Nice Guy Redux: If you’d gone out with me, you wouldn’t have gotten raped.
The contest for the Most Ironic Use of the Term “Nice Guy,” When Applied to Yourself –otherwise known as the MIUTNGWAY Award – is heating up. The previous front runner – the Tumblr guy who compared his inability to get laid to the Holocaust – now faces a serious challenge from a Redditor calling himself DogmaDog.
The other day Mr. Dog wandered into a discussion of the SlutWalks in the Feminisms and offered his two cents: he declared them “stupid,” and suggested that they won’t really help victims.
And then he started in on his own tale of woe.
I know I’m going to be shit on for saying what I’m about to say, but please hear me out.
Not a promising start, Dog.
I’ve never raped a woman, and I’m the ‘nice guy’ who never took advantage of a woman.
Do you want an award for this?
But a girl I was infatuated with in high school blew me off and treated me disrespectfully. She ended up being raped one night, while intoxicated. I do not know how I am supposed to feel about it.
As Don Draper would say, “what?”
How do you think you’re “supposed” to feel? Did you accidentally dislodge the part of your brain responsible for basic human empathy?
Apparently, the answer to that is “yes.”
[H]ow do you suppose I am supposed to feel about this woman I knew who got raped? I mean, I’ve never taken advantage of a woman, but I don’t understand how my ‘friend’, this girl I went to high school with, could go out and party all the time, and in turn treat me, her classmate, as though I were an inferior person for not enjoying the atmosphere of drunkenness at high school parties.
As it turns out, you’re an inferior person for an entirely different reason.
That girl was a mean girl, no? And by being disrespectful toward men, and prejudiced toward men, wasn’t she asking men to behave badly toward her? The only men she gave attention and physical affection to were the ones who hurt her back.
So let me see if I get this: she didn’t go out with you, a “nice guy,” so she was therefore “asking” to be raped?
Naturally, this being the Feminisms subreddit, and not The Spearhead, some of the regular commenters took exception to Mr. Dog’s victim-blaming and his complete lack of empathy for the victim – especially strange, since Dog, who says he is suffering from an (unspecified) mental illness, considers himself “a victim, in my own way,” of prejudice towards those with mental health issues. This experience, alas, has not given him any sympathy towards other vicitms.
Indeed, it seems that DogmaDog didn’t misplace his sense of empathy after all; rather, he threw it out of the house and got a restraining order against it. Responding to someone who suggested he show a little empathy, Dog lashed out:
Your empathy can go suck a dick. Empathy does nothing to help my situation. I suppose that is just the excuse people give themselves so that they can feel like they are actually doing something.
You basically called me an inferior human being because I can’t or won’t empathize for my friend who was raped. Well, ask yourself this, smart-ass, have you ever really wondered what good your empathy does? It does nothing. …
In reality, you are doing nothing but attacking me, and I may or may not have a ‘complex’, even though I don’t know what that is, but I can guarantee you, I HAVE NEVER RAPED ANYONE!!!
The sound you hear is me banging my head, ever so softly, on my desk. Empathy is what connects human beings to one another, what allows them to understand one another on a deep level.
When people are suffering – as you are, Dog, in dealing with your mental illness – a little bit of empathy from someone else can make all the difference in the world.
If you can’t feel even a little bit of sympathy for this woman you were once “infatuated” with, you’re not a nice guy at all; you’re an even bigger asshole than those drunken high school partiers you disdain. You may never have raped anyone — as you’ve repeatedly insisted, as if this should win you a prize – but “in your own way” you’re thinking like an abuser. Your lack of empathy for the victim, your continued bitterness towards her for turning you down, your sense of wounded narcissism; none of this is healthy, for you or for anyone who comes into contact with you.
You need help, dude. Please, please get it.
Posted on August 15, 2011, in bad boys, beta males, evil women, misogyny, nice guys, rape, rapey, reddit. Bookmark the permalink. 455 Comments.
“It must be past MRAL’s bedtime” => I am 42 years old.
Huh. I didn’t know you were a sockpuppet of MRAL.
