By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - 5 Legal Rights Women Have That Men Don’t (primarily USA focused)

Mr Khan on 25 December 2014
David_Hernandeez said:
I hate that some laws protect woman too much, I remember one day when I was 14, one girl was punching a dude and the girl said "what are going to do hit me? Or call the police and tell them that I start this, I can tell them that you hit me first and they will believe" that stuff makes me anger same with number 3 they want the custody but they sometime cannot support the child right.

That's not a legal problem, that's a problem of sexism. Because there's this belief that women are helpless and men have all the agency, there's still a tacit assumption that if a domestic dispute gets violent, the man was the one who turned it violent, which is certainly not true.

What some folks don't get though is that this comes from the same sexism that keeps women down. The patriarchy hurts women more than men, yes, but it hurts men as well in several significant ways.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
Mr Khan on 25 December 2014
Jlaff said:



And women can avoid abortion by wearing a condom so... It's silly to think the condom is the responsibality of the man only, the condom is the responsability of both.

The law can easily be changed, at least just by letting the man choose to not be the father of the child, be " under X " without being forced to do anything, like they allow for women even if the woman wants him to recognize the child and pay for him. If the woman has the choice to legally not take care of her child and give him up without being guilty and called coward, a man shouuld have that choice too

Why do people think men have no choices? If the mother doesn't want the child (not meaning abortion) the father has a right to full custody or putting the kid up for adoption. If he gets custody he would also get child-support from the mother. You got be kidding yourself if you think that women who put up for adoption or abort their child aren't thought of as cowardly.


So you don't see what's wrong with what I've bolded there?

Your facile approach to this whole issue betrays your lack of ability for critical thought. In your mind, 9 months of pregnancy is of equal worth to whatever uncapped financial obligation is imposed on a father? An obligation that in some jurisdictions can extend to 22 years, and may amount to as much as millions in child support? Is the father some sort of tortfeasor in your mind that must compensate the mother by way of "damages" through support now for impregnating her? Is every woman who brings a child to term not doing so willingly in this millenium?

Unequal treatment by the state has been judicially defined as "imposing a burden or witholding a benefit" from/on one class of person and not another ("class" being sex, sexual orientation, race, marital status, etc.) see Big M Drug Mart Canadian Supreme Court. If a custodial parent is not required by the state to provide their child with progressive financial support where that amount is tied to that parent's income, but a non-custodial parent is,  you have an unequal burden and thus discrimination and unequal treatment. I won't even get into the injustice of failing to provide fathers with a "legal abortion", but clearly I would agree with those who oppose your view on that issue.

Please find me the case where a single mother making 6 figures was jailed for buying her children's clothes at Walmart or depriving them of an Xbox One AND a PS4.

This is because of the problem of deadbeat parents, post-divorce. They had to be "harder" on non-custodial parents simply because of the long history of the deadbeat dad (though i don't doubt there were more than a few deadbeat moms as well). I understand that the laws certainly look unfair, but consider this: if we loosened the guidelines for child support payments, how many people would choose to pay the bare minimum? If there was an option to find a legal way out, how many people would just take it, and then the old deadbeat parent problem comes back.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

sc94597 on 25 December 2014

Question: if a mother puts her kid up for adoption and the father decides he wants to take care of the kid, is she then obligated to pay child support if he takes her to domestics? If so they are in the same situation. Both parents must agree for adoption to take place, and neither parent is responsible for child support. However, if one parent wants to put the child up for adoption and the other wants to keep the child then the other parent who initially wanted to give up their obligation over the child is responsible for child support, regardless of sex.

 

What bothers me is when a parent has no visitation rights and yet is still supposedly obligated to pay child support. In that case it isn't about an absentee parent. They want to be there for their kid and be a part of their life. However, they are not allowed to be there and yet still are sucked dry. I've seen this with a friend of my mothers who lost all of her kids because of marijuana. She is not allowed to visit her son (who lives with his grandparents) but still is responsible for paying child support to her son. It is a shame, because she is a good person who made mistakes in her life,and all she wants to do is be able to see her son.



Mr Khan on 25 December 2014
sc94597 said:

Question: if a mother puts her kid up for adoption and the father decides he wants to take care of the kid, is she then obligated to pay child support if he takes her to domestics? If so they are in the same situation. Both parents must agree for adoption to take place, and neither parent is responsible for child support. However, if one parent wants to put the child up for adoption and the other wants to keep the child then the other parent who initially wanted to give up their obligation over the child is responsible for child support, regardless of sex.

 

What bothers me is when a parent has no visitation rights and yet is still supposedly obligated to pay child support. In that case it isn't about an absentee parent. They want to be there for their kid and be a part of their life. However, they are not allowed to be there and yet still are sucked dry. I've seen this with a friend of my mothers who lost all of her kids because of marijuana. She is not allowed to visit her son (who lives with his grandparents) but still is responsible for paying child support to her son. It is a shame, because she is a good person who made mistakes in her life,and all she wants to do is be able to see her son.

That has more to do with the idiocy of the War on Drugs than problems with parental rights' law.

