What do feminists want? Equal work for equal pay? An end to sexual violence? A new album from Le Tigre? Nope. According to the dude behind the still-awkwardly named Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology blog, what they really want is to GET THE RING and get hitched up to some nice man they can happily exploit. Yep, feminists love marriage more than almost anything. Why? Because getting married is the necessary first step towards getting a nice, profitable divorce. Mr. PMAFT explains:
Anyone who tells you that getting married and having children fights feminism is wrong. Feminism is dependent on marriage and family. Without it, feminism would collapse. When socons and tradcons push for marriage, they are working to create more feminism.
But …
Some of you are thinking, “what about all those feminists who want to ‘destroy marriage’?” … [T]his represents a misunderstanding of what feminism is and how pervasive it is. A few lesbians who want to destroy marriage don’t really represent the totality of feminism. The most prominent strain of feminism currently in existence is hybrid feminism or cafeteria feminism, which combines anything from what is traditionally thought of as “feminism” to conservatism and traditionalism that benefits women.
Um, I’m pretty sure that the traditionalists are not eating in the same cafeteria as the “cafeteria feminists.” But PMAFT is on a roll:
The hybrid or cafeteria feminist does not want to “destroy marriage” as such. They have no interest in living in lesbian communes. They want to be able to cash out and destroy THEIR marriages via divorce whenever they feel like it, but they still want to get married when they want. If marriage was completely destroyed, then they wouldn’t be able to fleece men of their children and financial assets because they wouldn’t be able to get married in the first place to have a divorce. Without the use of marriage and divorce, it becomes nearly impossible for feminism to steal the wealth of men. … Feminism is now completely dependent on marriage and family.
Huh, because most of the feminists I know, oh, never mind.
This is the reason why the marriage strike is such a large threat to feminism. Without men getting married, the engine of feminism doesn’t have the fuel it needs to keep going, and it stalls.
I’m pretty sure most feminist women will get along just fine even if they can’t marry you.
Fish insults? I leave for a day and everyone gets body snatched by Captain Haddock?!! o.O
“Currently applicable,” Argenti. In my state the relevant law refers to “sexual intercourse” — PIV — but says the victim is the nonconsenting party regardless of the genders involved.
But yeah, I don’t really expect him to take me up on it. The benefit of vague, unspecified laws is that they say whatever he wants to rail against, and I don’t think he’ll want to ruin that.
Anyway, I didn’t say it has to not be rape, I said it has to not be a crime at all.
yeah I’m pretty sure all the states I can think of would still count it as assault, no matter how ancient and fucked up the sexual assault/rape laws — I certainly wasn’t trying to agree with NWO that it isn’t a crime and that feminists would never make it one >.<
Good luck if he does take you up on the offer though, as you hit the nail on the head with "The benefit of vague, unspecified laws is that they say whatever he wants to rail against, and I don’t think he’ll want to ruin that." (lol, do I need to prepare a defense for how hitting the nail on the head isn't about hating men?) — wonder what NWO will say when he realizes that not only do DV laws protect men too, but they even protect men from other men cuz gay relationships, they happen, and are sometimes abusive…he doesn’t actually do the critical thinking thing though does he?
NWO will never admit to realizing any such thing. Evidence that doesn’t agree with his worldview is misinterpreted, twisted, dismissed, or completely ignored.
Yeah I need to remember where I’m posting too, why would evidence not be treated as twisting citations, given BRAIN FACTS! and all >.<
And on that note — Hershele, I was mostly being pedantic, my apologies if my comment about legalese came off as saying that women should be allowed to force men to have sex with them, I was snarking at badly written laws, not agreeing with NWO — small wonder that any not clear comment would be taken as potentially in bad faith though, when presenting evidence just gets it ignored or twisted….how is anyone supposed to debate with that?
I’m not aware of any state in the US that still limits rape to male perpetrators only. Many states have adopted some variation of the Model Penal Code, which instead of ‘rape’ has varying degrees of ‘sexual assault’.
mythago — I’m thinking of PA here, which doesn’t explicitly say male perpetrators only, but is badly worded enough it could, and probably was intended to back when it was written — I was amazed when I actually read it though, having grown up in a Model Penal Code state. Also, rape-by-object is deviant sexual intercourse, as is oral or anal….they’ve not managed to stop calling anal sex deviant yet >.< (by my reading, rape by envelopment *could* be legal rape here, but it's not remotely clear enough that NWO couldn't twist it to exclude that possibility….but it's moot, it's certainly some form of assault in all 50 states)
shorter version? it'd be really nice if all 50 states would adopt the Model Penal Code on this one, but the one I'm living in currently hasn't yet…I was being excessively pedantic for the context, I should know not to snark at badly worded laws with trolls afoot.
