A woman can cheat on you, tell you a child is yours when it's not and then keep you on the hook for 18 years even after you prove it's not your child.

[JacksinPA]

"It is unlikely that the court will remove you as the father unless there is another man it can name as the child’s father."

Could you explain to me what that means? And yes, it is difficult to prove fraud in a family court because mom can just say she didn't know. It's "dad's" responsibility to prove otherwise, which is hard.

A lot of men find being made a cuckold to be a sexual turn on. I could go on but this process can get pornographic.

 

[dex4974]

”Experience” it? HAHHAHAAH oh **** no. Not ever. Nope. OOo - got to use it, one more time: NOPE. Feels sooooo good.

How much experience do you have being a man in society? Before you say I have no experience being a woman don't forget that I am not denying the struggles faced by women. There are lots of good feminists out there that understand that discrimination and sexism are not binary issues that only impact women. Extremist, toxic and binary thinking "feminists" are poisoning what is otherwise a very good social movement.

 

[southwest88]

You seriously believe men do not face problems that are unique to men in our society?

Given that historically in the colonies & then in the US, the laws were proposed, debated & passed by legislatures & courts that were by far mostly men - &
WASP men (of the right religious flavor @ that), then I think your argument that men are being unfairly singled out in family court cases is very weak. If there are injustices there, by all means, let's look @ that.

But given that men overwhelmingly voted in & upheld (in the courts) these same sets of laws @ the state & federal levels, I think you'll have a hard time making a case for discrimination against men on the basis of gender.

If men are being punished unfairly by these laws - a possibility - then it's worth thinking about that that may have been the intent of the men (the legislatures & courts) that passed & enforce these laws. Were they trying to stabilize society? Were they reacting to fears of abandoned wives & children? We'd have to look into the history of family courts, their laws, & the reasons they were established in the first place.

 

[holbritter]

If you prove, with a DNA test, that the baby isn't yours, you won't have to pay child support.

Seriously, it's pretty uncommon for a woman to falsely accuse someone of being the dad.

There's a lot more common things to worry about when dating, than being accused of being a dad.

Done every day on Springer!

 

[dex4974]

Given that historically in the colonies & then in the US, the laws were proposed, debated & passed by legislatures & courts that were by far mostly men - &
WASP men (of the right religious flavor @ that), then I think your argument that men are being unfairly singled out in family court cases is very weak. If there are injustices there, by all means, let's look @ that.

But given that men overwhelmingly voted in & upheld (in the courts) these same sets of laws @ the state & federal levels, I think you'll have a hard time making a case for discrimination against men on the basis of gender.

If men are being punished unfairly by these laws - a possibility - then it's worth thinking about that that may have been the intent of the men (the legislatures & courts) that passed & enforce these laws. Were they trying to stabilize society? Were they reacting to fears of abandoned wives & children? We'd have to look into the history of family courts, their laws, & the reasons they were established in the first place.

Do you understand that the fact that men have historically dominated courts does not mean that courts cannot discriminate against and abuse men? Men can reinforce sexist standards against other men.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

How much experience do you have being a man in society? Before you say I have no experience being a woman don't forget that I am not denying the struggles faced by women. There are lots of good feminists out there that understand that discrimination and sexism are not binary issues that only impact women. Extremist, toxic and binary thinking "feminists" are poisoning what is otherwise a very good social movement.

I don’t need you to validate my experiences. I don’t need you to validate the fact that we are a male dominated society that treats men‘s flaws as bro virtues and women’s strengths as weak and emotional.

Men do not face any obstacles in this country due to their dicks. You can keep invoking all the feminists you know who agree with you, and it wont’ change a single bit of data or history. And as a woman, it is *hilarious* anytime any man anywhere tries to ally himself with us by demanding we accept how his plight is our plight. How many times have you used the word “bitch” to describe a woman for no reason other than she was a woman?

 

[dex4974]

I don’t need you to validate my experiences. I don’t need you to validate the fact that we are a male dominated society that treats men‘s flaws as bro virtues and women’s strengths as weak and emotional.

