Poor Arnold Schwarzenegger!
Picture the scene.
It’s January 1997. Arnold’s in a good mood, sitting in his den, paging through the latest issue of Variety. He chuckles to himself. Fuck the critics! Jingle All the Way is putting asses in the seats of the multiplexes of America, and that means money in the bank to the Terminator.
Suddenly, he hears the door to the room click shut behind him. It’s that devious maid again, with her wily, sexy Latin ways! “Que pasa?” she says, running her hands through his hair. He’s still not quite sure what that phrase means, exactly, but it seems to have a hypnotic effect on him, and his penis. He pulls the maid to him.
The next minute and a half are a blur. “Curses!” he mutters to himself, as he realizes that, once again, the wily maid has lured his hapless penis into her vaginal cavity. But it’s too late. The penis has released its precious load. “Me han robado tu esperma,” she hisses. “¿Dónde está la biblioteca?”
This, give or take a few of the details, seems to be how the author of the Rebuking Feminism blog imagines the events that led to the birth of Arnold’s love-child 14 years ago. Yep: in his version of events, it’s the women – both the maid, Patty Baena, and wife Maria – who are responsible for Arnold’s indiscretions:
Maria Shriver should have known better than to let any half way decent looking woman spend so much time in the house. The whole ballgame changes when a man reaches Arnold’s status. Women come begging to be f***ed by you. Women practically disrobe and spread when guys like Arnold walk in the room. I’m sure he abstained plenty of times but women like this maid wait for her opportunity when in such close proximity.
It’s tough, I guess, to be a freakishly huge, fabulously wealthy alpha male who wants to fuck everything in sight. But tougher indeed to be a beta:
As is quite common with the type of situation that took place with Arnold, I’m sure this little whore took her prized bastard back home to be raised by her oblivious, committed, and cuckolded beta male husband.
Some people might say, hey, isn’t Arnold partially to blame for cuckolding that little whore’s cuckolded beta male husband? No. It’s important to remember: he’s a victim too, and obviously not responsible for the sexual activity that Mrs. Baena lured him into with her fiery Latin vagina.
Maria may now file for divorce. The only people to end up completely fu*ked here will be the two men…Arnold for engaging in adultery (and the price only men have to pay for it) and the man that was cuckolded by his adulterous whore wife and will have to pay for it as well. Men bear liability to women on both sides of the equation. Men have no rights.
Now all Maria and Patty need to do is sit back and collect the cash. Ka-ching-gle All the Way!
EDITED TO ADD: The author of the post has added a response to my post as a addendum to his original post. The gist of it:
Arnold and his impropriety was not the intended focus of this article. I take it as common knowledge among my readers that what Arnold did was obviously wrong. This was not the point of the article.
The point of this article was to illustrate how adultery is supported by law on one end (the female end) and not supported by law on the male end.
@Captain Bathrobe
Of course. If they had more lifeboats, where would they find room for the floral arrangements?
This is what I found about proving child abuse in a court of law.
http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/courts_92/courtsi.cfm
MRAs seem to think that “justice” would be disallowing women to petition a court for anything at all at any time and that no man should ever have to go to court for any reason. If a man has to pay court costs or for an attorney, this is injustice.
Arnie, your illustration only proved my point. Women have to prove their cases in a court and they sometimes lose, as your brother’s wife seems to have lost. Just because your brother had to take part in the legal system and had to pay for an attorney or court costs does not mean that he was denied justice. He won. What changes to the system need to be made, that every male in the land should be given free legal representation at all times?
Another NWO “NWO ration” point: “No Amy, before State intervention abortion was unlawful. Under constitutional and common law ALL human life was represented from the moment of conception.” This is patently false as a matter of history. The standard in the US prior to the civil war and state bans was that abortion was permissible up until about fifteen weeks (see “the quickening standard”), and after 15 weeks a doctor or midwife could be charged with malpractice in regards to the risks to the woman, but the woman was not criminally liable. Seriously, I suggest reading the Roe decision in full, because it does extensively discuss the legal history in the US, and the abortion ban at issue (women who had abortions were not criminally punished, the person performing the abortion was, under the specific statute Roe overturned). The quickening standard was also considered the moral standard by the Catholic Church during the middle ages (see, for example, Augustine and Aquinas). The ideas you present about conception are a product of the industrial age, not of American law during early US history.
