Men-hating in the media and society

[Saen]

A few of you may know that I'm a strong liberal, so left in fact that I actually worked for Planned Parenthood. So it should be surprising to hear from me that there is a crisis of deteriorating manhood and the status of men perpetrated by the global media. This idea is new to me and I'd prefer to have a group of men discuss it with.

A few topics:
-How men are portrayed in television as disposable neanderthals that can't seem to do anything right in a family household.
-How men are painted as vicious instinctual rapists, abusers, and killers of both women and children.
-How men are cheated in divorce and child custody/support courts and rulings.
-Why are men falling behind in education?
-Men vs. women in the workplace and sports.
-Control over sexual reproduction, men vs. women.
-Men continuously giving into women's wants, what might be the consequences for your relationship, society, laws?
-What does a man risk when he marries?
-Rape and abuse propaganda, what are the consequences to all men?
-How does modern feminism tie into all of this?

And finally what are the solutions to all of these issues and then some? There's so much to discuss, hopefully we can cross political boundaries and resolve these issues as men.

[Saen]

So I'll begin with a topic I'm quite familiar with, control over sexual reproduction men vs women.

When it comes to all variants of birth control women are well-equipped while men are very shortchanged. Women have pills, copper and hormonal iuds, condoms, spermicide, shots, rings, tubal ligation, and if all that fails or is neglected abortion. Men on the other hand have condoms and vasectomies. So the question must be asked, why don't men have their own hormonal birth control? Also why do men even need their own birth control?

Ultimately women have complete control of whether or not she wants a child with you. Male birth control would completely change this.

I personally don't know why men don't have their own birth control. In my opinion having my own birth control would give me so much peace of mind.

A common scenario:

Your girlfriend/wife claims she's on birth control and wants you to cum inside her you oblige and boom she's pregnant. Turn's out she lied to you and wanted to have a child without your agreement. If you were on your own birth control this would have been prevented.

This goes for all your hookups that claim they are on birth control and other countless scenarios. For now guys until we have our own birth control always wear a condom and never cum inside a woman if you don't want a child.

[AxTekk]

This topic is ridiculous.

I would love a male pill though, I think women would love it too. As far as men are concerned, we can be 100% that we're not getting women pregnant without having to deal with that whole "but I don't like condoms" bullshit. As far as women are concerned, they won't have to put up with the side-effects the extra oestrogen from the pill puts them through. Seems like a win-win.

[Saen]

At 1/9/14 02:55 PM, AxTekk wrote: This topic is ridiculous.

I would love a male pill though, I think women would love it too. As far as men are concerned, we can be 100% that we're not getting women pregnant without having to deal with that whole "but I don't like condoms" bullshit. As far as women are concerned, they won't have to put up with the side-effects the extra oestrogen from the pill puts them through. Seems like a win-win.

At first glance it is. Next time you watch a sitcom pay attention to how the father is portrayed in the family. Next time you hear how murder in the news pay attention towards how abuse committed by a man against a woman is covered versus a woman abusing a man. Usually the story is shame on the man for abusing her or he must have done something wrong like infidelity to deserve being beaten, mutilated, or murdered. Pay attention to high profile divorces and compare how men are affected financially versus women.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/9/14 12:56 PM, Saen wrote:

First off, let's sort out the actual stuff from the crap. I'll dispose of the crap first.

-How men are portrayed in television as disposable neanderthals that can't seem to do anything right in a family household.

Odd, as I seem to remember numerous shows about singel Dad who make the World go round, as well as family shows where the Dad may be a dope, but the family survives off of him. A peppering of a negative image is hardly a tidal wave of it.

-How men are cheated in divorce and child custody/support courts and rulings.

Two sides to this: First off, the vast majority of this is a flat out lie. When it comes to child custody, involved men get control just as much as women do. In the chld custody cases I worked with, that was very much the case.

Second, when women DO get an advantage it's largely men's fault. The perception that women get the kids more often is only there because a very high proportion fo the cases where a parent is not involved, it happens to be the father. Naturall yhere the mother gets the child. In things such as alimony the rule in some places is that only the husband can pay (that has largely changed, but a few relics remain), it was men and male dominance that created this rule, not feminism. Men assumed that the male of the house was the bread winner and that no male would be married to a woman wealtheir than him.

-Why are men falling behind in education?

Credit this to the "be a man" stereotype where grunting and fighting is more prized than mental prowess. Also, a large sense of complacency in that many men believe they have got the upper hand and therefore need not try as hard as women.

-Men vs. women in the workplace and sports.

Two big very different topics smooshed together. May be some (SOME) validity for the workplace, but none in sports. The best a woman can get in most sports is the equivalent of low level minor league for men. Seems pretty male friendly to me.

-Men continuously giving into women's wants, what might be the consequences for your relationship, society, laws?

This is a sex dynamic, and a biological one. Women have what men want, men don't always have what women want. Therefore the women holds the natural power in a relationship.

I would also note that this isn't always the case either, as there are so many different ways a relationship can form its dynamics.

-What does a man risk when he marries?

What does he risk?

-How does modern feminism tie into all of this?

Modern feminism only ties very loosley into the above issues. Much of them were created by men in a male dominated society (if they're even a real issue at all). The next three have had some influence by modern feminism.

