carefreewannabe:

If two people are married in the UK, who has the custody?

When two couples here in the UK go their separate ways, the mother gets full custody the majority of the time whilst the Father has to make to do with visitation rights and what have you.

In the extremely few instances where the Father gets full custody, the mother must have been irresponsible or behaved irresponsibly(I don't say that lightly too). Everything law is skewed towards the woman getting full custody of the kids

Sagamite

They are no different.

Most are as selfish and illogical.

I do say all women are the same save for some characteristics attributable to societal factors and that also goes for men.

I should pay for what your father, grand father, great-great-great grandfather and co did to my grandmother and co?

That wouldn't be too bad, would it?

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.

I have no pity for him

.

The government is trying to minimise public spending therefore it is an avenue to tag such rationale to be in the interest of the public - public policy. I wouldn't want to believe that they are aware of the injustices, And yeah I know that they know .

Frustration-Depression-Suicide-Extinction



Well, the feminist movement started well, issues relating to empowerment etc (it dealt with real issues) but it is becoming problematic.

carefreewannabe:

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.

In the world we live in, we don't need people to help themselves before advanced countries know to be logical.

We just need a brain and a sense of logic and egalitarianism!

carefreewannabe:
Some laws are in the best interest of the child.

The laws guiding the philosophy of the Western countries is not based on the premise of "In the best interest of the child". That is all a ruse.

If it was, NONE would be creating kids for the benefits of their new favourites: homosexuals.

It is in the best interest of a child to be in a natural and normal family.

Creating kids by IVF to put them in unnatural and unconventional families is not in their best interest. No argument can justify that.

That is another example that shows that "best interest of the child" is not the premise of Western laws. It is just banded about because it is funky, thanks to our liberal fascists, progressive-funks.

carefreewannabe:
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.

You just picked that from the air and threw it in the mix?

carefreewannabe:
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.

And so?

What is your point?

carefreewannabe:
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.

So you are saying the law is fair?

So if one makes a law that states only people that are 5ft 9 plus, and who can lift 100kg in weight, can vote, it is fair because "Well it applies to both men and women"?

carefreewannabe:
If two people are married in the UK, who has the custody?

In 90% of the cases, the woman gets custody.

And the law is based on the premise that the mother should have the child. The argument in court starts from that premise and the father has to argue why he should get it (and the argument starts from the perception that he is a unworthy monster that has enjoyed too much privilege from the marriage that he most likely abandoned while doing his own thing). The mother sits down and watch comfortably knowing the court is on her side except she is a complete misfit.

At the same time, majority of the mothers are entitled to legal aid (government pays) or get the man paying their legal bills by court order if he is affluent enough, while the courts expect the man to pay his legal bills himself even when not affluent.

Lets see how far he would want to take it considering all those handicaps versus the poor "victim" (i.e. the woman), who needs all the protection.

He would be broke and the lawyers rich! .....And still not get custody.

The whole family court system is like handcuffing, blindfolding and shackling one leg of the men all at the same time and then throwing them in the ring telling them to get in a fight with the women with the first to get a head punch to be declared as the winner and then say "It is a fair fight and the winner takes all".

Sixix:
That wouldn't be too bad, would it?

Typical woman. Illogical and selfish.

Sixix:
The government is trying to minimise public spending therefore it is an avenue to tag such rationale to be in the interest of the public - public policy. I wouldn't want to believe that they are aware of the injustices, And yeah I know that they know .

Frustration-Depression-Suicide-Extinction

Not a rational excuse for men to pay for responsibilities governments want to abrogate.

Sixix:
Well, the feminist movement started well, issues relating to empowerment etc (it dealt with real issues) but it is becoming problematic.

They have fcked it up and we will have more failed families.

Thank the liberal progressive-funks.

Sagamite:

In the world we live in, we don't need people to help themselves before advanced countries know to be logical.

We just need a brain and a sense of logic and egalitarianism!



The laws guiding the philosophy of the Western countries is not based on the premise of "In the best interest of the child". That is all a ruse.

If it was, NONE would be creating kids for the benefits of their new favourites: homosexuals.

It is in the best interest of a child to be in a natural and normal family.

Creating kids by IVF to put them in unnatural and unconventional families is not in their best interest. No argument can justify that.

That is another example that shows that "best interest of the child" is not the premise of Western laws. It is just banded about because it is funky, thanks to our liberal fascists, progressive-funks.




You just picked that from the air and threw it in the mix?



And so?

What is your point?



So you are saying the law is fair?

So if one makes a law that states only people that are 5ft 9 plus, and who can lift 100kg in weight, can vote, it is fair because "Well it applies to both men and women"?



In 90% of the cases, the woman gets custody.

And the law is based on the premise that the mother should have the child. The argument in court starts from that premise and the father has to argue why he should get it (and the argument starts from the perception that he is a unworthy monster that has enjoyed too much privilege from the marriage that he most likely abandoned while doing his own thing). The mother sits down and watch comfortably knowing the court is on her side except she is a complete misfit.

At the same time, majority of the mothers are entitled to legal aid (government pays) or get the man paying their legal bills by court order if he is affluent enough, while the courts expect the man to pay his legal bills himself even when not affluent.

Lets see how far he would want to take it considering all those handicaps versus the poor "victim" (i.e. the woman), who needs all the protection.

He would be broke and the lawyers rich! .....And still not get custody.

