Feminism gone wrong Thread

Quote :

Most "deadbeat dads" genuinely want to see their
kids but lost a custody battle against an ex who demanded sole custody.
Your cousin's ex probably isn't like that.

OH MAN WHAT AN AWESOME FACT THAT IS

TOTALLY COOL TRUTH, BRO.

e: oh wait that's not true at all

I'll bite.

V3N0M wrote:

Nihilist wrote:

V3N0M wrote:

So why should the parents that don't skip out on child support get treated so horribly?

My cousin pays child support and sees his daughter regularly. He pays because he loves his kid, and isn't treated horribly at all.

Most "deadbeat dads" genuinely want to see their kids but lost a custody battle against an ex who demanded sole custody. Your cousin's ex probably isn't like that.

Do you have statistics to prove this from a reliable source, or are you just pulling this out of your ass?

V3N0M wrote:

Nihilist wrote:

V3N0M wrote:

So why should the parents that don't skip out on child support get treated so horribly?

My cousin pays child support and sees his daughter regularly. He pays because he loves his kid, and isn't treated horribly at all.

Most "deadbeat dads" genuinely want to see their kids but lost a custody battle against an ex who demanded sole custody. Your cousin's ex probably isn't like that.

Most people would specifically define "deadbeat dad" as someone who doesn't want to see or pay for their children.

You fail.

V3N0M wrote:

Nihilist wrote:

V3N0M wrote:

So why should the parents that don't skip out on child support get treated so horribly?

My cousin pays child support and sees his daughter regularly. He pays because he loves his kid, and isn't treated horribly at all.

Most "deadbeat dads" genuinely want to see their kids but lost a custody battle against an ex who demanded sole custody. Your cousin's ex probably isn't like that.

Mom: hey, maybe you should call your dad.
Me: Okay. *dials number*
Dad's Squeeze: Just a minute. (she is heard yelling, dad could be heard saying "I don't want to talk to that little shit, ever!")
Me: *hangs up, never bothers again*

And I saw him at Carl's Jr. last year, I didn't say hi, nor did he. See, he never tried, and by now I'm just too bitter about it to let him just come back and pretend nothing's ever happened. He brought it upon himself. He had 15 years to try.

Nil, stop trying to bring actual reality into this conversation, it's devestating to V3NOM's "argument".

V3N0M wrote:

The ammendment states that the requirement to pay child support cannot be revoked for any reason,

So? If you were living with the mother of your child and actually *raising* him/her, and you lost your job or got sick, JUNIOR STILL HAS TO EAT. GET THE FUCKING MONEY SOMEWHERE.

Quote :

even if you are able to prove that you are not the father.

B[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Get a paternity test when the kid is born and don't don't DON'T allow your name to go on the birth cert till you're sure it's yours, if you're that paranoid.

Quote :

The CSA demands unneccessarily large amounts of money from non-custodial parents

Could I see some rates, please? From a government website, please, not some Men's Rights website.

Quote :

and if you don't (or can't) pay, they will literally make it harder for you to escape the debt.

If you don't pay like you're supposed to, like the law says you should, you deserve to be punished. If you "can't" pay, see my first point.

And then you have other states where child support is lowered in direct proportion to the amount of time the child spends with the non-custodial parent. What happens? Guys who aren't the least bit interested in actually parenting their kids sue for as much visitation as possible, then plonk the kids in front of the TV or pawn them off on the nearest available female caretaker so they can fuck their latest love interest.

V3N0M wrote:

So why should the parents that don't skip out on child support get treated so horribly?

1. " 'I take care of my kids!' Whatchou want, a COOKIE?!"
2. There are several reasons why the non-custodial parent might "get treated so horribly", by which I'm assuming you mean "is prevented from seeing his/her children". Number one would be that s/he's an abusive asshole. Don't worry though, the Fathers' Rights groups have had great success pushing their phony Parental Alienation Syndrome in family court.

V3N0M wrote:

Most "deadbeat dads" genuinely want to see their kids but lost a custody battle against an ex who demanded sole custody.

Leaving aside the fact that if there's a custody "battle", the situation's usually fairly fucked up, are you saying these "deadbeats" who love their kids so much can't be bothered to explore other legal avenues to gain visitation rights? Or are you saying that since their exes got sole custody, they're not paying child support out of spite, leaving the kids they supposedly love so much economically disadvantaged? GEE I WONDER WHY THEY DIDN'T GET CUSTODY IN THE FIRST PLACE SEEING AS THEY HATE THE CHILDREN'S MOTHER SO MUCH THEY'D RATHER THE KIDS GO HUNGRY AND NAKED THAN GIVE HER ANY MONEY TO KEEP THEM FED AND CLOTHED

Hot Cancer wrote:

Nil, stop trying to bring actual reality into this conversation, it's devestating to V3NOM's "argument".