There thbelow three are the real issues, though they may not actually be that big or bad of an issue.

-How men are painted as vicious instinctual rapists, abusers, and killers of both women and children.

Killers and rapists come in all shapes and sizes. However it is a fact, a cold hard fact, that the vast majority of rapists and a smaller majority of murderers are male.

As far as murderers goes, men, are more often than not much physically stronger than women. Therefore they pose a threat of harm and being successful in that harm when compared to a woman.

As far as rape goes, I guess we have a lot to blame for this one. We have to blame the media for salivating over rape stories and shows like SVU. We have to blame modern feminism for putting women in more vulnerable positions by convincing them (rightfully so) that they can handle themselves. But most of all, we have to blame other men. They're the ones who took it too far with a woman at one time or another an have done it so much that many women have been close to someone who has been hurt by such an act or have themselves been hurt. And in our current society of constant fear where we automatically see the worst possible scenario in front of us at all times, it is quite logical that a woman will see a srange man who's being "too friendly" as someone looking to get sex out of her whether she wants it or not.

I do hate this. It make my blood boil to know that that is how I am seen, as a man. Yet I know that no harm is meant, and that there is nothing I can do about it.

-Control over sexual reproduction, men vs. women.

This one's pretty easy. Whose body contains the dirty work of reproduction? Which person would need an invasive or surgical procedure regarding reproduction? The mother. That is why women get the control, because in order to get to the baby/fetus you have to go through a good amount of the mom's body to get there.

-Rape and abuse propaganda, what are the consequences to all men?

I consider this a counter movement. This is a counter to the pro-rape or the rape is nothing culture that has been so strong here. When the first response most women get when reporting a rape is "you must have invited it upon yourself" you can see where this backlash comes from. When false accusation is treated s alarger problem than the fr more common act of actual rape, you can see why this backlash would exist. When a song that repeats "you know you want it" and other commonly used rape phrases becomes a hit and it constantly blared on the radio you can easily see why this backlash exists.

And finally what are the solutions to all of these issues and then some? There's so much to discuss, hopefully we can cross political boundaries and resolve these issues as men.

My solution is "grin and bear it." Most of these claims are much ado about nothing and at their worst will have such a small effect on men's lives that it isn't worth worrying about. Those issues that DO affect men's lives are tough. As far as rape issues, the best we can do is try and stop rape. We will never stop it, but we can try and lessen it and cushion the fall of those who are affected by it. Lastly, we can just realize that its' largely a self presevation issue and we should just know why it happens and try not to be stung too badly by it.

As far a reproductive rights goes, well, we just have to learn that men and women ARE different, and the pure biology of the issue hands the control to women here.

[RydiaLockheart]

TV Tropes has a whole page dedicated to the double standard of violence between women and men in entertainment. As you know, if a man beats up a woman, it's terrible. If a woman beats up a man, it's played for laughs.

I'm also quite disillusioned with modern-day feminism. Feminists used to fight for legitimate things like voting rights and the ability to have their own checking accounts, but anymore it seems to be more about bashing or bringing men down rather than fighting to have the sexes on equal ground. By that, I mean western feminism. Feminism is beginning to take off in some Islamic countries, and let's face it, they need it.

[Bri]

Here is an answer to all of your problems, OP = Go gay.
1) Go to the match with your partner.
2) Eff, and blind all you like.
3) Get pissed together.
4) Tell feminist jokes.
5) Shag eachother.
6) Go to sleep.
7) Wake up, and say "What a fucking good day we had yesterday... Let's do it again."

All joking aside, however. Traditionally, males were displayed as the dominant sex, ie: genetically males tended to be larger, and physically stronger. Usually displaying more aggression than the female counterpart. The female, however, has traditionally been portrayed as the carer, homemaker, and nurturer of infants, or children.

The male was the one who went out hunting/earning a living, I am sure most people realise that up to the late 50's, and early 60's the male was the predominant breadwinner. This was traditional, and not necessarily a male choice, and was accepted by both males, and females. However, with the more recent emergence of "feminism", and equality, the male roll became somewhat diminished. Another factor which impacted on the male roll in society was unemployment, and the cost of living which often made it essential for both male and female partners to earn equally, and may I add, fairly. I think that the male roll became somewhat confused, and threatened, where as the female roll became more, and more prominent, and dare I say, dominant, in society.

I feel that this uncertainty, and this lack of clarity in the male roll has also contributed to the rise in criminal activity, and antisocial behaviour in our society. I do not know what the answer to this problem is, but would welcome comments, and ideas on this subject.

[leanlifter1]

Sounds like a Homo rage post !

[Saen]

At 1/9/14 03:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Odd, as I seem to remember numerous shows about singel Dad who make the World go round, as well as family shows where the Dad may be a dope, but the family survives off of him. A peppering of a negative image is hardly a tidal wave of it.

The humiliation of father and male figures in t.v. and movies is borderline subconscious. I can't remember the last time I watched a R-drama where wife beating wasn't involved. Yes wife beating is a terrible and shameful act, but I know it isn't as frequent as portrayed in movies. Actually how many of your friends you've ever known have beaten their girlfriends or wives or might have even had the capacity to do so? None for me, my friends would never dream of hitting a woman and yet television and movies project it as regular natural instinct for men.