Men do not face any obstacles in this country due to their dicks. You can keep invoking all the feminists you know who agree with you, and it wont’ change a single bit of data or history. And as a woman, it is *hilarious* anytime any man anywhere tries to ally himself with us by demanding we accept how his plight is our plight. How many times have you used the word “bitch” to describe a woman for no reason other than she was a woman?

You can't speak for what men do and don't face because you're not a man. That's like some red pill person undermining the issues women face from a position of abject ignorance. The idea that men can't also be victims of sexism is sexist on its own. Toxic feminists do themselves a disservice by denying the issues men face. The good feminists are shaking their heads in disappointment.

 

[dex4974]

Being honest about issues men face does not undermine feminism or the issues women face. Both are important and should be talked about.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

You can't speak for what men do and don't face because you're not a man. That's like some red pill person undermining the issues women face from a position of abject ignorance. The idea that men can't also be victims of sexism is sexist on its own. Toxic feminists do themselves a disservice by denying the issues men face. The good feminists are shaking their heads in disappointment.

Men cannot be victims of a system they control.

 

[dex4974]

Men cannot be victims of a system they control.

Of course they can. The 1% of powerful men that control the system do not automatically know what is best and ideal for all other men. Men can and do reinforce societal victimization of and sexism towards other men. Not all men are powerful people that control the world.

 

[dex4974]

Both men and women face unfair imbalances in the world. To deny that is extremely ignorant, toxic and destructive.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Of course they can. The 1% of powerful men that control the system do not automatically know what is best and ideal for all other men. Men can and do reinforce societal victimization of and sexism towards other men. Not all men are powerful people that control the world.

Cite your evidence.

 

[dex4974]

Cite your evidence.

There is evidence everywhere. You are not looking. You certainly won't look at anything presented by me. Men get hurt by unfair societal standards too, and denying such is simply ignorant.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

There is evidence everywhere. You are not looking. You certainly won't look at anything presented by me. Men get hurt by unfair societal standards too, and denying such is simply ignorant.

I did look at what you presented. That’s the basis of this thread, no?

You can’t cite anything because there isn’t anything. This seems more like an emotional reaction than one based on history or data.

 

[dex4974]

I did look at what you presented. That’s the basis of this thread, no?

You can’t cite anything because there isn’t anything. This seems more like an emotional reaction than one based on history or data.

You would explain away anything I showed you any way you could because you have a vested interest in women being exclusively the victims of the world. That's fine. I've presented my argument more than well enough here. Trying further is a waste of my effort.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

You would explain away anything I showed you any way you could because you have a vested interest in women being exclusively the victims of the world. That's fine. I've presented my argument more than well enough here. Trying further is a waste of my effort.

If you say so.

 

[joko104]

This is common. The view of family courts is that SOMEONE has to pay for that child - ideally anyone but tax payers. However, this is the case generally only AFTER the man has accepted the child as his own - only later to find out it's not. Of course, what husband asks for a DNA test before being names as the father? Once he does, he's on the hook.

 

[joko104]

There was an extreme case in Dallas when a lawyer learned he was not the bio-father. The judge ordered him to pay huge child support. He refuses - and was put in jail under contempt for refusing (don't know if he ever did). Even learning the judge was literally having an affair with his ex changed nothing.

 

[southwest88]

Do you understand that the fact that men have historically dominated courts does not mean that courts cannot discriminate against and abuse men? Men can reinforce sexist standards against other men.

Of course I understand. But the historical facts take the wind out of your sails - or of the argument you're making. It's not injustice by women &/or children against men - society typically taking their part, & apparently taking it out on the men before them in family courts. It's society as a whole - which means, as we've discussed, men - voters, legislators & judges - putting laws in place that enforce paternal (& maternal) financial liability for the care & maintenance of dependent children.

From what I can see, society refuses responsibility for abandoned women & children. & even with welfare reforms in the 1980s - if a family winds up on welfare & there are dependent children present, the woman must name the father. The state will then provide family maintenance funds & services, but with the understanding that they will pursue the biological father for the sums involved.