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] devastating? How is that devastating to something that is fundamentally flawed to begin with?

Reidmar wrote:

Hot Cancer wrote:

Nil, stop trying to bring actual reality into this conversation, it's devestating to V3NOM's "argument".

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] devastating? How is that devastating to something that is fundamentally flawed to begin with?

...that doesn't make any sense. If I use a wrecking ball on a fundamentally flawed, condemned structure, it could be said that the wrecking ball devastates said structure. Similarly, it doesn't matter how shitty V3NOM's posts are, their content is "devastated" when Nihilist tears them apart.

Yeah, parents who refuse to pay child support need to be whalloped with a stick. Preferably one from a walnut tree.

You made the kid. The kid is now your responsibility. Saying but "S/he's a bitch and I hate them" about your former partner has no relevancy to the fact that you need to be an adult and support your offspring.

OK, here's an article which is full of what I would call feminism gone wrong. The writer--Yasmin Alibhai-Brown--considers herself a feminist. Looking at this article about the recent terror attacks suggests otherwise...

Quote :

For Umar Farouk and many other Muslim men like him, living in such a landscape is literally intolerable. He confesses that he does try to lower his gaze in front of females, wonders if he should get married because he is getting too aroused. You could make a movie, a Taxi Driver for our times, about just such an anti-hero, the hormonal male who is expected to live a life of total abstinence in the middle of licentiousness.

IF YOU DRESS LIKE A SLUT, YOU MAKE PEOPLE BECOME TERRORISTS!

Actually, the banning of the burqa in general is a bit of feminism gone horribly wrong, but that's probably to serious for this mostly troll thread...

So yeah, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, real good feminism there.

Lapin wrote:

Yeah, parents who refuse to pay child support need to be whalloped with a stick. Preferably one from a walnut tree.

...wait, what? Are walnut tree branches extra-whallopy or something? I mean, I have some outside if that's the case, I'm just confused here. They always seemed amiable enough trees to me. Or are black walnuts more passive than...than whatever other kind of walnut there is?

Walnut is a pretty dense wood. Fine-grained and sturdy, if I remember rightly. And considerably cheaper than, say, mahogany.

Myeerah is right. Walnut is a very thick and sturdy wood.

It leaves bruises.

I'm guessing the same as myeerah. When making walking sticks, my grandfather always used walnut or hickory because they're dense and sturdy.

Thanks, guys! Now I know! And knowing is half the battle! The other half is hitting people with sticks. Hence why the knowledge is so important.

Now you can hit people with sticks 63% more efficiently!

Inkweaver, eleven days ago, wrote:

Please tell me you're trollan. PLEASE.

Wow, it's like he actually had to fly all the way here from Eternia. Authentic!

ZoZo wrote:

Actually, the banning of the burqa in general is a bit of feminism gone horribly wrong, but that's probably to serious for this mostly troll thread...

You're probably right. But fuck it, let's try anyway.

Is there anyone in this thread who think banning veiling is a GOOD idea?

rae wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

Actually, the banning of the burqa in general is a bit of feminism gone horribly wrong, but that's probably to serious for this mostly troll thread...

You're probably right. But fuck it, let's try anyway.

We already tried.

rae wrote:

Is there anyone in this thread who think banning veiling is a GOOD idea?

I, uh... well, huh.

Okay, let's try to do this reasonably.

Against: Banning burqas substitutes one deprivation of choice for another.
For: There is no guarantee that making them merely optional(as in, making enforcement of their wearing a crime) will have any impact.

For: It could be an important step in bringing out Islam out of old-fashioned (to put it mildly) ideas of gender roles.
Against: It will probably get a violent reaction.

2:2

So much for that.

The burqa itself isn't the problem. It's the attitude behind forcing women to wear them that's the problem. Just banning it won't do anything to tackle that.

What pisses me off about banning the burqa is that it is still someone else deciding what a woman is allowed to wear.

Cyberwulf wrote:

The burqa itself isn't the problem. It's the attitude behind forcing women to wear them that's the problem. Just banning it won't do anything to tackle that.

If you invent a Religion Destruction Ray, let me know, I want to get in on that.

Cyberwulf wrote:

The burqa itself isn't the problem. It's the attitude behind forcing women to wear them that's the problem. Just banning it won't do anything to tackle that.

Exactly. As well as what Lapin said.
Trying to change the attitude behind it is a lot more difficult than simply banning the article itself, but I don't think banning the article itself really has any positive points that would make up for the misdirected shot.