The whole family court system is like handcuffing, blindfolding and shackling one leg of the men all at the same time and then throwing them in the ring telling them to get in a fight with the women with the first to get a head punch to be declared as the winner and then say "It is a fair fight and the winner takes all".

What do you mean when you say "custody"?

Here in Germany mothers AND fathers have AUTOMATICALLY shared custody in the case of a divorce, meaning that they both have the right to decide on major and minor issues concerning the child.

When we speak of custody in terms of who the children live with, that's a different thing and then WE MUST ASK OURSELVES HOW MANY MEN ARE WILLING TO KEEP THEIR CHILDREN WITH THEM.

I am pretty sure that you would NOT be willing to have your two children living with you in the case of a divorce and I am pretty sure that more than 90% of men are very COMFORTABLE with the mothers having two kids at home and at the same time having to work because most men are not even able to pay enough money so that the mother can stay at home and take care of the kids.

MOST single mothers struggle to juggle child upbringing and their jobs.
This is the reality and society considers it perfectly ok that women suffer from the double load.

I really don't see how the law favors me when the father's duty is to pay child support and two show up every second weekend.

Would you be willing to stay at home in the case of a divorce? Just curious. Why / Why not?

chic2pimp:

When two couples here in the UK go their separate ways, the mother gets full custody the majority of the time whilst the Father has to make to do with visitation rights and what have you.

In the extremely few instances where the Father gets full custody, the mother must have been irresponsible or behaved irresponsibly(I don't say that lightly too). Everything law is skewed towards the woman getting full custody of the kids

What do you mean when you say "custody"?

The authority to decide on major / minor issues concerning the child or who the child stays with?

Would you give up on your career and stay at home to take care of the children? Just curious.

carefreewannabe:

What do you mean when you say "custody"?

Here in Germany mothers AND fathers have AUTOMATICALLY shared custody in the case of a divorce, meaning that they both have the right to decide on major and minor issues concerning the child.

When we speak of custody in terms of who the children live with, that's a different thing and then WE MUST ASK OURSELVES HOW MANY MEN ARE WILLING TO KEEP THEIR CHILDREN WITH THEM.

I am pretty sure that you would NOT be willing to have your two children living with you in the case of a divorce and I am pretty sure that more than 90% of men are very COMFORTABLE with the mothers having two kids at home and at the same time having to work because most men are not even able to pay enough money so that the mother can stay at home and take care of the kids.

MOST single mothers struggle to juggle child upbringing and their jobs.
This is the reality and society considers it perfectly ok that women suffer from the double load.

I really don't see how the law favors me when the father's duty is to pay child support and two show up every second weekend.

Would you be willing to stay at home in the case of a divorce? Just curious. Why / Why not?

I know you and I knew you were going to try and turn it into some kind of argument of "women are the real victims" and deviate from the point.

There are men that would be comfortable looking after their kids. They are not a majority.

For those that don't want to have primary custody after their kids, they would want to have contact with their kids and help raise them. These are a majority.

Courts DO give men access to the kids in the UK, albeit after letting him make an argument that he is worthy enough as the mentality is that men are unworthy monsters only there for financial contributions (the mother is assumed automatically to be worthy and unquestionably loves the children). He would only have this access after proving he is worthy if he is not unlucky for her to make some unsubstantiated claim of physically, emotionally sexually harming the kids (which happens in some few cases and can delay contact by a few years).

Now, that contact access by the courts is just a statement by the courts, if the woman decides she is not going to abide by it in the UK, guess what?

The courts can't and don't do shyt except empty threats.

They would not fine or jail her. And they have no other punishment to give her even though they just helped her rob the man of all his life's hard work.

Why?

Because it is in the best interest of the child.

She is the primary care-giver, so we cannot separate the child from the mother by sending her to jail. (But, oops, it is okay yo separate the child from the father).

And we cannot fine her because that is like taking money from the poor child's mouth as she controls the finances.

So basically the law is unenforceable and women can, if they chose, tell the court judgment to "fck off" without saying it.

A society that makes it convenient for women to arbitrarily decide and control access of the father to his kids is sexist.

I repeat:

"Judges make sure that assets are split equally, but they don't do that on custody and child-related issues".

These same courts would award exorbitant sums as "child support/maintenance" but without any mechanism to ensure it is being spent on the children, yet would strive to set up mechanisms to ensure that the money is paid. So the women have the arbitrary powers to spend the money as they wish. It is assumed (by law) that the woman would always spend the exorbitant money on the kids. But if a court awards £10,000 a month for child maintenance, no one is too sure £2000K of that does not go on Manolo Blahniks. (My apologies to all you women if I am mistaken and who are probably screaming at their screens in disgust that £2000K cannot even by a buckle from a Manolo Blahnik shoes)

In the UK, USA, Australia, Canada and Ireland that I am sure off (as they speak English and I follow the news) this is the case. It happens frequently and men are at the mercy of women because the law is built to give women weapons to attack men. The essential argument of this thread right from time.

Nuggets I have highlighted in this article summarises the mentality in the UK and exposes the politicians JUST as I stated.

[size=18pt]Fathers finally get equal access rights to children. So why now?[/size]

The glaring injustice suffered by many children and (principally) their fathers when paternal relationships are destroyed without a murmur from the state has been obvious for decades to anyone who cared. Yet this seems an unlikely moment for the government to attempt to enshrine in law the rights of both fathers and mothers to see their children after separation. True, the fathers' rights movement has been vociferous at times, but latterly it has been relatively quiet and seemed politically marginalised. No apparent groundswell of pressure for change has come from the voluntary sector, rather the opposite – plenty of negative reaction from some children's charities and from Labour to the government's proposals. So why is this change happening now?