-How men are cheated in divorce and child custody/support courts and rulings.

Two sides to this: First off, the vast majority of this is a flat out lie. When it comes to child custody, involved men get control just as much as women do. In the chld custody cases I worked with, that was very much the case.

Second, when women DO get an advantage it's largely men's fault. The perception that women get the kids more often is only there because a very high proportion fo the cases where a parent is not involved, it happens to be the father. Naturall yhere the mother gets the child. In things such as alimony the rule in some places is that only the husband can pay (that has largely changed, but a few relics remain), it was men and male dominance that created this rule, not feminism. Men assumed that the male of the house was the bread winner and that no male would be married to a woman wealtheir than him.

I've had numerous friends that come from a divorced household where the working mother was granted custody. Cases where I've seen the father granted custody, not even once. One top of this if the father wants custody of his kids, since it's generally granted to mom, he has to spend much time and money fighting for it.

-Why are men falling behind in education?

Credit this to the "be a man" stereotype where grunting and fighting is more prized than mental prowess. Also, a large sense of complacency in that many men believe they have got the upper hand and therefore need not try as hard as women.

Or education might be more catered to women? An example of this is way back in 11th grade I remember being taught pre-calculus with rhymes and "creative" handout sheets. All of my math teachers up to 12th grade were actually women now that I come to think of it. Physics, chemistry, and marine biology teachers in high school were all men on the other hand and I learned quite a lot, but I do remember quite a lot of girls struggling.

As for grunting and fighting that stereotype rests with children coming from poor families, both girls and boys.

This is a sex dynamic, and a biological one. Women have what men want, men don't always have what women want. Therefore the women holds the natural power in a relationship.

If a relationship is only about sex sure all of that is true.

I would also note that this isn't always the case either, as there are so many different ways a relationship can form its dynamics.

Yup, like men not giving in to all of a woman's wants. Frankly it's just immature to do so and counterproductive in a relationship.

-What does a man risk when he marries?

What does he risk?

If he ever decides to have kids, his children, his life (suicide rate for divorced males is 3x higher than non-divorces), his finances, his job (not showing up to work due to court hearings or stress), and his freedom (not paying child support or alimony will throw you in jail).

-How does modern feminism tie into all of this?

Modern feminism only ties very loosley into the above issues. Much of them were created by men in a male dominated society (if they're even a real issue at all). The next three have had some influence by modern feminism.

There thbelow three are the real issues, though they may not actually be that big or bad of an issue.

-How men are painted as vicious instinctual rapists, abusers, and killers of both women and children.

Killers and rapists come in all shapes and sizes. However it is a fact, a cold hard fact, that the vast majority of rapists and a smaller majority of murderers are male.

As far as murderers goes, men, are more often than not much physically stronger than women. Therefore they pose a threat of harm and being successful in that harm when compared to a woman.

You don't have to be physically strong at all to murder. What is dangerous though is for most instances women are encouraged to murder their men. Whether he cheated on her or upset her in some other way, murder is encouraged by the media and expresses that "you go girl!" attitude. Clearly murder isn't acceptable, but the media makes light of this when the perp is a woman, however this would not be the same if we flipped the scenarios.

This one's pretty easy. Whose body contains the dirty work of reproduction? Which person would need an invasive or surgical procedure regarding reproduction? The mother. That is why women get the control, because in order to get to the baby/fetus you have to go through a good amount of the mom's body to get there.

Not an excuse for lack of male birth control.

I consider this a counter movement. This is a counter to the pro-rape or the rape is nothing culture that has been so strong here. When the first response most women get when reporting a rape is "you must have invited it upon yourself" you can see where this backlash comes from. When false accusation is treated s alarger problem than the fr more common act of actual rape, you can see why this backlash would exist. When a song that repeats "you know you want it" and other commonly used rape phrases becomes a hit and it constantly blared on the radio you can easily see why this backlash exists.

Ironically enough it's women who mostly listen to that type of rap and hip hop lyrics. This is actually a great example for the only crime where women are actually forced to take some responsibility for. E.g. when a woman beats a man the general notion by the public is "he had it coming" the same cannot be said for the inverse. Now if rape occurred in a relationship that's an entirely different and twisted scenario. Just like everyone needs to have some kind of awareness, preparation, and protection against being robbed, carjacked, jumped, etc. when women go out they need to prepare for a rapist. Always go out with friends, having something to defend yourself with, have an emergency plan for you or your friends worked out, and pay attention to your surroundings, etc.

In financial terms, false accusations of rape are much more dire for the accused that for victims of rape itself. So yes false accusations do need to be taken seriously, but currently there isn't any punishment for lying about rape. Rape is a very serious crime itself, so why wouldn't be take lying about it just as serious?

[Saen]

So let's talk about marriage and why it might not be a good idea for men to get married in the first place. For starters the divorce rate is the U.S. is greater than 50% and over 70% of those divorces are initiated by the woman, while suicide rates for divorced men are three times greater than non-divorces (unchanged for women by the way, in fact suicide rates for women are lower than men and have been declining in recent decades, on the other hand suicide rates for males globally are rising). What this means the odds are against you for having a successful, happy marriage and being able to cope after she decides to divorce you. This idea is even more prevalent when you see how many of your friends (along with yourself perhaps) grew up with divorced parents.

