|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The appeals court panel said that violated the children's constitutional rights of equal protection."
God forbid a father's rights ever be taken into consideration during a case.
Brought to you by the sham mirrors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"God forbid a father's rights ever be taken into consideration during a case."
I agree with this sentiment fully. However, it's still an encouraging sign that courts are starting to listen to rational arguments made about child support. Possibly the next step could be that enforcing visitation rights is also in the child's best interests, too, and statistically improves child support payment rates dramatically. We can only hope.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"God forbid a father's rights ever be taken into consideration during a case."
This reminds me of the only time Congress ever discussed the alarming fact that men did not live as long as women. It was done in the context that with men dropping dead before their wives there needed to be some way to take care of all those widows.
Women and children first. I guess that someday they may find out that it is easier to be chivalrous when it’s your choice and not legislated!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good point. I've noticed that often when the media or politicians discuss health or social security issues the sympathy is with widows who have to cope with life after their husbands' death. There's rarely any direct sympathy for the husband who predeceases his wife and rarely any concern over improving male longevity for the sake of benefitting men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday August 11, @01:43AM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
I've said it before, I'll say it again;
For the modern day Male to LIVE, chivalry must
DIE.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thundercloud:
Might not a lady mistake unchivilrous behaivior from a man as rudness or a lack of manners and thereby by offended, and hurt in her feelings? Could insufficent chivalry toward women or a woman further be viewed as a victimization by a brutish and insensitive man?
Strong, liberated women long for the romance that chivalry is an integral part of. Pay no attention to the abuse they reciprocate to the kindness you show them. This is a one way street we're traveling on here, and just a little further down the road there's a bridge out, the one called common sense. As long as men are slaves to their passions they will continue to be only moments away from going off that section of bridge that plunges them into that dark, murkey river of grief. From that place only some return, and those are men who will never be the same.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday August 11, @06:50AM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Ray, and if they do, to hell with them.
Yes, I am labelled a jerk. And I never have a shortage of one willing to warm my bed, so I can turn down the ones hunting husband and baby and ultimately a free ride. I have a surety of not being able to father any children.
There is nothing in "chivalry" which isn't to male disadvantage. I didn't negotiate that social contract or sign it, and I refuse to abide by it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If chivalry isn't dead, then through the trial of the case involving (radical feminism vs. male oppressor) it has been found guilty based upon a preponderance of the evidence, and now sits on death row awaiting its fate. As a jurist who has already reached his decision, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, to wit: "the deception of romance (and subsequent demise of man) through the wiles of the "feminine mystique," I say, "fry the fool (chivalry)," and let me persuade those reluctant jurists who are still sitting on their hands and thinking with their P----, instead of their brain.
You've come a long way baby, now pick up your own d--- load of chivalry along with all those new found freedom's you keep rubbing our noses in. Male chivalry is dying along with the nonsense of male romance. They are nothing more today than the past time of the uninitiated, the uneducated male novice or a fool.
To the radical feminists I say, put these paragraphs in your Title IX, sexual harassment set of rules, and don't forget to read them every time you spout out that worn out, insulting drivel about the female's right to be free of "unwanted" sexual advances in the workplace.
“UNWANTED,” thereby, implying that men are not to be discouraged from pursuing the sacred, the hallowed, the revered female coworker through her illogical romantic avenues, those avenues that comply more sensitively with her romantic precepts, those avenues set up through wiles of her feminine mystique. And, after making all of her required efforts, when she gets tired of you, you better back off in a heart beat, and get the heck away from her, because when you’ve crossed that invisible line (between wanted and UNWANTED), all of those romantic efforts you've made will be used, to the fullest extent of the law, as evidence against you, to sue the pants off of you, to end your employment, to trash your resume', etc., you sexually harasser, you.
“ANY ADVANCE” toward a female coworker in the workplace today has the potential to paint you as a sexual harasser, and put you in the above stated predicaments.
If your still not trembling in your boots then consider this paraphrased statement from the law (Title IX). "...because sexual harassment is predominately an issue that concerns women, an issue that women are more intimately familiar with, the person who will establish or deny the validity of such a claim shall be a "reasonable woman."" Those last two words are not a paraphrase from Title IX, but an exact quote. Your unwanted romantic indiscretion, when found out, will be judged by a "reasonable woman."