Perhaps, most simply, because it appears to be common sense to both Tory and Liberal Democrat ministers. Male Conservative MPs are typically highly privileged with a background in business and the professions. They are used to exerting control over their own lives and over others. They do not expect to find themselves on the wrong side of the law. So when they and their colleagues go through divorce, it is a shocking and unfamiliar experience for them to feel semi-criminalised as fathers and to be blocked from being with their children. Changing the law likewise seems to make sense to the straightforward values of gender equity held by Lib Dems. Like the Tories, they are led by a privileged public schoolboy, who can't understand why he can run the country but, if things got difficult with his wife, he might not be able to see his own children.

Behind the scenes, the fathers' rights movement, ranging from the highly visible Fathers4Justice to the more measured Families Need Fathers, which has campaigned for 30 years as a self-help group for separated fathers and built the arguments that have demonstrated the depth of the crisis, worked conscientiously on the Tories before the general election. It received a sympathetic hearing in numerous meetings with people such as the then shadow children's minister, Tim Loughton, who fashioned the party's children's and family policy in opposition.

In contrast, Labour has never got to grips with the tragedies of separated fatherhood. The party has been keen to support fathers' rights in the workplace, with enhanced paternity leave to level the gender playing field at work and enable dads to support mums getting back to work. But Labour's key concern in all of this was women and, as a result, it was not interested in championing fathers' rights in the home. So Labour was never going to take this step, certainly not while it was led by fathers with antiquated parenting styles such as Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. In contrast to them, Cameron and Clegg, despite the workaholism of the political breed, look modern and engaged with parenting.

There will over the coming months be lots of kicking and screaming about the proposed change in the law. But the significance of this equalisation does not really lie in what happens in the courts. That probably will not change a lot. But changing the law will send out a message to fathers that the state is not their enemy. It will no longer ignore the dismantling of relationships with their children. This will give confidence to the thousands of fathers who never go to court but just accept what they are given in terms of paltry time with their children because they fear no one will support them in seeking a better settlement.

This is indeed a monumental moment. For decades, the state has rightly been tackling inequality in the workplace and patriarchal abuses in the family by confronting, for example, domestic violence and ensuring that mothers have sufficient income after divorce. But this is the first time the state has come forward to challenge matriarchy in the family and its abuses with respect to access to children. We are moving to a better domestic world where paternity, not patriarchy, is supported and, where maternity, not matriarchy, is equally supported.

I expect many worrying and apocalyptic warnings about the risks to children of this legislation. Amid the noise and resistance, we should remember gender equality is now one of the key values of the public working world. We should not tolerate anything less in the domestic, family arena.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/13/fathers-rights-overlooked-law-welcome

Sagamite:

I know you and I knew you were going to try and turn it into some kind of argument of "women are the real victims" and deviate from the point.

You know me but you don't know me enough, else you wouldn't say that I was going to argue that "women are the real victims" because I am the last one who supports victim mentalities.

And I am not deviating. I am just not stuck to one perspective. I try to look at issues from different angles.

There are men that would be comfortable looking after their kids. They are not a majority.

You have just addressed a BIG PROBLEM.
The vast majority of men is NOT even interested in looking after their kids after a divorce.
The vast majority in MOST societies considers it the job of the woman, the mother!

Women who agree with the father taking care of the kids after a divorce have to REPEATEDLY explain themselves why they "abandoned" their kids. People consider them "uncaring" and "unnatural".

And based on these convictions, which might or might not be your hidden convictions too, are the laws we have, which I consider UNJUST to both, MEN and WOMEN.

If you want to be TRULY objective, then you will admit that such laws are not only discriminating against men but also against women. Societal conventions are imposed on individuals and most individuals don't even question them.

I am sure that when I asked you if you would take care of the kids in the case of a divorce and for their sake give up on your career and possibly your free time and private life with a new partner, you were thinking "Hell, no!".

For those that don't want to have primary custody after their kids, they would want to have contact with their kids and help raise them. These are a majority.

And I think that majority of fathers are free to do so.
I am sure that most women are happy to have fathers who help them.
I am sure that MANY mothers wish their ex-husbands would help more.

However, if fathers choose NOT to take MINIMUM care of their kids, nobody can force them.
What can a mother do when a father refuses to take care of his kids? NOTHING.
She is left alone.

There are probably more women who are left back alone with their kids than fathers who have no access to their kids. There are laws that can punish a mother for not letting the father see his kids but there is no law that punishes fathers who don't want to see their kids and help raise them.

So please don't tell me that I want to say that "women are the real victims" when it's me who os able to see the injustice done to fathers when it's you who seems to be unable to put yourself in the position of a mother who is left back alone and not protected by any law.

Courts DO give men access to the kids in the UK, albeit after letting him make an argument that he is worthy enough as the mentality is that men are unworthy monsters only there for financial contributions (the mother is assumed automatically to be worthy and unquestionably loves the children). He would only have this access after proving he is worthy if he is not unlucky for her to make some unsubstantiated claim of physically, emotionally sexually harming the kids (which happens in some few cases and can delay contact by a few years).

He has to make an argument when he is in a disagreement with the mother. The mother must accuse him of something first. If he was the one to accuse the mother of child neglect or abuse or whatever, she would also have to prove that her children are properly taken care of.

