The Red Pill

[vendic]

If you note, even the definition of sexism everywhere now states, against women, perpetrated by men. This is opinion, rather than definition. There was a time when sexism was defined as, treating anyone differently based on gender.

Perhaps a nitpicky detail, but when was it actually defined like that?

By the very people that first started using the term.
https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.co ... rd-sexism/

There is recognition abroad that we are in many ways a sexist country. Sexism is judging people by their sex when sex doesn’t matter.

Sexism is intended to rhyme with racism. Both have used to keep the powers that be in power. Women are sexists as often as men.

When I was in school, that's what they taught us. In high school and in Uni.

[vendic]

I have also done some investigation into some MRA groups over the last couple of days. I looked to see if they had any legitimate concerns over the last couple of weeks and concluded that they do. So the last couple of days I was looking into the "fringe" elements of them. Yes, amazingly, I don't just look for confirmation, I also look for the negative aspects of them too. I'll be spending some more time on this but to be honest it's just pissing me off so will probably not give it as much time as I did looking at the legitimate concerns. So far I have looked at two groups.

MGTOW I think are a bunch of misogynistic assholes who actually believe that men are superior to women. I have no time for them or their crap. You're all welcome to check for yourselves but I found far too much hate and bullshit spewing from them to have much interest in what they say. They have some interesting theories but I just can't agree with them due to lack of evidence as well as speculative reasoning. Filtering through the "I hate women" undertows is too much for me to even consider them anything but a bunch of wankers. Go your own way dude. That's what your hand is for...

I couldn't stomach the redit/red pill stuff either. More hate, more bullshit from angry, women hating pricks. I have no interest in promoting hate and dividing people. That's all they seem to be interested in. I got bit by a dog = all dogs are bad mentality. I have no time for that and suggest politely that no one should.

[Tarragon]

More hate, more bullshit from angry women hating pricks.

Is there a comma missing here? I think I know from context, but then I'm not sure.

[Tarragon]

I don't disagree with you. If this is about me recognizing a thing I call intellectual violence, that doesn't mean I have a problem with using it. In the right circumstances (and sometimes the wrong ones) I'm open to using intellectual, emotional, or physical forms of violence. (It's why I try to be precise in my use of language.)

Nowadays, I have to check and see if people are using words correctly or if they've redefined a word with their own views in mind. I've OD'd on this lately, and I forgot who I was talking to for a moment.

Yeah, I tend to divide things up that way. It's further confused by all of these modes being potential causes of emotional pain, if the target (or unwitting recipient) chooses to interpret an interaction as hurtful.[/prof]

Or in plain language, people will get butthurt over anything.

[vendic]

More hate, more bullshit from angry women hating pricks.

Is there a comma missing here? I think I know from context, but then I'm not sure.

I added two just to be sure.
Ah the written word. One missing or misplaced comma can start a war.

More hate, more bullshit from angry, women hating, pricks.

[geonuc]

More hate, more bullshit from angry women hating pricks.

Is there a comma missing here? I think I know from context, but then I'm not sure.

I added two just to be sure.
Ah the written word. One missing or misplaced comma can start a war.

More hate, more bullshit from angry, women hating, pricks.

Actually, you need a hyphen.

More hate, more bullshit from angry, women-hating pricks.

[vendic]

Good point. I'll remember that in future.

[SciFi Chick]

Is it pathetic that I find all this discussion of how many different ways you can write that sentence very stimulating?

[Tarragon]

Is it pathetic that I find all this discussion of how many different ways you can write that sentence very stimulating?

Enough to drive a woman to ALP?

[geonuc]

Is it pathetic that I find all this discussion of how many different ways you can write that sentence very stimulating?

Enough to drive a woman to ALP?

LOL. You seem to have figured out FWIS.

[vendic]

Lets play spot the problem.
Compare these two from an official Australian (WA) government domestic violence website.

womens domestic helpline
vs
Mens domestic violence helpline

Nope, no systematic blame game going on here.
You're a man: you are the abuser.
You're a woman: you are the victim.
That's the official line, regardless of the evidence that shows similar abuse rates and higher single abuser relationships being the woman as the sole abuser. Most (about 60%) are bi-directional in nature.

[vendic]

Speaking of systematic oppression, you might want to read this

A man jailed because he lost his job and couldn't afford child payments. The problem, the system knew he wasn't even the child's father yet enforced this anyway. Male privilege in action. When there is something this messed up going on, there is a fundamental problem in the system. This isn't the only case either. Boy's getting statutorily raped are forced to pay child support. This is just the tip of the problem.

Court documents show that Hatley for the most part continued to make payments. He was jailed for six months in 2006 for falling behind on payments during a period of unemployment, but afterward he resumed making payments and continued to do so even after he lost another job in 2008 and became homeless, court records state.