If you, Mr. Zarat, are going to come on here, claim that your own movement treats women equally because you “treat both sexes equally badly,” then not only do you hate women, you hate men as well. People can have discussions about these topics and they are not treating one another as children. They are treating them as adults with respect.
Also, that first comment was directed at another person regarding the bed time. Please pay better attention. Thank you.
Look, this is going in circles.
You are either in favor of fathers being sentenced to hard prison time for being late on child support, or not. If you are in favor, you must accept all that this policy means in terms of tax payer expense, loss of income to the mother, and the unspeakable horrors that you are sentencing a father to experience due loss of employment that may be (you say)/probably is (I say) outside of his control
If you are against this practice, I am not sure how you can call yourself a feminist.
If you are in favor of this practice, I am not sure how you can call yourself human.
theLaplaceDemon, I think the “from a dead beat dad” one was… but still.
“Huh. I didn’t know you were a sockpuppet of MRAL.”
My mistake. I assumed that MRAL meant “Mens Rights Activist Loser”.
Sorry.
‘Anthony…those quotes were not directed at you?’ TheLaplaceDemon
Narcissism. It’s an impenetrable wall of MRA self absorption. I imagine he thinks everyone is talking to and about him. Constantly. And pining for his return so much that he had to create a second account to bypass what he thought was a banning. Can’t keep his fans waiting!
My mistake. I assumed that MRAL meant “Mens Rights Activist Loser”
Didn’t another troll (NWO maybe?) also assume the L stood for “loser”?
@Yaz
“Narcissism. It’s an impenetrable wall of MRA self absorption.”
No feminist has ever been wrong, luckily that’s not narcissism it’s perfection. State approved.
“Thats communism/socialism/marxism”
Those words aren’t interchangeable, you paranoid git from the 1950s. Communism is not socialism is not marxism. And yes, it is socialism; I’m a socialist.
“synonymous with feminism.”
No, it motherfucking isn’t. Feminism doesn’t demand a political outlook. Some of us are democratic socialists, some of us are free marketeers. Not that many of us favor a command economy, and in fact I’m making an assumption that there is at least one feminist who does.
“Men have no rights to a live child, therefore no reproductive rights. What source could you possibly need?”
No, they have rights to live children; they don’t have rights to monopolize another woman’s uterus to get them. Surrogate mothers are a thing now, a really desperate man who wants to be a single father should look into them. They’re women who, for a price, voluntarily allow other people to use their uterus to carry a baby to term.
Anthony Zarat – why do you think that the people making comments about MRAL are talking about you?? (“It must be past MRAL’s bedtime” and “I get that you’re lonely”). MRAL = Mens Rights Activist Lieutenant, not you.
woops, obviously I am late to the party. Ignore!
“I am pretty much a vile person. I treat both sexes equally badely. Asking me to use special children’s language when speaking to women, so that the “delicate” sex is not offended, indicates that YOU do not respect women.”
Ah, the ‘misanthrope’ who never uses this kind of bile on men. Yes, yes, we’ve heard this song and dance before, there’s a TV Show about it, called 2 and a Half Men.
“Whew, thank goodness I’m wrong. For a minute there I thought men were thrown into debtors prison which was abolished long ago. I mean it would be pretty cold of women to have men tossed in prison for 10K a year while costing 120K a year which would pay 11 years of child support. Plus the cost of police work and such. You’re talkin probably the entire 18 years of support for 1 year of prison for a man losing his job.”
Child support modification is linked in this very thread, you stupid tit. The laws that imprison men for being heavily in arrears indicate that the man MUST HAVE THE MEANS TO PAY THE CHILD SUPPORT. It doesn’t apply to the indigent.
“I choose to go my own way and not complain.
Like a Man Should. ”
But you will brag about it!
MRAL just tried to post a comment as a sockpuppet, defending himself.
Dude, if you’e going to sockpuppet, you need to do it from a different computer.
Granted, you got away with it once before, but I’m checking IP addresses now!
Sometimes, anyway. I’m lazy.
My mistake. I assumed that MRAL meant “Mens Rights Activist Loser”.
Aaaand you assumed that “loser” referred to you.