Now, that contact access by the courts is just a statement by the courts, if the woman decides she is not going to abide by it in the UK, guess what?

The courts can't and don't do shyt except empty threats.

They would not fine or jail her. And they have no other punishment to give her even though they just helped her rob the man of all his life's hard work.

Why?

Because it is in the best interest of the child.

She is the primary care-giver, so we cannot separate the child from the mother by sending her to jail. (But, oops, it is okay yo separate the child from the father).
And we cannot fine her because that is like taking money from the poor child's mouth as she controls the finances.

I have a good friend whose ex-wife had to pay fines for not sticking to the rules set by a court.
I don't know why this isn't possible in the UK.

So basically the law is unenforceable and women can, if they chose, tell the court judgment to "fck off" without saying it.

A society that makes it convenient for women to arbitrarily decide and control access of the father to his kids is sexist.

No doubt.

A society that decides that is a mother's primary job and duty to take care of the kids, is too.
And MAJORITY of men will be in support of such convictions.
A mother is better qualified to take care of the kids so let me come every second weekend and be a hero daddy.

I repeat:

"Judges make sure that assets are split equally, but they don't do that on custody and child-related issues".

Which is harmful to MOTHERS, FATHERS and CHILDREN.

Yet, I don't see many fathers who complain. And I see very few fathers who CHOOSE to live with their kids after a divorce. And these fathers get a lot of appreciation and admiration when they do something that is NATURALLY expected of women.

And here is where the laws come from. And if you are honest, these laws are based on the convictions you hold, too.

These same courts would award exorbitant sums as "child support/maintenance" but without any mechanism to ensure it is being spent on the children, yet would strive to set up mechanisms to ensure that the money is paid. So the women have the arbitrary powers to spend the money as they wish. It is assumed (by law) that the woman would always spend the exorbitant money on the kids. But if a court awards £10,000 a month for child maintenance, no one is too sure £2000K of that does not go on Manolo Blahniks. (My apologies to all you women if I am mistaken and who are probably screaming at their screens in disgust that £2000K cannot even by a buckle from a Manolo Blahnik shoes)

I have told you that if the case was reverse, men would get the money. Then you asked me if I think it is right or just. No, it's not! At least not for me BUT it is not about sexism.

In the UK, USA, Australia, Canada and Ireland that I am sure off (as they speak English and I follow the news) this is the case. It happens frequently and men are at the mercy of women because the law is built to give women weapons to attack men. The essential argument of this thread right from time.

Yet, they don't give women any choice when the father refuses to take PROPER care of their children or to take care of them at all. I guess, from your standpoint, you have not even thought of it ONCE.

I don't want to even imagine myself alone with two kids and a father who doesn't care at all.
And this is what happens in Germany frequently, especially with irresponsible men who come to Germany, promise a woman heaven on Earth, have a baby with her and then leave because they secured a permanent stay. Then they do illegal import export business and the German welfare system pays child support. They show up every now and then if at all, go back home and marry a new wife, come back to Europe and enjoy the best of the two worlds.

Is there any law that protects such women? Is there any law that punishes these men who abandon these kids and their mothers?

The answer is .... NO!

Welcome to "the West"! A jolly place, isn't it?

Nuggets I have highlighted in this article summarises the mentality in the UK and exposes the politicians JUST as I stated.



http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/13/fathers-rights-overlooked-law-welcome

I will read this article and I know you will come up with 100 more articles. My only hope is you that you cultivate the ability to see things from different perspectives before calling women selfish.

carefreewannabe:
You have just addressed a BIG PROBLEM.
The vast majority of men is NOT even interested in looking after their kids after a divorce.
The vast majority in MOST societies considers it the job of the woman, the mother!

Nope.

Many ask for custody and don't get it.

Men being less interested in looking after kids does not mean they are not amenable to it if necessary.

carefreewannabe:
Women who agree with the father taking care of the kids after a divorce have to REPEATEDLY explain themselves why they "abandoned" their kids. People consider them "uncaring" and "unnatural".

This is just chitty-chat.

It has no relevance to law-formulation.

carefreewannabe:
And based on these convictions, which might or might not be your hidden convictions too, are the laws we have, which I consider UNJUST to both, MEN and WOMEN.

If you want to be TRULY objective, then you will admit that such laws are not only discriminating against men but also against women. Societal conventions are imposed on individuals and most individuals don't even question them.

I am sure that when I asked you if you would take care of the kids in the case of a divorce and for their sake give up on your career and possibly your free time and private life with a new partner, you were thinking "Hell, no!".

This is an example of the "women are the real victims" I stated I know you for.

Get back to the point. The law is sexist.

I would not get involved in such insignificant twist you are putting on it bar telling you the laws were made INTENTIONALLY to favour women, not to discriminate against them.

If women feel it is unjust, I can guarantee you it would not exist tomorrow.

carefreewannabe:
And I think that majority of fathers are free to do so.
I am sure that most women are happy to have fathers who help them.
I am sure that MANY mothers wish their ex-husbands would help more.

However, if fathers choose NOT to take MINIMUM care of their kids, nobody can force them.
What can a mother do when a father refuses to take care of his kids? NOTHING.
She is left alone.

There are probably more women who are left back alone with their kids than fathers who have no access to their kids. There are laws that can punish a mother for not letting the father see his kids but there is no law that punishes fathers who don't want to see their kids and help raise them.