“Wait, so he won joint custody? Doesn’t that mean that justice eventually prevailed?”
LOL justice is paid for in this country. Furthermore it is an ongoing process. If he does not produce and send money to her and her new husband he is placed inside of a cage. When he was unemployed they garnished his unemployment check and gave much of it to her. She likes to go to the spa, take vacations in Europe etc.
“Regarding your claim that women don’t want a SAHD as a partner – I suppose the solution to this is, as Amanda Marcotte said, ‘more feminism.’ Tell girls that when they grow up, it’s okay for dads to be primary caretakers and that makes them no more or less awesome than a dad who has a full time job.”
It is hard to beat biology dear. Women don’t marry men who are less successful than they are and even so if she does she will not respect him for being dependent on her. Feminism will never advocated for stay at home dads. It is not in their play book.
Why don’t men have rights to our own bodies and the fruits of it’s labor?
“Men can certainly do whatever they wish with their own bodies, and no one will try and stop them. What they *can’t* do is interfere with someone else’s own body. And isn’t the idea that a man should have full access to the fruits of his labor a Marxist idea?”
No, men’s bodies are the property of women after she has a child or after divorce. Is it a Marxist idea to be the direct beneficiary of one’s own labor you ask. No the exact opposite.
“Also, what’s your idea on ‘best interests of the child’?”
To have a father in their life.
You really need some help lady.
114 women died, 324 women survived: 72% of the women survived.
1339 men died, 325 men survived: 19% of the men survived.
“What changes to the system need to be made?”
Presumed joint custody
In Kansas, joint custody has been presumed since the early 1980’s. Here is an exerpt from a legal encyclopedia (I would link, but you have to have access to Westlaw/lexis/westlawnext to have access to the actual document).
The 2000 legislature amended and tried to clarify the types of custody arrangements in Kansas. “Legal custody” means the allocation of parenting responsibilities between parents, or any person acting as a parent, including decision making rights and responsibilities pertaining to matters of child health, education and welfare.0.05 The 2000 legislature amended K.S.A. 60–1610(a)(4)(A) and (B) to define the two types of legal custody and separated legal custody from residency. The court can order joint custody with joint decision-making power and responsibility with both parents or the court can order sole custody with primary decision-making power and responsibility with one parent. To order sole custody, however, requires findings of fact as to why joint decision-making is not in the child’s best interests. But an award of sole custody does not deprive nonresidential parent rights to access to information regarding child unless judge enters restriction.0.10“Custody” generally denotes the day to day caregiving and decision making. In looking at custody arrangements, however, it might be more productive to view them in terms of type of time spent with the child. For example, there is caretaking time, overnight time and activity time. As a general rule, any custody arrangement should provide both parents with each type of time. It is unfair for one parent to have all the caretaking time and none of the activity time.
Parents should be encouraged to maintain a focus on the needs and best interests of their child and not their own convenience or desires. Studies seem to indicate that the three things necessary for successful post divorce adjustment for children are:
• a close, sensitive relationship with a psychologically intact, conscientious custodial parent;
• the diminution of conflict and reasonable cooperation between the parents; and
• whether or not the child comes to divorce with preexisting psychological difficulties.1
Multi-environmental changes can be harmful to a child and inhibit community roots and peer relationships. There are several books available on how to structure the living arrangements.2
§ 12.31 Joint legal custody
Joint custody implies, at the very least, that both parents retain the decision-making authority for the major issues in rearing a child—education, medical care, activities. It may also imply a joint or shared residency arrangement. Joint custody is the preferred legal custody relationship. Joint custody reflects the trend toward sharing parental responsibilities during the marriage and the emphasis on more equal parental rights. Joint custody is seen as a way to ensure post divorce parental involvement, remove the burden of single parenting and improve the chances of receiving child support. During the 1980s joint custody became the presumptive form of custody award in many states.
Joint custody under K.S.A. § 60–1610(a)(4)(A) is not the same as “shared parenting” under the Child Support Guidelines.2.05
Although a 1947 Kansas case refers to “alternating custody”3 and a case in the 1970s recognized a joint custody award,4 it was in 1979 that the Kansas legislature first authorized joint custody if both parents agreed. In 1980 joint custody was authorized even if the parents did not agree. In 1982 the legislature amended the statute once again to make joint custody the preferred option.5 If the court does not order joint custody and there is no agreement of the parties as to custody, the judge shall include in the record the specific findings of fact upon which the order is based.
