I wanted reply you but on a second thought I said to myself :What's the matter with me? I can't just afford to be seen arguing with a mad man ,a low life hustler that does menial Jobs for a living
You're just one pathetic ,poor and bitter fellow. Now you can kiss my asss like the dog you are .
You are a sexist and I have proven to you to accept the law is sexist, so keep quiet.
You're depriving some poor village of its id.iot if you think that's how it works. I stand by my position, and opt out of whatever 'this' is now. Au revoir.
Truckpusher: I wanted reply you but on a second thought I said to myself :What's the matter with me? I can't just afford to be seen arguing with a mad man ,a low life hustler that does menial Jobs for a living
You're just one pathetic ,poor and bitter fellow. Now you can kiss my asss like the dog you are .
You're depriving some poor village of its id.iot if you think that's how it works. I stand by my position, and opt out of whatever 'this' is now. Au revoir.
One: The only potent element in the post above is the unintended IRONY.
Two: The next time you wanna inflate the 'ole ego, you should put the show on for someone who gives at least1/2 a shyt. As a rule, you might also want to keep your sweaty ballz outta this one. Inflation + lack of ventilation leaves you with...well...let's call it piss poor luck.
Mondisweets: u clearly have no purpose in life thats why you always feel that there is a need to insult everyone else to feel better about yourself. Seriously get a life, many men your age do. For pits sake you are over 30, act your age dammit!
Jesus! See finishing!
Haba, have mercy.
*In strong Yoruba accent* Agbalagba sagamite, oto to le ni alabirin yi ti so. Ki o ko sinu diary e. Ko ranti ara e lojojumo.
One: The only potent element in the post above is the unintended IRONY.
Two: The next time you wanna inflate the 'ole ego, you should put the show on for someone who gives at least1/2 a shyt. As a rule, you might also want to keep your sweaty ballz outta this one. Inflation + lack of ventilation leaves you with...well...let's call it piss poor luck.
Well, Jeezus...am I meant to be terribly offended by that particular four letter monosyllable? Alright, for future reference: if you call me into a thread and I'm of a different opinion to yours, sweaty ballz, cunts and expletives are not going to change it. Agreeing with your twisted mind is not by force. I know you gotta stand up for what you stand for, but damn it man layyyy the effffff off! Leave me in peace, and be on your merry way.
P.S I graciously OPT OUT of the c*nt war you've [knowingly or unknowingly] proposed.
Well, Jeezus...am I meant to be terribly offended by that particular four letter monosyllable? Alright, for future reference: if you call me into a thread and I'm of a different opinion to yours, sweaty ballz, cunts and expletives are not going to change it. Agreeing with your twisted mind is not by force. I know you gotta stand up for what you stand for, but damn it man layyyy the effffff off! Leave me in peace, and be on your merry way.
P.S I graciously OPT OUT of the c*nt war you've [knowingly or unknowingly] proposed.
And they would be talking crap about making laws based on "Best interest of the child" especially when they want to milk men in divorce. When all they are doing is creating sexist laws that work of the presumption that "women are poor victims that need protection", while "men are brutal arseholes that should be suppressed and controlled".
All supported by sexist c*nts and moronic "real men".
[size=18pt]Mother allowed to keep baby secret from father[/size]
A woman who had a child after a one-night stand with a work colleague has won the right to keep the birth a secret from the father.
Three appeal court judges ruled that the mother has "the ultimate veto" over who should be told about her baby, and banned social workers from tracking down the father.
The 20-year-old mother had hidden her pregnancy from friends and family, and said that she wanted the girl to be adopted immediately after she had given birth.
However, a county court ordered that her parents and the father must be told after her legal guardian and local authority argued that they should be assessed to see if they were able and prepared to care for the child.
The woman then took the case to the Court of Appeal, where the judges ruled that no steps should be taken to identify the father or tell him about the child, now 19 weeks old.
There was also an order barring the authority from introducing the baby to any of the mother's family to assess them as potential carers.
They had learned about the child only when the local authority made inquiries.
In the ruling yesterday, Lady Justice Arden said the county court judge had made his order because he believed that the local authority had a duty under the law to find out as much information about the background of the family as they could.
But she said there was no such obligation - only a duty to serve the best interests of the child.
The judge said the mother had not realised until a late stage that she was pregnant and the woman did not think she could look after the child.
She kept her pregnancy a secret, living on her own and pursuing a career.
The judge said she asked for the child to be adopted, saying she did not believe her divorced parents could provide a home for the girl.
She stressed that she did not want the father to know anything about the child.
Lady Justice Arden, sitting with Lord Justice Thorpe and Lord Justice Lawrence Collins, said this was not a violation of the father's rights to family life under the Human Rights Act because he had no rights to be violated.
Lord Justice Thorpe said: "The law improves the opportunity of the child of anonymous birth to search out its biological origin.
"However, the ultimate veto remains with the mother. Registers of information are in place to lead the searching child to the mother's door but the child has no right of entry if the mother, despite counseling, refuses to unlock it."