So please don't tell me that I want to say that "women are the real victims" when it's me who os able to see the injustice done to fathers when it's you who seems to be unable to put yourself in the position of a mother who is left back alone and not protected by any law.

I think you missed the point here.

So as long as majority of men have wives that "allow" them to have access, then everything is okay?

carefreewannabe:
He has to make an argument when he is in a disagreement with the mother. The mother must accuse him of something first. If he was the one to accuse the mother of child neglect or abuse or whatever, she would also have to prove that her children are properly taken care of.

Nope.

Many men from the very beginning are made to feel like unworthies in court except they can prove otherwise.

It is far more reputationally acceptable to courts and governments to see men suffer due to their mis-action than to see women or children suffer due to their mis-action. If he accused the mother of something, I can guarantee you that the response would not be as intense as the mother accusing him of something. It might even be something as lame as "he was emotionally abusive in the relationship to us, so he should not be let close to the kids".

Now lets say he said "she was emotionally abusive in the relationship to us, so she should not be let close to the kids", you think it would be taken seriously? .............Don't make me laugh.

It is well documented that men that go through UK, US, Canadian courts feel violated for being their sex by the court system. Only if the wife "decides" to make it easy, do they normally have it easy. The laws put power in the hands of women to use and misuse as they wish. Just like this moronic law of California is about to do.

carefreewannabe:
I have a good friend whose ex-wife had to pay fines for not sticking to the rules set by a court.
I don't know why this isn't possible in the UK.

Because the UK is a sexist nation.

They are only bothered about sharing his years of hardwork with her even when she has no contribution to it.

carefreewannabe:
No doubt.

A society that decides that is a mother's primary job and duty to take care of the kids, is too.
And MAJORITY of men will be in support of such convictions.
A mother is better qualified to take care of the kids so let me come every second weekend and be a hero daddy.

Another fine example of you trying to turn it into "the women are the real victims".

I know you too well and your argument pattern.

carefreewannabe:
Which is harmful to MOTHERS, FATHERS and CHILDREN.

Yet, I don't see many fathers who complain. And I see very few fathers who CHOOSE to live with their kids after a divorce. And these fathers get a lot of appreciation and admiration when they do something that is NATURALLY expected of women.

And here is where the laws come from. And if you are honest, these laws are based on the convictions you hold, too.

And again "the women are the real victims".

I repeat, the law is based on an intent to favour women irrespective of your attempt to twist the basis.

Women are given powers and no responsibilities to pummel and take revenge on their exes.

If you claim you do not see fathers complaining about being fleeced to pay for a "lifestyle she is used to" and denied access to their kids like if "it is not a lifestyle he is used to", then you need to get out more and observe the news more.

Many fathers don't have the luxury of the choice to live with their kids after divorce. The laws makes sure of that.

The law states: The house goes to the wife and kids ............and that is the best interest of the kids.

I bet to you, that is just making women the real victims.

carefreewannabe:
I have told you that if the case was reverse, men would get the money. Then you asked me if I think it is right or just. No, it's not! At least not for me BUT it is not about sexism.

It is SEXIST!

carefreewannabe:
Yet, they don't give women any choice when the father refuses to take PROPER care of their children or to take care of them at all. I guess, from your standpoint, you have not even thought of it ONCE.

I don't want to even imagine myself alone with two kids and a father who doesn't care at all.
And this is what happens in Germany frequently, especially with irresponsible men who come to Germany, promise a woman heaven on Earth, have a baby with her and then leave because they secured a permanent stay. Then they do illegal import export business and the German welfare system pays child support. They show up every now and then if at all, go back home and marry a new wife, come back to Europe and enjoy the best of the two worlds.

Is there any law that protects such women? Is there any law that punishes these men who abandon these kids and their mothers?

The answer is .... NO!

Welcome to "the West"! A jolly place, isn't it?

Again, a fine example of "women are the real victims".

And you say I don't know you well?

Now let me correct your fallacy. The law gives priority rights to women having the kids, does not mean the law bans them from relinquishing the rights. Women take up those rights willfully.

The men do not have the luxury of the rights and when they ask for it, don't get it.

I have never heard of a victim with special rights that they can also relinquish if they wish but are happy to take up.

carefreewannabe:
I will read this article and I know you will come up with 100 more articles. My only hope is you that you cultivate the ability to see things from different perspectives before calling women selfish.

Women are naturally selfish and illogical. I will never change my views on that.

I know what nature dictates. I don't argue with it to be politically correct.

Sagamite:

Nope.

Many ask for custody and don't get it.

Are you telling me that MANY men want their kids to live with them after divorce?

Men being less interested in looking after kids does not mean they are not amenable to it if necessary.

What does "if necessary" mean?

This is just chitty-chat.

It has no relevance to law-formulation.

Societal norms definitely do.

This is an example of the "women are the real victims" I stated I know you for.

Get back to the point. The law is sexist.

I would not get involved in such insignificant twist you are putting on it bar telling you the laws were made INTENTIONALLY to favour women, not to discriminate against them.

If women feel it is unjust, I can guarantee you it would not exist tomorrow.

I and many other women feel it is unjust that men are obliged to visit their children every second weekend but not more.
There are many women who would like to work, go out and start new relationships but are at their baby daddy's mercy when it comes to have some time for themselves.

It is interesting how you choose to ignore the fact that men can choose to come and go as they please and women have to be around their kids 24/7.

I think you missed the point here.

So as long as majority of men have wives that "allow" them to have access, then everything is okay?

This is not what I said.
This is how you chose to read it.

