|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NCFM, LA went to Sacramento, CA to lobby in favor of AB2240. There were several valuable lessons leaned. Sharing them is the best way to move the men’s movement forward. So, the key points follow:
1) There are members of the CA Senate that will specifically support men's issues. Contacting the assistants and building a relationship obtain those leads and names. To get those leads requires work. It involves having meetings with the assistants of the legislators, finding common ground, and asking for support on a bill.
2) Forming a coalition with business lobbyists has a dramatic impact on gaining influence. For example, Robert, who is a professional lobbyist, has committed to support AB2240 if we support his most important big business bill. That means that there are some social issues that big business will support. For example, there is big business in DNA testing. We can form alliances with their lobbyist and get these companies to favor legislation that addresses men’s issues.
3) Roderick Wright's office made it clear that the game of social reform is about three things, members, more members, and adding many more members to the men’s movement. He pointed out that if we get $10 from 10,000 members that we have $100,000 with which to lobby for legislation that will resolve male specific social issues.
4) It has become clear that when we fail to get legislative members to support men's issues, that it is because we are failing to present the issues correctly. It is all about presentation of the issue. The only failure that men experience is to properly couch the men's issues. When we frame the issue correctly, even the most ardent male hating members of NOW cannot avoid supporting men’s issues. Therefore, we must change our presentation to one that is public/legislator friendly. Doing so will cause the men and women to come and take part.
5) NCFM, LA must continue to expand its influence by making contacts with first the assistants of the legislators, and second by finding issues that we have in common. Then we can ask for them to craft legislation that favors men's issues. We found that when we had frank discussions with the assistants and the legislators, that there was in fact support for men's issues. The reason that nobody is doing anything is that no men's group is present in Sacramento CA 24X7.
6) It only takes the presence of a few men at the legislator to make a significant difference. Anybody who claims to be a member of the men’s movement that says men cannot make a different is ignorant.
7) Writing follow up letters to the lobbyists, the senate members, the assembly members, and the office supporting your bill is a key to having good relationships.
8) There is clear support for creating a bill that would require mandatory paternity testing. So, NCFM, LA needs to work on having a legislator craft this bill and submitting it to the legislative body.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NCFC and NCFM, LA did a fantastic job of keeping AB2240 alive! To Dianna Thompson and Marc Angelucci we have a BIG THANKS! Also, there was a TV personality who is an African American that does on of the Judge shows on daytime TV. Everybody would know her, however, my apologies to her for not remembering her name. She was fantastic! The radical feminist could not stand against her. She played a KEY ROLE in fighting for men’s rights. I was truly stunned and thankful for her appearance. Further, paternityfraud.com was there and they played a key role in getting victims to appear. A big thanks to Taron!
As usual, the liberals used traditional chivalrous arguments against the conservatives without the conservative waking up. They are truly ignorant on how they are being manipulated by the liberals. It is the political moderates in the CA legislature that are the friends of the men’s movement. They do more to preserve men’s rights than any other group. The conservatives are too caught up in their ideal of protecting the woman to realize how they are being manipulated. By holding to their ideals of tradition, they become victims in the hands of the male hating radicals.
Some of the strongest arguments against AB2240 came from male attorneys that were representing a feminist client. The attorneys were fully aware that what they were doing was ethically wrong.
Sheila Kuehl was the liberal democrat that played the conservatives like they were complete retards. She argued that civilization in the last 100 years had decided that the family must preserve the interest of the child. She claimed that this must be done even if it wasn’t fair and resulted in discrimination against men. She said that it is in the best interest of the child that men be discriminated against and be presumed fathers. The conservatives were listening to her like she was a prophet on high speaking God’s law from heaven and etching the 10 commandments in stone. They ate this stuff up.
What it was really about is the feminists on the CA Senate Committee of Judiciary wanting to preserve the woman’s right to cheat on her husband, deceive him, defraud him, and yet not be held accountable. The men’s movement was challenging the sacred ground of the woman’s right to defraud men at will. They were treading on holy ground.
Yet the institutional inequities and discrimination that was directed specifically at men by the feminist was just too obvious and overwhelming. So, the feminist could not kill the bill in the committee even though there was powerful and overwhelming opposition by feminist groups. The victims of paternity fraud lined the walls of the chamber and they were angry. Yet they were humble, and it was that humility that allowed the feminist legislators to scale back the bill. We were lacking in big signs. Apparently, when large signs are held up it intimidates the committee. That mistake will not be made again!
For now, AB2240 continues to survive and it is believed that it will be moved out of the committee onto the floor next week. It has however, been scaled back to address just the victims of paternity fraud where they received a default judgment and there was no contact with the child. We are thankful for this win in the current environment of male hate and will return for a more powerful bill that will require mandatory paternity testing at the birth of the child.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Small victories are the best we can hope for at this time. Kudos to all of you. Go celebrate a little, but don't rest too long :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Small victories are the best we can hope for at this time. Kudos to all of you. Go celebrate a little, but don't rest too long :-)
Actually, it was a BIG VICTORY considering that we formed new alliances that will support mandatory paternity testing to resolve the issue of paternity fraud. We should be able to have the legislation drafted and introduced in the next few months. NOW THAT IS PROGRESS!
Warb
[
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All of this shit is because women screw around and it gets them caught. So because they are embarrassed or such these criminals have to destroy three lives with paternity fraud. Yes three. The child's life is messed because sooner or later its going to come out that the alledged father is not the father and that will taint that kid against both the parents. The guy who was accused falsely (why does false accusations and chicks keep coming up? Jesus) his life is now in turmoil and then the guy who is the real father may or may not ever know about his child. Thats three, for anyone to say it's in the best interest of the child to lie is a fucking liar. Feminist have no accountability whatsoever in their moral makeup. Could be because they have no morality either.
Every time someone says "it's in the best interest of the child", I'm going to laugh right in their face.
Stupid conservitives, along with the liberals. I thought it was liberal men that were fighting this, along with conservative women who wanted to be respected as independants. Guess I'm dreaming of that.
I am suggesting a "Not Every Man is Marc Lepine Day" December 5th.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thats three, for anyone to say it's in the best interest of the child to lie is a fucking liar.
I agree that this is a major lie. Obviously, the radical feminist have the art of playing the conservatives highly refined. The irony of it is that the conservatives are simply too ignorant or bigoted to realize how they are being played by the feminist.