So most likely when you decide to marry, it isn't going to work out.

Now what are the legal consequences of divorce for men? Most likely your former spouse will deemed appropriate for custody of the children, you will spend time with your children less than half of what you were able to while married, your finances get split in half, you'll have to pay child support and alimony (if you don't you'll be thrown in jail and unable to see or take care of your kids). How many women are actually in jail for not paying child support and alimony? Next to none. The odds are all against you legally in all of these circumstances.

Financially, legally, and emotionally divorce is a bad deal for the vast majority of men.

[AJ]

Ok OP. All this on one hand. Now on the other hand, women get paid less 80 cents on the dollar for every one a man makes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States

You want to talk about subconscious shaming of men in the media. What about women? Women get raped or fight for birth control and are accused of being sluts by everyone in conservative media. Women on the internet receive threats to be murdered, raped, etc nonstop just for existing.

http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170/

While I see some of the issues you brought up myself, I just don't think that "What about all those poor white men" is a really high priority on my list of civil rights problems in America, and I say that as a white man.

[Saen]

At 1/11/14 02:34 PM, AJ wrote:
Ok OP. All this on one hand. Now on the other hand, women get paid less 80 cents on the dollar for every one a man makes.

Do men have the possibility of becoming pregnant and having to nurse children for several months? No, so naturally women are less able to be at work as often as men from the get go. Are women working in construction, garbage disposal, sewage, carpentry, as electricians, road work? No, because none desire to and few are able to. So when women aren't involved in jobs that require a higher degree of daily physical labor, they aren't including themselves in a huge part of the workforce. Naturally women will earn less as a whole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States

You want to talk about subconscious shaming of men in the media. What about women? Women get raped or fight for birth control and are accused of being sluts by everyone in conservative media. Women on the internet receive threats to be murdered, raped, etc nonstop just for existing.

The conservative media doesn't exclude women. On top of this women constantly slut shame each other regardless of their political affiliation or how often they have sex. Some women get called a slut for their behavior or what type of clothing they wear in public, not for being raped. Men receive these same gender threats over the internet as well.

Being one of those people who worked for Planned Parenthood and still fights for birth control rights several years later, I hardly see your point. You're bringing up faults of a conservative ideology as a whole, rather than male gender issues that are independent from political influence.

http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170/

While I see some of the issues you brought up myself, I just don't think that "What about all those poor white men" is a really high priority on my list of civil rights problems in America, and I say that as a white man.

We are all aware of the inequality victimizing of women, we are reminded every day by the media. We also very aware of how women love to talk about themselves and their problems, which is great for banding together and solving their social issues. Men don't do this, which is relieving, but this also works against us when we need to tackle some of our own social problems like lack of male birth control.

As for these being problems for white males only, lets look at all lower income people in the states and focus on the south where African Americans are the lowest earning race. Black women already have access to birth control in the south and yet the circle of poverty is still in full swing. Imagine just how thankful a lower class black man would be if he had access to hormonal birth control and didn't have to worry about having kids or any more kids.

The biology of male birth control makes so much sense in the first place. A woman becomes pregnant once at a time pregnant and stays pregnant for typically 9 months. Men on the other hand impregnate multiple women at a time and can further impregnate women throughout those 9 months. This is exactly the case in lower class societies which keeps them in the circle of poverty.

Women make stupid mistakes like choosing not to use birth control and praying not to become pregnant, forgetting to take their birth control, or having faith in methods (such as abstinence) that are not methods of birth control. Men make stupid mistakes when it comes to sex as well like not wearing a condom or cuming inside a woman, for guys who do this but choose to use male birth control these mistakes won't become babies and as a result lifelong poverty.

I come from a matriarchal household (my mom makes quadruple what my dad does and is the head of household) , I respect women and I understand their importance and potential in society. What I have overlooked for years is whether or not men themselves are currently facing injustices and that's what I'm trying to tackle here.

[Earfetish]

Men have been brainwashed to believe they're all a bunch of shitheads. Even as a prepubescent boy you're told "there'd be no wars if women ruled the world", by teachers no less. Men are told to feel guilty about their gender from early childhood. Amazing that so many men do not recognise this.

[Ron-Geno]

@ the marriage part:
Doesn't a prenup prevent most of the negative consequences of divorce?

@ the male pill part:
Good news: They're working on it.

And yeah, males of the world definitely have some problems to face that need fixing.
However, I'm glad I was born a man
Women still have it bad (worse imo).

[Saen]

At 1/13/14 06:24 PM, Ron-Geno wrote: @ the marriage part:
Doesn't a prenup prevent most of the negative consequences of divorce?

Not unless if a prenup prevents paying alimony.

@ the male pill part:
Good news: They're working on it.

Yeah I've been hearing that for a while that article pretty much sums up my thoughts. Drug companies aren't invest for god knows what reason. That Indonesian plant's mechanism is very cool.

And yeah, males of the world definitely have some problems to face that need fixing.
However, I'm glad I was born a man
Women still have it bad (worse imo).

I wouldn't care if men had it obviously worse, I'd still be glad I was born a man.

[Saen]

So let's discuss child support for a bit.