Nope.

Many men from the very beginning are made to feel like unworthies in court except they can prove otherwise.

And you know it how?

It is far more reputationally acceptable to courts and governments to see men suffer due to their mis-action than to see women or children suffer due to their mis-action. If he accused the mother of something, I can guarantee you that the response would not be as intense as the mother accusing him of something. It might even be something as lame as "he was emotionally abusive in the relationship to us, so he should not be let close to the kids".

This is an assumption, not a fact.

Now lets say he said "she was emotionally abusive in the relationship to us, so she should not be let close to the kids", you think it would be taken seriously? .............Don't make me laugh.

I think, it would.

It is well documented that men that go through UK, US, Canadian courts feel violated for being their sex by the court system. Only if the wife "decides" to make it easy, do they normally have it easy. The laws put power in the hands of women to use and misuse as they wish. Just like this moronic law of California is about to do.

I have not said that the law is always just.
I have agreed with you on many cases of injustice but it is very one-sided of you to look at it from the male perspective only.
You lack objectivity. I don't expect you to see it.

Because the UK is a sexist nation.

They are only bothered about sharing his years of hardwork with her even when she has no contribution to it.

I live in the wrong country.

Another fine example of you trying to turn it into "the women are the real victims".

I know you too well and your argument pattern.

This is mutual.

Interesting how you shrug off some harsh realities single mothers have to go through.

And again "the women are the real victims".

By now, everyone knows how Western men suffer.

I repeat, the law is based on an intent to favour women irrespective of your attempt to twist the basis.

As long as MOST men think that is PRIMARILY a woman's job to take care of THEIR children, this is not going to change.
Don't blame me.

Women are given powers and no responsibilities to pummel and take revenge on their exes.

Really?
So having the responsibility to take care of the children because this is what mothers, but not fathers, do is no responsibility?
Interesting.

If you claim you do not see fathers complaining about being fleeced to pay for a "lifestyle she is used to" and denied access to their kids, then you need to get out more and observe the news more.

I don'T have to observe the news. I have real people in my environment. And most of them were not married to Berlusconi but to people who can just pay enough for their kids.

Many fathers don't have the luxury of the choice to live with their kids after divorce. The laws makes sure of that.

The laws would change, I am sure of that, if more fathers wanted to. It is a broadly accepted norm that mothers MUST do it.

I don't think I would have a choice if I wanted the father to stay at home with the kids in the case of a divorce. If he says no, I have to live with that.

I am sure you will ignore the fact that the law takes it for granted that I have to do it. Why don't you scream sexist now?

The law states: The house goes to the wife and kids ............and that is the best interest of the kids.

I don't know about that. Here in Germany a woman is not entitled to the house. They have to sell it, if one of the parties can't cash out the other party's share.

I bet to you, that is just making women the real victims.



It is SEXIST!





Again, a fine example of "women are the real victims".

Don't put words in my mouth. I don't have this victim mentality. You have enough of it for the two of us.

And you say I don't know you well?

Obviously honey. Some more attention might help.

Now let me correct your fallacy. The law gives priority rights to women having the kids, does not mean the law bans them from relinquishing the rights. Women take up those rights willfully.

And men willfully delegate this work to women.

The men do not have the luxury of the rights and when they ask for it, don't get it.

Like women don't have the right to make men see their children more often or take them to live with them.

I have never heard of a victim with special rights that they can also relinquish if they wish.

Now you have 'cause if your wife asks you to take the children and you say no, then she has no choice but to keep them.
If a woman asks the father to take the children more often than every second weekend and he refuses, then she can do NOTHING about it.

Women are naturally selfish and illogical. I will never change my views on that.

Men are naturally altruistic, aren't they?

I know what nature dictates. I don't argue with it to be politically correct.

Nature as defined by Sagamite:
Women are selfish, men are altruistic.

carefreewannabe:

Are you telling me that MANY men want their kids to live with them after divorce?

Yep.

They ask for custody or shared custody.

carefreewannabe:
What does "if necessary" mean?

If they have to do it, they would do.

Because I prefer a woman to cook for me does not mean I can't cook.

I have always lived on my own and I have never starved.

Lack of interest is not lack of ability nor lack of stepping up if needs be.

carefreewannabe:
Societal norms definitely do.

It should have no relevance in making egalitarian laws. If it does, then it is okay for Saudi Arabia to say women should stay in the house and not drive. That is their societal norms.

You need only logic and sense to make laws and it should be fair.

carefreewannabe:
I and many other women feel it is unjust that men are obliged to visit their children every second weekend but not more.
There are many women who would like to work, go out and start new relationships but are at their baby daddy's mercy when it comes to have some time for themselves.

It is interesting how you choose to ignore the fact that men can choose to come and go as they please and women have to be around their kids 24/7.

Yeah, women are the victims. The law is actually unfair to women.

Women are forced to accept rights they want and can relinquish and which men are asking for?

I don't know you enough?

carefreewannabe:
You know me but you don't know me enough, else you wouldn't say that I was going to argue that "women are the real victims" because I am the last one who supports victim mentalities.
And I am not deviating. I am just not stuck to one perspective. I try to look at issues from different angles.

carefreewannabe:
This is not what I said.
This is how you chose to read it.

I am saying a law is fundamentally unfair to men and you are telling me "well, some men are not affected". So what are you saying?

carefreewannabe:
And you know it how?

By listening to the news.

carefreewannabe:
This is an assumption, not a fact.