Lack of visitation rights but obligation to pay is due to spouses who posed a danger of abuse to their spouse/children, and so could not "safely" be around them. Should they be rewarded for being deemed a danger by not having to pay, while more upstanding divorcees are stuck with the burden of child support?



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

sc94597 on 25 December 2014
Mr Khan said:

That has more to do with the idiocy of the War on Drugs than problems with parental rights' law.

Lack of visitation rights but obligation to pay is due to spouses who posed a danger of abuse to their spouse/children, and so could not "safely" be around them. Should they be rewarded for being deemed a danger by not having to pay, while more upstanding divorcees are stuck with the burden of child support?

These laws might be designed for those particular people, but they harm others as well. It's much like the death penalty in my opinion. Death penalty laws are designed for serial murders (and other people on their level) but they harm other people as well, and that is why I oppose them. I think if somebody is so dangerous that they can't see their child under supervised visits then the best bet is to remove them from your life entirely. It isn't rewarding them.



Around the Network
Mr Khan on 25 December 2014
sc94597 said:
Mr Khan said:

That has more to do with the idiocy of the War on Drugs than problems with parental rights' law.

Lack of visitation rights but obligation to pay is due to spouses who posed a danger of abuse to their spouse/children, and so could not "safely" be around them. Should they be rewarded for being deemed a danger by not having to pay, while more upstanding divorcees are stuck with the burden of child support?

These laws might be designed for those particular people, but they harm others as well. It's much like the death penalty in my opinion. Death penalty laws are designed for serial murders (and other people on their level) but they harm other people as well, and that is why I oppose them. I think if somebody is so dangerous that they can't see their child under supervised visits then the best bet is to remove them from your life entirely. It isn't rewarding them.

I mean, if you want those people to become a burden of the state when the missing spouse could hypothetically provide them full support. Child support is about saving children and single parents from poverty. So that is what must be weighed against the infringement of rights towards the departed spouse.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Jlaff on 25 December 2014
Mr Khan said:
Jlaff said:



And women can avoid abortion by wearing a condom so... It's silly to think the condom is the responsibality of the man only, the condom is the responsability of both.

The law can easily be changed, at least just by letting the man choose to not be the father of the child, be " under X " without being forced to do anything, like they allow for women even if the woman wants him to recognize the child and pay for him. If the woman has the choice to legally not take care of her child and give him up without being guilty and called coward, a man shouuld have that choice too

Why do people think men have no choices? If the mother doesn't want the child (not meaning abortion) the father has a right to full custody or putting the kid up for adoption. If he gets custody he would also get child-support from the mother. You got be kidding yourself if you think that women who put up for adoption or abort their child aren't thought of as cowardly.


So you don't see what's wrong with what I've bolded there?

Your facile approach to this whole issue betrays your lack of ability for critical thought. In your mind, 9 months of pregnancy is of equal worth to whatever uncapped financial obligation is imposed on a father? An obligation that in some jurisdictions can extend to 22 years, and may amount to as much as millions in child support? Is the father some sort of tortfeasor in your mind that must compensate the mother by way of "damages" through support now for impregnating her? Is every woman who brings a child to term not doing so willingly in this millenium?

Unequal treatment by the state has been judicially defined as "imposing a burden or witholding a benefit" from/on one class of person and not another ("class" being sex, sexual orientation, race, marital status, etc.) see Big M Drug Mart Canadian Supreme Court. If a custodial parent is not required by the state to provide their child with progressive financial support where that amount is tied to that parent's income, but a non-custodial parent is,  you have an unequal burden and thus discrimination and unequal treatment. I won't even get into the injustice of failing to provide fathers with a "legal abortion", but clearly I would agree with those who oppose your view on that issue.

Please find me the case where a single mother making 6 figures was jailed for buying her children's clothes at Walmart or depriving them of an Xbox One AND a PS4.

This is because of the problem of deadbeat parents, post-divorce. They had to be "harder" on non-custodial parents simply because of the long history of the deadbeat dad (though i don't doubt there were more than a few deadbeat moms as well). I understand that the laws certainly look unfair, but consider this: if we loosened the guidelines for child support payments, how many people would choose to pay the bare minimum? If there was an option to find a legal way out, how many people would just take it, and then the old deadbeat parent problem comes back.

The options are not uncapped progressive support payments (which can and do amount to millions in a number of cases) and the bare minimum. Further, until you require a custodial parent to do anything but the bare minimum (cloth, feed, send to school) then you can't require more from a non-custodial parent. Many custodial parents through child support are able to extinguish their personal financial obligation to their children entirely AND end up with a significant financial windfall.

The logic of that argument would also agree with stop and frisk laws for black people because they are convicted per capita as a race of more crimes than white people. The state is not to treat anyone in a prejudicial manner. You can't give custodial parents as a class of people the benefit of the doubt while assuming the worst of non-custodial parents and nailing them to the wall. Think about it.

And I base that previous paragraph on your assumption that "dead beats" abandoning their children is true. The courts and lawmakers of the 80s-90s were fooled by many radical feminist scholars/writers when most of these laws were implemented. This has been recognized by legal scholars - Google "The Divorce Revolution Fraud/Debunked/Hoax etc." for an example. So the idea that men en masse were abandoning their children and ex-wives to a life of poverty has been greatly exagerrated. Unfortunately most of the current laws still operate under these false assumption.



http://2ksports.com/go/gamerschoice/

Ok I did my part, I bought No More Heroes, but they were out of Zach and Wiki.