I thought about an interesting fact that child support isn't based upon which parent the children stay with most often and for how many days out of the month. It may be a tedious thing to calculate, but lots of fathers are paying a ridiculous about of child support to the mother when he is taking care of the kids for more than half the month himself. This begs the question where is this child support going to?

Also, child support is adjusted to a man's income. Shouldn't child support be a figure based on how much it actually costs to adequately feed, cloth, and educate a child in America adjusted to inflation? It makes sense, but I tell you why this can't be the cases, because lower income fathers would have no chance of paying for this.

On top of this if a father can't afford to pay the child support he's thrown in jail, because he can't and isn't supporting his children effectively describing him as a bad parent. Mothers on the other hand, when they can't afford to support their children (some even with child support) they aren't thrown in jail, they are given welfare. Double standards aren't limited to social issues, they are deeply imbedded within our laws with serious consequences towards men.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/14/14 10:21 AM, Saen wrote: I thought about an interesting fact that child support isn't based upon which parent the children stay with most often and for how many days out of the month. It may be a tedious thing to calculate, but lots of fathers are paying a ridiculous about of child support to the mother when he is taking care of the kids for more than half the month himself. This begs the question where is this child support going to?

Well, most child support laws are structured to have the highest earning spouse pay the other spouse money to cover the other spuse's care of the children. This amount paid is relative to the child's lifestyle prior to the divorce, the amount of money each spouse makes and how much time the receiving spouse has with the children.

So, if the law is followed properly, the reason the father still has to pay is because the father made dramatically more money than the mother. If the mother made more SHE would be paying child support.

Also, child support is adjusted to a man's income. Shouldn't child support be a figure based on how much it actually costs to adequately feed, cloth, and educate a child in America adjusted to inflation? It makes sense, but I tell you why this can't be the cases, because lower income fathers would have no chance of paying for this.

No. Child support is based upon the child's lifestyle prior to the divorce. If the parents together made a great deal of money, the child's lifestyle is more likely to be higher, thus meaniing the child's post divorce 'needs' will be higher than that of a child whose parents were broke.

This is how the laws (including alimony) are meant to work. Though personally, I disagree with it. I believe that the post divorce payment system should be based on a reasonable lifestyle (with the other current limiting factors still used).

On top of this if a father can't afford to pay the child support he's thrown in jail, because he can't and isn't supporting his children effectively describing him as a bad parent. Mothers on the other hand, when they can't afford to support their children (some even with child support) they aren't thrown in jail, they are given welfare. Double standards aren't limited to social issues, they are deeply imbedded within our laws with serious consequences towards men.

Actually, that's 100% wrong. If a father cannot afford it at the outset, the law would grant no child support. If the father faces an unintentional drop in income, the father should file for an adjustment to correlate with the new lower income. If the father's income increases, the onus is upon the mother to file an adjustment for better support.

Most child support laws and alimony laws have been made gender neutral in that the highest earning spouse is the one that pays. So complaining about the laws as written is like wanting to make more than women AND have them pay the money in a divorce.

[Saen]

At 1/14/14 11:10 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
Well, most child support laws are structured to have the highest earning spouse pay the other spouse money to cover the other spuse's care of the children. This amount paid is relative to the child's lifestyle prior to the divorce, the amount of money each spouse makes and how much time the receiving spouse has with the children.

So, if the law is followed properly, the reason the father still has to pay is because the father made dramatically more money than the mother. If the mother made more SHE would be paying child support.

So if the mother is granted custody and she made more money than the husband, she would be entirely responsible for child support? No of course not it doesn't work that way.

No. Child support is based upon the child's lifestyle prior to the divorce. If the parents together made a great deal of money, the child's lifestyle is more likely to be higher, thus meaniing the child's post divorce 'needs' will be higher than that of a child whose parents were broke.

This is how the laws (including alimony) are meant to work. Though personally, I disagree with it. I believe that the post divorce payment system should be based on a reasonable lifestyle (with the other current limiting factors still used).

So on a percentage of income basically, that's what a "child's lifestyle" is a euphemism for apparently.

Actually, that's 100% wrong. If a father cannot afford it at the outset, the law would grant no child support. If the father faces an unintentional drop in income, the father should file for an adjustment to correlate with the new lower income. If the father's income increases, the onus is upon the mother to file an adjustment for better support.

Most child support laws and alimony laws have been made gender neutral in that the highest earning spouse is the one that pays. So complaining about the laws as written is like wanting to make more than women AND have them pay the money in a divorce.

If the father chooses not to pay child support he is thrown in jail. If the mother chooses not to spend child support on her children she isn't thrown in jail. Since the father is legally responsible for paying child support the mother should be held just as accountable for spending that child support on her children. Currently there is a clear amount of gender bias taking place or at the very least a great deal of injustice towards the payer of child support.

[leanlifter1]

Let's get this straight once and for all. Men are largely stronger and generally more aggressive than the vast majority of females. Because of this it is our job as men to not hurt women and children but to do our best to try to better them in any way possible within reason. Most of the time but not all the time when marriages and relationships fail it is because the man stopped being a good person and the women just got fed up with their man's shit. Take Africa for example which is the rape capital of the world and guess who is doing all the raping MEN ! Men are pigs generally speaking some men rape and oppress women in one way or form and when they finally go to jail for being a pig and living a life of over indulgence, greed and ignorance what do they do but start raping other men in jail LOL. This does not give women the right to abuse the system and take advantage of good men cause I have seen many gold digging women in my life and it is really a piety. Bad men should get what they deserve and I am on the women's side when they try to take them for all they are worth in these cases LOL. To the OP I would say man the fuck up and treat women right at the same time develop the intelligence and self discipline to make a good choice when choosing a mate and you will never have to worry about getting fucked over by one of them crazy ass gold digging women that we all know exist.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/14/14 07:44 PM, Saen wrote: So if the mother is granted custody and she made more money than the husband, she would be entirely responsible for child support? No of course not it doesn't work that way.