The court, in its discretion, may require the parents to submit a plan for implementation of a joint custody order upon finding that both parents are suitable parents. The parents acting individually or in concert may submit a custody implementation plan to the court prior to issuance of a custody decree. The lawyer representing a parent who wants joint custody should encourage (or insist) that the client and other parent work out a parenting plan. The physical or residential custody could be primarily with one parent in one location or equally shared. How the time is shared is a more difficult question than the label put on the type of custody.
2 Kan. Law & Prac., Family Law § 12:3 (4th ed.)
Arnie: “What changes to the system need to be made?”
Presumed joint custody
Joint custody is favored if not presumed in 35 U.S. states. And it is worth pointing out that it’s not always the best option, for the kids or the parents. Sometimes it is. Sometimes the parents can’t get along, or one parent is abusive or negligent, or the child’s life is disrupted by having to constantly move between two homes. So, what you’re asking for (1) isn’t that far away from what’s actually occurring in family courts in most of the country, and (2) isn’t always the best option.
Here is some more information on laws throughout the country.
Alaska. Alaska Stat § 25.
Alaska. Alaska Stat. § 25.20.060(c) (expressing preference for joint legal custody if in the best interests of the child).
Connecticut. Conn Gen Stat § 46b-56a.
District of Columbia. D.C. Code Ann. 1981 § 16-911(a)(5) (West 2004) (rebuttable presumption that joint custody is in the best interest of the child or children).
D.C. Code Ann. § 16-914(A)(2).
Florida. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 61.13(2)(b)(2) (West 2004) (“The court shall order that the parental responsibility for a minor child be shared by both parents unless the court finds that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child.”).
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 61.13.
Georgia. In Interest of A.R.B., 209 Ga. App. 324, 433 S.E.2d 411 (1993) (legislative policy favors joint custody through joint parenting over sole custody absent unfitness).
Idaho. Idaho Code § 32-717B (Michie 2004) (“. . . There shall be a presumption that joint custody is in the best interests of a minor child or children.”).
Idaho Code § 32-717B(4).
Iowa. Iowa Code Ann. § 598.41(2) (West 2004) (“. . . If the court does not grant joint custody. . . the court shall cite clear and convincing evidence, . . . that joint custody is unreasonable and not in the best interest of the child to the extent that the legal custodial relationship between the child and a parent should be severed.”).
Kansas. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1610(a)(4) (2004) (joint legal custody first in order of preference).
Louisiana. La Civ Code Ann. art. 146(A)(1).
Louisiana. La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 132 and La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:335(A)(2)(b) (West 2004) (“In the absence of agreement, or if the agreement is not in the best interest of the child, the court shall award custody to the parents jointly; however, if custody in one parent is shown by clear and convincing evidence to serve the best interest of the child, the court shall award custody to that parent.”).
Minnesota. Minn. Stat. Ann. § 518.17(2) (West 2004) (court shall use a rebuttable presumption that upon request of either or both parties, joint legal custody is in the best interests of the child).
Minn. Stat. Ann. § 518.17.
La Rev Stat Ann § 9:335.
Missouri. Luther v. Vogel, 863 S.W.2d 902 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 1993) (joint legal custody is legislatively enacted preference, and therefore it must be first option used by court).
Montana. Mont Code Ann § 40-4-224.
Mont Code Ann § 40-4-224 (preferred).
Nebraska. Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 42-364(3), 43-2923(1, 3, 4).
New Hampshire. N.H. Rev. Stat. § 458:17 (2004) (presumption, affecting the burden of proof, that joint legal custody is in the best interest of minor children).
New Mexico. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 40-4-9.1 (West 2004) (“There shall be a presumption that joint custody is in the best interests of a child in an initial custody determination. . . When joint custody is awarded, the court shall approve a parenting plan for the implementation of the prospective custody arrangement prior to the award of joint custody. The parenting plan shall include a division of a child’s time and care into periods of responsibility for each parent.”).
Texas. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.131 (Vernon 2004) (rebuttable presumption that the appointment of the parents of a child as joint managing conservators is in the best interest of the child).
Utah. Utah Code Ann § 30-3-10.2 (rebuttable presumption).