The names and locations of everyone involved in the case cannot be published by order of the court.
Yeah right! The UK laws are indeed in the "Best interest of the child"!
How are they so sure the child was conceived as a result of a "one-night stand" if they have not asked the other party what was the nature of their relationship? The courts just believed this because she said so?
And they would be talking crap about making laws based on "Best interest of the child" especially when they want to milk men in divorce. When all they are doing is creating sexist laws that work of the presumption that "women are poor victims that need protection", while "men are brutal arseholes that should be suppressed and controlled".
All supported by sexist c*nts and moronic "real men".
Yeah right! The UK laws are indeed in the "Best interest of the child"!
How are they so sure the child was conceived as a result of a "one-night stand" if they have not asked the other party what was the nature of their relationship? The courts just believed this because she said so?
You are in the wrong country.
Germany:
A few years ago (2011) a father discovered that he was paying child support for a child that wasn't his. His ex-wife didn't want to reveal the biological father's identity. The court made her reveal it.
This year new bills have been passed in favor of fathers and everyone knows that there is more to do and that more will be done.
A few years ago (2011) a father discovered that he was paying child support for a child that wasn't his. His ex-wife didn't want to reveal the biological father's identity. The court made her reveal it.
This year new bills have been passed in favor of fathers and everyone knows that there is more to do and that more will be done.
Welcome to Germany!
In the UK, we have the Sexist Theresa May as Home Secretary, so such things would not be happening soon.
By the way, the German courts should have made her pay him back every dime with interests. That said, it appears they are better than UK and USA.
In America, a man has up to 3-5 years to prove the child is not his, if he does not, then he is liable for paying child support till the child is 18 even though the child might not be his and could be a produce of cheating on him.
Why? Listen to the typical moronic argument.
"Because it is in the best interest of the child"
This enables some women to do what is called "Father Shopping". Which is basically, naming the most financially well-off former sexual partner during the perion as the father of the child and obviously it is ungentlemanly to ask for paternity test from a "victim" (according to society) you "used for sex" (Men are regarded as brutes and exploiters in Western society), so many men might just do "the right thing" or dumbly believe women don't cheat, and then the sexist law traps them after 5 years.
Obviously there is no legal obligation on women to be forthright and declarely lawfully and correctly who the father of the child is or declare if there is a doubt.
Why? Let me tell you why.
"Because women are not suppose to have responsibilities. Only men should.
Welcome to the world of "Hating Men" of the West.
[size=18pt]Jailed for Nonpayment of Child Support; But its Not His Child[/size]
The feminists have ratcheted up the laws against men to such an outrageous level that paternity fraud is not just ignored, but routinely rubber stamped by the courts. Whether one agrees with the concept of child support or not, virtually everyone can agree that jailing men for child support over children who are not theirs is morally wrong. Men are routinely sent to jail for falling behind on paying child support, even though debtors' prisons in the U.S. were mostly eliminated in the mid-nineteenth century.
The family courts and laws are set up in such a way that makes it very easy for a mother to collect child support, and very difficult for a man to avoid it. If a couple was married, the default law is that the man will be required to pay child support for any child born while they were married. In order for a man who isn't the father to escape this outcome, he must obtain a paternity test and take a series of legal steps in court. Most states only allow a short window of time for a man to do this. If a man is not aware of the child, which he may not be if his wife or former wife doesn't notify him of the child right away, he loses all chance to fight the child support, and will be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars for the next 18 years until the child becomes an adult.
Courts routinely order these judgments even if the man is unaware what is going on. A March 2003 Urban Institute study commissioned by the California Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) found that "most noncustodial parents appear to be served by 'substitute' service, rather than personal service, which suggests that noncustodial parents may not know that they have been served."
Judges and prosecutors are fully aware of the DNA tests exonerating these men, but still rule against them. They hold men to super high technical standards that are not equally applied against women. Women can make all kinds of mistakes in court obtaining child support, and the courts will look the other way or help them. Men are not treated equally. Many fathers who find themselves in this situation are not wealthy, connected, or familiar with the law. I am an attorney and still have a difficult time figuring out how to file things correctly in family court.
An honest woman would never force a man to give her money for a child that was not his, but the family law system has been set up by feminists to punish men and make women feel good about taking child support from them.
Leigh Adelmann, a father of four from Arizona, remarried a few years ago. His second wife was three months pregnant. After being briefly married, his second wife moved out, telling him she needed space to think. She moved back in when she was eight months pregnant and had the baby. After giving birth, she left again, and filed for divorce three years later. The entire time, Leigh thought the child was his. She listed him as the father on the birth certificate. In 2010, she confessed to Leigh that the child was not his. She moved to Missouri and obtained an order for monthly child support of $910 from Leigh.