Right, but the amount of support would be much much smaller.

So on a percentage of income basically, that's what a "child's lifestyle" is a euphemism for apparently.

Yeah, pretty much. And as I said, I disagree with this formulation of the law. It essentially rewards/punishes people for their associations, not their accomplishments/actions.

If the father chooses not to pay child support he is thrown in jail. If the mother chooses not to spend child support on her children she isn't thrown in jail. Since the father is legally responsible for paying child support the mother should be held just as accountable for spending that child support on her children.

Ido agree that this is shitty, however there is one fundamental problem that makes such things nearly impossible (if not 100% impossible) to track. Money is fungible. Lest child support be paid in goods, you can't track it. The Payee could easily use the money to pay off cable bill while using that money originally set aside for the cable bill to pay for the food.

There is a basement level of care, otherwise the child will be removed from the payee parent. Above that line, there's little that can be done out o flogistics, not out of an intent to "stick it" to the payor parent.

Currently there is a clear amount of gender bias taking place or at the very least a great deal of injustice towards the payer of child support.

There is NO gender bias here. You know why? Switch your father to mother and mother to father and guess what? Mother gets tossed into the can and the dad gets away with it.

The payor is at a disadvantage, but as is always the case with any party that has a legal obligation. They must fulfil it or pay the consequences. I'm also pretty sure if the payor can somehow prove the payee is squandering the support, the support iwll go away. But good luck proving that.

[leanlifter1]

At 1/14/14 08:48 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/14/14 07:44 PM, Saen wrote: So if the mother is granted custody and she made more money than the husband, she would be entirely responsible for child support? No of course not it doesn't work that way.

Right, but the amount of support would be much much smaller.

You guy's are to wound up in law's and money LOL. It's of far more benefit to the child/s to have a broke ass father/mother that's actually a good parent and person than it is to have a rich prick that is never around mentally, emotionally and physically and when they are they are abusive. This is also a benefit to society as a whole.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/14/14 09:00 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: You guy's are to wound up in law's and money LOL. It's of far more benefit to the child/s to have a broke ass father/mother that's actually a good parent and person than it is to have a rich prick that is never around mentally, emotionally and physically and when they are they are abusive. This is also a benefit to society as a whole.

You think the guy who prosecuted child welfare cases doesn't know this?

Canuck, please.

[RacistBassist]

At 1/11/14 02:34 PM, AJ wrote: Ok OP. All this on one hand. Now on the other hand, women get paid less 80 cents on the dollar for every one a man makes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States

That's because of the jobs and career paths and time in the work force, for the most part, that women choose; and not discrimination. Sure, if you want to discuss if and why women feel pressured to take these paths, and whether or not it is personal choice or societal pressures forced upon women or men that cause this disparity, I would love to discuss it, but just throwing out that women get paid less than 80 cents seems to imply there is a widespread discrimination going on, which would not only violate laws and shizz, but it would also make absolutely zero sense for businesses to not just hire women for less if they could get away with it.

You want to talk about subconscious shaming of men in the media. What about women? Women get raped or fight for birth control and are accused of being sluts by everyone in conservative media. Women on the internet receive threats to be murdered, raped, etc nonstop just for existing.

Yes, fuck all the men, because you think women have it worse. Know what? Fuck women too, blacks have it worse. Women and feminists are no longer allowed to complain until they are the number one "oppressed" group. The Oppression Olympics is an awesome game to play. No matter who wins, everybody else loses.

While I see some of the issues you brought up myself, I just don't think that "What about all those poor white men" is a really high priority on my list of civil rights problems in America, and I say that as a white man.

Women deal with harassment on the internet. Men are killed more often, driven to suicide more often, have more dangerous jobs, are starting to trail behind in education, are deemed as expendable, are not able to come forward when raped(Shit, forced envelopment isn't even counted as raped by the CDC), can be convicted of crimes by a mere accusation, and are granted virtually no resources for domestic violence despite being in comparable numbers to women, not to mention the problems men face in even getting recognized as DV victims

[leanlifter1]

At 1/14/14 10:24 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/14/14 09:00 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: You guy's are to wound up in law's and money LOL. It's of far more benefit to the child/s to have a broke ass father/mother that's actually a good parent and person than it is to have a rich prick that is never around mentally, emotionally and physically and when they are they are abusive. This is also a benefit to society as a whole.

You think the guy who prosecuted child welfare cases doesn't know this?

Canuck, please.

I would hope so. Reality is that it seems many people are more money motivated than anything within society especially in the legal system.

[Saen]

I'll elaborate on another part of this discussion, control over sexual reproduction men vs. women.