Wisconsin. Wis. Stat. Ann. § 767.24(2) (West 2004) (“court shall presume that joint legal custody is in the best interest of the child”).
See also:
Kentucky. Chalupa v. Chalupa, 830 S.W.2d 391 (Ky. Ct. App. 1992) (abrogated on other groundsby, Fenwick v. Fenwick, 114 S.W.3d 767 (Ky. 2003)) (child’s best interests requires trial court to consider joint custody first even in “bitter divorce”).
Louisiana. Hicks v. Hicks, 594 So. 2d 532 (La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992) (where parents loved children and could reach agreement on issues relating to them, court found both failed to rebut presumption in favor of joint custody even though parents did not communicate well).
Child Custody Prac. & Proc. § 5:7
@ DSC,
Seriously, I suggest reading the Roe decision in full,
DSC, I’m sure that will happen exactly never.
It is hard to beat biology dear. Women don’t marry men who are less successful than they are and even so if she does she will not respect him for being dependent on her. Feminism will never advocated for stay at home dads. It is not in their play book.
And yet many people have given counter-examples from their own lives of exactly this sort of arrangement working out. It’s as if your saying “who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?”
Dammit, “you’re” not “your.”
By the way Xtra, if only we get get women to stop using the same logic you used with the Titanic with the wage gap we could make some progress as well.
Yeah, my father is a highly-paid semiconductors engineers, and a lot of his female colleagues are married to technicians and tradesmen. Honestly, a lot of ambitious women want partners with less high-powered careers for exactly the same reason that ambitious men do; it’s hard to run a household when both members of a couple have their career as priority number 1.
So are you saying that since I was a child and went through being alienated from my father that many states have just turned this around in the last several years?
If this is the case then this is progress. Now we need to amend laws such as the one used against my brother to destroy such relationships with the child’s father. VAWA allows women to bypass presumed joint custody. I will also be looking up your claim that 35 states have turned this around.
I am saying that many states have presumed joint custody and from the quick research I did, it appears that those that do have a presumption of joint custody started changing their laws to reflect this presumption in the early 1980s. I don’t know when you were a child, so I can’t say whether this was before or after your child custody arrangement was worked out. Also, I have no idea what state you live in, and child custody laws are determined on a state by state basis.
Could you please point me to the language in VAWA that allows women to “bypass presumed joint custody”?
Also, as for the claim that women don’t want a stay at home husband, I think that there are some women who do, and some women who don’t. Personally, I fantasize about having a stay at home husband because in my career, if I have to take a significant amount of time off of work to stay home with children, I will likely never come back. However, I also think it is best during the early years of child development for children to get one on one care. So, I would LOVE for the man I someday marry to want to be a stay at home dad. However, I also want him to follow his own dreams (aka – have whatever job would make him happy, whether that is raising our children, waiting tables, and being the CEO of a fortune 500 company).
My desire isn’t really that uncommon in my office either. Of the 10 women doing my job in my office, there are 7 with children, and of those, four have stay at home husbands.
justice is paid for in this country
What a shock, that lawyers, judges and child counselors should want to be paid for their time! For what it’s worth, many lawyers recognize that their rates are quite inflated, which is where the practice of pro bono work comes in, as a way give back some of their hours to the community. So if you really need a lawyer and can’t afford one, then why not look into pro bono clinics?
And, out of curiosity, how much money did your brother’s ex-wife spend in the legal dispute?
It is hard to beat biology dear. Women don’t marry men who are less successful than they are and even so if she does she will not respect him for being dependent on her. Feminism will never advocated for stay at home dads. It is not in their play book
Actually, if you knew anything about feminism except what you read on MRA sites, you’d know that’s anything but true. Feminism is all about dismantling traditional gender roles, including the idea of the working dad and stay at home mom – feminists are all for families comprised of working moms and stay at home dads, if that’s what’s best for everyone involved.
Is it a Marxist idea to be the direct beneficiary of one’s own labor you ask. No the exact opposite.
I invite the Marxists on this site to correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t Marx formulate his theories by watching factory owners get wealthy from the labor of the workers? And this struck him as unfair. He believed that the means of production, and thereby the largest share of the profits, should belong to the worker and not the factory owner. Communism, such as that practiced in China and Russia, put the means of production in the hands of the State, making it rather a failure as far as Marxism goes.