Last year, he again became unable to maintain the payments and was once again jailed.

Here is a timeline of Mr. Hatley's saga:

1986 - He has a relationship with a woman who soon has a son. They were never married and never live together.
1988 - The mother seeks social services from the state, allowing Georgia to seek money from the non-custodial parent, presumed to be Hatley.
1988 - 2000 - He makes child support payments for about 13 years.
2000 - He learns he may not be the boy's father. This is proven by DNA test. He goes to court, is "relieved" of future child support payments, but held to still owe $16,000 in past support.
2000 - 2006 - He pays down the old child support as he can.
2006 - He loses his job and is jailed for failing to make child support back-payments.
2006 - 2008 - He resumes making payments after he gets out. He makes payments even after losing his job again and becoming homeless.
2008 - He is jailed again once he can't make the child support back-payments.
2009 - He is finally freed and subsequently released from all child support payments.

He was even made homeless, life ruined simply because the state decided they wanted to recoup some child support payments.

[Rommie]

I will disagree- it sounds to me like these are the consequences from not asking for a paternity test when asked for child support.

Child support is for the child. The child cannot help the fact that his mother is a bitch who screws around and lies about it. And as such, the law is pretty clear that if you assume and act like a father, and acted as one for 13 years by paying child support (we have no idea from the article if he was actually in contact with said kid as well). If you become unemployed, for example, you can file a request for a modification to your child support you owe due to a change of financial circumstances (and I just checked, this is the case in Georgia where this all happened). But there's a saying in Hungarian, even a mother can't understand her mute child's words, and if you don't do that then how are they going to know you're indigent over just a deadbeat?

Yes, it sucks. But all of this could have been averted with the paternity test in the first place, and then not getting in contact to have things amended when he lost his job.

I believe you can make a lot of arguments about child custody and how the mother tends to be the default, and why that is. But a mother who doesn't have custody would also be obliged to pay child support, and all the above would apply. You can argue that this guy can't seek said custody because he's not the dad, but once again, this is why you get a paternity test.

[vendic]

I will disagree- it sounds to me like these are the consequences from not asking for a paternity test when asked for child support.

It was the state of Georgia that wanted to recoup some of their money. Don't they have due diligence to find out first if he was the actual father before making such a demand?

Child support is for the child. The child cannot help the fact that his mother is a bitch who screws around and lies about it.

You'll also note that she did lie about the father, knowingly and yet no charges were placed on her for her part in this mess.

Yes, it sucks. But all of this could have been averted with the paternity test in the first place, and then not getting in contact to have things amended when he lost his job.

Not every one is smart enough to know all their rights. It seems however that we now jail people for both ignorance of their rights and have debtors prison as well.

I believe you can make a lot of arguments about child custody and how the mother tends to be the default, and why that is. But a mother who doesn't have custody would also be obliged to pay child support, and all the above would apply. You can argue that this guy can't seek said custody because he's not the dad, but once again, this is why you get a paternity test.

The state of Georgia hit him with the child support. Why did they not do the basic checks to see if they had the right person? The mother's claim was simply accepted and as it turns out, she lied. In the case of the mother being hit for child support, it's going to be pretty hard to mistake the wrong woman as the mother of a child. Two very different situations. One is a given, the other is an assumption. The state of Georgia failed to do any checking before hand.
e.g. A police officer is not going to fine me based on what someone says. They will require evidence. If it's a jail able offense, they will require evidence and they will require a court case to convict me. None of that was done. He was asked to pay by the state based on the mothers lies, the state then enforced the guy to pay and jailed him when he couldn't. With no evidence.

We can argue about why he didn't check things himself, in my case, I would simply say that a man that is homeless isn't exactly going to be in the right frame of mind to think logically. His crime was he believed a woman. That's not a jail able offence, nor should it ever be. Lying however to the state which then condemns another person to such treatment, should totally be.

[Rommie]

To me, a better equivalent is if you get pulled over and are given an expensive ticket, you then have to go to court and prove your innocence and show that the state is incorrect. As I said, if you don't say there's a problem, no one will know there is one and you will have to pay the fine. Eventually if you were to not pay that fine, you would have to go to jail over it. I think there is an argument to be made over this practice when America does not allow debtor's prisons, but that's another question outside the scope of your complaints. So if the state of Georgia has a law to recoup costs, and you think you're not the father, but never go to court at the time saying "I'm not sure I'm the father," then how are they supposed to know they are mistaken?

To be clear, as I said, I think what happened to this guy sucks, and the child's mother is obviously not a good person, but the point of all this is child support is for the benefit of the child. I think you can argue that people in this country do not have enough access to quality legal counsel, but that would go far beyond just child support matters.

