Court rules man who donated sperm not liable for child support

More and more of this is happening, the courts are feeling the pressure of our "passive aggressive" stance. The more we boycott marriage and avoid businesses that endorce feminist hate, the more attention we will get.

Two people actually thought the poor sucker SHOULD pay child support?

when a freeloading golddiger has to go out and support her own self and the bastards she downloaded for her free ride ticket?

I hope he can recover attorney fees and the money that was extorted from him already.

Not dising on ya, but that is exactly how most women feel today, even the non-feminists. They believe the child must come first no matter what, and that any man that can help... should!

They dont care who it is, as long as it's a man flipping the bill. The hardcore feminist believe men are no more than slaves... believe it man.

Dutch269 said: Not dising on ya, but that is exactly how most women feel today, even the non-feminists. They believe the child must come first no matter what, and that any man that can help... should!

It's more like most women use the rhetoric of "children must come first" in order to deceive themselves into justifying the ongoing systematic exploitation of men for the purposes of supporting THEMSELVES and incidentally their children.

Thus we see the hypocrisy in something like child support which is much more about "life style" support for mommy than anything else. A woman who expects any handouts whatsoever from a man has absolutely no interest in true equality.

Judge Jackass (AKA Justice J. Michael Eakin) in his dissent, brayed that a father cannot bargain away a child’s mother's right to support. "The mother points and says, 'That is our meal ticket!'. He should support us,”’ J.J. wrote. “What are we to reply? ’No! He signed a contract that this woman is now asking us to violate.’ I find this unreasonable at best. What the mother asks for she should get. Her needs are far more important than a mere contract”

Judge Jackass should be disbarred and sent back to his stall before he drops another steaming pile of poo on the court room floor.

Digitalhermit used the phrase

"children must come first"

Definition: A legal euphemism meaning "a woman is entitled to whatever she wants"

digitalhermit -- "...in order to deceive themselves into justifying the ongoing systematic exploitation of men..."

That's a very interesting idea.

Precisely how is it that women "deceive themselves" when feminist laws and legal practices and mainstream media all fully confirm and endorse their predatory self-deception?"

When a rattlesnake strikes its prey, is it "deceiving itself?" (Is the snake conflicted when it devours a rat?)

Or is it just displaying its natural tendencies?

Individuals enjoying unearned power and advantage seldom contemplate if they are deceiving themselves.

What would be the point?

I've seen very little evidence that women (especially the "I'm not like them" i-feminists...) care one whit about whether their entitlements require ignoring their consciences.

Primarily, because they have none.

anybody notice an ex-husband in the mix? wonder how his name on the birth certificate affected this dcision.

i dearly love this from a dissenting judge

"you cannot bargain away a child's right to support."

then why do so many men who get full custody get no CS from mommy? when i hear some guy at work talking about getting the kids saying over and over again they were just glad/lucky to get the kids and were too scared to ask any questions about mom support.

and that last paragraph putting words in childrens mouths about having a right to be supported by their (in this case) biological father really chokes me up.

but judge, then why do you make men whose wives have cheated on them pay CS for children that don't belong to them?

"i find this unreasonable at best" say da judge.

yeah judge - we get that part.

"Not dising on ya, but that is exactly how most women feel today, even the non-feminists. They believe the child must come first no matter what, and that any man that can help... should!"

I don't feel dissed by that. This is a good thing, as I have basically alienated myself on every other message board I participate in for having a pro-male stance on things. If I can't even get some allies on a mens activism site, don't ask me where the hell I'm going to go ;-0

I am also one of those "the child must come first" types. In fact, I initially became aware of men's issues by becoming interested in children's issues. I always find it interesting how men's issues overlap with children's issues, black issues...in other words, every group that women "advocate for" (read...exploit).

Despite being pro-children, at some point, reason has to kick in. If the judge feels so strongly that the kid needs support, he may as well pay himself rather than pick on some poor (but stupid) schmuck who made it clear he would not be responsible.