Pecunium, while it’s true that only failing to obey a court order to pay child support can be punished (I didn’t write anything else!), child support debts are debts. Otherwise for example, they wouldn’t accumulate while you are in prison and can’t pay them (incarceration is considered ‘voluntary unemployment’ in quite a few states)
Do you mean a “debtor examination”? Normally an “interrogatory” is a written question, but maybe you live in a state with odd terminology. (And yes, if you disobey the court’s order, you can be found in contempt of court. Failing to obey a court order = contempt, pretty much everywhere.)
Property seizure is a distant second to garnishment of wages, if you have them (it’s much easier to spend money than to sell your property and turn it into money) – but if you don’t have property, particularly if you’ve hidden it away.
And no, child support isn’t particularly different. If you have a court order requiring me to reimburse you for your car, and I say “I don’t have money and no job,” I am disobeying the court order.
Again, as has been pointed out by others, you can seek modification of a child-support order, and as *I* said, there should be more help for NCPs whose failure to pay child support stems from actually having no job and no money, rather than “I don’t want to pay it” or “My foreman pays me cash under the table.”.
But how do I get this court order?
The answer is: I can’t. Unless you enter a payment plan.
That’s the difference.
Um, Vindicare? You know you entered a payment plan with the credit card company you owe and the car loan company etc etc….*all* debts are a result of non-payment per a payment plan, so wtf was your point there? If you mean to refer to mythago’s example of “If you have a court order requiring me to reimburse you for your car” then you enter a payment plan by successfully suing the person who should be reimbursing you for your car (and yes, you could get one of those payment plans if someone totally your car and neither car insurance would cover it)
blarg, totally there should be totaled, and I should go to bed >.<
I suppose this is another incident where I am apparently not actually a feminist because I have no interest in marriage. I mean, if feminism was all about wanting to get divorced because we want to be lazy, wouldn’t we have never fought for the right to work and simply focused on the right to divorce? That way we could get married at age 18, deal with it for a few years, and then get alimony forever. That’s what we would do if we were really just after vaginamoney. Isn’t it funny that one of our issues is sexist hiring processes and wanting a fair shot at employment? That doesn’t sound like the desire to be lazy and collect vaginamoney to me.
Vindicare: Pecunium, while it’s true that only failing to obey a court order to pay child support can be punished (I didn’t write anything else!)
Yes, you did. You said Yes, but the question is: Why is it normally a constitutional right that you can’t be punished for not being able to pay your debts but with the exception of not being able to pay child support/alimony?
Putting yourself in a state where you can’t pay your debts can ruin people’s lives who are not your child or spouse, too! I can accept that child support debts are privileged, but why alimony debts?[emphasis in original]
Not the least mention of a court order in that, just an assertion that child/spousal support debts are a special category of debt, instead of a normal category of court order.
child support debts are debts. Otherwise for example, they wouldn’t accumulate while you are in prison and can’t pay them (incarceration is considered ‘voluntary unemployment’ in quite a few states)
Of course the court order continues while one is in jail. It’s not a fine, which one can pay off at a given rate of exhange (x time in jail = y dollars of fine), it’s an attempt by the courts to compel compliance; just as with any other contempt of process (e.g. refusal to testify).
But how do I get this court order?
The answer is: I can’t. Unless you enter a payment plan.
That’s the difference.
What difference?
The court has decided on a remedy, just as with any other civil proceeding. Not at all different; from a legal standpoint.
You seem to want to make it different, from a moral one, with the child/spousal support treated as less important than a simple case of property damage/loss; even though the harm from default is greater.
Why?
I succumbed to the temptation to reply to you again.
If people were rational, they would just inform themselves, every lazy ass can look it up, that child support debts are privileged.
Go there and read, for example, the Maryland Constitution:
http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/43const/html/03art3.html
SEC. 38. No person shall be imprisoned for debt, but a valid decree of a court of competent jurisdiction or agreement approved by decree of said court for the support of a spouse or dependent children, or for the support of an illegitimate child or children, or for alimony (either common law or as defined by statute), shall not constitute a debt within the meaning of this section
You’ll find that in the constitution of other states, too.
You are quoting the wrong post. I meant this one. “It’s like if I entered a payment plan: child support payments are court orders.”
So, child support debts are privileged in that sense that a court order to pay them can be imposed against your will.
Unless I voluntarily enter a court ordered payment plan my debts don’t become court orders and I can’t be thrown in jail for not paying them. Is that so hard to understand?
I’m talking about court ordered payment plans. And regarding those, this is simply not true. A creditor cannot force a debtor to agree to a payment plan where payments become court orders.