READ THESE WORDS, “only a complete fool would ever make ANY ADVANCE toward a woman in the workplace today.” Considering that this is the place where most couples have initiated their romantic involvement, I think this speaks volumes to the “feminine mystique,” that “you” will now have to peddle your ensnaring wiles in other places.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday August 11, @11:25AM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Ray:
You've taken a hard veer off the main story, but you put an arrow in the bullseye, concernig that sucker punch called chivalry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday August 11, @03:38PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Chivalry:
As long as you’ve gone off target and taken me with you, just let me say that I think you’ve become mysoginistically delusional, and are creating an unrealistic world of fantasy within which you live your life. I’m sorry to bust your bobble, big boy, but no woman would ever give up those things of which you speak. They would rather go to their graves as cold barren virgins (Queen Elizabeth) than relinquish their power over men through the use of sex. It is as deeply ingrained in them as the warlike nature of man is in them and it is the tool that has allowed them to survive, to have control over their lives these many millennia. A woman’s absolute right to choose those areas concerning the use of her body will not so easily be given up.
You’re all hooked on women and you know it. When you’re lying there at night in the opium of her pheromones, her scent, the addiction to be with a female, to procreate reinforces itself on you almost as strongly as the will to stay alive itself.
On another note, why is pornography such a huge, multibillion dollar business? Who’s buying all that stuff? It certainly isn’t women. Why don’t you put that on your list of topics to be discussed in your men’s commission meeting (should you ever get a men’s commission), since L.A. is the porn capital of the world. What impact, what effect does that predominately male subsidized business have on the lives of the men, women and children living in our society?
When I hear the folly of men like you, I’m amused at your fragile male psyches. Admit it, you love hot, dangerous women like me because it excites you, and brings out the bold conqueror in your macho explorer spirit. I hear the sound of ch’ching in my ears when I hear you talk about how your not going to put up with women like me living in your wallets any time they feel like it. I would love to give you guys some more lessons on submission of the inferior male position in the affairs of female sexuality, but quit frankly Rhett, you bore me.
Le Feme Fatale’
P.S. I thought about inviting a select few of you to “come up and see me sometime,” but forget it, I don’t think there are any men on this site that could handle my truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday August 11, @03:54PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
On another note, why is pornography such a huge, multibillion dollar business? Who’s buying all that stuff? It certainly isn’t women.
I think the success of Playgirl and the Chippendales directly contradict that statement, not to mention the contradictions which can be found here: http://www.ifeminists.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday August 11, @04:11PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
I think the success of Playgirl and the Chippendales directly contradict that statement
This is moronic. Playgirl isn't that successful. I'm just disagreeing, you have a problem with that, asshole? (I'm counting on your ignoring the phrase, "this is moronic," otherwise you'll see through my trolls game, which is to find excuses to cash in my "stamp collection" (cf. transactional analysis; i.e., I'm OK, You're OK) and hurl shitty undeserved insults at people who would beat the crap out of me if they encountered me in real life).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Le Feme Fatal:
The mark of the feme fatal is the titillation and the rejection, hence the male frustration and increased desire for the unattainable object of desire. She is like the eagle with the fish in its talons. You don’t know you’ve been snared till she’s dug deep into your flesh, and then you’re left with only two options: #1 to be damagingly dropped from a dizzying height, or #2 to be eaten alive. Men proceed at your own risk, when there’s a predatory man eater on the prowl. The ache of unfulfilled desire is not nearly so destructive as the impacting thud of rejection or the devouring ripping away of your flesh as the legal system eats you alive.
Yes the effect of pheromones or some other physiological unknown does come into play from a relationship with a woman and empower a man with a new contentment and power that he did not have as a single. I also read recently a news article that stated there is some identifiable component of the male sperm that is absorb through the walls of the vagina that has a beneficial effect on the psyche of the female (antidepressant or something). I wonder if this could be one of those studies that should be repeated to see if the results are verifiable. This may be a little hard to believe for some us whose jaded sexual relationships have grown unfulfilling with time.