AZ, you know that tax cheats can also go to jail?
Also, I’m pretty sure that those jailed for failing to pay child support generally go to minimum security prisons. It’s not a violent crime.
Zarat: I see, you are an equal opportunity asshole. That makes me feel so much better about you.
If you can suggest a means for getting the non-custodial parent to pay the arrears they owe, which isn’t incarceration, make free with the ideas.
If you think that letting them skip on thousands of dollars of arrears, when all they need to do is start making payments (or show an inability to pay) is the right thing for the children… what was it you said… I’m not sure you’re human?
Well, sadly I know enough about humanity to know that it makes you all too human. “Fire and forget, let the women deal with the kids,” is as old as history.
It makes you an asshole, a misogynist, and anti-child. I can’t say you are a misanthrope, because you want to make it easier for men to be jerks; and anything which actually holds men accountable is offensive to you.
Anthony, not everything is about you. I know, it’s hard to believe. When you start squealing “fuck” for no reason like a howler monkey on meth, we’ll make sure you have your binky and a nap. OK?
“Child support modification is linked in this very thread, you stupid tit. The laws that imprison men for being heavily in arrears indicate that the man MUST HAVE THE MEANS TO PAY THE CHILD SUPPORT. It doesn’t apply to the indigent.”
Do you really think you can get this LIE past me? NO! The laws allow income to be IMPUTED to the father. This means the court acknowledges that there is NO INCOME, NO MONEY, NO EARNINGS — but put the man in prison anyway. Here is a direct quote, from the law that you so feverishely defend:
“It is just as much a violation of the CSRA [Child Support Recovery Act] for a non-custodial parent to fail to pay child support where his refusal to work is motivated by sloth, a change of lifestyles or pursuit of new career objectives. For most people, bringing children into the world does limit life choices by imposing certain long-term financial obligations.”
GOT IT?!? No man would go to prison if he has the ability to pay. In practice, EVERY MAN WHO IS THROWN IN PRISON UNDER THESE LAWES IS INDIGENT.
Feminists cannot clean their hands of this blood with such sophistry. Not while MRAs still breath, to tell the story of the horrors that your hatred is heaping upon the innocent.
Ok Zarat, name one actual case where a father has been incarcerated for failure to pay, without having the means to pay.
A real name, verifiable by a newspaper or CNN website, not a friend of a friend.
So, uh, just how bad WAS your divorce?
IQs seem to drop around here when facts are presented. Again, A DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE LAW ITSELF:
“It is just as much a violation of the CSRA [Child Support Recovery Act] for a non-custodial parent to fail to pay child support where his refusal to work is motivated by sloth, a change of lifestyles or pursuit of new career objectives. For most people, bringing children into the world does limit life choices by imposing certain long-term financial obligations.”
Ability to pay has NOTHING to do with incarceration. Fathers are locked up when they lose employment, because the man-hating family courts simply call it “sloth”. Can you believe it? These femi-fascists claim that a father would face prison, violence, and brutal rape because of SLOTH. How can ANY OF YOU LIVE WITH YOURSELVES?!?
Pretty well, actually. Yourself?
Zarat: Facts… they contradict you. Sloth is a term of art in the law. It means one is refusing to look for work. It’s grounds for rescinding unemployment benefits. Since there are recorded instances of men who refuse to take work, lest they be required to pay court ordered child support this law allows for means to pursue the money they owe.
Also, note that the law does not even pretend to be gender neutral. They speak of HIS ability to pay. Not his/hers. Who here still believes that MRAs are fighting for nothing? We are fighting for freedom and liberty, for basic dignity, and against a relentless campaign of feminist hatred directed at men and boys.
“So, uh, just how bad WAS your divorce?”
Married, two kids. If you want to know what makes my wheels spin, google my name and Ms. magazine. I told my story once. I wish I could take it back, but hey, we all make mistakes. There was a time, long ago, when I thought some feminists were good people, and I asked for help. Lol.
Yaz wrote “Yeah, except you’re the only one saying that. The women here have repeatedly told you they DON’T think men are after one thing. But what do those bitches know, eh? amiright?
