|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Father’s rights and shared custody:
“If you trusted your wife (or marry the right woman), then you won’t be having any of these problems. Men who get screwed in divorces just need to be more careful about whom they marry.”
Well, why not then repeal all the laws regarding equal division of assets during divorce, go back to the common law presumption that the man gets to decide what happens to the children after divorce, etc… ? Then, if you get divorced and it turns out that you married a man who is an asshole who squirreled away all the assets and holds you apart from the children, we can all just say tough; you must have married the wrong guy! The basic presumption that the government should serve to protect women and that men are out there to fend for themselves is a bogus one. We need to protect men as well as we protect women. AND we need to teach young men to be as distrustful of women as we teach young women to be distrustful of men.
“Why worry about the 50 % divorce rate? If your relationship is healthy, you shouldn’t be worried. If you are worried about divorce, then obviously your relationship must not be healthy; in which case; why get married?”
You wouldn’t get into the car without a seatbelt on, just because the accident always happens to the other person, would you? You would like to think that you are in control of your destiny when it comes to your marriage, but you are only in full control of small portion of it. Fact is, there are all kinds of maniacs out on the road, and you can’t always tell one reliably from the other. Women initiate 2/3 of divorces. Aside from that, people just grow apart often times after all the years have gone by. The decision to get married is based on emotional states (love and trust) that are often not present many years later when the marriage dissolves. So, these limited factors have only a limited impact on the decision to get married or divorced. Men will return to marriage only when we once again make it a safe place for men to live and prosper. The current incarnation of marriage is no safe place for any man to live. It only increases your legal, emotional and financial vurnerability and places men in positions of intolerable vurnerability.
“Boy, you are a misogynist, aren’t you?”
Lack of chivalry is not the same thing as misogyny.
“Men already have equal rights to be primary caretakers of their children.”
Not if they have children with women who refuse to grant them this right. Caretaking responsibilities are established close to birth, usually within a year. If a woman stays home with the child and refuses to work, what is a man to do? If push comes to shove, he can’t gain custody or primary caretaker rights by negotiating with divorce, because if he does so in the first year the women always get primary physical custody. AND any woman who knows this does not have to negotiate with any father who would rather be the stay-at-home parent, because she knows there is basically no way out for him other than to work and be the breadwinner. In short, the settlement at the extreme (divorce) determines the ultimate outcome of the negotiated dispute within the marriage, because at that point the woman has the ultimate power at the endpoints of the relationship. Men are ultimately powerless in this decision-making process.
“Fatherhood is about more than biology.”
That depends on the father. After all, men are first parties to their relationships with their children. Therefore, within reasonable grounds, they are the ones who should be determining what the definition of fatherhood is to them. If they believe it is not about biology at all, that’s their right. To me, paternity is about biology PLUS an ongoing relationship based on close and intimate contact. In case you disagree, tough! My relationships with my children are my business, and at any rate you are powerless to make one person love another. As an analogy, if a person believes in a woman’s right to choice (in abortion), they are essentially saying that they respect a woman’s right to believe for herself that life begins at conception, or at a some later point. What authority do you have to insist that I adhere to some cock-eyed notion of non-biological paternity that is inconsistent with every logical and emotional fiber in my psyche? We may disagree whether or not it is best to test for paternity at birth or at some later point when the issue arises (I favor at birth). But in any case, it should be established that it is a man’s right (if he chooses to exercise it) to be dealt with honestly and forthrightly on the issue of paternity testing at some point.
"Men are emotionally immature / cannot express their emotions."
Incorrect. The real problem here is that society is continually dictating to men what their emotions should be. An mostly, they pick and choose what emotions are acceptable for men to harbor based on - you guessed it - how those beliefs might affect women. If you allow a man the freedom to *honestly* speak his mind and say what he really thinks; you might be suprised to hear a lot of very cogent thought and analysis. If it's unpleasant for you, tough. That's what you're asking for, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just when did the judiciary as an apparatchik of the state get the moral imperative to micromanage people's personal and intimate lives?
Why is there a "formula" to decide how much money is needed to support a child after a divorce but there is no formula to decide how much of a parent's (99% of the time the man's) income should be allocated to support a child in an intact marriage? And just how does a man defend himself against a charge of marital rape?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 08, @02:22PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I've noticed a technique much used by feminazis when they can't answer a point made to them. Basically, they put on an expression of outraged indignation and start shrieking "How dare you say that" followed by "HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT" with ever increasing indignation ,rage, and volume. It is a pretty effective technique, generally stopping the other person from raising the point again. I once saw a video of a Nazi show trial. The unfortunate defendant was accused of involvement in the plot to kill Hitler. When he tried to justify his actions by talking about the Nazi atrocities, the "judge" started shrieking "how dare you say that!". Yet another similarity between Nazis and Feminazis!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basically, they put on an expression of outraged indignation and start shrieking "How dare you say that" followed by "HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT" with ever increasing indignation ,rage, and volume.