Leigh's first ex-wife, who makes a six-figure income and is remarried, insisted on receiving $2,000 each month in child support for their children, even though they both share custody of their children. Default child support orders assume that fathers are working full-time at minimum wage pay level or above. In reality, state audits reveal that 80 percent of default dads don't even make that. Leigh is a self-employed contractor in the construction business, and when the economy went sour, he got behind on child support to the two women. By the time all the child support and arrears had amassed last year, he was required to pay $4,800 monthly in child support to the two women. The absurdity of this can be seen when contrasted with the average income in Arizona, which is only $2,140 per month.
On October 25, 2012, Leigh was arrested for a warrant out of Missouri for failure to pay child support, and extradited by law enforcement to a jail in Missouri. His second ex-wife had applied for welfare in Missouri, and in return the state issued warrants for Leigh and her first ex-husband, who was also behind in child support. This was strange since it is virtually unheard of for a state to extradite anyone but the most violent criminals from other states. Usually a perpetrator must have committed a serious felony for a state to spend all the money to transport and house him. Even more bizarre was that both the courts and prosecutors in Missouri and Arizona were well aware that the child was not Leigh's, because I filed briefs on his behalf in both courts and informed them. Leigh recently found from the Arizona court that it is too late for him to dispute paternity.
After three months in the Missouri jail, Leigh was released. He is trying desperately to keep up with the child support payments (and last week was able to get the child support order to his first ex-wife reduced), but is terrified he will not be able to keep up and the Missouri court will throw him back in jail. His friends set up a website to raise money for Leigh's legal defense at freeleigh.weebly.com.
It is astonishing that women can force child support from their innocent ex-husbands without a conscience. Those children will suffer emotional damage growing up knowing they've been used as a tool of revenge to hurt someone. It risks giving sons a low view of women, possibly turning them into women-hating misogynists. Leigh's ex-wife could easily remove his name from the birth certificate and end all of this.{Of course the Western laws would always want to put power in the hands of women to make or destroy men}
One childless friend of mine did not find out from his ex-wife until a year after her child was born that she was pregnant. By then, it was too late to object to child support in court. He was required to pay child support until the child had grown up, even though he had no interaction with her.
[color=#990000]Brandon Parsons, a Marine who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, is forced to pay one-third of his salary to his ex-wife for another man's child.[/color] The court refused to reconsider the order because Brandon did not file the paternity legal pleadings with the court until two years after the child was born.
Even if the courts rule in a man's favor, the state may still come after him for unpaid child support. A court in Maine ruled that Geoffrey Fisher no longer had to pay child support for a child that was not his. However, the state revoked his driver's license and came after him for $11,450 in child support. When a man gets behind in child support, the state may cut off any of his licenses, including any professional licenses he may need to earn a living like teaching credentials and state bar memberships.
The tide is slowly turning in some places. Some states have passed paternity fraud legislation, although most of the laws are too weak to make much of a difference. In 2004, the California Court of Appeals ruled in County of Los Angeles v. Navarro that a six-month statute of limitations did not apply to set aside an old default judgment against a paternity fraud victim. Some fathers are obtaining justice by suing for damages, instead of trying to retroactively modify paternity and child support. In Tennessee, a court awarded damages in Hodge v. Craig to a man equal to the child support he'd paid over the past 15 years, under the common law remedy of intentional misrepresentation. Richard Rodwell, a British man whose wife fooled him into thinking children she had through affairs were his, was awarded $40,000 in damages in February from a lawsuit he filed against her.
These were the few fortunate men who had the resources to fight the system. In order to try and achieve justice, it requires a lot of money, time and perseverance by paternity fraud victims to maneuver the complex court system that is biased towards mothers. This situation can be fixed by holding the biological father responsible for child support, not the innocent man dragged into this by a greedy and ruthless ex-wife. Right now women are not prosecuted for paternity fraud. They should be, because it would stop a lot of the bad behavior.
It is brutally unfair as well as sexist towards men, that a mother can decide she does not want a child, and abort the child or place it after being born at a fire station, deserting the child with no consequences. She will never be required to pay child support. A man does not have that option. He cannot even stop the child from being aborted. It takes two people to have sex. Both should be treated equally under the law, instead of forcing men to act as a welfare system for women.
[size=18pt]The Curious Case of Staff Sergeant Parsons[/size]
Sometimes it takes genuine injustice to put things in perspective. I was recently reminded of this during my clash with a prominent floral service that failed to deliver a chocolates order on Valentine’s Day… and the next day… and the next day… and as I write this opening paragraph. Nobody likes having their money held hostage. But, again, perspective has humbled my rage about the incident.
So begins the story of Marine Staff Sergeant Brandon Parsons and his role in one of the most baffling legal debacles in the history paternity cases.
A Superior Court of California judge has recently ruled that SSgt Parsons, a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, must continue to pay child support another twelve years for a child that ISN’T his—a payment that, counting the $50,000 he’s already remunerated his ex-wife, Crystal Parson, will put him on pace to pay over $250,000 before his legal obligation ends (twelve years from now), according to his lawyer. This payment, broken down, takes up approximately one-third of his current salary.