Yaz I hear what your saying. I do not believe the women. I hear that women want men to be more emotional, communicative,
I hear this constantly from articles, even when I was in college and the “campus date rape” scare was big then. Many women in my dorm room were afraid to walk alone at night. I remember a women who lived on the opposite end of our dormitory. We wer talking and she said that she thinks men think of one thing-sex. She told me some men put pills in womans drinks so they can rape them if the woman passes out. She said women are always on guard with men. Thinking back on it, she was a insightful attractive woman
I just think the woman on man boobz are not saying how they really feel in order not to offend the feminist men here
wrong post sorry
I’m pretty sure what makes your wheels spin is thread derailing and rampant misogyny. Am I warm?
“Also, note that the law does not even pretend to be gender neutral. They speak of HIS ability to pay. Not his/hers. Who here still believes that MRAs are fighting for nothing? We are fighting for freedom and liberty, for basic dignity, and against a relentless campaign of feminist hatred directed at men and boys.”
You don’t read the law very often do you? Because a huge number of laws are written specifically using the male gender as the default for all humans. It’s a recognized legal precedent that ‘he’ also means ‘she’, because why wouldn’t men be the default people?
In fact it was Darksidecat who first mentioned this in response to a law that specified ‘She’, and wasn’t applied to a man, because I’d forgotten it, I take it so much for granted.
“Ok Zarat, name one actual case where a father has been incarcerated for failure to pay, without having the means to pay.”
You are kidding right?
THOMAS JAMES BALL. Remember him? You guys made great sport of him here. He is a nut, you claim. Certifiable. Typical MRA.
Actually, he was a devoted father of three kids who paid child support FOR TEN YEARS before losing his job in 2009 (along with half of the nation). He worked at a Ford dealership, see, and autos were not selling very well. I guess that is what courts call SLOTH. Anyway, he was scheduled to begin his incarceration on June 16, so he burned himself alive instead.
Got it meathead? This is what YOU ARE DOING TO FATHERS. They prefer to burn themselves alive, rather than face the horrors of life behind bars.
He hit his kid, drew blood and refused to go to one lousy counseling session. That is why he was not allowed to see his kid. He did not go to jail, and would not have had he filed his unemployment status.
“I’m pretty sure what makes your wheels spin is thread derailing and rampant misogyny. Am I warm?”
Of course you are right. Anyone who says that it is wrong to sentence men to 14 years in prison for SLOTH (legalese for losing your job), must be a misogynist.
So, in other words, there is not one man who actually went to jail at all.
Are you, like so many of our resident MRAs, coated in some sort of knowledge-repelling substance? Because we’ve already gone over sloth. It’s not losing your job, it’s failure to look for work.
Anthony, how many names do you post under? I googled your name and Ms., Nothiing, except that I discovered that this is what you call your “war name.” I googled the name you gave for your email address when you posted as Antz. Again nothing.
Also, we never made “sport” of Ball. We simply didn’t treat him as a martyr.
Ball’s manifesto suggested that men should start firebombing courthouses and police stations. Do you agree with him? How does his explicit advocacy of terrorism affect how you feel about him?
“He did not go to jail, and would not have had he filed his unemployment status.”
This is what happened in NAZI Germany. Courts, paperwork, filing forms, all to whitewash unspeakable crimes. Do you think this blood will ever wash off? Feminism is forever tainted by this horror.
Check out his court documents, which are online now. Ball LIVED in court asking for a reduction in child support. Denied, denied, denied. All men know this; civil cours are a feminist bastion of man-hate. Denial of everything that comes from a petitioner with the “wrong” genitalia is the reason civil courts exist.
Enough of this. Why would there be a need for PRISON if fathers could simply “file a form” and get out of it? Are you people capable of rational thought? If it were that simple, NOBODY WOULD GO TO PRISON.
“THOMAS JAMES BALL. Remember him? You guys made great sport of him here. He is a nut, you claim. Certifiable. Typical MRA.”
Actually, he was a devoted father of three kids who paid child support FOR TEN YEARS before losing his job in 2009 (along with half of the nation). He worked at a Ford dealership, see, and autos were not selling very well. I guess that is what courts call SLOTH. Anyway, he was scheduled to begin his incarceration on June 16, so he burned himself alive instead.”