Truly there are interactions going on at all levels of our involvement as dynamic sexual creatures. These interactions bring into play a myriad of stimulations and responses. It is only through the over exploitation of our individual vulnerabilities that we have lost the gracious naiveté of our awe for each other as man and woman, but then that is the trick of nature, that gives us the flower of passion one day and the disenchantment of our withering flesh the next.
Grow old graciously feme fatale, and do not place to high a value on your transient desirability. If you live to be old, one day you may find yourself alone and faded in those qualities so inspiring desire in men today. You may then be unable to find a wholesome altruism like that in the heart and life of the charitable person who has found the deeper meaning of love.
Best Wishes, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday August 11, @05:50PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
This is moronic. Playgirl isn't that successful.
Sure it is. Otherwise, it would not have lasted as long as it has.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday August 11, @07:19PM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Fem Fatale;
So long as you're stuck in that delusion of feminine sexual superiority, take your romance, flowers, and holding the door - and let's see it buy the next round. While you're at it, make sure you have a supply of batteries or your electric bill paid up.
Your sisters are selling you out. I get more mileage out of a twenty dollar hooker than some $150 dinner, then some stuck up, frigid, sexually repressed closet nympho who think it's their lot in life to be pleased rather than have their face stuffed in a pillow screaming as I take my pleasure.
There are these little things, like hypos - just slide them up the urethra, depress the plunger, and hey presto - I've yet to see the woman who isn't raw and whimpering, unable to whiz without pain for a week, and I am still ready to rock and roll - ain't medical science grand?
I had my vasectomy, and my drugged out slut of an ex-wife was obliging enough to kill herself in a DUI before she had extorted me for a year. Of course, I tell no women that, because they keep hoping to get knocked up and have a meal ticket, while I use them until I'm bored with them. They think my condoms serve a birth control purpose, but it's just to keep from cathcing V.D. Let's face it, if you'll sleep with me firt time out, why should I think you haven't been banged by half the city?
The most virginal of you is more a slave to your crotch then any man who ever walked this earth - and hate to bust your bubble, but porn is a big industry because you buy some cheap makeup at K-Mart, some costume jewelry, and about $50 worth of coke, and women will trick themselves out for the fun of it. Boy, there's the "smarter sex" for you. Why the heck you think male dancers make three, four, five times the money? Because they are smart enough to hold out for the big bucks, and let's face facts, sluts who will jiggle their bnoobs in your face for a buck are about a dime a dozen. Maybe not free - but very, very cheap.
Supply and demand. Gotta love capitalism.
I'd love to take you up on your offer, if you made it, but I guess the p*ssy of gold couldn't stand to fetch me a beer, and drop to your knees for an audition to see if you might be worth the trip across the street; let alone wait in the line to use you.
Of course, you'll have to take a number, and wait your turn. Ah, it sux to be me - so many women, so little time.
After all, Lil Miz Smarter Sex - it's yours that is known for sticking around with the abuse when the banging is good, isn't it?
TTFN!
Rap - rap - rap, they call him the Rapper!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Gotta love capitalism."
Amen! That brings to mind the greatest novel ever written, by the greatest mind the 20th century ever gave birth to: Ayn Rand. (A woman, by the way.) The masterpiece, Atlas Shrugged.
To all those feminists who hate men simply because we're men, who accuse us of being evil, violent, warmongering: Who has fought for you in those wars? Men. Who has bled and died to protect you while society places you on a chivalrous pedastal? Men. Of course, women are now accepted into the military, and have made sacrifices themselves. But it wasn't always so. Men, however, have always bore the burden of defending your ingrateful @sses.
Just imagine if men suddenly said "No, we're not going to fight for you anymore." It's highly doubtful that would ever happen, but if it did, where would you oh-so-benevolent feminists be?
You had best hope, no, you had best PRAY, that the male Atlas never decides to Shrug.
Personally, I'm shrugging already. Since I believe in equality, I say "Fend for youselves." No doubt someone will say "You just hate women!" Nah, this has nothing to do with hatred. This has everything to with being tired of putting up with feminist bullsh*t.
You man-haters really hate us that much? Try to survive without us.
"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins." -John Galt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why are you writing these silly love poems to chivalry and femme fatales? This is hardly very warlike of you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 12, @03:14AM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
As for "handleing your truth", BELIEVE me no one here wants to "handle" ANY part of you.