Ok got Zach and Wiki, now if I could just finally finish Twilight Princess so I can play all these Wii games I got waiting. And no I won't buy Okami.

DNF, now there is a game that should have been scrapped completely. Reminds me of a kid whose been in school for 12 years and still doesn't know what he wants to do. At one point you just need to man up and get a job.

Norris2k on 25 December 2014
Aerys said:
Norris2k said:
Aerys said:
 

I'll guess our countries are different since France is the second most important feminist country in the world so women began to get big  advantages over men on a lot of subjects ... I thought birth Under X existed everywhere :  http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accouchement_sous_X

http://vosdroits.service-public.fr/particuliers/F3136.xhtml

Birth under X represents the right for a woman to give up the baby to the adoption services and be anonymous ( then she has no legal obligation and the child will never be able to find her ) , that's what is totally unfair , men have absolutely no similar right.

 

Here, a woman has the right to be coward, it's autorized by the law so it'sn ot seen negatively by people, at the opposite, man has no such right so if he decides to give up the child against the law, he is wrong to the eyes of everyone

Also in France a woman can have an unprotected affair, get pregnant, and the husband style have the same paternity obligations. Even a DNA test proving it's not your kid doesn't change that responsibility.


Yeah i just saw that, french laws are totally insane and dont care about the man rights when it comes to this kind of things.

A judge can decide that you are the father even without your DNA if he sees proofs you had sex with the woman at this period, that's so crazy

yes, definitely insane. It's like if women could never get enough "rights" regarding pregnancy. Don't know if such laws will become a trend or remain as an exception.



Mr Khan on 25 December 2014
Jlaff said:
Mr Khan said:

This is because of the problem of deadbeat parents, post-divorce. They had to be "harder" on non-custodial parents simply because of the long history of the deadbeat dad (though i don't doubt there were more than a few deadbeat moms as well). I understand that the laws certainly look unfair, but consider this: if we loosened the guidelines for child support payments, how many people would choose to pay the bare minimum? If there was an option to find a legal way out, how many people would just take it, and then the old deadbeat parent problem comes back.

The options are not uncapped progressive support payments (which can and do amount to millions in a number of cases) and the bare minimum. Further, until you require a custodial parent to do anything but the bare minimum (cloth, feed, send to school) then you can't require more from a non-custodial parent. Many custodial parents through child support are able to extinguish their personal financial obligation to their children entirely AND end up with a significant financial windfall.

The logic of that argument would also agree with stop and frisk laws for black people because they are convicted per capita as a race of more crimes than white people. The state is not to treat anyone in a prejudicial manner. You can't give custodial parents as a class of people the benefit of the doubt while assuming the worst of non-custodial parents and nailing them to the wall. Think about it.

And I base that previous paragraph on your assumption that "dead beats" abandoning their children is true. The courts and lawmakers of the 80s-90s were fooled by many radical feminist scholars/writers when most of these laws were implemented. This has been recognized by legal scholars - Google "The Divorce Revolution Fraud/Debunked/Hoax etc." for an example. So the idea that men en masse were abandoning their children and ex-wives to a life of poverty has been greatly exagerrated. Unfortunately most of the current laws still operate under these false assumption.

Interesting. I recall it as a major issue from the people trying to figure out how to get people "off welfare" when welfare became demonized after the Reagan years. To that end, child support payments were a big fixture of the New Democrats, who were trying to solve social welfare problems without resorting to the now-unpopular welfare programs. One of the major sources of child poverty, as understood at the time, was due to a lack of enforcement for child support payments.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

sc94597 on 25 December 2014
Mr Khan said:
sc94597 said:
Mr Khan said:

That has more to do with the idiocy of the War on Drugs than problems with parental rights' law.

Lack of visitation rights but obligation to pay is due to spouses who posed a danger of abuse to their spouse/children, and so could not "safely" be around them. Should they be rewarded for being deemed a danger by not having to pay, while more upstanding divorcees are stuck with the burden of child support?

These laws might be designed for those particular people, but they harm others as well. It's much like the death penalty in my opinion. Death penalty laws are designed for serial murders (and other people on their level) but they harm other people as well, and that is why I oppose them. I think if somebody is so dangerous that they can't see their child under supervised visits then the best bet is to remove them from your life entirely. It isn't rewarding them.

I mean, if you want those people to become a burden of the state when the missing spouse could hypothetically provide them full support. Child support is about saving children and single parents from poverty. So that is what must be weighed against the infringement of rights towards the departed spouse.

Full support usually sums up to $100 a week. It's nothing compared to the cost of raising a child. I'd rather have people be able to have more impaactful interactions with their kids than child support. I'm thinking of the people who are wronged here and how their kids development would benefit from them being in their life. That is not monetary. 

edit: More often than not these type of parents don't pay child support because they are in jail all their lives. From child support non-payment or something else. So no money is found anyway.