It is not an assumption it is an OBSERVABLE philosophy.

carefreewannabe:
I think, it would.

Not according to the reports in the UK news.

carefreewannabe:
I have not said that the law is always just.
I have agreed with you on many cases of injustice but it is very one-sided of you to look at it from the male perspective only.
You lack objectivity. I don't expect you to see it.

I lack objectivity by not seeing that women are the victims of laws that favours them and that they like.

I see!

carefreewannabe:
This is mutual.

Interesting how you shrug off some harsh realities single mothers have to go through.

Yeah, I know your normal argument pattern: "Lets shift the discussion to women being victims. .......Okay, lets talk about women in Africa".

carefreewannabe:
By now, everyone knows how Western men suffer.



As long as MOST men think that is PRIMARILY a woman's job to take care of THEIR children, this is not going to change.
Don't blame me.



Really?
So having the responsibility to take care of the children because this is what mothers, but not fathers, do is no responsibility?
Interesting.



I don'T have to observe the news. I have real people in my environment. And most of them were not married to Berlusconi but to people who can just pay enough for their kids.



The laws would change, I am sure of that, if more fathers wanted to. It is a broadly accepted norm that mothers MUST do it.

I don't think I would have a choice if I wanted the father to stay at home with the kids in the case of a divorce. If he says no, I have to live with that.

I am sure you will ignore the fact that the law takes it for granted that I have to do it. Why don't you scream sexist now?



I don't know about that. Here in Germany a woman is not entitled to the house. They have to sell it, if one of the parties can't cash out the other party's share.



Don't put words in my mouth. I don't have this victim mentality. You have enough of it for the two of us.



Obviously honey. Some more attention might help.



And men willfully delegate this work to women.



Like women don't have the right to make men see their children more often or take them to live with them.



Now you have 'cause if your wife asks you to take the children and you say no, then she has no choice but to keep them.
If a woman asks the father to take the children more often than every second weekend and he refuses, then she can do NOTHING about it.





Men are naturally altruistic, aren't they?



Nature as defined by Sagamite:
Women are selfish, men are altruistic.

To be frank, I have come to the end of my tolerance to bother to read the rest of the rubbish.

Sagamite:

Yep.

They ask for custody or shared custody.



If they have to do it, they would do.

Because I prefer a woman to cook for me does not mean I can't cook.

I have always lived on my own and I have never starved.

Lack of interest is not lack of ability nor lack of stepping up if needs be.




It should have no relevance in making egalitarian laws. If it does, then it is okay for Saudi Arabia to say women should stay in the house and not drive. That is their societal norms.

You need only logic and sense to make laws and it should be fair.



Yeah, women are the victims. The law is actually unfair to women.

Women are forced to accept rights they want and can relinquish and which men are asking for?

I don't know you enough?






I am saying a law is fundamentally unfair to men and you are telling me "well, some men are not affected". So what are you saying?





By listening to the news.



It is not an assumption it is an OBSERVABLE philosophy.



Not according to the reports in the UK news.



I lack objectivity by not seeing that women are the victims of laws that favours them and that they like.

I see!



Yeah, I know your normal argument pattern: "Lets shift the discussion to women being victims. .......Okay, lets talk about women in Africa".



To be frank, I have come to the end of my tolerance to bother to read the rest of the rubbish.

Ok, one last question:

Are men altruistic?

[quote author=Sagamite]

They are no different.

Most are as selfish and illogical.

All Men as in human beings are selfish and illogical. Selfishness and Illogic are common and natural human triats

That said, I have little pity for any person involved in the process of bringing a child into the world for an unnatural setting.

I have no pity for him.

http://news.yahoo.com/white-ohio-woman-sues-over-sperm-black-donor-153715939.html

Sixix: All Men as in human beings are selfish and illogical. Selfishness and Illogic are common and natural human triats

The average woman far more so than the average man.

To me, it is how you can differentiate men and women.

I say that with no reservation but rather pure aplomb.

Sixix: http://news.yahoo.com/white-ohio-woman-sues-over-sperm-black-donor-153715939.html

She needs to sue them.

Sagamite:

The average woman far more so than the average man.

To me, it is how you can differentiate men and women.

I say that with no reservation but rather pure aplomb.

I disagree

For instance many women would be willing to forgive cheating partner or to let go of their aspirations for the sake of their men and families. How many men would be willing to sacrifice everything for the sake of another.

Sixix:

I disagree

For instance many women would be willing to forgive cheating partner or to let go of their aspirations for the sake of their men and families. How many men would be willing to sacrifice everything for the sake of another.

Sixix?

And you think (or are telling me) most women forgiving a cheating partner is for selfless reasons?

Abegi!

No be yesterday dem born me na.

Women forgiving cheating men is normally out of self-interest.

Let a guy go and cheat on a girl in her prime or a hot older woman and see if she would stay.

Go and cheat on J.Lo, Nicole Scherzinger, Halle Berry and see how quickly the guy's arsse would be dumped because she has a lot of choices queuing to take his place.

Then cheat of Mary J. Blige, Whitney Houston, Monique and likes and see how they stay put for "self-less reasons".

The women that forgive cheating are mainly:

- Average and ugly looking women

- Insecure/damaged women who cannot believe they have options

- Women who depend too much on the guy financially (e.g. a star married to an average girl) (like that Chris Brown girl)

- And women that are into bad boys who have them wrapped under his fingers coupled with emotional (or even physical) abuse, girls who cannot see themselves with an ordinary man, they need the danger and the excitement that comes with bad boys.