As for any of us here being "submissive", You need to go back to looking up your male-bondage websites. and induldge your fantasys of "submissive men". NO one here is even remotely "submissive".
In fact, maybe I should turn you over my knee and give you a little spanking, sweetie. (once you go Indian you never go back.)
And, lastly, as for being "addicted to women",
I have severed nearly ALL contact with women as a whole, in my life for the last ten years and am QUITE content.
Now go on back to your little fantasy world, where men don't talk back, okay? Good girl.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...hurl shitty undeserved insults at people who would beat the crap out of me if they encountered me in real life...
People, we have a genuine male hating troll. And she is as vile as they come. Ignore it. It isn't worth the time and effort.
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 12, @04:41PM EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
The majority of Playgirl readers are gay men. I thought everyone knew that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 12, @05:10PM EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
The majority of Playgirl readers are gay men. I thought everyone knew that.
Considering men aren't allowed in Girls' Night Out male stripper venues, you cannot make the same argument about the Chippendales.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 13, @08:31AM EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
Strip clubs for men vastly outnumber those for women. Name another club for women besides Chippendales. Similarly for men's magazines; on the other hand, the male market for romance novels is practically non-existent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't name another club that features men stripping for women, but there is a long list of firehouses and lodges where "male revues" have been hosted for women only. Further, I've read a couple of those "romance" novels, and the only thing that keeps them out of the adult bookstores is some very careful editing.
One thing I learned a long time ago is that women, on average, will do anything for the right amount of money, and men will pay nearly any price to participate. Pointing the finger at men on the issue of pornography simply can't be done without recognizing the simple fact that, if there were no product, there would be no market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 13, @01:16PM EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think love exists. Neither men nor women are capable of it. Women blindly produce children according to instinct. The only reason they want men around is to help take care of them, which is also done out of instinct, not love. Animals care for their litters, but they don't love them.
The only reason men married in the past was for a steady supply of sex. Now marriage is not necessary. There isn't a man alive who would rather have the same boring woman every night, than be with a different woman every night. There is no pleasure in sex with the same woman night after night.
Love does not exist. Anyone who tries to find it will come up empty and frustrated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 13, @03:49PM EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
(("There isn't a man alive who would rather have the same boring woman every night."))
In my younger days I dreamed of haveing a decent woman, a life long companion to grow old with, with whom I shared an un-spoken bond with forever.
Some one special just for me and I just for her.
A trusted freind in the battle of life.
I would not have married for the "steady supply of sex". I would have married for the above reasons, alone.
But as I said, that was in my younger days.
as you stated, Ray, "Anyone who tries to find it (love) will come up empty and frustrated."
As I watched things between women and men grow steadily worse throughout the years I slowly began to realize that your above statement is all to true.
I got tiered of emptiness and frustration. and finaly let go my grip on my dream, to be taken by the wind.
I finaly saw it all for what it was; an illusion.
It wasn't always that way.
It began when women declared ALL men the enemy.
For the most part, I believe the death of love can be attributed to women killing it.
But as we've seen again and again women are rarely held accountable for murder...
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 14, @02:43PM EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a woman.
There's nothing I can do about being born female, or what other women have done, but I can live my life in relative solitude. I don't hate men. I never have, but I have given up on relations between the genders.
I disagree with you that things weren't always this way, Thundercloud. There has never been any such thing as love. As Frank pointed out on another story thread, even my grandmother is guilty of hating men because she didn't fight in the war alongside her husband. If she loved him, she would have demanded to go in his place.
Men and women have never loved each other. We've tolerated each other, but that's it. When the artificial womb comes out, there will be no need for women at all. Men can create themselves, and women will be allowed to just die out. It's better that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 15, @04:44AM EST (#47)
|
|
|
|
|
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
Why do you say it would be better that way, if women were "allowed" to die out??
I don't want ANYONE dying out. Not women, not men, not you, not me.
As for there not being love..., Though I admit to being hard on women sometimes, I DO love them.
It's just that so MANY of them tick me off when it comes to the Male-bashing. and too many do it.
Also, for what it's worth, I love all my fellow human beings. I love you, even though I don't know you personaly. I even love the "Trolls" that post here. (allthough it ain't easy.)
