|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, this is the main issue of our movement. How so you ask? quite simply, I believe the unifying crux of our movement is (more often than not) this:
Why does the nearest man not own his life and labour product while the nearest woman owns hers?
That's the way I see it.
BTW like I'm gonna say in my re-written article, forced labour and alimony are the same thing, I'll get around to finishing it in a few weeks hopefully.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not sure if the forced labor-alimony argument would be very effective since the situation (eg. marriage) is voluntary.
I do feel there would be a much stronger case made for child support. Especially in the cases where the participants are not married.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Given that the divorce that spawned the alimony is usualy not voluntary, and also usually not the choice of the male, I think it IS an effective argument. After all, slave traders sometimes used enticements to encourage their captives to cooperate, did they not? Is not marriage a similar "enticement"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not sure if the forced labor-alimony argument would be very effective since the situation (eg. marriage) is voluntary.
Like Frank said, the alimony is not voluntary, and the nearest man is at the mercy of the nearest judge and woman.
Case in point:
The International Labour Organization's Forced Labour Convention of 1930 defines forced labour as "all work or service, which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily."
I do feel there would be a much stronger case made for child support.
While there's no denying that, we hit a problem. Namely, countless folks use the "it's for the children" excuse and we need a damn good counter argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"While there's no denying that, we hit a problem. Namely, countless folks use the "it's for the children" excuse and we need a damn good counter argument"
Personally , I think the person with sole custoday should be the one entirely responsible for the child in every way shape and form. If they have to get off their fat ass and get a job, well omg.
Think about this logically, and you will see how this will clear up millions of problems. But lawyers don't like that, bullshit problems are what pay their bills and nothing else. Lawyers are greatly responsible for this simply because the conflict creates clients.
If we think the courts are ever going to set up a decent and logical solution to this we are out of our minds. Lawyers thrive on this.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Lawyers are greatly responsible for this simply because the conflict creates clients."
There's some truth to this. But the heart of the problem isn't lawyers or socialists or any particular group other than gender feminists who have used misandry and lies to bias just about every field and profession there is. Misandrist bias exists in media, medicine, acadamia, politics, and even business, just as it does in law. And it can be found among both capitalists and socialists.
Just as some people in the media, in politics, etc. have recognized the bias and spoken up, some lawyers have done the same. But like in the other fields, these lawyers are outshouted and outgunned. Meanwhile most men and women remain ignorant, allowing feminists to keep spreading their distortions as the cycle spins on.
Lawyers, journalists, judges, doctors, socialists, and even the religious right have all played a part.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Just as some people in the media, in politics, etc. have recognized the bias and spoken up, some lawyers have done the same."
Lets up this continues to pick up.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest you separate the two. Spousal maintenance/alimony is in principle different from child support; the former is an amount payable for an indefinite period to the former spouse, the latter payable in respect of a child for the duration of their minority.
Starting off on about forced labor will just mark you an ratbag. I think it better to point out that alimony is out-dated and incompatible with the idea of autonomous responsible individuals; also it is incompatible with the concept of marriage as an exchange (since there is no exchange in alimony) or contract between equals. How can one set of obligations remain indefinitely when the other (whatever they may be) has ended?
cheers,
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would still argue that marriage and the results of marriage, including alimony and child support are included in the "work and service" portion that "said person" has offered themselves for voluntarily. The legal requirements of marriage that demand additional requirements for men if the marriage is resolved are well known to all men who want to get married, although they may be blinded by love and ignore them. This does not mean that men are treated fairly during a divorce but it does mean that marriage and divorce (at least in the United States) does not fit the definition of forced labor.
Men are becoming more aware of the longterm problems marriage can result in and as a result are holding off on making the committment to marriage. (I find enourmous humor in the new problem that women are facing is that men are unwilling to get married.) ANY situation where the conditions of an aggrement are known before hand can not be considered forced labor, even if those resulting conditions are unfair. This is why people in the military who are volunteers are not considered victims of forced labor when they are required to go to war even if they disagree with it politically, while men who are drafted (i.e. nonvoluntary) are.
I do find a serious problem with men being forced into parenthood. While women have a way out of parenthood if they wish the male's life is left hanging on the decision of the women who is pregnant.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you're right, Tony, except that I think it becomes forced labor when a person is threatened with jail for quitting their job, losing their job, or taking a lower-paying job. And this certainly does happen.
