court-appointed lawyers who think they are procedurally savvy but wind up leaving their clients twisting in the wind.

Of course, if you're arguing about what SHOULD happen, that's another question entirely.

 

[NotBuyingTheBsAnymore]

Depends on the female. Depends on the business.

In general, though, I would say men are less likely to be discriminated against in female-dominated businesses than women in male-dominated businesses.


I see that freshmen college girls are apparently having a lot more sex than freshmen boys, and also seeing that college girls in general are FAR more likely to be involved in groupsex with sports teams than boys. In many cases, they're getting sex without even having to ask for it!

How come upperclassmen college girls aren't aggressively giving free sex to freshmen boys? That DOES seem pretty discriminatory. And even outside of colleges... I keep seeing statistics that say the overwhelming majority of rape cases that involve both a man and a woman usually name the MALE as a perpetrator and the woman as a victim. It's a damn discriminatory society we live in where women refuse to rape men.

You're saying that countries dominated by other races don't discriminate against whites?

I'm tempted to answer that they DO, but I can't think of a country where this is actually the case. Except for Japan and to a lesser extent China.

You don't think gays would discriminate against heterosexuals if gays were the majority?

Spend three hours in a gay bar and then come back and ask me that question.

You don't think that women should fight equally on the front lines - given that men and women are equal?

In many countries, they already DO. America is fairly unique in lagging behind in this realization.

See, the difference between your view of the world and mine is that mine deals with reality and yours doesn't.

The "reality" that white people are being generally raped and murdered whenever they travel abroad?

Something tells me you've never actually left the country.

Alerts and Warnings, US Department of State:

http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/alertswarnings.html

Looks like I'm not the one with the lack of travel experience, sport.

Yes, I see you have a great deal of experience traveling across the internet. You've even been to the State Department's website! That's impressive. (was the airfare cheap?)

Why do you even bother to reply?

Because I find you amusing. And it is just a matter of time before you skitter off into the sunset with the rest of the trolls.

I'm intrigued and puzzled by what it is you think you are right ABOUT. You seem to be on board with Derec in the belief that white anglo saxon christian males are the best thing that ever happened to the world and yet are being oppressed by everyone else because vagina. I'm sure it feels great to be right all the time, but you're not coming off as being particularly thoughtful.

No man, by law, should ever be made to pay for a child that isn't his.

The law pretty clearly states that a man can and will be made to pay child support if he assumes responsibility for that child, whether the child is his or not. Grandparents, adoptive parents, uncles, cousins, etc. When you agree to assume the legal responsibilities as a parent, the State will hold you to those responsibilities.

The tragedy is that the man in this case got some absolutely DREADFUL legal advice from a shitass attorney that was probably trying to clear his caseload faster and didn't feel like dealing with the paperwork. There are too many court-appointed lawyers who think they are procedurally savvy but wind up leaving their clients twisting in the wind.

Of course, if you're arguing about what SHOULD happen, that's another question entirely.

Of course I'm arguing about what should happen. All of my arguments have been made based on what should be. We all already know that the laws are skewed against men and in the favor of women - because vagina and patriarchy.

I don't care what the law says. A law that says a man should have to pay for a child that isn't his is a perverted law, period. That the law says he should doesn't make the law right - it just makes it a biased law against men. What else is new?

"You seem to be on board with Derec in the belief that white anglo saxon christian males are the best thing that ever happened to the world and yet are being oppressed by everyone else because vagina. I'm sure it feels great to be right all the time, but you're not coming off as being particularly thoughtful."

Yeah - because feminists and minorities are oh so thoughtful when it comes to straight, white, christian males without vaginas. Read your post again. You can't see your own hypocrisy, can you? That's just another example of how intellectually dishonest you are. You can be as blunt as you want, but woe and castigation upon the white, straight, christian male that stands up for himself. You can't see past your own BS.

Any intellectually honest person would agree with my posts. A minority, gay, feminist, patriarch, matriarch, MRA, tradcon, liberal or otherwise is going to object to my posts based on whatever part of their agenda my post violates.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course I'm arguing about what should happen. All of my arguments have been made based on what should be.

No, your "arguments" are based on what you think should be.

We all already know that the laws are skewed against men and in the favor of women - because vagina and patriarchy.

You must be using the royal "we", because the rest of use do not necessarily know what you claim.

I don't care what the law says. A law that says a man should have to pay for a child that isn't his is a perverted law, period.

That is your definition of perverted law. Perhaps it is not shared by others.

That the law says he should doesn't make the law right - it just makes it a biased law against men.

It is true that the statement of a law does not, in and of itself, make the statement or consequence morally just or right. But in this case, it does not make it biased against men unless the law specifically excludes women from its scope. Do you have any evidence that is true?

Any intellectually honest person would agree with my posts. A minority, gay, feminist, patriarch, matriarch, MRA, tradcon, liberal or otherwise is going to object to my posts based on whatever part of their agenda my post violates.

Given the tone and lack of actual content in your posts, I would argue that any intellectually honest person would shake her/his head in dismay.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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/

This is true, and absolutely ridiculous. It basically punishes you for trying to be helpful, and puts a major barrier in the way of a single parent's dating life. Why in the world should this be so? Why is the system so in favor of taxpayers here, to the point of robbing for them, and yet screwing over taxpayers elsewhere?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Any intellectually honest person would agree with my posts. A minority, gay, feminist, patriarch, matriarch, MRA, tradcon, liberal or otherwise is going to object to my posts based on whatever part of their agenda my post violates.