So the main idea of this discussion is that women in western civilization have 100% control of whether or not they want to have a child. They have this 100% control through the numerous forms of birth control available (non-hormonal, hormonal, barrier, spermicide, plan-b, abortion), this is true regardless of your own personal stance on abortion.

I am completely fine with women having access to all of this birth control, in fact while working for Planned Parenthood it was my job to educate and provide teens with birth control. That being said like I stated earlier women shouldn't have 100% control over sexual reproduction (e.g. male birth control), but also irresponsible women who decide to have a child need should be held accountable for that choice. Not in the legal sense, but by society, i.e. our perception of deadbeat dads vs. single mothers.

So generally when we think of the terms deadbeat dads and single mothers, we view deadbeat dads as bad, irresponsible people and single mothers as abandoned, victims. I'm saying we should think about deadbeat dads and how every deadbeat dad in western society was created by a woman's choice of whether or not to have a child. If a woman became pregnant and knew that the father was not interested or capable of a raising a child with her for whatever reason and yet she still expects him to care for the child (either in the form of actual lively presence or through child support), she should be viewed as a completely irresponsible mother, while the father shouldn't be responsible in any sense (including child support).

The main idea is men have legal consequences for being a "deadbeat dad" such as child support while women have no legal consequences for being an irresponsible mother by having the child in the first place. I'm not saying women should be held accountable legally, but rather men shouldn't held legally accountable for HER CHOICE.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/16/14 08:23 PM, Saen wrote: Not in the legal sense, but by society, i.e. our perception of deadbeat dads vs. single mothers.

You place so much blame on the woman, but the father also controls his fluids too. A condom, vasectomy, or avoiding sex could easily avoid (not in all cases, but in most) the pregnancy. No father, outside of some odd scenarios, can claim that it was all the mother's fault that the baby was born. It takes two to tango here.

Backing up and looking at the perception, one reason that the deadbeat dad is looked upon as worse in precisely because the dad is only involved in the beginning. In the art of baby making, the father is involved for a few minutes, and then the mother takes control for 9 months (nine difficult months) after that. This means that a man only has to "point, shoot, and run" while the mother is forced ith making all the hard decisions (abortion, adoption) and is forced to do all the heavy lifting. In many dead beat dad cases, the dad is gone before baby even arrives.

There are cases of deadbeat mothers out there abandoning their children with single dads. However, the pure functionality of it all skews heavily toward men leaving the mother. A deadbeat mother has to still hold the child for 9 months, thus increasing the liklihood of her sticking around.

[Saen]

At 1/16/14 09:38 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

You place so much blame on the woman, but the father also controls his fluids too. A condom, vasectomy, or avoiding sex could easily avoid (not in all cases, but in most) the pregnancy. No father, outside of some odd scenarios, can claim that it was all the mother's fault that the baby was born. It takes two to tango here.

Abstinence is not a method of birth control so you can scratch that out. Vasectomy is permanent birth control, most surgeons won't agree to preform surgery on young males who are classified as deadbeat dads in general. As for condoms both men and women choose not to use condoms for whatever reasons, one of the main reasons being the woman professes to be on birth control. "I want you to cum inside, it's ok I'm on birth control", "You don't need to use a condom I'm on birth control", sound familiar?

Backing up and looking at the perception, one reason that the deadbeat dad is looked upon as worse in precisely because the dad is only involved in the beginning. In the art of baby making, the father is involved for a few minutes, and then the mother takes control for 9 months (nine difficult months) after that. This means that a man only has to "point, shoot, and run" while the mother is forced ith making all the hard decisions (abortion, adoption) and is forced to do all the heavy lifting. In many dead beat dad cases, the dad is gone before baby even arrives.

There are cases of deadbeat mothers out there abandoning their children with single dads. However, the pure functionality of it all skews heavily toward men leaving the mother. A deadbeat mother has to still hold the child for 9 months, thus increasing the liklihood of her sticking around.

You either are completely missing or ignoring the point I made about women having 100% control of having a child. If she becomes pregnant and knows the father isn't interested in caring for a child or can't afford to care for a child, and yet SHE DECIDES to have the child expecting the father to take care of it, why should he be legally responsible for HER DECISION when she files for child support?

When a man consents to sex that's not an agreement to have a child, not in this day and age.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/16/14 10:19 PM, Saen wrote: Abstinence is not a method of birth control so you can scratch that out.

Actually, abstinence is the ONLY infallable form of birth control. Abstinence only sex ed being a load of crap doesn't change the fact that the only way to 100% avoid pregnancy is to not have sex.

Vasectomy is permanent birth control, most surgeons won't agree to preform surgery on young males who are classified as deadbeat dads in general.

First off, vasectomies are not permanent. They are semi-permanent, more akin to an IUD. The not can be untied.

Second, most surgeons would perform the surgery on any of age adult male who has the money and has no health complications.

As for condoms both men and women choose not to use condoms for whatever reasons, one of the main reasons being the woman professes to be on birth control. "I want you to cum inside, it's ok I'm on birth control", "You don't need to use a condom I'm on birth control", sound familiar?

Ever heard of "Double Dutch"? Also, ay guy who actually cares would still want his own protection. Laziness, pleasure, or apathy is no reason to remove fault from the male here.