The judge, having made the decision because of a loophole in the events leading up to the ruling, didn’t hold back in his disdain for Parsons’ ex-wife’s actions. The first sentence in the second paragraph of the court’s ruling says it all: While the court concludes that father was, in fact, despicably duped and victimized by Petitioner Crystal Parsons’s (hereinafter “Mother”) fraudulent concealment regarding biological paternity, a deception which has placed a significant, continuing financial burden upon Father, existing law, as applied to the facts of this case, precludes the court from setting aside the prior paternity determination or ordering genetic blood testing.
So how did this apparent calamity of justice happen? Here’s the gist:
After completing his first combat deployment in the Spring of 2005—of which he spent the majority of time fighting in Ramadi, Iraq—SSgt Parsons, then a twenty-year old corporal, returned to Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton and immediately began a sexual relationship with his then-fiancé, Crystal Domenech. Their first sexual encounter was, according to court documents, on April 5, 2005.
Seventeen days later, Crystal announced to Brandon that she was pregnant. Brandon, without questioning any aspects of her statement or the legitimacy of his biological paternity, decided to bump up their scheduled nuptials and spent the majority of his money (an estimated $20,000)—of which most came from his recent deployment—on her dream wedding.
What both Brandon and the court now know is that Crystal Domenech Parsons had been engaged in numerous sexual affairs while he was on deployment and, consequently, the child that Brandon raised—under the assumption he was legitimately the father—was indeed that of another man. (Crystal Parsons refuses to name the true identity of the biological father to this day.) Moreover, it was both alleged by Parsons and believed by the court that Crystal chose to sleep with then-Corporal Parsons purely to cover up her previous sexual encounters and pin the pregnancy on him, therefore having access to his military benefits.
It was after the end of Parsons’ second deployment to Iraq that Crystal Parsons, who continued to engage in extramarital affairs during his absence, made it clear she wanted a divorce—only after emptying his bank account and paying her personal bills in his name.
SSgt Parsons’ first inkling that he was not the biological father, brought to his attention by a former friend of Crystal, occurred in April of 2010, less than a year after their divorce. Within the month, Parsons had confirmed through an over-the-counter test by Identigene that the child he had been raising for four and a half years was not his.
“The worst part of being a paternity fraud victim is that nobody can help you,” SSgt Parsons told me in a recent phone interview. “When a guy is dealing with a break up, his buddy can say, ‘Dude, I’ve been there.’ Nobody knows what to say in that kind of situation. I broke down and the Marines around me just stood there.”
SSgt Parsons confronted his ex-wife soon after that. This is the exchange, according to Brandon Parsons, in his official court declaration:
After she had read the result I asked her to tell me the truth. She then began telling me that while I was in Iraq she had been raped. I told her that I did not believe her and to start telling me the truth for [Child’s name – Redacted] sake. I asked her how many men she had slept with while I was on deployment. When she did not answer at first I asked her if it had been more than 2 men and she nodded her head indicating “yes.” I asked her if it was more than 5 and again she nodded her head indicating “yes.” I asked if it was more than 7 men she had slept with. This time she screamed at me that she did not know how many. After she calmed down she told me that in March 2005 [a month before his return] she discovered she was pregnant and told her mother. She said that her mother told her that military spouse benefits were excellent and she should remember that she did not have insurance coverage for the hospital bills.
(It should be noted that, by all accounts, while Parsons lost the aforementioned legal case, the court never denied the plausibility of Parsons’ report of the events. In fact, the judge made it more than clear that Brandon Parsons’ side of the story was the most credible and that Crystal Parsons had acted “despicably” leading up to the ruling.)
After this exchange, Parsons convinced his ex to meet him for another DNA test, along with the child.
He continues in his statement:
When they came into the waiting room [Child’s name—Redacted] came over to me and was talking to me when Crystal’s mother came and grabbed him and pulled him away telling him not to talk to me because I was a stranger now. She also began calling me names. I asked her to please stop cursing at me before the child. This made her really angry and she looked right in my eyes and told me that I should have died in Iraq like I was supposed to do.
Parsons was unable to obtain a DNA test that day due to the vitriolic nature of Crystal and her mother, opting to leave after the two women threatened to call the police on him.
So why, after the court has concluded that Parsons’ description of the events is more grounded than his ex’s and his prior over-the-counter test is admissible as legitimate proof that he is not the father, does he still have to pay child support for a child that isn’t his? The answer—in all the convoluted facets of the case—is simple: timing.
He did not file a complaint against Crystal Parsons until early-December of 2012—more than two and half years after he discovered he was not the father of the child.
The court’s explanation:
Even if the fraud ground of Family Code section 2122(a) applied, Father’s set aside motion is untimely since such a motion must be brought “within one year after the date on which the complaining party either did discover, or should have discovered, the fraud.” Father’s discovery of the fraud occurred in April of 2010, i.e., a date more than 2 ½ years ago.
In laymen’s terms: he was too late. This is the loophole that Crystal Domenech Parsons won the ruling by—resulting in the court ordering SSgt Brandon Parsons to pay another twelve years of child support for a child that he now has no access to.