Don't start giving me that "real man", women are nice and self-less tosh.

For your information, I have studied women as part of my PhD in Womantology.

https://www.nairaland.com/1433735/ladies-attitude-when-breaking-up/1#18072016

Most women that forgive are doing it because they perceive it to be in their best interest.

Sagamite:




Sixix?

And you think (or are telling me) most women forgiving a cheating partner is for selfless reasons?

Abegi!

No be yesterday dem born me na.

Women forgiving cheating men is normally out of self-interest.

Let a guy go and cheat on a girl in her prime or a hot older woman and see if she would stay.

Go and cheat on J.Lo, Nicole Scherzinger, Halle Berry and see how quickly the guy's arsse would be dumped because she has a lot of choices queuing to take his place.

Then cheat of Mary J. Blige, Whitney Houston, Monique and likes and see how they stay put for "self-less reasons".

The women that forgive cheating are mainly:

- Average and ugly looking women

- Insecure/damaged women who cannot believe they have options

- Women who depend too much on the guy financially (e.g. a star married to an average girl) (like that Chris Brown girl)

- And women that are into bad boys who have them wrapped under his fingers coupled with emotional (or even physical) abuse, girls who cannot see themselves with an ordinary man, they need the danger and the excitement that comes with bad boys.

Don't start giving me that "real man", women are nice and self-less tosh.

For your information, I have studied women as part of my PhD in Womantology.

https://www.nairaland.com/1433735/ladies-attitude-when-breaking-up/1#18072016

Most women that forgive are doing it because they perceive it to be in their best interest.

So you're still at it?
Issorait! Issokey! Just keep bashing us. Diarrisgodoooo!

GoodGirl2:


So you're still at it?
Issorait! Issokey! Just keep bashing us. Diarrisgodoooo!

You know it is true, Badgirl2.

Sagamite:




Sixix?

And you think (or are telling me) most women forgiving a cheating partner is for selfless reasons?

Abegi!

No be yesterday dem born me na.

Women forgiving cheating men is normally out of self-interest.

Let a guy go and cheat on a girl in her prime or a hot older woman and see if she would stay.

Go and cheat on J.Lo, Nicole Scherzinger, Halle Berry and see how quickly the guy's arsse would be dumped because she has a lot of choices queuing to take his place.

Then cheat of Mary J. Blige, Whitney Houston, Monique and likes and see how they stay put for "self-less reasons".

The women that forgive cheating are mainly:

- Average and ugly looking women

- Insecure/damaged women who cannot believe they have options

- Women who depend too much on the guy financially (e.g. a star married to an average girl) (like that Chris Brown girl)

- And women that are into bad boys who have them wrapped under his fingers coupled with emotional (or even physical) abuse, girls who cannot see themselves with an ordinary man, they need the danger and the excitement that comes with bad boys.

Don't start giving me that "real man", women are nice and self-less tosh.

For your information, I have studied women as part of my PhD in Womantology.

https://www.nairaland.com/1433735/ladies-attitude-when-breaking-up/1#18072016

Most women that forgive are doing it because they perceive it to be in their best interest.

Hmmm Sagamite da Sage. Dropping it like its hawt!!!!

Sagamite:
You know it is true, Badgirl2.

This "good girl" turned "bad" after completing a PhD in Mantology. I'm sure you can relate.

Kudos to you sagamite except for the insults. But if it weren't for the insults, maybe some people wouldn't have been able to understand.

And you @carefreewannabe, you've been awsome here too. If we can have more women like you and not those ones like Emma Watson, i think the world would be a better place.

I think the world has a bright future, the fact that you've been able to understand, @carefreewannab.

I have been avoiding this thread all these while becos i just don't have the time to argue.

Just to chip in something here. Recently, sen. Ita Enang said something about women dominating our judicial system. Do you know what some respondents said on the internet? One said: "as a father of four girls, i find this offensive"! Hmm. If it were men dominating the legal space, do you think this "real man" would have said the nonsense he said? This respondent finds it offensive that someone is raising concerns that his sons (the respondent) are not in the legal space. This shows we are living in the culture of feminism.

This is the kind of suppression of men and how ball-less Western Men have become.

Complete whoosies for being men!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a5UBuSVf0o


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GblWNUTFVVU

Why the fck is this reetard apologising?

If you walk down any fcking high street in the UK or Western nations, you would see pictures women with less clothes on windows of shop, so why is what he is wearing now "sexist"?

So it is acceptable for us to be bombarded with that on the streets everyday and he woman (called a "model" ) is paid millions for it but then it is not "sexist"?

Completely naked women are on TV virtually everyday but that is not "sexist"?

But the minute an obviously unorthodox guy wears a t-shirt with a hot woman on it, it is time to attack him and calumniate him as "sexist"?

And if men say lets ban women being shown in public like that, the SAME women would say that ban is "sexist" as it is impeding on a woman's right to choose what she wears, how she is displayed in public and how she makes her money.

But this guy should apologise for wearing a shirt?

And the fooool did? .......Whimping like a pansy mooron!

This guy says everything I have been saying here. And this is even confirmed by a former law enforcement officers:

- The laws are bias against men and are sexist.

- Stuupid laws like this give women power but no responsibilities.

- Women don't get charged for falsely claiming raape.

- Western men are ball-less fcktards that suck up to women like ediots!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaoiZfpNz2k



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmltdtnC9HE

.