I'm taking lessons from the feminist. I must admit their strategy was quite brilliant. It was so brilliant that the conservative actually believed they were doing a noble thing to vote in favor of protecting the woman's right to commit paternity fraud.
There was no question that the feminist, who were the majority on the CA Senate Judiciary understood that they were protecting a woman's right to intentionally defraud a man under the guise of presumed paternity and family unity. Yet the conservatives and most moderates had no clue what was hitting them.
Just wait. Men are brilliant also. We are taking lessons from these radical feminists, and we will fight back. They won’t have any idea what him them when they loose their right to commit paternity fraud in a marriage or live-in situation.
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't mean to minimize your effort, just that even though the bill isn't everything you hoped for, it's still very definitely worthwhile.
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't mean to minimize your effort, just that even though the bill isn't everything you hoped for, it's still very definitely worthwhile.
No problem. I just wanted to emphasize the importance of our gaining respect in the CA legislature, and I wanted to emphasize the importance of forming new relationships with the legislative body. Those relationships will be instrumental in having new legislation crafted in the future.
Further, there were professional lobbyist that spent valuable time giving us free training on how to have a professional impact. They also taught us how to get big business involved in supporting men's issues.
For example, one of the biggest realizations that we've had is that we can get the DNA testing companies to hire lobbyist to support specific bills. For example, we believe that if AB2240 is passed that it will generate interest in advertising for paternity testing. Then we can ask them to hire a professional lobbyist to present men's interest issues.
This is how it works people. It's just a matter of having a few people going out and doing the work. Then getting the public to signal support by joining men's activist groups.
It is truely mind numbing to consider how fast NCFM, LA is making a difference. We have people beginning to talk about men's issues all over Southern California. We know this because we are hearing spontaneous conversation centering on men's rights. A few months ago that never would have happened.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is truely mind numbing to consider how fast NCFM, LA is making a difference. We have people beginning to talk about men's issues all over Southern California. We know this because we are hearing spontaneous conversation centering on men's rights.
Absolutely wonderful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 08, @11:18PM EST (#72)
|
|
|
|
|
I've been thinking about putting one of those magnetic signs on the trunk of my car. I drive 30 miles a day on the L.A. freeways. It would say, HELP FOR BATTERED MEN (XXX)-XXX-XXXX. X=phone#. I'm a little scared I might not be able to answer all the calls or that nobody will call, but it sure makes me wonder. Any opinions?
What could one do with all those batterd men beyond the basic counselling?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 08, @02:37AM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know how prevelant this saying is in the rest of the country, but where I'm from we hear it from time to time. and it is as follows...;
"As California goes, So goes all of America." Or something like that.
If that saying is true, then your victory may be even GREATER than it allready is. Even greater than you EXPECTED!!
'kinda neat how things work out sometimes, huh?
Thanks, Warb.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thundercloud:
I keep hearing that California is the 5th or 6th largest ecnomy in the world. L.A.(wall to wall people) is probably the biggest piece of that economy. A lot of things get tried out here before other places for some reason and a lot of them don't work, however a lot of them do. But L.A. is in many respects like a big test tube.
I subscribe to the theory of the basketball when it comes to the men's movement. If it bounces off the rim throw it up again. The more times you throw it up the greater the odds of scoring big. Slam dunks are nice too, but that's gonna take more work.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 09, @02:37AM EST (#74)
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Ray.
Message recived.
Thundersloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great work, warble. Thanks for all your effort.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8) There is clear support for creating a bill that would require mandatory paternity testing. So, NCFM, LA needs to work on having a legislator craft this bill and submitting it to the legislative body.
I'm bothered a bit by the mandatory part of this. Perhaps the test should simply be made available. If a man wants the test performed, he should be able to have it done without his wife knowing about it.
A man might choose to trust his wife, however. Also, a man might not want a record of his DNA being taken. He might have religious objections or not trust the government. If the record is destroyed after the test, this might mitigate the problem. It's a safe bet, though, that many men won't want their DNA information going into some sort of database.
Again, I think the test should be available and, if the man chooses to avail himself of the technology his privacy with respect to his wife and the government, should be respected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A man might choose to trust his wife, however. Also, a man might not want a record of his DNA being taken. He might have religious objections or not trust the government. If the record is destroyed after the test, this might mitigate the problem. It's a safe bet, though, that many men won't want their DNA information going into some sort of database.
The biggest problem we found was that men tend to trust their wives in the context of marriage and live-in relationships. Almost all men assume (falsely) that their partner will not cheat on them. In reality, we believe that upwards of 30% of all wives have children by men outside of the marriage.
Next, over 50% of all marriages end in divorce. At that time these women seek ways to abuse their former spouse and claim the child isn't really theirs. When that happens the man and the child become innocently caught in a struggle. But, because of laws that prevent disestablishment of paternity, the man cannot be relieved of child support. Further, there is wide spread DNA test packages available cheaply over the Internet and men are secretly performing these tests.
What happens is that the male who learns of the fraud becomes resentful and tends to break of emotional support to the child. It turns out that knowledge of a child’s biology has a major impact on the psych of men. Men are more committed to their children when they know the child is biologically theirs. This loss of contact with the father is of course known to be damaging to the child and that issue bothers the feminists of the CA legislatures. We can also use the current male-hate environment to claim that men are "stupid" and need to be protected from their own mistaken choices.
Next, we are able to make a credible "best interest of the child" argument to justify DNA testing. We can say it is in the best interest of the child not to be placed at risk of emotional damage resulting from infidelity and divorce. There are many in the CA legislatures that accept this form of reasoning.
Finally, I share your concerns about the possibility of the loss of privacy. I can assure you that there would be mandatory provisions for the destruction of the DNA samples once the paternity is established. As for men not wanting their DNA being collected for a database, it is a safe bet that if we (masculist) don’t handle this issue and get our version of this legislation passed that the feminist will. And the feminist will use the best interest of the child, VAWA, DV, and child molestation arguments to justify a mandatory DNA database with such a bill. Then men will really get screwed as feminist figure out how to criminalize men further.
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like the home version testing myself. I also was thinking if its possible to get "testimonys" from kids who found out that their father was not their father. To show its destructive nature etc...
Men should also be showing that knowledge is actually in the best interest of the child. In fact its currently the arguement for 'sperm' donners to give identities up, as it is in the best interest for the child for medical reasons.