This is where things get really enraging: Crystal Parsons has recently filed a motion asking the court to order SSgt Parsons to pay $8,535 (on top of his ongoing child support) for the lawyer she hired to defend the mess she created in the first place. Additionally, on a more egregious level, the child—who Brandon Parsons adamantly maintains is the “biggest loser in all of this”—suffers from chronic hereditary illnesses that neither him or Crystal Parsons have. Her refusal and/or inability to name the biological father has greatly inhibited the child from getting the proper care he deserves.{OHHHH! I thought it was all about the "best interest of the Child"}
(Folks, in my humble opinion, Crystal Parsons is the living, breathing, real life bastard child of Snidely Whiplash and… Satan—who is possibly her mother.)
But Parsons, who has since been remarried, isn’t deterred. He says he’s going to fight it.
“If we [Marines] can take Iwo Jima, I can win this case,” he told me. “I want to win this for every Marine—for every man—who gets screwed like this.”
My initial impression of SSgt Parsons after our three hour conversation is that he’s an extremely optimistic individual with a cheerful demeanor—exactly what I’d expect from a Minnesotan who grew up a stone’s throw from the Canadian border.
Even after the disheartening outcome of his case, he continues to see the best in most people involved.
“The judge did a good job,” he said. “I could tell he did everything he could to get me out of this. He had his hands tied.”
“My attorney, Mr. Richard Lowe, was the only attorney in Southern California that even remotely had an idea as to how we should approach this problem and solve it,” he wrote me in an email after our conversation. “He’s an excellent attorney and an even better friend. He deserves praise and is helping several other paternity fraud victims as we speak.”
It’s hard to get angry about my twenty dollars at this point. (For the record, as I finish this story, I just received an email from the company, promising me a full refund.) Besides, there are certainly bigger travesties in America right now… as the case of SSgt Brandon Parsons has proved.
In the UK, we have the Sexist Theresa May as Home Secretary, so such things would not be happening soon.
It can happen IF people speak out. She isn't God.
By the way, the German courts should have made her pay him back every dime with interests. That said, it appears they are better than UK and USA.
He went to court because he wanted the money from the biological father. The court agreed that he has to get his money back.
In America, a man has up to 3-5 years to prove the child is not his, if he does not, then he is liable for paying child support till the child is 18 even though the child might not be his and could be a produce of cheating on him.
Why? Listen to the typical moronic argument.
"Because it is in the best interest of the child"
So if someone finds out that it is NOT his child 7 years later, he has to pay nonetheless?
This enables some women to do what is called "Father Shopping". Which is basically, naming the most financially well-off former sexual partner during the perion as the father of the child and obviously it is ungentlemanly to ask for paternity test from a "victim" (according to society) you "used for sex" (Men are regarded as brutes and exploiters in Western society), so many men might just do "the right thing" or dumbly believe women don't cheat, and then the sexist law traps them after 5 years.
You miss one point. The laws are not only made to favor women or even children. They are also made to reduce the cost for society. Nobody will confess it but this is the way it is. If a man lives and sleep with a woman and recognizes a child as his, then he has to pay. If he stops, society will have to. I don't feel like paying for the children of wicked women and gullible fathers.
If people are stupid, someone has to suffer.
Obviously there is no legal obligation on women to be forthright and declarely lawfully and correctly who the father of the child is or declare if there is a doubt.
Obviously and that's the whole problem. It is fraud and should be punished.
Why? Let me tell you why.
"Because women are not suppose to have responsibilities. Only men should.
Annoying.
Welcome to the world of "Hating Men" of the West.
Speak about America or the UK but not about "the West". This is imprecise and misleading. It reminds me of people who think that Africa is a country.
In the UK, we have the Sexist Theresa May as Home Secretary, so such things would not be happening soon.
By the way, the German courts should have made her pay him back every dime with interests. That said, it appears they are better than UK and USA.
In America, a man has up to 3-5 years to prove the child is not his, if he does not, then he is liable for paying child support till the child is 18 even though the child might not be his and could be a produce of cheating on him.
Why? Listen to the typical moronic argument.
"Because it is in the best interest of the child"
This enables some women to do what is called "Father Shopping". Which is basically, naming the most financially well-off former sexual partner during the perion as the father of the child and obviously it is ungentlemanly to ask for paternity test from a "victim" (according to society) you "used for sex" (Men are regarded as brutes and exploiters in Western society), so many men might just do "the right thing" or dumbly believe women don't cheat, and then the sexist law traps them after 5 years.
Obviously there is no legal obligation on women to be forthright and declarely lawfully and correctly who the father of the child is or declare if there is a doubt.
Why? Let me tell you why.
"Because women are not suppose to have responsibilities. Only men should.
And some fcking c*nt wants me to be a "real man" and support giving women power but no responsibilities.
And 'you' say black women ain't loyal , shooting that woman wouldn't be too extreme, I think
. You are simply paying for your past mistakes
I came across another judgement from the US. A lesbian couple got a child though a sperm donor. They had the child, along the line they went bankrupt and the court mandated the man to pay the child support.