I succumbed to the temptation to reply to you again.
I’ll grant you, that’s one of the classier ways not to flounce. 7/10.
Katz, classier? I keep trying to type a response to that that isn’t launching into swearing about how Vindicare has deigned to answer direct questions…I guess it *is* pretty classy for a non-flounce though…
Vindicare, have you heard of debtor’s prisons? Do you understand wtf that law you are citing was a reaction against? Cuz they used to just lock people up on the creditor’s word that the debtor owed them money, without any sort of court hearing to proof that the debtor should actually owe that money…it’d be more like if women could just walk into court and go “Mr. X fathered my child, and owes me $$, so lock him up!” and instead of being handed paperwork to start a child support claim, the sheriff went “yes ma’am!” and went to arrest Mr. X on the spot…which, regardless what MRAs may think, just doesn’t happen.
(I cannot believe I am trying to explain the difference between modern child support and Victorian era debtor’s prisons “are there no workhouses?!” >.<)
proof? that should say prove >.< (sooner or later I'm going to post without an error, sooner or later…)
@Argenti Aertheri:
It’s a constitutional right that they found still so important in 1982 that they bothered to amend it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
Straw man, yawn.
But…
Do I need to hammer it in your head until you start to accept it:
It is a constitutional right that you cannot be thrown into prison for not being able to pay your normal debts. It would be the holy grail for collection agencies if they could do that.
But you can be thrown into prison for not being able to pay child support and people are actually thrown into prison because of that.
Oh, I’m so sorry. Then we are allowed to abolish a few of your constitutional rights? (I cannot believe that I am trying to explain the difference between modern waterboarding and iron maidens of the middle ages… -.-).
Vindicare, noble defender of the constitutional right to abandon your offspring.
Vindicare, I’m not arguing with anyone who calls an analogy a strawman, I am, however, going to at least try asking you one more direct question and see if I can’t get a direct reply — why do you think child support payments are only ordered for men to pay?
And the difference is that the state has an interest in the rights of children, and could care less whether you paid for your car or not, cars don’t have rights.
Cars don’t have rights, and it’s actually less important for the finance company to get its money back than for children to have food to eat and somewhere to live. Moreover, if you don’t pay, they’ll take back your car; there’s no parallel for defaulting on child support.
Hershele, I was thinking about including how they’ll just repo the car if you don’t pay for it, but I’m not sure MRAs wouldn’t consider foster care better than child support — I’m not sure where the “my tax dollars!” versus “that bitch!” line is with them. (Or do they think that if the state takes the child then the tooth fairy will pay for food or something? Maybe santa delivers it, and a house with chimney too?)
Vindicare: So, child support debts are privileged in that sense that a court order to pay them can be imposed against your will.
As opposed to all those court orders people insist on being entered against them.
I’m talking about court ordered payment plans. And regarding those, this is simply not true. A creditor cannot force a debtor to agree to a payment plan where payments become court orders.
And that’s not what a support order is either. The state is not the creditor. It’s an ongoing order of support.
As such it’s a persistent obligation. That’s why it’s a special category of court ordered payment. A debtor can be forced to pay a normal creditor. He can attempt to avoid payment by having no assets, and; as the creditor isn’t suffering penury as a result the court doesn’t allow for imprisonment to compell payment.
But it’s not “imprisonment for debt”. Imprisonment for debt is when one is imprisoned until the entire debt is paid. Imprisonment for non-payment of support order is either time limted, or voided when payments resume.
One is not imprisoned for the entire duration of the order.
It is a constitutional right that you cannot be thrown into prison for not being able to pay your normal debts. It would be the holy grail for collection agencies if they could do that.
Actually the holy grail of collection agencies is student debt, which cannot be discharged, and accrused intersest. So a person who can’t pay is garnished, and garnished, and garnished. They can’t get out from under, and can be forced to pay multiples of the principle.
Other abuses of debtors is the ability of any person to claim a discharged debt is still extant. Threats are used to get a response, any response is used to get money which is no longer owed, by companies such as RJM Collections.
Further, any collateralised debt has forfeiture options available to the creditor; which allows for no-recourse seizure of the assets pledged against the debt. This is far more permanent than the jailing available to the courts. It’s also more arbitrary, as their are no structured means for changing the schedule of payments, such as are available to those who have an order of support they are legally obliged to meet.
Oh, I’m so sorry. Then we are allowed to abolish a few of your constitutional rights? (I cannot believe that I am trying to explain the difference between modern waterboarding and iron maidens of the middle ages… -.-)
Really…. I’m an Army interrogator, and interrogation instructor. If you’d like I can explain the differences; in detail. I’ll do a better job at that than you have on this subject.