Anyways, Im at the point where Im going to learn how to do DNA tests myself.
.
I am suggesting a "Not Every Man is Marc Lepine Day" December 5th.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... also was thinking if its possible to get "testimonys" from kids who found out that their father was not their father.....
That element was present. It is the only reason that we advanced as far as we did.
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Men should also be showing that knowledge is actually in the best interest of the child.
We did that also. Trust me Dan-Lynch...we did everything perfectly. There was no stone unturned. That is how we made the progress that we did.
But like I said, we are going to have to appeal to the State of CA to save men from themselves and change our arguments and presentations to something they will accept. That means using the all powerful best interest of the child argument to our advantage. Nothing less will work. We are simply stupid to waste time with anything else. All the rest is just window dressing.
It was that argument that feminist Senator Escutia keyed in on to support our issue. We had to prove that innocent biological children were being severely damaged emotionally and financially before they would even consider AB2240. We did exactly that. They could not deny that fact. Using any other approach will simply be pooh-poohed by this CA Senate until we increase our numbers and influence.
So for now we play the political game and take the incremental political wins that we can get. That is how NOW has played the game for years and we would be smart to learn from them.
Hell! I'll take tutoring lessons from NOW if that's what it takes to defend men's rights! A wise man said keeps your friends close and your enemies even closer. Know thy enemy. It works.
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 08, @10:14AM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
All adults should get ourselves tested. None of us know who are fathers are unless we get tested. If our mothers lied to us, they don't deserve to be a part of our families. A mother who lies is not a mother. She's a whore who deserves to spend her last years living on the street and begging for crumbs.
We need to make examples of our own mothers to prove how much we hate these women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We need to make examples of our own mothers to prove how much we hate these women.
He are not going to get very far if we preach this type of hate. So, no. NCFM, LA opposes this type of hate speach against women.
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 08, @11:23AM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
They aren't women. They're whores who cheat on their husbands and then lie about it. They don't deserve love or compassion. They deserve to have their homes taken away and be put in prison, or at least out on the street with the other prostitutes.
NCFM-LA is preaching that men shouldn't trust their spouses, yet we're supposed to trust our mothers? I don't think so. Nobody should trust their mother unless they get a DNA test and it's proven that she's not a whore.
NCFM-LA is preaching that children should hate their mothers when they find out mommy is a whore. We should stand up and make our own mothers the first examples of what happens to a whore who cheats and lies.
If a man is smart enough not to trust or love his wife, he should be smart enough not to trust or love his mother. There's at least a 30% chance your mother lied to you Warble. There's at least a 30% chance my mother lied to me. I refuse to believe her unless I get the DNA test and it's proven she didn't lie.
But, that doesn't mean she didn't cheat. Maybe she just didn't get caught.
You said yourself that men shouldn't trust their spouses. Why do our mothers deserve more? They don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NCFM-LA is preaching that children should hate their mothers when they find out mommy is a whore. We should stand up and make our own mothers the first examples of what happens to a whore who cheats and lies.
NCFM-LA does not say this. Gees. You have a choice. You can work to solve the problem or you can teach your hate. If you teach hate you're on your own. We will not support your hate speech.
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 08, @11:57AM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
You tell me I am talking hate speech, yet below you said that men are stupid if they trust their wives, because most wives are whores having sex with every guy in town and giving birth to bastards.
Your wife is a whore, but your mother is a saint? I don't think so. Remember that she is your father's wife. She is a whore who is to be hated until a DNA test proves that she didn't cheat, or at least she didn't have a bastard with the man she is cheating with.
If you don't love and don't trust your wife, but you give your mother the benefit of the doubt, you are a hypocrite Warble. You should stand up and make your own mother the first example of what happens to a whore. Tell her there's more than a 30% chance she lied and demand a DNA test. If it comes back that she lied, and it probably will, she should face your wrath. She should be put out on the street with the other whores.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You tell me I am talking hate speech, yet below you said that men are stupid if they trust their wives, because most wives are whores having sex with every guy in town and giving birth to bastards.
Then I misspoke and didn't communicate the idea correctly. I don't know how much you know about culture or socialization, and I don't have time to explain this in detail. But here is a different explanation of what I am trying to say.
For thousands of years there was very little divorce. Further, women and men tended to be more faithful. In that cultural climate, trusting your partner was a great idea. It had the effect of guaranteeing the survival of the family and the species. If there was a divorce on the grounds of infidelity of the mother the children went to the man.
Along come the pill, abortion, and other forms of birth control for women. Bam! Major change to the culture. Now we have in excess of a 50% divorce rate, massive promiscuity, and children being the result of any number of possible combinations.
This is a dramatic change that has taken place in a brief period. With that change there has been a failure on the part of men to adjust their presumptions of fidelity. They still ignorantly cling to the idea of default trust. Yet the facts prove that there are millions of children being born into a marriage that are the biological child of another man.
With this dramatic cultural change, the assumption of marital fidelity is absurd. And yes, I believe that men are stupid to continue insisting that a child must be theirs for no other reason than they are macho and their wife could not have cheated. This macho attitude is causing millions of children to be harmed emotionally.
So what is the most obvious solution? You tell me.
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 08, @12:25PM EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Warble. I'm the idiot who trusts his wife, even though according to you, she doesn't deserve it.
I don't know where you got the idea that people were more faithful in the past. There was no paternity testing in the past. Blood typing came along only within the past 100 years. Furthermore, in times past marriage was a business arrangement, not a love match. People were expected to take lovers outside of marriage. Men were not expected to find love in a marriage, but with a mistress, many of whom were married themselves. Combine all this with poor birth control and no legal abortion. If anything, paternity fraud was probably more prevalent than it was today.
I believe that men are stupid to continue insisting that a child must be theirs for no other reason than they are macho and their wife could not have cheated. This macho attitude is causing millions of children to be harmed emotionally.
Not saying it's right to commit adultery (I think it's unforgiveable), but the only way the child is harmed emotionally is if the secret comes out and the man turns on the child. If the guy spends his life in denial and raises the child as his, the child is not harmed emotionally, because nobody knows the difference.
And even though you probably think he's an idiot too, I know at least one man who is raising a child he knows is not his. The child was the result of his wife having an affair, and the biological father wants nothing to do with the child. He and his wife went into marriage counseling to work through their problems, and he legally adopted the child.