In however much he was able to meet $1500 a month (ouch, plus the "extras" that usually get thrown on top), he will not be refunded this payment for all of those years even in this agreement. Its a start for a better precedent, but it isn't a fix by any means when you can't recover your actual damages. Its merely stopping the hammer from hitting the hand, it doesn't make up for the years of daily hammer strikes to it.

Roy wrote: I've seen very little evidence that women (especially the "I'm not like them" i-feminists...) care one whit about whether their entitlements require ignoring their consciences.

Primarily, because they have none.

Arguing that women flat out have no conscience I consider comparable to arguing that they are less than human, since that is a core human characteristic. Is that what you really believe Roy?

I would have to disagree. Yes, there are deeply misguided women out there who are in denial and encouraged by a broken system to take entitlements just as there are deeply misguided men blinded by chivalry that support these very same entitlements. Most simply don't question the status quo.

But comparing women to rattlesnakes and saying that women are incapable of questioning the status quo because they have no conscience is just another way of saying that women should have no responsibility for their actions. On the contrary, they have SOLE RESPONSIBILITY for their actions and should be held to the same level of accountability as men.

The logical outcome of your argument is absurd because it requires rounding up all the sub-human women running around and caging them in some sort of zoo, just as we do with rattlesnakes because they can't help themselves. They are just displaying their "natural tendencies".

"Or take the kid from the mother who is incapable of supporting it and let a family who can adopt it. After all, 'children first' implies their wellbeing is more important than even the mother."

This would actually be the most logically-consistent solution, although not the simplest or cheapest...and probably not even in the best interest of the kid. But Jesus, wouldn't it be sweet if a judge had the guts to say to a woman "well, I guess if you can't take care of them, we will find someone who can". Given the differences in the way men and women stand up for their own self-interests, no wonder men get screwed.

article and dissent from Judge Jackass had absolutely nothing to say about the mother's accountability. The court just assumes she has none, even though it was ENTIRELY HER IDEA to have the child in the first place.

When she finds she can't make a go of it, back to court she goes, crying because she can't afford the children. The judge is just playing the stereotypical role of enabler = chivalrous male. No honey, you shouldn't have to pay for your mistake - only a man can have that "honor and privilege".

But comparing women to rattlesnakes and saying that women are incapable of questioning the status quo because they have no conscience is just another way of saying that women should have no responsibility for their actions. On the contrary, they have SOLE RESPONSIBILITY for their actions and should be held to the same level of accountability as men.

The logical outcome of your argument is absurd because it requires rounding up all the sub-human women running around and caging them in some sort of zoo, just as we do with rattlesnakes because they can't help themselves. They are just displaying their "natural tendencies".

DigitalHermit is absolutely correct in this statement.

I don't buy that "women can't help themselves" or "they are just being women" schtick. Not one bit. Women don't "have to be that way" they just do it because they have never been held accountable for their actions as a group; it is also because women tend to support and nurture negativity in each other rather than positivity. A book I read says one of the biggest problems women have is "too many girlfriends." Whenever a man , or a woman, points out the negative behavior the majority of women display -- and demands change -- you always have about ten other men and women making excuses for them.

I don't go by the "just let women be women" excuse. Why? It excuses negative behavior and falsely states that said negative behavior is what it means to be a woman. The problem with the majority of women is simply that they are "not women" but rather 13 year old girls inhabiting grown-up bodies.

----------
The domain of Mr. Reality

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

digitalhermit,

You are correct.

I should have been more precise in my characterization of women with regard to their possession of an actual conscience.

I would revise my assertion -- "Because they have none" to state:

"Because they display none."

That satisfies though far from accomplishes your argument that women possess a conscience, and also provides them an opportunity to flaunt their unseen moral attributes.

I possess a book I have never read.

Seen?

BTW - Who would ever pay to see women in a zoo? All you have to do is go to the nearest mall to get the same effect.

And, you can always just choose to avoid the rattlesnakes.

Any sentence starting with the words "women should" is already way off base and a silly confession of lingering Chivalry...