When you love it means you care about the well-being of another. I feel this way about everyone. that INCLUDES women.
Of course, if you're speaking about the "love" between men and women, specificaly, I still say it DID once exist. The trouble is that women are to busy trying to dominate men these days.
There is no respect in domination, therefore no love.
These days women are incouraged (wrongfully) to try and dominate men, while men are (rightfully) dis-couraged to dominate women. You see this all over the place.
This is why I say women killed love. again, as I said, I can be hard on women sometimes, and maybe I shouldn't do it. But it all just makes me mad. WHENEVER a dream of mine is killed it makes me mad. (I'm funny that way, I guess.)
If I had ever found a woman that DIDN'T behave that way my "dream" would be reality.
I'm sure there are some women out ther like that, but I never found one. AND I no longer wanted to take the chance with women because of the ways the courts are set up. (against men.) I think our legal system had a big hand in killing love too.
Anyway, as far as you being born female. I don't ask you for an apology for that. or for the mis-deeds of other women. Just like not ALL men are bad, not ALL women are bad either.
I'm sorry that you too, live in "relative solitude". It shouldn't have to be that way.
As I said in another post I am doing the same.
But unless things change, that's the way I'll stay.
At any rate, PLEASE, No more of this "women will be allowed to die out, it's better that way." talk. it WOULDN'T be better that way.
Thundercloud.
PS. sorry about confuseing you with Ray.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 12, @02:49AM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
I hear and appretiate what you're saying, Ray.
But in both my expiriance AND observations, no matter what we do we are WRONG simply by virtue of being men.
(Example) If you open a door for a female, often, she will accuse you of "sexism". If you DON'T open the door for her, you are insensitive.
We simply CAN'T win.
Also CHIVALRY is a type of "respect" men have traditionaly been (expected) to show to women. Yet women have NEVER been obligated to show men similar "respect".
I don't need to tell YOU, that in this day and age women are expected (AND encouraged) to show not only NO respect for men as a whole but the deepest amount of hostility, animosity and contempt possible.
Why then, should we reward this with "chivalry"?
Respect and trust, IMO, are EARNED, not just given.
And women of today have not, again, IMO, done anything to earn either. In fact they've done just the opposite.
I am in no way saying we should go out of our way to HARM women. I am saying we shouldn't HAVE to go out of our way to accomidate them all the time.
true EQUALITY would mean that "chivalry" and "respect" would go BOTH ways. And we all know it does NOT!
It is "chivalry" that KEEPS us from EQUALITY.
"Chivalry" dictates to men that we MUST put up with any and everything women say or do to us. BUT the second we try to defend ourselves or call women on error, suddenly we are CADS, picking on the poor "damsels in distress".
Almost more than ANYTHING else it is "chivalry" that has given women their greatest weapon against men. and they and the millitant feminists KNOW it all to well!
It is WE men, and we men alone who have the power to take this weapon from them. It is OUR choice.
To do not, is simply to allow ourselves to be "slaughtered" like lambs, as we are allready begining to be.
I stand firmly by my statement; "for todays male to SURVIVE, chivalry must DIE."
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
....liberated women long for the romance that chivalry is an integral part of.
I disagree. Being chivalrous, especially at work, is a good way to get a suit against you for sexual harassment. I never open doors for women, complement them, or do anything other than act professional and get away from all woman at work ASAP. All of the other men that I work with practice the same policy. They are all literally terrified of the irrational woman that will sue the company and us. Women know they can sue at the drop of a hat and they do not hesitate to find a reason to do so.
Worse, the company just made the mistake of informing their personnel that they are making record profits. That means that some greedy woman will be highly motivated to create a sexual harassment / hostile environment suit. I give the company about 3-6 months to have a suit filed. The object of the suit will be some fabricated claim and it will wipe out the company profits. This has already happened once about 5 years ago, and you’d think that management would have learned their lesson. Well men are stupid. So, it's just a matter of time till it happens again.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 13, @01:34AM EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
((("men are stupid.")))
No, not stupid so much as gulable.
Remember warb, Men have been conditioned to believe that the Female is; sweet, innocent, virtuous beyond reproach and pure as the wind driven snow. ergo, NO woman would EVER hatch ANY such type of diabolical scheme. No, Not WOMEN, Not those little angels.