You had one poignant and well presented post with some good points in it, at the end of page 11 in this thread. The post that nobody responded to. Then you went on to jump the shark and make some blatantly over the top racist and misogynistic posts that people did respond to. You need to learn to quit while you're ahead. It is almost liked you trolled them with logic and reason to see if they bits, and then you went for the more obvious troll bait when they didn't. They've still failed to address your valid points, so why not use that instead of telling minorities (who are mostly born here) to "go home"?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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/

This is true, and absolutely ridiculous. It basically punishes you for trying to be helpful, and puts a major barrier in the way of a single parent's dating life. Why in the world should this be so? Why is the system so in favor of taxpayers here, to the point of robbing for them, and yet screwing over taxpayers elsewhere?

I agree. But, unlike lawmakers and their constituents, I don't have problem with the welfare state nor do i wish to punish people for having children or having sex.

 

[Ford]

You are acting like there is no discrimination against men because it conflicts with prior ideological commitments.

No, I think that men are not systematically discriminated against. There are some instances (like the OP) where it would appear that an individual man may have been treated unfairly, but that (again) doesn't mean all men are discriminated against, nor are they the hapless victims you make them out to be.

Now this one is probably going to make your head spin, but you know what? I was passed over for a promotion once because I was male. I was more qualified, had been with the company longer, was next in line to be promoted, but because the position in question had been previously held by a woman, management decided to fill it with another one.

Will you come to my defense now, oh white knight of manhood Derec? Am I now your brother in the struggle against the evil matriarchy because I was victimized by a society hell-bent on destroying men?

No, please don't. The people who made the decision were men. Plus unlike you I don't whine and cry when I'm treated perhaps unfairly. I take it like a man.

Also because you think adopting a radical feminist ideology will make it easier to get laid.

I'm wondering...do you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being a radical feminist? Because that seems to be the pattern here. Just because I don't buy into your bullshit notions of male victimhood (and again unlike you I've actually been discriminated against) doesn't mean I'm a bra-burning, Gloria Steinem-reading, gynocentric radical who wants to enslave men.

I just disagree with the fantasy world you've created for yourself.

Now here's some practical advice since you brought up the subject...if you want to make it easier to get laid, you've got to treat women with respect. Don't freak out about the fact that they want things like equal pay for equal work. Don't imagine they're all out to falsely accuse you of rape should you actually get past second base. You don't have to "adopt a radical feminist ideology," you've just got to stop being such a dick to women, stop being such a whiny little crybaby, and for god's sake don't let them read what you post here.

 

[Rhea]

Of course I'm arguing about what should happen. All of my arguments have been made based on what should be. We all already know that the laws are skewed against men and in the favor of women - because vagina and patriarchy.

I don't care what the law says. A law that says a man should have to pay for a child that isn't his is a perverted law, period. That the law says he should doesn't make the law right - it just makes it a biased law against men. What else is new?

Who made this perverted law? The majority woman congress? Approved by the majority woman Senate? Signed by the woman president? Upheld by the majority woman supreme court?

Let us know where this law came from. I think you're blaming the wrong group. Like, _completely_ the wrong group.

- - - Updated - - -

The tragedy is that the man in this case got some absolutely DREADFUL legal advice from a shitass attorney that was probably trying to clear his caseload faster and didn't feel like dealing with the paperwork. There are too many court-appointed lawyers who think they are procedurally savvy but wind up leaving their clients twisting in the wind.

Was that a female attorney? Who let this poor male down?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Of course I'm arguing about what should happen. All of my arguments have been made based on what should be.

So why should parents have to support children they are not raising in ANY form? And why should this NOT apply to people who are not the biological parents of those children? And why should the failure to accurately clarify ones' parental status in a timely fashion NOT have dire consequences both practical and procedural?

See, the question of "why should fathers have to pay for children that aren't theirs" is a trivial one, but it's not the question relevant to this case. Child support requirements exist for a REASON, and it's much more interesting to look at better ways of serving those reasons.

I don't care what the law says. A law that says a man should have to pay for a child that isn't his is a perverted law, period. That the law says he should doesn't make the law right - it just makes it a biased law against men. What else is new?

The law also says that a woman should have to pay for a child that isn't hers under certain circumstances. You are free to find fault with the circumstances that would cause that, but that only establishes that what "should" happen does not always reflect what "does" happen.

Yeah - because feminists and minorities are oh so thoughtful when it comes to straight, white, christian males without vaginas.

Yes. Generally, they are.

You, for example, are what I assume to be a straight white Christian male without a vagina; so far you have not been accused by anyone in this thread of being a sexist or a racist. Probably the harshest thing that's been said -- and then not even directly to you -- is that straight white males are adopting the "poor me!" attitude after experiencing minor adversities that are but gentle shadows of the kinds of discrimination and oppression minorities have been dealing with for DECADES.

Any intellectually honest person would agree with my posts.

Unless the CONTENT of the posts were factually wrong or nonsensical, which they are.

Read your post again. You can't see your own hypocrisy, can you? That's just another example of how intellectually dishonest you are.

On the contrary, I was completely upfront with you about the fact that I think you are a troll and the only reason I bothered responding to you is because your responses are ineloquent and overly emotional and therefore a possible source of amusement.

I'm not B.S.ing you, I just enjoy the noises you make when I kick you.