When this happens it’s usually because they recognize (consciously or not) that you’ve hit on an issue that they believe in but can't logically defend - and feminist inspired beliefs run as deeply as religious beliefs (that comparison is a separate subject for another day). But since their position can't be defended logically, they have to resort to emotional appeals - trying to make you feel guilty for offending them. It's so effective because we've been programmed from birth to defer to women's emotions. When this occurs I suggest that you:
1. Ask yourself - Is the appeasement of a screeching feminist a good reason to abandon logic, reason, and fairness? (Take personal safety into consideration)
2. If the answer to #1 is No - Calmly and methodically explain how you disagree.
3. Duck and cover as needed. (Remember why she’s acting this way - you’re refusing to meet her expectations that you act as a chivalrous male. That’s powerful stuff.)
4. Return to step 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday August 09, @05:25PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for reply, AJ. I have noticed that mens activists have a lot of difficulty with the "screeching tactic" on the rare occasions you see them debating with feminists on TV. One of the difficulties is that they are rarely given an opportunity to "calmly explain" how they disagree. Of course, any attempt by them to respond in like manner is regarded as reprehensible behaviour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the difficulties is that they are rarely given an opportunity to "calmly explain" how they disagree.
Ever seen Gloria Allred in action?
When someone tries to calmly explain their disagreement with her she just interrupts and starts talking, if that doesn’t stop them she talks louder and if necessary literally screams to prevent an opponent from making a point. By the time she stops screaming any hope of making a point counter to her position is gone – everyone’s cowering in fear of this raving lunatic. I don’t know how she gets away with it. She effectively wins debates simply by screaming when someone disagrees with her. And she’s been doing it for years.
She’s on TV a lot, but usually not in a debate with a men’s activist. But when she is IMO she uses the screeching feminist tactic more effectively than anyone else.
We can only imagine what would happen if a men’s activist tried that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday August 09, @09:35PM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
"Ever seen Goria Allred in action?"
No, A.J., I haven't. One of the advantages, I suppose, of living on this side of the Atlantic Ocean. From the sound of her, I don't think I'm missing much. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of feminazis here in Ireland either, so I think I get the picture.
Regards
Anon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response:
If it weren't true, you wouldn't be so upset.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday August 09, @01:42PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Wrong. Screaming at someone is upsetting, especially when that screaming is unjustifiable. The unfortunate defendant in the Nazi show trial was clearly devastated when the judge started screaming at him. The fact that he became upset does not mean his description of Nazi atrocities was untrue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 08, @06:26PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I have often said here (and to people in my everyday life) that DV laws criminalize men a-priori (before the facts) with many safeguards such as due process removed or diminished. The courts have been told before the facts how to handle DV matters.
When I have talked about the indignities and harsh treatment I got from the "judicial system" on mere false allegation alone - people usually say (in order of frequency):
1. Its better to protect one woman than have "potential batterers" go free.
2. The pendulum has swung to far...but it needed to as women have suffered for centuries.
3. There is no such thing as false allegations.
4. The system seems to work; perhaps it is too lenient on the alleged. We need to protect women more.
5. Men are dangerous. I know someone who...
6. Patriarchal norms need to get replaced
7. You're a batterer?! Oh my god...
How does one argue with the "historical justification" argument when I experienced modern fascism at the hands of the government I once believed in…
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"How does one argue with the "historical justification" argument when I experienced modern fascism at the hands of the government I once believed in… "
Those who control the past, control the present.
Those who control the present control the future.---Orwell
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 08, @07:13PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
You have to do exactly what I want.
It's FOR THE CHILDREN!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday August 09, @01:24PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Response:
Yeah, it's always about the children.
Censorship, gassing Jews; someone is always out there doing it for the children...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If we punish the female accuser who is eventually proven to be a liar then other females who are truly abused will be discouraged and intimidated from coming forward."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday August 09, @09:25AM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent post. As far as I can see, there is NO answer that the chivalrous traditional male can give to this. If you subscribe to the code of chivalry, you've got to accept innocent men going to jail. The only true answer is to throw away unilateral chivalry.
Another feminist ploy is the "You're not a man" arguement; this is usually a knock out blow to your average chivalrous male.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If we punish the female accuser who is eventually proven to be a liar then other females who are truly abused will be discouraged and intimidated from coming forward."
Prosecuting liars discourages people from telling the truth?
Huh?!?!
This advocates excusing a criminal in order to more effectively solicit accusers. And the accusers need to be assured that even if the accusation is as phony as a three dollar bill nothing will happen to them.
Is that what we call American Justice?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Is that what we call American Justice?"
Sure is! It is what feminized American Justice is.
Which seems to be the law of the land now!
Just asked WILLIAM J. HETHERINGTON about American Justice at:
http://www.ncfm.org/will.htm
He has been in the Michigan State Prison system on a trumped up marital rape rap for over 14 years now!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Prosecuting liars discourages people from telling the truth?"
That means the system is in total disrepute. That people are going to prison based on political basis, not basis of guilt or innocence. Can anyone say Stalin?
Judges are not convicting men because they are brave or just, they are convicting men because they are cowards. So 18 months or 18 years I am not guilty and you your worship are a liar and a coward.
So if it is the liars that are sending us to jail. Than the system is doomed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