People switch to lower-paying jobs all the time in exchange for better hours, conditions, commutes, etc. But courts often penalize people, especially males, for doing so when they owe support, claiming they did it on purpose. Then the court "imputes" income on the person, claiming they "could" earn a certain amount even though they're not. Then when they can't pay the amount that is imposed (based on artificially imputed incomes) they face the threat of jail for contempt or other types of very severe consequences. That to me is an example of forced labor imposed by family courts. And that can happen in conjunction with either child support or alimony.
As a side note I agree with you that we should separate child support and alimony. But I think we all would probably differ on what we think of the two. I myself don't have a huge problem with some amount of alimony and child support being imposed, just not in the way we've been doing it.
As for alimony, often a spouse will give up a career for years of homemaking or child rearing and can be hurt by it upon divorce (regardless of who chose the divorce). There's some fairness, I think, involved in having the other spouse provide *some* temporary compensation for a period of time so the other can get back on their feet. Otherwise we discourage couples from having one parent stay home out of fear of being left with nothing upon a separation. And discouraging couples from having one parent stay home isn't a good for kids, or for anyone for that matter. Often, of course, alimony can be
set too high and/or too long or imposed where it's not needed. There should be strong guidelines to avoid discrimination and abusive rulings.
As for child support, if we had a strongly enforced presumption of equal and shared parenting we wouldn't even need child support except in cases of proven abuse, or when one parent avoids equal time, or by agreement, or similar exceptions. Beyond those exceptions I don't think we should have child support. When one parent has the kid, he decides what and how to spend his own money. As NCFM member John Smith put it, "whether he feeds the kid filet mignon, or hot dogs, is his choice."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see this point. But sometimes that choice tremedously benefits the other by saving them from feeling pressured to sacrifice their own career, especially for couples who strongly feel that one parent staying home is critical for the child, or where there were few alternatives.
Perhaps one thing that could be done, in limited situations where a judge feels that some alimony is necessary, would be to give the person requesting alimony a choice of collecting some alimony for a short period in exchange for the other spouse having additional say in how the custody arrangement is during the alimony period.
In any case I do see your point. But limited alimony in certain specific cases does not bother me anywhere near the level that automatic child support with unequally imposed custody does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can't plan marriages around divorce law. If each individual is given the rules up front such as, no alimoney and no child support, they will prepare long before hand. We can't raise women to be children constantly dependant on someone else. They should be entering marriage independant and if marriage ends they should leave it knowing that they have to be independant. Feminists like to think men are not dependant on their wives. Obviously if two people co-operate long enough with each other that would be impossible, unless the other was an enfant.
We can't design marriage with the possibility of divorce in mind. But we can design people how to be independant grown ups, able to take care of themselves.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc, your writing is very even-handed, but it flies in the face of my life experience. I can't say that I don't know anyone who doesn't fit the following description of events, but the following description does fit the situation of every couple for which I've been privy to their reasons for choosing that the wife should stay home and look after the children. - Before children, both the husband and wife work.
- When the baby is due, the woman decides whether she wants to stay home and look after the child or wants to continue working.
- Every one of my female friends with whom I have discussed this has said that "we decided I would stay home," but when I quizzed her further eventually admitted that it was she who decided and that her husband just went along with the decision.
- Even if the decision were mutual, there woudl be mutual sacrifice: she would give up her career to stay at home and raise baby; he would then work harder, with more time away from his child, in order to pay for her to stay home. One of my friends manages to work at home two days a week, in part because two of his children are disabled. He is lucky to have more time with his family than most men, although I don't begrudge him his situation.
My point is that I have never once* talked with a couple in which the woman wanted to continue her career but stayed home to raise children against her wishes because her husband had decided that she should. This is the only scenario that supports alimony as an obligation: she made a sacrifice, he benefited, so there must be some payback. In all other scenarios she either chooses her lifestyle (in which case alimony becomes yet another way for women to avoid the consequences of their choices), or it is a mutual decision involving mutual sacrifice (in which case she is owed nothing).
The critical mistake in analyzing this situation is concluding that a woman staying at home to take care of the children is the only one making "a sacrifice." It appears to me that this sacrifice is almost always of her own choosing, and is often at her insistent urging. If her leaving her career is to be considered a sacrifice, then his evaporating options (having no choice but to work full time for the time his wife is home) and his added distance from the family must be considered an equal sacrifice.