The rationale: "The ruling suggests that in Kansas a man can only legally be considered a sperm donor if he goes through a doctor. Shawnee County District Court Judge Mary Mattivi said: "A parent may not terminate parental rights by contract even when the parties have consented. "The parties' self-designation of (Mr Marotta) as a sperm donor is insufficient to relieve (Mr Marotta) of parental rights and responsibilities." Ben Swinnen, a lawyer for Mr Marotta, said his client had only been trying to help a couple who wanted a child and he would appeal the ruling."
No. They are part of the liberal fascist arsewipes who label themselves "progressives" and are only interested in misleading the public by propagating their funky, one-sided, "modern" ideologies that is biased to any group they have come to the conclusion as being historically "oppressed"
So park that.
The Government?
They are only interested in issues that helps improve their votes and this does not. Actually if they tried, the Press dogs would go on the attack and start creating the impression of a government that hate women. That is when they would start highlighting what proportion of the government leadership is female. Call it a male-dominated conspiracy. Start talking about some imaginary outrage by getting raving feminazis to come on TV to lambast the government (and, trust me, there are many of such crazy, selfish women around) as being "out of touch" (they love that moronic phrase in the UK). Every politician in the ruling party would be harassed and the party labelled "sexist" in headlines. The government would not want that, they always want to look cool and modern in the UK. They would rather win elections than do the right thing.
So park that.
The people?
Big and majority voice counts.
Now the population of UK is about 87% white. So women would be about half of these, majority are unlikely to support anything taking away their advantage. Afterall they are women: many are Selfish and illogical.
Is it the white men? HELL NO.
White men in the UK have been silenced and turned into wussy ediots. They have been silenced by labeling and being blamed for every injustice on Earth.
It is actually a crime in the UK to be a white, blue-eyed male. Anything you say is seen as xenophobic, racist, sexist, paedophilic, laddish etc.
I can say what the fck I want to say about white men, but the minute a white man says exactly the same thing I said about black people, all hell breaks loose.
Bloody stewpid country!
White men would never have the balls to come out and campaign on such because they have been trained that giving women advantage is what makes you a "real man" and a gentleman.
The minorities have little say. More so as half of them are Muslims who oppress their women. Those ones would just cause more outrage.
So it really is not as easy as that.
carefreewannabe: So if someone finds out that it is NOT his child 7 years later, he has to pay nonetheless?
Yep.
They have placed the "RESPONSIBILITY" on the men to ensure they find out within 2-5 years if they are the real fathers, otherwise they are liable to paying for the child even if the child is not theirs.
But the woman, as usual, has no "responsibility" to name the real father or make sure the child child knows his real father.
So much for the rubbish platitude of "in the best interest of the child". That is just a moronic subterfuge for "In the best interest of the woman".
carefreewannabe: You miss one point. The laws are not only made to favor women or even children. They are also made to reduce the cost for society. Nobody will confess it but this is the way it is. If a man lives and sleep with a woman and recognizes a child as his, then he has to pay. If he stops, society will have to. I don't feel like paying for the children of wicked women and gullible fathers.
If people are stupid, someone has to suffer.
And it is Sexist for any nation to always put the suffering on one sex.
carefreewannabe: Speak about America or the UK but not about "the West". This is imprecise and misleading. It reminds me of people who think that Africa is a country.
I have not lived in majority of the other Western countries nor do I speak their local languages to understand their laws, but from the little news I get about them, they are all by and large the same line of thinking as UK and USA. Only that they are less pronounce.
I know men get screwed in Australia and Canada as well. Scandinavia is pro-women. And you yourself said Germany is just about trying to change now.
I have heard of a case of a man in Australia ordered by the courts to continue paying for his ex-wive's apartment and her Porsche while he is back living in his mum's house.
In Italy, Berlusconi was ordered to pat his ex-wife $148m. Money she could never earn with her own skills nor had she shown a propensity/potential to make before marrying him.
Divorce is a good measure. In many of these countries, it is all the same thing of:
- Men get screwed with assets being shared unfairly rather than based on actual and potential contributions. - Women get custody - Fathers are at the mercy of ex-wives to see their kids without any recourse to the courts and/or at huge legal costs
Judges make sure that assets are split equally, but they don't do that on custody and child-related issues. But you know what?
And 'you' say black women ain't loyal , shooting that woman wouldn't be too extreme, I think
They are no different.
Most are as selfish and illogical.
Sixix: . You are simply paying for your past mistakes
I should pay for what your father, grand father, great-great-great grandfather and co did to my grandmother and co?
Sixix: I came across another judgement from the US. A lesbian couple got a child though a sperm donor. They had the child, along the line they went bankrupt and the court mandated the man to pay the child support.
The rationale: "The ruling suggests that in Kansas a man can only legally be considered a sperm donor if he goes through a doctor. Shawnee County District Court Judge Mary Mattivi said: "A parent may not terminate parental rights by contract even when the parties have consented. "The parties' self-designation of (Mr Marotta) as a sperm donor is insufficient to relieve (Mr Marotta) of parental rights and responsibilities." Ben Swinnen, a lawyer for Mr Marotta, said his client had only been trying to help a couple who wanted a child and he would appeal the ruling."