It's because men are conditioned to believe this, not to mention conditioned to believe they are SEXIST if they DON'T believe this, that women keep getting away with the kind of garbage they get away with.
Repeatition is the best teacher, I guess. Maybe if your company gets sued enoughe times they will FINALY see that not ALL women ARE "pure as the wind driven snow."
Actually, alot of them are as pure as the YELLOW driven snow...,
But, that's a subject for anothe time.
Thundercloud.
PS. Let us know what happens, Warb. It should be interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm the same way. I've taken the attitude that everything is sexual harassment: even space-like separated particles (light from one hasn't had time to reach the other) at the extreme ends of the universe are sexually harassing each other.
Any statement taken in a radically different context than the one intended can and will be conveniently re-interpreted as actionable sexual harassment.
It's the safest code of conduct, but even then it's not foolproof; my avoidance of sexual harassment might be seen as a kind of sexual harassment, in the sense of creating a "hostile" work atmosphere in which some woman's right to have me found guilty of sexual harassment would be undermined by the fact of my businesslike conduct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where are all the good Constitutional lawyers in the country, selling cookies at a radical feminist bake sale? There all a bunch of toadies, goose stepping along in the ranks of the Fembot minions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday August 11, @01:23PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
God forbid a father's rights ever be taken into consideration during a case.
Did any of you actually READ the story? The guy won. He wasn't trying to get OUT of paying child support. He WANTED to pay it for the third child not in his current marriage, but he also wanted to be able to support his two kids IN his current marriage.
In other words, the rights of THIS father were the main consideration of this case.
This is not the case to discuss whether fathers should pay child support at all because that is not what this case is about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday August 11, @01:24PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
I also wanted to point out that I think this guy did ABSOLUTELY the right thing. He had the child tested to make sure it was his, and then he AGREED to support it. He had an opportunity to give up his parental rights and didn't.
Bravo for him for fighting for his rights AND the rights of his children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is a victory for the family that the man is living in, and a set back for the family that the man is paying child support to.
It is a victory for the man, because now he will be better able to meet the needs of his immediate family, can I say, those who are closest to him, personally and literally.
The decision however, is based on the violation of the equal protection clause as it pertains to the children in the man's immediate family and not on any hardship the man is incurring in trying to meet the unreasonable demands that are trampling on his constitutional rights.
I agree with you, however, any victory for a man, in this area, even one that comes in from a back door is a huge victory for the man. On to the next objective, we still have a long way to go to find our own equal justice as men.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday August 11, @05:56PM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
The decision however, is based on the violation of the equal protection clause as it pertains to the children in the man's immediate family and not on any hardship the man is incurring in trying to meet the unreasonable demands that are trampling on his constitutional rights.
Because one person in the story stated that it violates the equal protection laws for children does not indicate that this is the sole basis upon which the apellate court made the decision.
In fact, I live in Tennessee, and radio reports here have consistently quoted the appellate decision as stating that the current child support guidelines are "unfair to parents who have more than one family."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AU wrote:
Did any of you actually READ the story?
Yes. I did.
Because one person in the story stated that it violates the equal protection laws for children does not indicate that this is the sole basis upon which the apellate court made the decision.
Actually, that is stated as the basis for the decision three times in the story. It is the ONLY basis for the decision mentioned.
In fact, I live in Tennessee, and radio reports here have consistently quoted the appellate decision as stating that the current child support guidelines are "unfair to parents who have more than one family."
So you have additional information, not contained in the story. Just how did you expect AFG to pick this up by reading that article? Psychically?
"This is not the case to discuss whether fathers should pay child support at all because that is not what this case is about."
Did YOU actually read what AFG wrote? He simply said "God forbid a father's rights ever be taken into consideration during a case."
How did you get from that to questioning whether fathers should pay child support at all?
You're arguing with phantoms here.
Relax. Take a breath. Get a grip.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday August 11, @07:29PM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
"This is not the case to discuss whether fathers should pay child support at all because that is not what this case is about."
Did YOU actually read what AFG wrote? He simply said "God forbid a father's rights ever be taken into consideration during a case."
How did you get from that to questioning whether fathers should pay child support at all?