Now, in all of this I'm just responding to Marc's argument and not even addressing how alimony is really handed out. That is, it isn't even repayment for a "sacrifice" of leaving a promising career to work in the home. A woman who had no career beyond flipping burgers who then marries a successful businessman will get more alimony than a woman who was an accountant and married another accountant. In fact, alimony does not compensate women for lost opportunity, nor does it help them get back on their feet. Instead, it is a prize for catching the best male. The amount and duration of alimony that a woman receives after divorce is determined by only two factors: the net worth of her ex-husband ("the style to which she has become accustomed"), and her inability to find a job that will support her in that style. That is, the less promising her career before marriage, the longer she will collect afterward.
That said, I can't see abolishing alimony and child support altogether. I do think, however, that the way that the current dialogue is framed, with "she" making the "sacrifice" and "he" having to pay her "for that sacrifice" is damaging and retrograde.
*I am perfectly willing to admit the possibility that I run in strange circles and that my sample is unrepresentative. Let me know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday July 14, @01:18PM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Cogent analysis, BusterB. Now we
just have to figure out how to get
more persons thinking in this area,
instead of just slopping up feminist
nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is this convention affiliated with the UN? The UN champions women's rights from a feminist perspective and always seems to be promoting a convention or some other effort for women. Has the UN done anything to promote the rights of men in the area of forced labor?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" Has the UN done anything to promote the rights of men in the area of forced labor?"
Prolly not.
The UN no longer serves its original agenda, I think its time we dismantle the UN.
I'd rather be at war with Imperialism than the FemiNazis.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the interesting things that I have found in my studies of men's issues is that the information about the condition of men around the world exists. The UN is an umbrella organization for many others that actually research issues. Gendercide Watch (they have a peer reviewed magazine as well) is actually independent of the UN as far as I can tell but their interests intersect with the UN in many areas.
What I have found is that many of these organizations have on file information that shows the horrid condition that men around the world are having to deal with on a daily basis. The problem is that these organizations frequently prioritize women's issues over those of men. (my personal feeling is that we, as a society, still feel the need to protect women and children. The result is men's issues often get buried behind any issue that concerns (reguardless of validity) women or children.)
My main purpose for submitting this article was to add to the academic information base we can draw upon and to highlight that information about men's issues can be found even on female issue dominated sites (although they are frequently buried in the articles or sites.)
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"still feel the need to protect women and children"
Probably because we continue to correlate the two constantly.
Women are adults and should start thinking of themselves as adults and take on the responsibilities of adulthood. which is often the necessity of taking care of children. If women are ever going to mature in our society they have to grow up and start taking some of the blame.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmmm...
"still feel the need to protect women and children"
Well, I still feel this need and I don't apologize for it. The trouble is, I believe it's a need that I ought to feel as an individual not as a member of a voting society. These nitwits like Joe Biden have gotten themselves all wrapped up in their own notion of chivalry and have created all kinds of problems in the process.
Would I take a bullet for my wife or my kids? Yes. But I detest the notion that the government would require me to do so. The same thing goes for asbestosis or industrial accidents or any other infliction that derives from working for a living: I might choose to take that risk myself, but don't send me a court-order to do so.
The law ought to accord men and women the same rights and responsibilities, and this goes for slavery as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
""still feel the need to protect women and children" "
Frank: "Well, I still feel this need and I don't apologize for it."
And, you shouldnt. But women have an obligation in the co-operative relationships between them, they have to protect their men, where its their duty to do so.
Feminism has created a sisterhood that denies women this right and has even turned mothers against their own sons. Its also harmed 'common sence', but why go into common sence when talking to a feminist.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. I do not feel men should apologize for wanting to protect their families. One of the things I detest about feminist theory is that they feel this protection is part of a plot to oppress women. They fail to recognize that men make sacrifices that are AT LEAST as great as any women have made in history. (I could argue they are greater but this just creates conflict and detracts from the issue) We should not have to apologize for expressing our love for our families.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"One of the things I detest about feminist theory is that they feel this protection is part of a plot to oppress women. "
One thing Feminists may not have thought of is, that it is very possible that this is a "woman's" design, not a man's.
I mean if men didnt care about their children, and that they are inherintly 'rapists' and just use women as slaves anyways, I mean really why would we marry?
If we didnt care about our kids, than why would we care whose they were? why marry?
Why would someone marry a slave?
This forced labour is about all the benifits and so is VAWA type legislation of marriage without any of the trade offs. And look who designed VAWA.
I wonder who the real slave was to marriage.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