You guys just invented a nice narrative wholesale, didn’t you?
He hit his wife. Child Support had fuck-all to do with it, you stupid git.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaand Godwin.
“He hit his kid, drew blood and refused to go to one lousy counseling session. That is why he was not allowed to see his kid. He did not go to jail, and would not have had he filed his unemployment status.”
Wait, it was his KID? I saw the name and thought wife… holy shit, and this is the guy an MRI (They’re not activists; they’re idiots) wants to defend as being a ‘good father’, who didn’t fucking deserve prison?
Rutee,
Yup Thomas Ball hit his little girl hard enough to draw blood and scare his wife into calling the police.
That is from his own rant.
Zarat, you are even nuttier than I thought.
Good Day to you.
@Futrelle, you are right, I did not find it either. However, there is a recent post:
“British Judges Free Child Rapists, Say 12-Year-Old Girls “Wanted” Sex”
July 22, 2011
The cliff notes version is still there, under AntZ. Why do you care? Guns and sex, nothing special. I learned long ago that nobody has a story that matters. The only story that matters is the story that unfolds in the halls of congress and on the marble floor of our courts. The evil that is embedded in our court system and legal system echoes through millions of lives, taking a toll that no single person can comprehend.
THAT is why I am here. Why can’t even one person admit the obvious?That sending fathers to prison for falling behind on support is an unspeakable crime, and that feminists MUST STOP THIS CAMPAIGN?!?
Never met a bloke who went to jail for non-payment. Have met a bloke who claimed the dole and worked cash-in-hand so he only had to give each child $5 per fortnight.
Filing forms in court = just like Nazi Germany.
Houston, we have a Godwin.
AntZ:
So, what you’re quoting is a 9th Circuit opinion from 1999 (US v. Ballek). Still a valid interpretation of the act (presumably — I’m not gonna log onto Wexis to Shepardize it), although (from what Lord Google tells me) it seems that courts and investigators are likely to divide non-paying non-custodial parents into “can’t pays” and “won’t pays.” Sloth refers to someone who won’t pay; not someone who can’t. If a parent can show that xie’s been looking for a job and remains unemployed, the state will put xir into a job search program — not prison.
From what I remember about Ball’s letter, he didn’t request support modification.
“Also, we never made “sport” of Ball. We simply didn’t treat him as a martyr.
Ball’s manifesto suggested that men should start firebombing courthouses and police stations. Do you agree with him? How does his explicit advocacy of terrorism affect how you feel about him?”
Agree with him? God no. He said stupid things, no doubt. Fact remains (1) he was scheduled to begin prison time for late child support on the last Friday before fathers day, (2) he burned himself instead. The DV that he committed, and admitted to, was TEN YEARS EARLIER. It has nothing to do with his court appearances. He was found not guilty, by the way, and if he wanted to, he could have left that part out and nobody would be the wiser. Given that the only evidence that exists of any DV by Ball is his own words, I think we can agree that it was a single tragic mistake, that he made (and admitted making).
This was not a serial abuser or a violent man. He made a mistake, was found not guilty, and for TEN YEARS paid his child support and supported his family. Then, he lost his job. THAT is when the story begins, from the MRA perspective. The life that Ball lived before losing his job is NOT our concern. After losing his job, he was DENIED A MODIFICATION many times, and eventually ordered to prison.
Ball chose to burn himself alive, two days before his sentencing date. We will never know if he would have been sentenced to 5 years or 5 months — or even given a chance and set free. Not likely, given the current anti-male political climate, but a possibility.
The “Pendragon” article that was cited here asserted that Ball killed himself as a form of dominance/control of his ex-wife, a bold faced lie that is easy to debunk by even the most cursory examination of the facts. The 10 year gap certainly suggests that this man had long forgotten his ex wife. His “manifesto”, twisted as it is in places, hardly mentions his ex wife, and in fact generally excuses her as the only non-guilty party in the whole affair.