You're arguing with phantoms here.
No, I am not. This was another opportunity for AFG to snatch a defeat from the hands of victory. Any time anyone posts any good news for men here, he immediately attempts to reassert victim status for men and turn it into some other kind of defeat.
This was by no means a defeat for men's rights. This was a big VICTORY for men's rights. This guy got what he wanted, and he proved to the appellate courts that the current child support guidelines are faulty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AU wrote:
This was by no means a defeat for men's rights. This was a big VICTORY for men's rights. This guy got what he wanted, and he proved to the appellate courts that the current child support guidelines are faulty.
Good. I'm glad that's settled.
I, for one, would have been a lot less confused about your point if you had just called AFG a couple of nasty names and then said your piece as simply and clearly as you did here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The specifics seem to be a little unclear from what I'm reading here, but the decision is a positive step in the right direction and something to build on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 12, @07:47AM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
I, for one, would have been a lot less confused about your point if you had just called AFG a couple of nasty names and then said your piece as simply and clearly as you did here.
WHAT? And risk being called a "troll" even though I'm here for the same reason all of you are, which is to support men's rights? No, thanks. I will argue merit and not insult.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WHAT? And risk being called a "troll" even though I'm here for the same reason all of you are, which is to support men's rights? No, thanks. I will argue merit and not insult.
Fine. Make up a handle and sign you posts so we can tell which AU is posting. Then we can determine if there is actually a pattern of supporting men's issues or if you are just another troll.
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 12, @03:39PM EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
Fine. Make up a handle and sign you posts so we can tell which AU is posting. Then we can determine if there is actually a pattern of supporting men's issues or if you are just another troll.
See what I mean?
No. I choose not to provide personal information to this (or any other Web site). As long as "Anonymous User" is an option here, you're not going to bully people into not using it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"No. I choose not to provide personal information to this (or any other Web site). As long as "Anonymous User" is an option here, you're not going to bully people into not using it."
O.K. keep your personal information, and be anonymous, but be an individual who is not afraid to show the philosophy of his/her beliefs. It adds to the overall perspective. Here's a silly potential handle or two, but I'm sure you could find one easily more to your liking - "A non E mouse,"
or perhaps, "Bully Free Zone." Happy Trails, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 13, @01:57AM EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
I post as "anonymous user", too. (for now)
But I still have a "handle".
It doesn't have to be a "real" name. Like Ray sugjested, You can make up any goofy name you want as a "handle".
I understand when you say you don't want to be "bullied into haveing a handle". It's just that we see so MANY "Anonymous"s It's hard, at times to keep track of who's saying what. or weather some one is freind or foe. MOST "trolls" post as "Anonymous", piriod. and when a NON-troll posts as "Anonymous"..., Well, you can see why it gets a bit confuseing.
Do what you feel you have to, But please consider a handle.
Thanks.
Thundercloud.
(see, that's my handle.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was getting an oil change the other day so I rewrote the Delaration of Independence as I was waiting. The first thing I did was take all the treason out of it as it was a treasonous document and that is not what I'm advocating. As far as the 14th ammendment to the U.S. Constitution it probably has more value for men today as toilet paper than any right it will give them in a court of law. If you find the document boring don't feel quilty. I dozed off near the very end. They attached a list of grievance to it at the end. You can come up with your own, or if you look through the archives of this site you'll find a ton.
I underlined everything that I changed or added, and very little was actually removed, however the underlining didn't come through when I cut and pasted from my word processor so you'll need to find and original Dec. of Ind. if you want to compare and contrast the differences.
Updated, Declaration of Independence
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for an unrepresented male citizenry to change the political abuses which have oppressed them under their government, and to assume among the rights of the earth, the ...equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, then a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to demand their right to equal justice under the law, (14th amendment U.S. Constitution).
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men & women are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish those particular "laws of hate" that make it thus, and to institute new laws, laying its foundation (its altered structure) on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the laws to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object (oppression of men through systematic gender bias in law) evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such laws, and to provide new laws for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of thousands of battered and abused men; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present gender biased legal system is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these battered and abused men. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Give me Liberty, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 12, @03:28AM EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't find it boreing AT ALL, Ray.
In fact, I find it very insightfull.
Thank you.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
