Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ogdibus]

The man has to provide for the child for 18 years after it's born, even if never gets to see it. And there's no excuses for failing to make the payments, if he loses his job, gets too sick to work or fails to make the payments for any other reason all of his possessions get auctioned off and he goes to jail. I'd say that's worth at least a little bit of say in the whole matter.

"I have a problem against a legitimate feminist position because of legally instituted symbol of patriarchy (that men have to be the providers), that the ideal of feminism would abolish."

I know, right?  x3 

Who passed those laws?  What legal and cultural context were they written in? 

Men are the oppressors of men.

[Darvi]

Everytime I read a post in favor of something I want to argue against it.

True neutral

That is probably Chaotic Neutral.

Stupid Neutral

[DJ]

The man has to provide for the child for 18 years after it's born, even if never gets to see it. And there's no excuses for failing to make the payments, if he loses his job, gets too sick to work or fails to make the payments for any other reason all of his possessions get auctioned off and he goes to jail. I'd say that's worth at least a little bit of say in the whole matter.

"I have a problem against a legitimate feminist position because of legally instituted symbol of patriarchy (that men have to be the providers), that the ideal of feminism would abolish."

To be fair, the laws are gender neutral, it's just that men never get the custody.

[Graknorke]

The man has to provide for the child for 18 years after it's born, even if never gets to see it. And there's no excuses for failing to make the payments, if he loses his job, gets too sick to work or fails to make the payments for any other reason all of his possessions get auctioned off and he goes to jail. I'd say that's worth at least a little bit of say in the whole matter.

"I have a problem against a legitimate feminist position because of legally instituted symbol of patriarchy (that men have to be the providers), that the ideal of feminism would abolish."

Men are in charge because they are legally obliged to provide for the mother of their child, assuming that the two are not together; because he is almost assured to not get custody?
Seems like a fair assertion.

[Ogdibus]

You can't understand if you take the situation out of it's social context.  The context is key to understanding why the situation even exists.

[Korbac]

Every time I read a set of posts where two or more people argue I want to find a compromise and calm everyone down

[Hiiri]

Who passed those laws?  What legal and cultural context were they written in? 

Men are the oppressors of men.

Pray tell, who are they oppressing FOR? Could it be... WOMEN? So does that mean we live in a proxy matriarchy?

Of course not. Unless I wanted to victimize myself, that is.

[Frumple]

What? No. They're oppressing, in that sense, for offspring. Most of the bullshit provider crap has its formative base in ideology founded back when women were basically property and lineage (and making sure that the bloodline was provided for) still had a great deal of social importance.

It's not untrue that American custody cases are a fair bit messed up, though. A lot of our legal and social systems in place to support unstable family structures (do note: stable family structure doesn't necessarily mean nuclear.) are basically shit. S'just part of the pile. If you were dealing with a decent law (which you're probably not, but that's a state by state, case by case thing), child support payment would be the burden of whoever isn't the primary custodian of the child(ren).

Regardless, at least where I'm at, child support isn't an automatic thing or anything of the sort. The person with custodial rights has to pursue it in court before it's assigned, and there's nothing legal stopping the parents from coming to some sort of out of court arrangement for the support of the offspring.

[King DZA]

Every time I read a set of posts where two or more people argue I want to bleed them like livestock and calm everyone down

[Hiiri]

That's true. So we're oppressed by pacifier sucking dictators! To arms, brothers and sisters! Strike them down!

[Ogdibus]

I'm starting to think that the answer to the op is :  "because there are none".

[Graknorke]

I'm starting to think that the answer to the op is :  "because there are none".

Sexism in the sexism thread.
Stay classy Bay12!

[Zrk2]

I'm starting to think that the answer to the op is :  "because there are none".

What the fuck?

[cameron]

I'm starting to think that the answer to the op is :  "because there are none".

Yeah man, there definitely are women

[Forums User Meat Wizard]

I cannot believe that someone literally posts 'it is disingenuous to believe there is any inequality between the sexes' unironically and you guys manage to ignore it entirely and flip out over someone four posts above being 'sexist to a man'.

What the fuck, bay12. This is some basement-dweller shit right here.