Actually the case I cited talked about a man who went to jail for a year for failure to pay. The Court ruled that there should be efforts made (but not to the level of providing an attorney) to ensure due process is followed. This was a MRA dream case where the noncustodial parents now will have more efforts extended to make sure that they are not incarcerated willynilly by having them have their income records reviewed and procedures explained.
But since theMRAs could care less about the issue, there is little recognition of this fact.
“Never met a bloke who went to jail for non-payment. Have met a bloke who claimed the dole and worked cash-in-hand so he only had to give each child $5 per fortnight.”
Well, that settles it.
If the law is never applied, why even have it? This issue is counter productive for the feminist movement. It is absurd, easy to attack, and exposes feminism as a hate movement. Why not stop? It does NOBODY any good to put fathers in prison for inability to pay, sloth, or any other reason. The level of obstinance here is remarkable. Not one person will come out and say the obvious, “we got this one wrong, we should stop this campaign and return to the previous model of a few weeks (not years) in jail (not prison) for a misdemeanor (not felony) crime of failure to pay child support.” Even that would be wrong, all debtors prisons are wrong, but at least it would not be a horifying crime against humanity.
Having more reasonable positions that ACTUALLY HELP WOMEN, instead of naked hatred of men and boys, would make feminism an immensely more powerful movement. Why this obstinate need to punish, imprison, torture, violate, dehumanize, and humiliate? Why the hate, the violence? It is pointless, it helps nobody, it is simply a mistake. Quite frankly, as an MRA I should LET YOU continue with this madness, it brings the troops straight to my doorstep. But, I still hope for a better day when this war ends, and man and women can discuss issues as equals.
It would help if you stop accusing feminists of things they have never done AZ.
Anthony Zarat:
So, how would you change the status quo? I already asked you, and my questions were these:
Until you give me some constructive ideas for what you would do to change what you’re railing against, I’m going to assume you actually don’t care and are just interested in shrieking and hollering.
Just curious. Where did you see this? I reread the letter (for the nth time), and although I may have missed it (it’s very long), I don’t see anything about modification.
I also didn’t see anything about the denied modifications in the local news stories about the incident. I also didn’t get anything googling. I’ll keep trying though.
I did see that he said he could have borrowed the $2-3K share of his children’s medical expenses (to reimburse his ex-wife for what she had already paid) and avoided jail, but he didn’t.
A little off-topic, and very late, but I think it’s important: men can and do get breast cancer.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/male-breast-cancer/DS00661
Partially because they assume only women get it, they ignore signs and symptoms often until it’s too late to be effectively treated.
Men, check your lumps.
“Until you give me some constructive ideas for what you would do to change what you’re railing against, I’m going to assume you actually don’t care and are just interested in shrieking and hollering.”
I think that’s a very safe assumption to make.
Yeah, I’m going to go out on a limb and state that Thomas Ball is not exactly a credit to your movement. Representative, perhaps, but certainly not a credit.
(I have very little idea what this means in real life, because it’s in legal terms, but I guess it is a bit of information.)
Contempt of court
Part VII Division 13A of the Family Law Act provides sanctions for contravention of orders made under that Act. In particular, a court can imprison a person who contravenes a parenting order for child maintenance by not paying child maintenance.
If a court ordered liability is not registered with CSA for collection and remains enforceable by the payee, contravention of the order may lead to the imposition of sanctions under the Family Law Act, including imprisonment.
However, the law allowing for imprisonment for contravention of a court order does not apply to a person simply because they have not paid child maintenance to CSA in accordance with registered liabilities. Where a court ordered liability is registered with CSA, a failure to pay the registered liability does not amount to a contravention of the order. Therefore, a person cannot be imprisoned because of failure to pay amounts which arise under a child support liability which is registered for collection.
A liability that is registered with CSA for collection will cease to be enforceable by CSA if the payee makes an election under section 38A to have the liability and/or arrears no longer enforced. If the payer fails to pay either the current liability or the arrears to the payee directly, that failure may amount to contravention of the court order. This may make the payer liable to imprisonment or other sanction, if the contravention was wilful.
If, after court enforcement action by CSA, a liable parent breaches the court order for payment, an action for contempt may be an option open to CSA.