The alleged troll has you on one point. If a man is stupid to assume a child is his, he must be just as stupid to assume his father is his. You can't have it both ways, Warble. It sounds to me like you're the one in denial. You don't want to get a DNA test because you don't want to break up your own family, but you call other men names if they tell you they don't want to break up theirs.
If you're going to tell everyone else to sacrifice their families at the altar, yours should be first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And even though you probably think he's an idiot too, I know at least one man who is raising a child he knows is not his.
Too many damn Anons.
The difference is that he knows and that he has had the chance to protect himself.
. If a man is stupid to assume a child is his, he must be just as stupid to assume his father is his. You can't have it both ways, Warble. It sounds to me like you're the one in denial. You don't want to get a DNA test because you don't want to break up your own family, but you call other men names if they tell you they don't want to break up theirs.
Actually no. I agree with this assessment. However, it is my opinion that men are stupid to continue accepting the presumed father doctrine and then later wants to disestablish paternity because of a child support order and leave a child fatherless. That is why I believe men are stupid not to demand mandatory DNA testing. It solves a lot of problems.
If you have a better solution, I'm all ears. I don’t see anybody coming up with better solutions to the problem of paternity fraud. I’m suggesting first prevention, and second disestablishment of paternity in some circumstances. Have a better idea? Let’s hear it.
Now please get a handle so I have an idea of who I'm talking to. I have no idea if you are the woman hater or what. I cannot intelligently respond if I cannot tell if you are the woman hater or somebody else.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 08, @07:16PM EST (#71)
|
|
|
|
|
"A mother who lies is not a mother. She's a whore who deserves to spend her last years living on the street and begging for crumbs."
"We need to make examples of our own mothers to prove how much we hate these women."
I hear what you're saying. My experience was a little different. I love my mom and dad. They were both virgins when they got married, and never knew another person their whole lives. They didn't get along real well numerous times, but they never divorced. Maybe they stayed together for my brother and I although they never said that. In fact I never heard them talk of divorce. They were part of that group who could say of divorce, "It was just never done." None of my 30 aunts and uncles ever divorced either. Their both dead now, and I miss them very much. Occasionally they'll come to me in my dreams as real as life and we visit. I always feel cheated when I wake up and realize it was all a dream. In many ways they have been the rock that anchored my life, which is a lot more than I can say for the two women I picked to marry, whom I'm now divorced from. I don't have any kids so I've only been raked half way over the coals, law-wise.
It's super tough to have kids you can't see or only see part time, really super tough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 08, @10:10AM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
What if a man refuses the DNA test? What if he attempts to flee with his family to avoid the testing? Will he be arrested and jailed, and told that this is for his own good?
Maybe it is stupid for spouses to trust each other, with anything, but it shouldn't be illegal to trust your spouse if that's what you choose. Criminalizing trusting your wife is treating men like children. It's saying they're too stupid and naive to make their own decisions.
I agree with Thomas. DNA testing should be voluntary and private. The government should not mandate it, ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 08, @10:45AM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
If you can't trust your wife, why bother getting married? I'm serious. She's probably just going to cheat on you anyway. Even if the DNA tests are made mandatory, there's a 60% chance or more that the child isn't yours. Why bother? I'd rather live alone and not have to sleep with one eye open all the time. I think most people are better off living alone and not bothering with family.
Family isn't worth it. It never was. Back in the alleged good old days, there was no paternity testing. As another anonymous poster pointed out, none of us have any idea who are fathers are. We can't trust our mothers. Remember that your mother is also someone's wife, and most wives can't be trusted.
You can trust your friends, but you can never trust your family, and especially not your spouse. Men can't trust women not to cheat, and women can't trust men either. It's better to be alone and be happy, than sleep with an enemy every night.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if the DNA tests are made mandatory, there's a 60% chance or more that the child isn't yours.
Absurd. Please document that statistic. You are miss quoting a bigot troll.
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 08, @12:05PM EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
No, I'm going upon what you said, that any man who trusts his wife is an idiot. I also noticed the reference to miss quoting. You admit that most liars are women.
I refuse to sleep next to a bitch I can't trust. Living alone is better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What if a man refuses the DNA test? What if he attempts to flee with his family to avoid the testing? Will he be arrested and jailed, and told that this is for his own good?
Fair enough. These are valid questions. First, there is strong evidence to prove that about 30% of all women cheat on their husbands. The AABB has also demonstrated that about 30% of men tested are proven not to be the father of a child.
Back 100 years ago when there was not sexual liberation it was reasonable to assume trust. Today, where there is widespread infidelity on the part of men and women it is stupid for men to continue assuming that a child is theirs. That simply is not the case for millions of men. So yes. Men are ignorant and continue lie to themselves. They have been socialized to do this and the pattern must be broken. Any man that does not get a DNA test to determine the paternity of their child is an idiot.
Further, we have the advent of widespread DNA testing available to prove paternity for under $300 per test. This is wrecking havoc on our culture because the tests are being used after a divorce. What is happening is that men are finding out that a child they are supporting isn’t theirs. That practice is a serious issue because children are being emotionally damaged. So, what is happening is that there is widespread support for preventing the potential for damage to the child in the first place. Men cannot avoid that issue. It is impossible. Nor would responsible men want to avoid this widespread problem.
Further, in our culture, the best interest of the child is paramount and subordinates the interest of both the parents. That means that if there must be an injustice to the parents to protect a child that our culture will support that injustice. That is the best interest of the child doctrine. When the doctrine is not abused it is sound doctrine. NCFM, LA supports that doctrine where it is legitimately used despite the abuse. This works especially well when it is known by the man that a child is biologically his. That is because of the impact on the psyche of the male in wanting to preserve and protect his biological offspring.
Next, we know that the radical feminist will propose and win on mandatory paternity testing at some point. If they do that, they will argue for a DNA repository for men. As I’ve pointed out, men do not want their DNA on file. I promise that if they introduce this legislation that they will most likely get a database on male DNA.
So, we cannot avoid this issue by sticking our heads in the ground. They argue that too many evil men are claiming that a child is not theirs and damaging that child emotionally. This is true and it is an issue that cannot be ignored by responsible men – period.
Finally, in answer to your question of the problem of a man avoiding a paternity test. What will most likely happen is that a default paternity judgment will be entered against that man. Then he will become financially liable. Further, he will be served properly because of modifications to AB2240. Men will no longer be able to claim that the paperwork went to the wrong address.