This definitely fits into the sexist narrative.
I object to the logic that is always attacking men in the West.
That said, I have little pity for any person involved in the process of bringing a child into the world for an unnatural setting.
No. They are part of the liberal fascist arsewipes who label themselves "progressives" and are only interested in misleading the public by propagating their funky, one-sided, "modern" ideologies that is biased to any group they have come to the conclusion as being historically "oppressed"
So park that.
The Government?
They are only interested in issues that helps improve their votes and this does not. Actually if they tried, the Press dogs would go on the attack and start creating the impression of a government that hate women. That is when they would start highlighting what proportion of the government leadership is female. Call it a male-dominated conspiracy. Start talking about some imaginary outrage by getting raving feminazis to come on TV to lambast the government (and, trust me, their are many of such crazy, selfish women around) as being "out of touch" (they love that moronic phrase in the UK). Every politician in the ruling party would be harassed and the party labelled "sexist" in headlines. The government would not want that, they always want to look cool and modern in the UK. They would rather win elections than do the right thing.
So park that.
The people?
Big and majority voice counts.
Now the population of UK is about 87% white. So women would be about half of these, majority are unlikely to support anything taking away their advantage. Afterall they are women: many are Selfish and illogical.
Is it the white men? HELL NO.
White men in the UK have been silenced and turned into wussy ediots. They have been silenced by labeling and being blamed for every injustice on Earth.
It is actually a crime in the UK to be a white, blue-eyed male. Anything you say is seen as xenophobic, racist, sexist, paedophilic, laddish etc.
I can say what the fck I want to say about white men, but the minute a white man says exactly the same thing I said about black people, all hell breaks loose.
Bloody stewpid country!
White men would never have the balls to come out and campaign on such because they have been trained that giving women advantage is what makes you a "real man" and a gentleman.
The minorities have little say. More so as half of them are Muslims who oppress their women. Those ones would just cause more outrage.
So it really is not as easy as that.
There are men in government, there are male journalists, there are male intellectuals, there are males in leading positions, there are male judges. I am sure they will do something against it by the time they feel they need to do something about it. They have not experienced enough unfavorable treatment to be accepting such laws then.
If the majorities accept it, they are ok with it, obviously, for one reason or another.
Yep.
They have placed the "RESPONSIBILITY" on the men to ensure they find out within 2-5 years if they are the real fathers, otherwise they are liable to paying for the child even if the child is not theirs.
But the woman, as usual, has no "responsibility" to name the real father or make sure the child child knows his real father.
So much for the rubbish platitude of "in the best interest of the child". That is just a moronic subterfuge for "In the best interest of the woman".
Not having the responsibility to name the father is definitely not in the best interest of a child, this is true.
And it is Sexist for any nation to always put the suffering on one sex.
True. Like I said, men in some countries obviously don't feel that way. I don't know why.
Women were able to fight for their rights in the past and it wasn't easy. If men feel that they are at a disadvantage, which I think, they often are, then they must do something about it. I will support them and I am a female.
I have not lived in majority of the other Western countries nor do I speak their local languages to understand their laws, but from the little news I get about them, they are all by and large the same line of thinking as UK and USA. Only that they are less pronounce.
I know men get screwed in Australia and Canada as well. Scandinavia is pro-women. And you yourself said Germany is just about trying to change now.
I have heard of a case of a man in Australia ordered by the courts to continue pay for his ex-wive's apartment and her Porsche while he is back living in his mum's house.
Then let's just agree on talking about the countries we know more about.
In Italy, Berlusconi was ordered to pat his ex-wife $148m. Money she could never earn with her own skills nor had she shown a propensity/potential to make before marrying him.
Berlusconi is a very bad example. He got away with so many things so let's leave it at that.
Divorce is a good measure. In many of these countries, it is all the same thing of:
- Men get screwed with assets being shared unfairly rather than based on actual and potential contributions. - Women get custody - Fathers are at the mercy of ex-wives to see their kids without any recourse to the courts and/or at huge legal costs
Judges make sure that assets are split equally, but they don't do that on custody and child-related issues. But you know what?
It is all in the best interest of the child.
If you get married to a rich woman and you stay at home to take care of the kids and after you two divorce, the kids stay with you, she will have to pay you.
Women don't get custody. Married parents have a shared custody.
Men are not at the ex-wife's mercy. If you were married, you have a shared custody.
There are men in government, there are male journalists, there are male intellectuals, there are males in leading positions, there are male judges. I am sure they will do something against it by the time they feel they need to do something about it. They have not experienced enough unfavorable treatment to be accepting such laws then.
If the majorities accept it, they are ok with it, obviously, for one reason or another.
I have already described to you how men in journalism and politics are. So park it, it would not work.
After decades of the injustice being known and highlighted, they are still toeing their moronic "progressive-funk" line.