Anthony, you yourself are being quite obstinate. You continue to insist that jailing people for failure to pay child support is routine practice, when, in fact, it is normally reserved for the most egregious of cases of willful failure to pay. It’s obvious that no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise.
FWIW, I’m against jailing people for failure to pay child support in all but the most egregious circumstances. In other words, my beliefs are generally in keeping with current law and practice. If you can prove that paupers are, as a matter of practice, routinely jailed for failure to pay–due to no fault of their own–then I might reconsider. But as long as you keep flinging Nazi Germany references, grossly exaggerating the length of sentences (you earlier said “decades” even though the Rhode Island law you cited carries a maximum sentence of 5 years), and making stupid false dichotomies (“either you agree with me or you are inhuman”), I will find you impossible to take seriously.
@Anthony Zarat “Having more reasonable positions that ACTUALLY HELP WOMEN, instead of naked hatred of men and boys, would make feminism an immensely more powerful movement.”
What exactly are you proposing here? I’d love to know how you would ACTUALLY HELP ME.
Signed – a woman who is owed several thousand dollars in child support and lives in a country where the father will not be jailed for non-payment.
For the record, I don’t believe non-paying parents should be sent to prison, because they can’t pay from prison either and frankly I think there are already too many people in prison who shouldn’t be there. I’m also a feminist, much as you’d like to think that isn’t possible. So, what’s your solution?
Dammit, sheeple, THEY HAD PAPERWORK IN NAZI GERMANY!
We are through the looking glass!
The Nazis had pieces of flair that the made the Jews wear.
Or “they” for the literate among us, of which I apparently am not one.
@NWA
“I know you are, but what am I?”
Seriously, dude?
@David (Do you prefer David or Dave?) Can we get a better class of trolls than a PeeWee Herman knock-off?
Well, that was fun. Just been looking at Family Court judgements. The only case where someone went to jail that I came across was a custodial mother for breaching parenting orders (16 days).
There was one where the father appealed against running up a child support debt while he was in prison. What was he convicted of, you ask? Soliciting to murder the payee!
‘This is what happened in NAZI Germany. Courts, paperwork, filing forms, all to whitewash unspeakable crimes. Do you think this blood will ever wash off? Feminism is forever tainted by this horror.’
I wasn’t aware that the Nazis (And apparently China, too) were a feminist movement.
Huh.
Learn something new every day.
Paperwork, filing forms … unspeakable crimes … forever tainted by this horror.
Yeah, I work in an office too.
‘Yeah, I work in an office too.’ Magpie
Magpie, I thank you for making me spew coffee all over my desk. :D
Why would there be a need for PRISON if fathers could simply “file a form” and get out of it? Are you people capable of rational thought? If it were that simple, NOBODY WOULD GO TO PRISON.
I believe he just suggested that the only reason there are prisons are for the millions of deadbeat dads.
Who, apparently, are also all violent rapists.
Why, thank you Yaz :)
Spent the last week printing and filing reams of paperwork in 47 folders, one for each criterion for accreditation. My poor boss looks like the living dead today.
@Anthony Zarat
Women are actual human beings with inherent rights and dignities.
Yep, that’s TOTAL HATRED FOR MEN AND BOYS!!!!!
How about this as a reasonable position, if you create children, you should support them to the best of your ability.
Now for an unreasonable position, all men who lose their jobs are sent to jail for failure to pay child support.
Guess which one happens in the real world? Honestly, you’re becoming tedious and trite with your assertions of fictitious arrests and prison sentences. Show your work or GTFO.
Oh, and Ball? Child abuser.
I’m tired, but looking through this thread. It appears that MRAL has been banned? Maybe he’ll read my response anyway.
He quoted me and answered:
“@Theresa (@BooBooMatrix)
“Parenting not being shared is the number one reason women don’t advance at work, or are held back in some cases.”