Currently, we are able to prove that too many men do not get their day in court due to a lack of service. That is going to stop. Men will be served properly and they will respond in court or they will receive a default paternity judgment. If they fail to submit to paternity testing, they will be judged to be the father.
So, take your pick. You can be responsible and prove there is a mistake by a DNA test or you can get a default paternity judgment. If you try to run away, then you are probably one of the scum men that deserve to be criminalized for damaging children.
If you don't want to be in a court for paternity testing keep your penis in you pants. It worked for me and it can work for you.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 08, @12:00PM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
"Any man that does not get a DNA test to determine the paternity of their child is an idiot."
And what of a man who does not get a DNA test to determine his own paternity? Have you gotten yourself tested? You accuse me of hate speech, yet you admit most wives are whores.
Your mother is a wife too, and your father deserves to know if she whored herself around town. If she did, he should put her out of the house. You and he should do everything to make the remainder of her life miserable, and hopefully she'll do the world a favor and hang herself. Anything else is hypocritical.
I will not support a group that preaches distrust of wives but puts the same trust into their own mothers. Just because she's your mother doesn't mean she's not a whore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warb,
Anonymous doesn't believe that all mothers and wives are whores. This smells of a flame-baiting troll, who is putting words in your mouth. By pointing out the 30% statistics regarding paternity fraud, you make it clear that 70% of wives are on the other side of the statistic.
You've clearly made no blanket statements about all wives and mothers, Warb. This person just imagines that you have. As for the statement that "Any man that does not get a DNA test to determine the paternity of their child is an idiot," you seem to be pointing out the fact that no man can be certain of his paternity without a DNA test. No man is all-knowing and no man can be certain in his judgement about a woman. If a man doesn't get tested, he may later find himself in a world of hurt. In addition, by refusing to get tested, a man is failing to be part of a solution to a massive, destructive, social problem.
In addition, the troll's statements about mothers make no sense in the current context. A man is not about to be forced into paternity payments to himself because his mother cheated. And we are talking about unjust paternity payments.
While I'm not sure I like the idea of mandatory testing, you're certainly not making the blanket, anti-female statements of which Anonymous accuses you. This is a troll. You would do well to dismiss its flame-baiting. I'm convinced that you have far better things to do than to get dragged down into an argument with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warb,
Did you say that most wives are whores having sex with every guy in town and giving birth to bastards?
If not, you are being baited by a troll, who is lying about you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 08, @12:34PM EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
What about our own father's rights? If I'm not my father's child and he wouldn't have raised me if he knew that, doesn't he deserve his day in court? Doesn't he deserve to sue my mother for all those years of lies, and put her in jail where she belongs? Just because she committed the crime decades ago doesn't mean she doesn't deserve prison. Should all criminals be allowed to go free if their crimes aren't discovered immediately?
A woman who commits paternity fraud is a criminal who deserves prison. We all agree on that. If she committed the crime 40 years ago, she still deserves prison. She should have been in prison all these years, and she eluded justice. Now that we can catch her and put her where she belongs, we should.
"No man is all-knowing and no man can be certain in his judgement about a woman."
Then he cannot be certain in his judgement about his mother, who is after all a woman. If our fathers are not brave enough to stand up to our mothers and demand testing, we must do it ourselves, for their sakes. If they are victims of a crime, we need to stand up for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm at work and I don't have time to read the whole thread. I apologize for this if that makes me sound ignorant. But I agree that either parent ought to have the right to request such a test, but if none does, then the test ought not to be administered. First, I might well choose to 'trust' my wife, but even more, I might not want to know for sure if the baby is 'mine' just because the infidelity becomes undeniable. And when that happens, the results are unpredictable. It like telling your spouse, when he/she goes out with friends "Don't come home with nuthin' you can't wash off!" Maybe she cheated, maybe she didn't, but I don't want to know about it, or at least, let me fool myself rather than having it confirmed. Further, there are men out there who know DAMN WELL that thier wives are fooling around, they may already know for sure that the kid is not theirs, but they may really want to stay in the picture as the father. I would. If testing is mandatory, then the results would become public, at least within the family, and the kid would be forced to question his heritage and might even be able to use this, emotionally, against the fatehr (or the mother).
The caveat I would add to this, though, is that the father ought to be told that if he declines to test, that 1) there may be a change in the law that disallows him to test later; 2) that without the test, he has no surety that that he is the father (many men simply don't realize this).
If we force the test and if we force the results out in the open, we might not get the results we want. In my estimation, it's an issue that's attached to "a man's right to choose."
Sorry if y'all think I'm siding with the feminists here, 'cause I'm not. I'm siding with fathers who may not want to know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bait and switch: I'm not certain Anonymous isn't Anonymous, or is she? (I suspect at least one is a female-feminist.)
In another thread recently, we had two Anonymouses (Anonymice? :)) playing good cop and bad cop, and I suspect they may have been the same person. In any case, you'd do well not to waste your time responding to the obvious flames.
Also, remember that testing to see if your "father" is your "biological father" is a red herring. Finding out about your father has nothing to do with having tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of dollars stolen from you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 08, @12:37PM EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
"testing to see if your "father" is your "biological father" is a red herring. Finding out about your father has nothing to do with having tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of dollars stolen from you."
No, it has to do with tens of thousands being stolen from a fellow brother, and bringing criminal women to justice when they've run from the law for decades.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous claimed that warble said, "most wives are whores having sex with every guy in town and giving birth to bastards." This is a lie.
I am ignoring the lying troll.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did you say that most wives are whores having sex with every guy in town and giving birth to bastards?
If not, you are being baited by a troll, who is lying about you.
Thomas,
I never said that. The troll is a male hater that is posing as a woman hater. She is probably even posting as multiple AU's.
I appreciate your views in the earlier post. I agree with your assessment of the argument that I'm trying to put forward.
Thanks!
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 08, @12:55PM EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't ask how many women are cheating on their husbands. I asked whether our own fathers should have any rights in this area. I think they should. I don't think a woman who committed paternity fraud should walk free just because it happened 40 years ago. I don't think we should acknowledge and punish infidelity in our wives, but ignore it when our mothers do it.
Warble said that any man who doesn't test his children and find out the truth is adding to the problem. I think that any man or woman who doesn't test themselves and find out the truth is guilty of the same thing. Otherwise, what message does that send to fraud moms? You can get away with this if nobody finds out until 30 years later?