You either are completely missing or ignoring the point I made about women having 100% control of having a child. If she becomes pregnant and knows the father isn't interested in caring for a child or can't afford to care for a child, and yet SHE DECIDES to have the child expecting the father to take care of it, why should he be legally responsible for HER DECISION when she files for child support?

First off, I have addressed it by saying that the man, while his involvement in the matter is small, it is vital. Therefore he is responsible for his action that starts the process. The includes any known possible after effects, whether they be to him or to someone else.

Anyway, what would you do to change the control issue? Allow fathers to essentially co-opt the mother's body during pregnancy?

When a man consents to sex that's not an agreement to have a child, not in this day and age.

So? By having sex without his own affirmative protection, the man is taking a LARGE known risk. Just because he's being reckless instead of intentional shouldn't excuse him from his responsibility on the matter.

[Saen]

At 1/16/14 10:55 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Actually, abstinence is the ONLY infallable form of birth control. Abstinence only sex ed being a load of crap doesn't change the fact that the only way to 100% avoid pregnancy is to not have sex.

Sure buddy, still not considered birth control.

First off, vasectomies are not permanent. They are semi-permanent, more akin to an IUD. The not can be untied.

Second, most surgeons would perform the surgery on any of age adult male who has the money and has no health complications.

It's surgery nonetheless, expensive surgery at that. Any surgery to undo a vasectomy is much more complicated and not very successful. That is why it is labeled as a form of permanent birth control much like tubal ligation.

Ever heard of "Double Dutch"? Also, ay guy who actually cares would still want his own protection. Laziness, pleasure, or apathy is no reason to remove fault from the male here.

Any woman who cares for her own protection should be held to the same standards! News flash there are male and female condoms are you seriously that ignorant!?

First off, I have addressed it by saying that the man, while his involvement in the matter is small, it is vital. Therefore he is responsible for his action that starts the process. The includes any known possible after effects, whether they be to him or to someone else.

I can argue that the woman starts the process because normal men ask for permission for sex. Either way it doesn't matter who starts the process, ultimately it is 100% up to a woman whether or not she has a child. You aren't going to sneek around this fact.

Anyway, what would you do to change the control issue? Allow fathers to essentially co-opt the mother's body during pregnancy?

Male birth control gives fathers a say in whether or not he wants a child. It's not about taking control away from women, but giving some to men, an idea most feminists are oh so uncomfortable with.

When a man consents to sex that's not an agreement to have a child, not in this day and age.

So? By having sex without his own affirmative protection, the man is taking a LARGE known risk. Just because he's being reckless instead of intentional shouldn't excuse him from his responsibility on the matter.

When a woman chooses to not use protection she is taking the same fucking risk dude!! She is just as fucking reckless when she decides not to use a condom, birth control, spermicide, and plan b. It is clear as day, in your mind women are not capable of doing wrong when it comes to sex, but in reality they bear most of all of the responsibility when it comes to having safe sex.Women take the same risks as men when it comes to sex. When a mistake occurs it is entirely her decision, lots of women decide irresponsibly and the man has to pay for it as a result.

Sex is not an agreement to have a child and a woman has 100% control in deciding whether or not she wants a child.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/16/14 11:20 PM, Saen wrote: Sure buddy, still not considered birth control.

Webster defines it as "things that are done to keep a woman from becoming pregnant"

Sure sounds like abstinence is birth control.

It's surgery nonetheless, expensive surgery at that. Any surgery to undo a vasectomy is much more complicated and not very successful.That is why it is labeled as a form of permanent birth control much like tubal ligation.

While it is surgery, it is not comparable to tubal ligation. Vasectomy is an outpatient procedure equivalent to getting a wisdom tooth pulled. Tubal ligation is a very invasive inpatient surgery more akin to getting a transplant. They are both surgeries, but they are two very different levels of surgery.

Any woman who cares for her own protection should be held to the same standards! News flash there are male and female condoms are you seriously that ignorant!?

And they do. Any woman who puts her trust solely in the man's contraceptive runs a higher risk of becoming pregnant.

I can argue that the woman starts the process because normal men ask for permission for sex. Either way it doesn't matter who starts the process, ultimately it is 100% up to a woman whether or not she has a child. You aren't going to sneek around this fact.

You're right, but not how you think you are. The woman has 100% control AFTER the woman and the man combine to concieve. Without conception, there is no such process and then no situation where the woman has total control.

Male birth control gives fathers a say in whether or not he wants a child. It's not about taking control away from women, but giving some to men, an idea most feminists are oh so uncomfortable with.

Once conception has happened, you cannot give control to men without taking it away from women. And since the control deals with something inside the woman's body, doing it without having him control her body is near impossible.

When a woman chooses to not use protection she is taking the same fucking risk dude!! She is just as fucking reckless when she decides not to use a condom, birth control, spermicide, and plan b.

She does face the consequences. SHE is the one who gets pregnant and then has to deal with it.

When a mistake occurs it is entirely her decision, lots of women decide irresponsibly and the man has to pay for it as a result.

So how exactly did the sperm get to the egg?

Sex is not an agreement to have a child and a woman has 100% control in deciding whether or not she wants a child.

That's like saying shooting a gun at someone isn't meant to hurt them. Sex is biologically meant to create children. You wouldn't play with fire and then act surprised when you get burnt, would you? That's just like having sex and being surprised when child bearing is the result.