But if after divorce men have to fight for equal custody, doesn’t that mean women are holding themselves back? it’s almost like women can’t avoid being victims. And the flip side of the coin is men being unable to avoid being oppressors.”:
—————————————————————————————
Men do not have to fight for custody due to any feminists. In Cali, the default is equal custody. Me and all the single parent moms I EVER knew begged the ex to take the kids while they waited sad by the window and we all joked somberly about how we PAY the ex to do this. It’s common, “I even offer to pay and he won’t come.”
So what you did here, is just ask if men have to fight for custody (can’t they win?) Does that mean women are holding themselves back. Look, mothers will DEFINITELY hold themselves back even if they are married. Because being responsible for a human being is a BIG effing deal, dude. Look around. The assholes you see? Shitty stupid parenting. Not in all cases, but MRAL, please…. then you say “it’s like women can’t avoid being victims”.
Sorry, but that is not an argument, it’s just trying to slander a group and avoid the actual topic. Misappropriation of the word ‘victim’ and using it as a slur is something ABUSERS DO, hands down, plain and simple. It’s true even when feminists do it. Check people that do this, and their over all beliefs, and boom, they’re abusers. Trust.
Your characterization of the dynamic is not an argument. If we’re going to GENERALIZE about what does down in family breakups and family courts, then MRA’s will lose because generally speaking, men are the bad guys here. I say let’s not generalize. My own father fought for me and I know other dads that have fought for their kids and it was a huge victory for everyone, including mom and new husband.
I forgot to answer an aspect tho. If there has been abuse, or the father can’t take care of the kids well, then moms do have to fight. Your assumption that when there is a struggle it’s for now good reason is not founded in any real evidence.
Anecdotal… the family mediator I worked with was scared and from EXPERIENCE she had a button to push for security and I had to be escorted a long ways away from my ex as we left the meeting. Family courts have horrible experiences with DV and based on EXPERIENCE are totally on edge when there is a record of DV and are doing mediation. They told me, we need to escort you completely out of his sight when this is over. That’s not something they pulled out of their asses. And my ex was PISSED during that meeting. Even though the default was half and half.
—————-
Also, to the nutjob that brought up Thomas Ball. You’re a nut, and we are only lucky that he wasn’t the kind of fruitbat to take others out with him before he removed his narcissist ass from this blue marble of ours.
“For the record, I don’t believe non-paying parents should be sent to prison, because they can’t pay from prison either and frankly I think there are already too many people in prison who shouldn’t be there. I’m also a feminist, much as you’d like to think that isn’t possible. So, what’s your solution?”
That is the solution. Feminists saying “enough is enough” so that other feminists will pull the plug on this madness.
“1. Who keeps the children when the parents split up? Is there a competence test, where the kids go to whoever is determined to be a better parent, or does the father get custody in all cases?”
Shared parenting should be the default judgment. This has been proposed numerous times by MRAs, and shot down by feminists. Study this link to see for yourself the feminist campaign to kick fathers out of their children’s lives, so that children continue to be the sole property of women:
http://www.glennsacks.com/nysp/
Joint custody is extremely workable. For example, each parent may have one week “parent” duty and one week “free”. It is great so that parents can have a life, date, mountain climb, travel, or put in 60 hour weeks on their “off” week, and then focus on children on the “parent” week. Everyone wins, a wonderful solution. Feminists have squashed it, every time it comes up, with a vicious campaign.
“2. If the latter, why should the father always get custody? I mean, you say feminists hate fathers more or less automatically, but I want to hear your case for why we should like them.”
Joint custody is fair to both parents, metter for both parents to have a life, and better for the children to have both parents in their lives. There are no child support issues, since both parents provide a home forthe children equally.
“3. How would you ensure that children whose parents split up are fed and supported? What if the parent they live with makes less money than the non-custodial parent?”
Normally, there is no need for child support in a shared parenting scenario. However, if one parent makes much moremoney than the other, that can probably happen. MRA’s dont care too much about child support, except when it is so crippling that the non custodial parent simply cannot live. MRAs are more concerned with the feminist attempts to push fathers completely out of the children’s lives.
Theresa just pointed out to you that shared responsibility is the default assumption in Cali. It is the same in Australia, and has been for 5 years.
Also, there are all kinds of problems with it, starting with kids having to cart everything they might possibly need that week from one house to the other.