It may not be our money that was spent, but it was a fellow brother's money. Look at how many elderly men live in poverty and poor health. Prosecuting older fraud moms would help these men. They could get back at least some of the money they lost years ago, and live a secure retirement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The troll is a male hater that is posing as a woman hater. She is probably even posting as multiple AU's.
Yup.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm siding with fathers who may not want to know.
I agree, Frank. If anything is mandatory, perhaps it should be the availability of a private test, rather than the test itself. Also, information about the seriousness of paternity fraud, as well as the possible ramifications of not being tested, should be readily available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 08, @01:26PM EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You and I appear to be on the same page. I see a man's right to choose applying to the right to refuse a test, along with the right to insist on one.
Further, there are men out there who know DAMN WELL that thier wives are fooling around, they may already know for sure that the kid is not theirs, but they may really want to stay in the picture as the father.
Yes. There are couples who have open marriages, and have an agreement that any children born will be raised by the husband. They may have an agreement that they won't DNA test because they just don't want to know. Their rights should be respected.
Maybe she cheated, maybe she didn't, but I don't want to know about it, or at least, let me fool myself rather than having it confirmed.
There are people who think this way too, for many reasons. I for one do not agree with those people, but they should have the right to do what they want.
The caveat I would add to this, though, is that the father ought to be told that if he declines to test, that 1) there may be a change in the law that disallows him to test later; 2) that without the test, he has no surety that that he is the father (many men simply don't realize this).
That I have no problem with. It's called informed consent. A hospital could offer a test to an expectant father. Have him sign a document agreeing or refusing the test. It could be worded to say, "I realize that if I decline this test, biological fatherhood cannot be established." In addition, NCFM could design brochures and launch a massive direct mail campaign. Taking out ads in men's magazines would also help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 08, @01:41PM EST (#50)
|
|
|
|
|
Unless NCFM supports the right of elderly victims of paternity fraud to prosecute wimmin who committed these crimes years before, I cannot support NCFM. It's ironic that I was accused of being female, when I'm arguing these wimmin deserve jail, and you're saying they deserve to get away with their crimes, just because they're your mothers and not your wives.
That smacks of feminism. We can't put the poor elderly grandmas in jail, they'd die! As if that would be a big loss. Being a grandma shouldn't excuse crimes.
I'm glad you people weren't on the jury that convicted that femmunist bitch who blew up a police car in the 70s, then said she shouldn't go to jail because it was so long ago! She didn't get away with her crime. Wimmin who committed paternity fraud in the 70s shouldn't get away with theirs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep - I have to say that some of the words and phrases that the original AU used are so virulently anti-female that it seems almost contrived. In the whole time I've been on this board, I've never seen this level of vitriol before, so I hope it's a one-off. I too am tempted to believe that the troll is essentially anti-male and dare I say it, could be female?
I noticed the other flame/troller earlier this week on "The egalitarian nature of DV" thread and was surprised at his/her determination to have the last word and respond to every single comment directed towards them.
One way to discredit this site would be to tar us all as women haters, and already, the archive from these two threads won't do too many favours on Google searches in the future. I hope I'm wrong and these troll/flame wars don't become too pervasive.
I guess that's one of the problems we have by being supporters of free speech and our tolerance of anonymous users on this board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hope I'm wrong and these troll/flame wars don't become too pervasive.
We have to avoid getting sucked into them. This site is, after all, about men's activism. Much better to fire off a letter to a legislator than to spend time arguing with someone, who just wants to irritate you and waste your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, information about the seriousness of paternity fraud, as well as the possible ramifications of not being tested, should be readily available.
This is currently the environment. It is literally the situation we have now in CA. Yet we still have children being emotionally damaged when either parent informs the child that their father is not really the father.
Then when the father finds out he is a victim of paternity fraud, he becomes resentful, he withdraws from the child, and often they complain because of the child support obligations. Why would anybody want to prevent this scenario when it is literally involving millions of children? Why not prevent the potential for harm to children and the man in the first place?
Do you really believe that we can get women to stop telling their children that the presumed father isn't the father, and can we really get men to stop walking away when they learn that the child isn't biologically their's?
Obviously, this will not happen. Yet there are millions of men that are lied to, and the result is that there are millions of children being emotionally damaged because of disputes over paternity.
What other solution is there other than to provide the child with a guarantee of their biological parentage? What are we going to do...place a child in a position of never knowing for certain who is the father? That's absurd! There must be finality in paternity judgments. Children deserve that kind of emotional stability.
I agree that this has a component of sacrificing the interest of the male. But when the child's interest is compared with the man's interest, the man will loose every time in CA.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That I have no problem with. It's called informed consent. A hospital could offer a test to an expectant father. Have him sign a document agreeing or refusing the test.
This is already the case. If that is what you believe then you believe that the law should not be changed.
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"This is already the case..."
Perhaps my ignorance will show againt here, but forgive me.
This is not the case right now. True enough, a father CAN ask for a paternity test, and he always could. But right now the law makes the husband responsible for support regardless of the result. That's the cruix of the matter to me. Should a non-biological father be COMPELLED BY LAW to be financially responsible for children not biologically his own. Should a father who finds that he is NOT the biological father be permitted to have the choice to ignore that fact. Actually, in the interest of the child, I would suggest to anyone who asked me that, should they find that this is the case, they ought to continue to be the father in that child's life especially if there was a history of that kind of relationship, regardless of what happened to the marriage. This is what I would endeavor to do myself. But I do not think this ought to be mandated in law, as it currently seems to be. Mandatory testing would make this nearly impossible to do. Even if your wife is guilty of infidelity, the child still needs a father. You may be the only game in town.
Just my two cents-worth...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're beginning to convince me, Warble. Given the importance of genetics with respect to physical and mental health, a child has a right to know its parentage. Also, children can know with certainty who their mothers are. I don't see that it will hurt them to know who their fathers are or aren't. Even if men don't want to know if they are the biological fathers, children have the right to know who their biological fathers are.
I don't trust the government, but then how often is the government involved, as it would be in this case, in advancing truth?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But right now the law makes the husband responsible for support regardless of the result. That's the cruix of the matter to me.
