|
MileHighM -> RE: Any men's rights activist on here? (5/18/2012 12:00:50 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
quote:
ORIGINAL: Owner59
quote:
ORIGINAL: MileHighM
Preface: I don't give a fuck about the rest of the discussion just the custody part----
Men do get fucked.
Case 1: Friend 29 with 3yo daughter, been raising her her whole life.. why? stripper momma (who did meth during her pregnancy by the way) has been in and out of jail constantly for the past three years. He filed for full custody, why, cause he loves his daughter. Mom didn't even contest, yet what did he get 80% custody!!!!!!! What shit is that! the court is biased that's why!
Case2: Mom leaves son with grand parents all day, son gets raped by cousin who is also with grand parents. Dad petitions for Full custody until mom can find better daycare arrangements.... then here comes the court...fuck you dad, mom keeps her 50% custody, you owe more child support and oh yeah we aren't even looking into the rape cause mom denies it. 3 months later son is still at grand parents, and in therapy, and so is dad....
I still think moms should have a preference for custody, but come on, a preference, not a right! why? cause a good dad is better than a bad mom
What a fucking country..
I have to agree.The numbers point to a disparity.
Not sure that women are responsible for how this has come to pass,tho.Most laws/rules are passed by men.
Blaming women or Gloria Steinem for this certainly isn`t the answer either, tho this doesn`t stop the loser-men from do so.
There is no doubt a long established traditional family pattern that`s mostly to blame for woman getting custody more often.
I also think that it`s not the dad or mom`s welfare/emotional state that`s the #1 consideration when judges make their decisions but rather the UMs welfare.
It`s THEIR world that`s at stake and judges tend to not want to divide offspring like assets between parents.
Their stability and peace of mind are what`s paramount.
"Most laws/rules are passed by men."
Absolutely true...out of total and complete fear that if we don't we won't get any more pussy.
A neighbor of mine years back was an accountant. Good education, very good money...she and hubby decided it wasn't going to work. The guy made about 12 bucks an hour, she made about 40 or so. Condo was 45 grand (so payments were about $650.00 a month or so if I recall with all the home owner dues and such), good Mom, good Dad....shitty outcome for Dad:
Dad was required to pay a minimum of $700.00 a month (and no I don't know how or why that was determined to be the amount, but I think in my state there's some kind of minimum or "floor"). Dad's take home after taxes was about $1,450.00 a month.
So, Dad had $750.00 a month left over to pay rent, buy clothes, gas, car insurance and the like.
Mom on the other hand had $4,800.00 take home plus the $700.00 ($5,500.00 or nearly 8 times dad's take home).
Dad was now relegated to living in his Mother's basement (for free because he couldn't afford anything better...nor did he have the education to earn more).
Had they lived together as man and wife they'd have a combined income of $6,250.00 (his being roughly 23% of the combined), with both building equity in a home but, life stinks for some and that was his lot in life.
Now....it certainly costs more (I think anyway) than $700.00 a month to raise a kid with all the stuff that goes on, but again, if they were living as a team he'd have simply been a contributor to the whole...now he was being stripped bare.
What was the difference from being married to being divorced?
The male went from being a participant and a contributor to being financially decimated.
Why?
In my opinion because the courts deemed it appropriate for her to be the custodial parent largely because she is a woman, but as importantly, because the Father is rarely deemed to be a wise choice. All things being equal, a woman will be chosen as the custodial parent well over 85% of the time.
I suspect in most of those cases, it's probably a wise move. Women are more nurturing and men simply want to go out and kill things. But the thing I don't understand in so many of these cases is....how is the man going to be in a position to improve his lot in life (and certainly not even the bulk of these stories are like this one), become a greater asset to society and his children, when he's repeatedly bent over by the system like this?
Why aren't things like income considered? The fact that one is now financially able to build equity in things such as real estate and so on. Why isn't the disparity between outcomes considered?
At the most (IMHO), and not because I'm a guy feeling the sting of outrageous misfortune, but rather feeling a sense of fairness in the whole scheme of things....why isn't someone like this guy (and others who's stories are certainly even worse) pegged at something like 17% of his income?
23%, less some additional amount for the guy to compensate for his new found lack of ability to continue building equity in a home as she can, and they once did (thereby allowing him to build assets and financial strength over time, or even afford to go to school and better himself over time)...ultimately allowing him to be a better father.
I know....I know...lots of stories about deadbeat fathers not paying any amount no matter how small. I've got quite a few stories about men whose wives left (for another guy, drugs, fear of responsibility...fear of something....all the same reasons guys do it too) and the men not only don't ask for a dime...courts won't demand it from the woman.
And if and when they do in such rare cases....not only is it a vastly smaller number, if and when she doesn't pay....she doesn't get thrown in jail.
The guy does.
Everybody knows the old joke about the woman who after being told about how she should go out with some guy because he has a Cadillac, lots of money etc., points to her pussy and says "Bud...I got one of these, and with this, I can get as many Cadillac's...."
Etc.
It may be true that it's a man's world....but women own everything in it.
I am tired of hearing that men aren't nurturers!!!!! It is just a shit stereotype that all we do is go out and kill shit. I am not going to say that we are equal to women in that department, just that we are capable of nurturing too!
To another person's point, yes it is the kids that get fucked, but ask yourself why? It is because the system is gamed to favor the woman. Most of the rules were written when women were expected to be housewives and otherwise indegent on their own. Now, we should rewrite the laws, not so they are fair to the dads, just so they are fair to the child. So, THEY can see BOTH parents and give both parents the financial ability to raise THEIR children.
I don't think the divorce process should ever favor either adult. If there are no kids, Fuck the half mentality, you get what you put into it (you can put value on non-financial items, but if you sat home and did shit while a hired house keeper did all the work, you don't deserve half of shit. The house keepr deserve more than you do{stay at home women or men!}), period. If there are kids, screw both parents, only the kids should be thought of by the courts.
|
|
|
|