Judges follow the laws politicians set and do their best to hold back personal opinions.
Intellectuals have said theirs and have been aptly heard but ignored.
Very few men are now forming groups (Fathers4Justice, Families Need Fathers etc) but being a male is still seen as wrongdoing in the UK, so their cries are not as emotionally impactful. It is just a few notches above paedophiles crying about their plight.
Maybe things would change when our liberal fascist "progressive-funks" start seeing homosexuals being denied access to "their" kids.
Then you would see the Press and Politicians coming out to scream "OUTRAGE" and wanting to lead the fight to correct the "injustice".
carefreewannabe: Not having the responsibility to name the father is definitely not in the best interest of a child, this is true.
The laws are all about and have always been about "best interest of the woman".
"Best interest of the child" is just a more acceptable subterfuge.
carefreewannabe: True. Like I said, men in some countries obviously don't feel that way. I don't know why.
Women were able to fight for their rights in the past and it wasn't easy. If men feel that they are at a disadvantage, which I think, they often are, then they must do something about it. I will support them and I am a female.
I have heard some psychologists state that men are more reluctant to be seen protesting for something emotional and are also far less able to coordinate such.
Many men would not even join the campaign until it happens to them. That is due to:
- Their nurturing - Their machismo - Desire to be seen as "real men" (a result of psychological control by women's words) - Trying to impress women and be seen as pro-female (a result of being controlled by their deecks)
Women are more prone, and society accepts them, to protest for emotional rights. Men, far less so.
carefreewannabe: Berlusconi is a very bad example. He got away with so many things so let's leave it at that.
If you want to punish him for breaking the law, then punish him for that under the law. But his wife is not entitled to what she did not work for and that is not an adequate punishment for his law breaking.
carefreewannabe: If you get married to a rich woman and you stay at home to take care of the kids and after you two divorce, the kids stay with you, she will have to pay you.
This is rubbish!
The possibilities of that is low, that is why these countries are comfortable with the laws and created the law.
The law is Sexist.
NO DEFENCE!
carefreewannabe: Women don't get custody. Married parents have a shared custody.
Men are not at the ex-wife's mercy. When you were married, you have a shared custody.
Not in the UK and US.
Maybe in Germany it is different, but by and large, many other countries have similar but less pronounced sexist custody processes like the US and UK.
I have already described to you how men in journalism and politics are. So park it, it would not work.
After decades of the injustice being known and highlighted, they are still toeing their moronic "progressive-funk" line. Judges follow the laws politicians set and do their best to hold back personal opinions.
Intellectuals have said theirs and have been aptly heard but ignored.
Very few men are now forming groups (Fathers4Justice, Families Need Fathers etc) but being a male is still seen as wrongdoing in the UK, so their cries are not as emotionally impactful. It is just a few notches above paedophiles crying about their plight.
Maybe things would change when our liberal fascist "progressive-funks" start seeing homosexuals being denied access to "their" kids.
Then you would see the Press and Politicians coming out to scream "OUTRAGE" and wanting to lead the fight to correct the "injustice".
So who do you want to help men if men can't help themselves?
The feminist movement started out with a small group of courageous women. It took them a lot of time, effort and energy to make everybody understand that they also have the right to vote, to go to school and to have their own money.
It is not so long that women in Germany had to ask the husband's permission to go to work.
If it was possible for women to SUCCESSFULLY fight convictions that have been upheld FOR CENTURIES, I don't see why it should be impossible for men to do the same.
You know very well that feminists did not only have to fight against male oppression but against female oppression as well.
The laws are all about and have always been about "best interest of the woman".
"Best interest of the child" is just a more acceptable subterfuge.
Some laws are in the best interest of the child.
I have heard some psychologist state that men are more reluctant to be seen protesting for something emotional and are also unable to coordinated such.
Many men would not even join the campaign until it happens to them. That is due to:
- Their nurturing - Desire to be seen as "real men" (a result of psychological control by women's words) - Trying to impress women and be seen as pro-female (a result of being controlled by their deecks)
Are you not the one calling other men wussies?
Before we blame it ALL on the female folk and for the sake of objectivity, just remember that fathers are the first to teach their boys that crying makes them less of a boy.
Women are more prone and society accepts them to protest for emotional rights.
When women were fighting for equal rights, society used to label them too, as aggressive and manly. It didn't stop them from fighting against what they considered injustice.
If you want to punish him for breaking the law, then punish him for that under the law. But his wife is not entitled to what she did not work for and that is not an adequate punishment for his law breaking.
Like I said, the law, as little sense it makes, is also for men. If his wife was the rich one who made all this money and who cheated on him, he would get paid.
This is rubbish!
The possibilities of that is low, that is why these countries are comfortable with the laws and created the law.
The law is Sexist.
NO DEFENCE!
This is what it is. You can call it rubbish.
Not in the UK and US.
Maybe in Germany it is different, but by and large, many other countries have similar but less pronounced sexist custody processes like the US and UK.
Women get custody.
If two people are married in the UK, who has the custody?