Actually, there are at least two cruxes. One is whether a man, who isn't the biological father of a child, should be forced by the government to support that child. The other is a child's right to know its parentage, which, given what we know about genetics, can be a matter of life or death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Be careful here. The insurance companies would dearly love to require genetic testing so that they can reduce their costs and decide who's a good risk and who's not. Requiring every father to be DNA tested might well lead to a DNA data repository that would cause MOUNTAINS of other problems. Also, considering the not-so-recent post regarding voluntary DNA data collection in the U.K. (Scotland, I believe it was), this is a questionable motivation for mandatory DNA testing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Be careful here.
Caution is definitely advised. The man should have the right to have the DNA record destroyed. In that case, a record should be kept that states only that he is or isn't the biological father.
The government certainly should not be allowed to get its filthy paws on the information, unless it is released by the man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 08, @04:11PM EST (#62)
|
|
|
|
|
Genetic info usually isn't a matter of life or death, tho insurance companies would like everyone to believe this, so they can raise rates thru the roof.
But even if a DNA test exonerates a particular man, that doesn't mean the kid will ever know who his father really is. What if the father is a stranger the mother had a one nighter with, and she doesn't even know who he is, or what if she just refuses to identify him? Apart from keeping a DNA database of every man in the country, I don't see how the bio-dad can be identified in these situations.
All testing does is exonerate the guy the mother tried to fraud. That's a good thing, but it doesn't automatically follow that the child will know who his father is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But right now the law makes the husband responsible for support regardless of the result. That's the cruix of the matter to me. Should a non-biological father be COMPELLED BY LAW to be financially responsible for children not biologically his own.
Actually no. Rod Wright notes, "Existing law provides that a child, the child's natural
mother, or a man presumed to be the child's father, among other specified persons, may bring an action to determine the existence or nonexistence of the father and child relationship, as specified."
This means that a presumed father is permitted to challenge paternity in CA. They have a 2-year time period to challenge such matters. Presumed fathers are able to challenge paternity using DNA testing.
The problem in CA is that there is that we have too many default judgments against fathers that never get properly served. The result is that men pay support for a child that isn’t theirs and to a woman they never met. So, the state ends up extorting money from innocent men that have never met their child. Worse, the state want to continue extorting men for this money because they claim it will leave children without a father. It was literally wild to have Los Angeles County’s Attorney argue in favor of having the state extort money from men so they could have good numbers.
If the men's movement had not have made an appearance, men would have been screwed again! That is why it is so important for men to appear at these hearings.
AB2240 fixes that problem. Let's hope it passes out of the Senate in the next couple of weeks.
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous,
I don't know if you're Anonymous, Anonymous, or another Anonymous, but your post seems reasonable, so I'll respond.
Genetic info usually isn't a matter of life or death. Clearly. I wrote "The other is a child's right to know its parentage, which, given what we know about genetics, can be a matter of life or death." Note the word "can."
But even if a DNA test exonerates a particular man, that doesn't mean the kid will ever know who his father really is. Again, clearly. But the child will be protected from wrongly assuming that a man is its biological father. This can be important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 08, @04:34PM EST (#67)
|
|
|
|
|
I think if you assume the government will let these records be destroyed, you're assuming wrong. If the right of the child to know who his parents are is paramount, the government will say they need a DNA database to check against in cases where the mother doesn't know who the father is, or when she claims she doesn't know. They'll use your argument that the child needs this information for his medical history.
This is why a private, voluntary system of testing is better than one mandated and controlled by the government. If you give the government the power to mandate the testing be done, you give them the power to demand control over it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Caution is definitely advised. The man should have the right to have the DNA record destroyed. In that case, a record should be kept that states only that he is or isn't the biological father.
Agreed. One of the key reasons that I support the idea of mandatory DNA testing is that I KNOW the radical feminist will want to use this issue to justify the creation of a DNA database on men. They have already made it clear that this is on their agenda.
It is just a matter of time till radical feminists introduce that legislation in CA, and it will be designed to create such a database. The way they will do this is by using mandatory paternity testing as a front for creating law that mandates a database.
What they will do is use a best interest of the child argument to justify paternity testing, then they will bash men, and claim they need the database because evil men commit DV, child molestations, rape, and murder.
So, in essence they will create a bill for mandatory DNA testing to establish paternity, while adding all sorts of riders that criminalize men and create law for a DNA database.
Now if the men's movement takes over this issue and demands mandatory DNA testing in the name of the best interest of the child, we come out smelling like a rose. We are telling feminist what they want to hear using the best interest of the child argument, and yet we are actually creating law that demands the destruction of all DNA samples. So, men win because by law there cannot be a DNA database.
At some point we will face the issue. If we choose to be proactive we control the issue. If we are reactive we get our ass handed to us on a platter and look like backlashers. That's politics man. Take the pick of your approach. Be a reactionary backlasher or look like a hero taking responsibility for the child.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you give the government the power to mandate the testing be done, you give them the power to demand control over it.
The government in CA already has the power to order mandatory DNA testing to determine the paternity of a child. Guess what. No DNA database. So your fear is a non-issue if managed properly.
The idea is to manage the issue from a masculist perspective, and avoid the radical feminst perspective which would advocate a DNA database on men.
Warble
P.S. Please get a handle. You can still remain an AU, but I need to get an idea of which AU is talking.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 08, @05:11PM EST (#70)
|
|
|
|
|
I know I'll get flamed for saying this, but I don't want it controlled by feminists or masculists. By the nature of the word, feminists want what they think is best for women. Likewise, masculists want what they think is best for men.
I'm not a feminist, but I'm also not a masculist. I'm an anarchist. I don't belong on a feminist board, but I guess I don't belong here either. I'm not going to register, because I don't want to stick around on a board meant only for masculists, of which I am not one, and am not interested in being one. I don't participate in any feminist boards either. Hanging around on boards where I'm not welcome isn't my thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 09, @03:15AM EST (#75)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I learned that a few days ago.
Allthough I did have some fun turning the "baiting" tables on the troll on the "Egalitarian DV" discussion thread.
Unfortunatly, some missed my point and flamed me for "playing the race card".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 08, @12:14PM EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you try to run away, then you are probably one of the scum men that deserve to be criminalized for damaging children.
I'm not scum. I'm an idiot. I'm one of those men who trusts my wife. If I didn't trust her, I wouldn't have married her. Nobody should marry someone they don't think they can trust. Accusing her of infidelity when I have no evidence of such, would be no different than her accusing me when she has no evidence.