Are men abused thereby? Possibly, & it bears looking into, if that's the case. Will society @ large support abandoned women & dependent children? Not if there are biological fathers to pursue for maintenance. Ethically, that's the breadwinner's responsibility in any event; the state merely reinforces that ethical stance. & in no scenario, society - the taxpayers - are not going to support someone else's offspring indefinitely, nor even to the children's coming of age. That's rightfully the responsibility of the parents. The state will act as maintenance in case of last resort - but the state/society is never happy about that, & will offload the responsibility to the nearest likely substitute they can find, as quickly as they can, to the letter of the law.

 

[dex4974]

Of course I understand. But the historical facts take the wind out of your sails - or of the argument you're making. It's not injustice by women &/or children against men - society typically taking their part, & apparently taking it out on the men before them in family courts. It's society as a whole - which means, as we've discussed, men - voters, legislators & judges - putting laws in place that enforce paternal (& maternal) financial liability for the care & maintenance of dependent children.

From what I can see, society refuses responsibility for abandoned women & children. & even with welfare reforms in the 1980s - if a family winds up on welfare & there are dependent children present, the woman must name the father. The state will then provide family maintenance funds & services, but with the understanding that they will pursue the biological father for the sums involved.

Are men abused thereby? Possibly, & it bears looking into, if that's the case. Will society @ large support abandoned women & dependent children? Not if there are biological fathers to pursue for maintenance. Ethically, that's the breadwinner's responsibility in any event; the state merely reinforces that ethical stance. & in no scenario, society - the taxpayers - are not going to support someone else's offspring indefinitely, nor even to the children's coming of age. That's rightfully the responsibility of the parents. The state will act as maintenance in case of last resort - but the state/society is never happy about that, & will offload the responsibility to the nearest likely substitute they can find, as quickly as they can, to the letter of the law.

You seem to be assuming I believe things that I never said I believe.

 

[southwest88]

You seem to be assuming I believe things that I never said I believe.

For our purposes here, it's not relevant what I assume.

I will say - that in matters of children & wedlock, both parties should know their partner thoroughly - background, attitudes towards family, children, childrearing, budgets, life values. Children are long-term commitments, as you've noted. Once there are children resulting from a relationship, it's a given that the childrearing responsibilities will endure unto the children's maturity.

If the parties can't manage their relationship, the courts certainly will intervene into the financial arrangements for the children. But the courts' function is to deliver justice, not mercy. & as you've also noted, the family courts, @ least, focus on the wellbeing of any dependent children first. The wellbeing of the parents is secondary - probably as it should be, but that's not what we're taught about the courts in school - or @ least, I wasn't.

I'm sure all this comes as a rude shock to people who never considered the potential outcomes of relationships that fail. But it shouldn't be all that much of a surprise - if there are children, someone needs to maintain them. That someone is the parents, in the first instance. If the parents can't or won't maintain their children, the state will do everything possible to make that maintenance happen.

 

[maquiscat]

Family courts victimize men to varying degrees in most states. You're right that it doesn't always happen everywhere. Reason can win.

There is a difference between what the law allows, and what actually gets judged. In some cases, there isn't a choice, such as those where the husband is the default legal father and can't be changed. And yes men do tend to get the short end of the stick, but that used to be women's position. The pendulum swung too far the other way. Hopefully it settle down to the middle.

 

[maquiscat]

This is not discrimination.

How not?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

How not?

Because gender isn’t the reason a father would have to continue paying if they were forced to continue paying.

 

[Visbek]

The part where she didn't tell the guy she was ****ing other guys is kind of deceptive. If you're having sex with other people you know damn well it might not be dude's kid.

sigh

It doesn't mean she is lying about the paternity. She may reasonably believe that the husband is the father, even if she is sleeping with someone else (e.g. if they used condoms regularly).

And generally speaking, acting as though men are the only ones who get screwed by the courts (let alone cheat) is just classic sexist nonsense. It is just sooo weird that the men who shriek endlessly about the inequities of the courts somehow never bother to get upset about, say, men who hide their assets during divorce proceedings....