Again, reality is actually… y’know… real xD As Captain Bathrobe has said… there are REAL ACTUAL PPL out there… why are we constantly acting like we need to figure out using theory what reality is, when there are actual real ppl and real exps in REAL life? 🙁 I dun understand this constant formulating it like it’s not OUT THERE, like there’s no rape crisis centres or male and female shelters out there to volunteer at if you want to rly learn what’s happening and what rape is about or other things 🙁 (or volunteer at youth centres or programs helping or talking to prisoners 🙂 )
But this is like arguing about whether it’s raining and using weather stats and predictions and stuff you googled when you could just STEP OUTSIDE -_-;;; It’s all so pointless and sad too, b/c no amount of theorizing about how the world is will change what’s rly real and how the world actually is 🙁 (it’s like ppl who dun believe Obama was born in the US, or ppl who dun believe in the moon landing 🙁 ) If reality conflicts with theory, then the theory is constructed on either the wrong information, a misreading of the information, or incomplete information… as I said, it’s like BABIP in baseball, it CAN help to give you more information on how likely a player’s performance will continue, but many times it’s WRONG, and that doesn’t mean that the PLAYER DOESN’T EXIST, it means that the information we have on the player is incomplete or can’t be quantified (yet) 🙂
One last time to the Berra quote: “In theory, there is no difference between theory and reality, in reality, there is.” 🙂
Well, I’m sorry justice isn’t free for you. Why is this women’s fault, that a judge and an attorney deserve paychecks?
And “having a father in it’s life” is not always in the best interest of a child, when said father is a drug addict, rapist, abuser, criminal, or otherwise has problems with the law. Which is why we have the legal system – to decide these things as fairly as possible.
“No, men’s bodies are the property of women after she has a child or after divorce.”
Trying to define the terms of debate in this twisted manner isn’t going to help you. Women do not OWN men, however, THE CHILD A MAN CREATES has a legal claim on it’s father’s income in order to survive. The fact that the money is then given to the child’s primary caregiver (whether that be the child’s mother or other) seems to be what you have a problem with. I am convinced MRAs have no idea how much it actually costs to raise a child, that their child support payments are only a fraction of what it costs, and that the primary custodial parent is the one that gets the short end of the stick financially.
5 (well 4 after this) comments to 500 xD I wonder if we can get to 1000! 😀 (what’s the record for comments in this blog? o_O ) MRAs are like blog fertilizer, if you have a good one you can get a nice lush comment thread XD
Arnie
Why did your step dad live off of your dads money? Why didn’t your mom marry up?
LOL!!! I guess it just wasn’t in her biology to do so.
Either that or, in true MRA fashion, Arnie’s shifting the goalposts again.
“And, out of curiosity, how much money did your brother’s ex-wife spend in the legal dispute?”
The man must pay for the woman’s legal fees.
“Could you please point me to the language in VAWA that allows women to “bypass presumed joint custody”?”
http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-VAWA-Threat-to-Families.pdf
“Actually, if you knew anything about feminism except what you read on MRA sites, you’d know that’s anything but true. Feminism is all about dismantling traditional gender roles, including the idea of the working dad and stay at home mom – feminists are all for families comprised of working moms and stay at home dads, if that’s what’s best for everyone involved.”
Women will never openly advocate for this and neither will feminists. To have a man do so would ostensibly give men all the rights and privileges women have now. Women will not take this risk.
“And “having a father in it’s life” is not always in the best interest of a child, when said father is a drug addict, rapist, abuser, criminal, or otherwise has problems with the law.”
Why are most men alienated from their children if they are not any of the above. Why does NOW say that men should not be allowed presumed shared custody? Removing men from the family through VAWA without due process is not “fair”.
“Women do not OWN men, however, THE CHILD A MAN CREATES has a legal claim on it’s father’s income in order to survive.”
No a child has a rightful claim to hisher father not his money. Child support is not based upon a median standard of living but what the isolated resource producing male can produce. Factoring in tax code it equates to 40-50% of his income.
“Why did your step dad live off of your dads money? Why didn’t your mom marry up?”
She did, he was an engineer.
I have a feeling quite a few of you here are lawyers. It’s very sad that you see men as “Turnips” to be bled.
http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2011/05/save-turnips.html