What would you think of a woman who constantly accused her husband of cheating, telling him "I know you're doing it, I know you are" even though he's never given her any reason to believe he's been unfaithful? The woman can at least get a DNA test and prove that she is faithful. A man can't get a similiar test. If he doesn't trust her, why should she trust him? If they don't trust each other, why are they having children together in the first place?
If being part of the men's movement means I have to distrust my wife, and consider other men who do to be "idiots," then I can't be a part of it. I don't want to be part of a movement that calls me an idiot, and scum who damages children, all because I don't believe in mandatory DNA testing, and because I committed the unforgivable sin of trusting my wife.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If being part of the men's movement means I have to distrust my wife, and consider other men who do to be "idiots," then I can't be a part of it. I don't want to be part of a movement that calls me an idiot, and scum who damages children, all because I don't believe in mandatory DNA testing, and because I committed the unforgivable sin of trusting my wife.
Having a mandatory DNA test to prove paternity is not accusing your wife of infidelity. It does not mean that you are not justified in trusting your wife. Crap. I think I'm getting the Anons mixed up. I really don't know which one you are. There is one that is teaching female hate and another that seems more reasonable.
Nevertheless, we know that 50% of all marriages and more end in divorce. No rational person gets married knowing that they will get a divorce.
Yet we still have millions of men that are victimized because they have the child of another man in their child support orders. So, what is your solution to the problem? Ever try to even come up with a solution other than complaining and whining on the Internet? Ever even try to work with the legislature to support your ideas?
You have my attention. You have another solution? Lets hear it.
Finally, if you are too weak to take a little criticism then you don't belong in the men's movement. We actively chase away those that cannot take disagreement and criticism. Trust me. When you get before the Senate or Assembly in a hearing this stuff is mild in comparison. If you cannot take some criticism then you are little more than a whiny whimp.
We need men with balls in the men's movement. Not feminized men who are honerary feminist.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think I'm getting the Anons mixed up.
Don't be so sure they're different people. They have a way, recently, of popping up together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 08, @12:48PM EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I am certain that my wife is not cheating on me, why on earth would I need a paternity test? The entire reason for the test is that you cannot trust your wife's word or your feelings about her, only the DNA.
we still have millions of men that are victimized because they have the child of another man in their child support orders. So, what is your solution to the problem? Ever try to even come up with a solution other than complaining and whining on the Internet? Ever even try to work with the legislature to support your ideas?
If a man suspects a child is not his, he should be allowed to get a DNA test (without the mother's permission or knowledge), then stop all support payments, then sue the mother for reimbursement. If she has real property or a car, they should be seized and given to the man. If she is living with him, he should be allowed to evict her and the child. I have not argued against any of this. I have argued against two things, mandatory DNA testing and your claim that any man who doesn't test his children is an "idiot."
A little criticism? Scum who damages children? Idiot? Whiny wimp? Feminized honorary feminist? That's more than a little criticism. It sounds like the same things the feminists say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I am certain that my wife is not cheating on me, why on earth would I need a paternity test?
It is impossible to have this kind of certainty without a paternity test. To claim such is an example of this troll's ignorance and idiocy.
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 08, @04:19PM EST (#64)
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is impossible to have this kind of certainty without a paternity test. To claim such is an example of this troll's ignorance and idiocy.
Then it comes back down to saying that men should never trust their wives. The only thing that can be trusted is the DNA test. Can we at least agree on this? If you trusted your wife, you wouldn't need the test to prove her innocent.
As for me, I don't see the point in being married to someone you don't trust. If I thought my wife was cheating on me, I would no longer be married to her, and I would not even consider having a family with her. If that makes me a troll, so be it. I am not the one sharing my home with a woman I can't trust any further than I can throw her.
But let me tell you something. If this is the way you're going to approach men in general, by telling them they cannot trust their wives, and that if they do they're idiots, wimps, feminized and so on, and attack people on the Internet by telling them they're feminist and trolls, you're going to alienate a lot of people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 08, @04:25PM EST (#65)
|
|
|
|
|
In addition, saying that men shouldn't trust their wives, and that men who don't DNA test all their children are "idiots" does equal woman-bashing.
By the way, just because your wife passes a paternity test doesn't mean she's not cheating on you. It might just mean she was very careful about birth control with her lover. A paternity test only determines paternity. It does not prove that someone is innocent of having an affair.
I'm glad I don't share my home with a woman I don't feel I can safely turn my back on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 09, @03:40AM EST (#76)
|
|
|
|
|
Listen, I'm with Warb and Thomas, You folks who post as "Anonymous" NEED to get a HANDLE, so others KNOW (more or less) who is posting and who they are responding to. It REALLY would cut down on confusion.
If you don't know what a "HANDLE" is, It is simply a "name" you use to identify yourself. It doesn't have to be your REAL name. You can still post as "Anonymous user" just sighn Your handle at the bottom of your posts, Like I do.
Thundercloud.
PS. That's ALL there is to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 09, @03:54AM EST (#77)
|
|
|
|
|
"Anon", I can tell you for certain Warble is NO woman hater. Most of the "regulars" here, like him, are not.
In fact, Warb critisized a "troll" earlier in this thread for saying (what I thought) were awfull things about women. Go back and see for yourself.
As for YOU being a "Troll", I personaly don't believe you are one. It sounds like your haveing kind of a bad day,maybe. But I don't think you're a "Troll".
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Found it on mensnewsdaily.com. Go to CA Paternity Justice New Report
Notice that this reporter suppressed reporting on the men's groups that appeared. There were at least half a dozen and we clearly identified ourselves. There is no question but that they are censoring us. News organizations only report with reluctance on the AB2240.
Even Escutia the chair of the committee had to admit that men are institutionally discriminated against. She indicates this understanding when she states, "I know the law is not fair. It should be...."
This is a powerful acknowledgement that we need to post everywhere.
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 08, @03:16AM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
((("Notice that this reporter suppressed reporting on the mens groups that appeared.")))
((("There is no question but that they are censoring us".)))
In earlier postings, some suggested we "storm a news room". Alot of people replied negatively to the suggestion.
Any one have a change of heart, on this one?
I do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institutions, governments and the media will continue to shit on men, and devise ever more ways of shitting on men, for exactly, precisely as long as we let them. Not one second more, not one second less. Moral behaviour is not automatic, especially in organisations. You have to force them to do what's right. If it were otherwise we'd have had Utopia a long time ago.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