But then, we do know a lawyer in the state of Georgia, so I guess he'd know more about this kinda stuff than me.

[vendic]

But then, we do know a lawyer in the state of Georgia, so I guess he'd know more about this kinda stuff than me.

He might read this or he might be sick of the thread. lol

I think the root of the problem is the lack of full disclosure of the mother, in this case.
Clearly he was not the father. Also clearly is that she never gave him reason to think she was screwing someone else. So when he was told he was the father, he had two options, ask her, are you sure you haven't been screwing someone else?
Pretty sure that would have resulted in a huge argument or breakup, since they were still a couple at that point and you know, trust is all important and stuff.

So, he accepted her word while they were still together. There is no way any sane guy would ask such a question unless they really had no trust in the woman they were with.
The mother however knew she was screwing around and completely failed to inform him of this fact. So his decision to accept fatherhood was pretty much a given. Even though he was not the actual father.

For example, if my ex got pregnant, I would have accepted responsibility. Of course, I found out later she was screwing other guys while I was working 18 hr days to support her. She chose to stay at home and be a "housewife". Mind you, she never did much of anything so I guess I'm the complete idiot because men are easily duped into feeling guilty, but I digress.

So if I got the details after I accepted responsibility, I'm now screwed because I found out later that she was cheating on me. That's what happened to him. The person at fault is the person who lied. Not the person who got swindled. He is the victim, being made to pay for being duped.
Furthermore, I don't know what anyone else here is like when working 18hr days for long periods, but I make really poor decisions. So now I am also being blamed for not making good decisions because I was working hard to keep us afloat. If I stopped working, I would have been condemned as a lazy bum. It was a lose lose proposition. The same one many men get caught in. The net result was that I was working my ass off so she could travel around spending my earnings on other guys she was fucking, while complaining that I didn't earn enough and that I wasn't home much. Point is, walk a mile in someones shoes and all. decisions looked at from afar are a lot easier than when its up close and personal.

My biggest problem though, is how a woman in this case can lie and ruin another persons life and there is no fault attributed to her. At all. It's the guys fault. He should have done this. He should have done that.
He was screwed over. Not once, but twice while she lies to him, lies to the government, and uses the state as her own little security team to extort money from her victim. Punishing him with jail if he can't cough up, all without any responsibility from the woman that made the mess, all without repercussion for her.

Why is the state so willing to be her accomplice with so little actual evidence before they do?
Furthermore, why is the state not charging her, she is meant to list all possible fathers so they can verify?
She only named him and they accepted that, just like the guy did.

That is fucked up.

[Rommie]

Pretty sure that would have resulted in a huge argument or breakup, since they were still a couple at that point and you know, trust is all important and stuff.

Actually no, from the article it says that they broke up soon after the child was born, and the child support wasn't sought until two years later when she asked for state aid. So the rest of that line of thought doesn't apply. Nice rant though.

As I said though, you do seem to keep mistaking money to her for money for the child, which is what the state is interested in. That's why I keep bringing it up. And I hate to say it, but now that I think about it she might have genuinely thought he was the father. (Weirder shit has happened in the world than a woman getting blackout drunk and having a one night stand she doesn't remember.) I'm not saying that's what happened, but I don't think it's fair to keep insisting that she repeatedly lied for many years either when we don't have all the facts.

[vendic]

Pretty sure that would have resulted in a huge argument or breakup, since they were still a couple at that point and you know, trust is all important and stuff.

Actually no, from the article it says that they broke up soon after the child was born, and the child support wasn't sought until two years later when she asked for state aid. So the rest of that line of thought doesn't apply. Nice rant though.

They broke up after the child was born. She applied two years after. All true. When did he accept that he was going to be a father? The day she told him he was.
What came after that point also came after he already accepted he was the father.

As I said though, you do seem to keep mistaking money to her for money for the child, which is what the state is interested in. That's why I keep bringing it up. And I hate to say it, but now that I think about it she might have genuinely thought he was the father. (Weirder shit has happened in the world than a woman getting blackout drunk and having a one night stand she doesn't remember.) I'm not saying that's what happened, but I don't think it's fair to keep insisting that she repeatedly lied for many years either when we don't have all the facts.

I'm not mistaking it. The state cannot force a person that is not the father to pay for a child that is not his. I don't care if the state is interested in the child, the mother or their own personal image. What the state did is forcing someone that has committed no crime to pay for something that was based on a lie, and they are complicit in enforcing that because they took the simple option by not verifying it. They took the mothers word.

If I was duped for years into believing that a child was mine and it wasn't, I'd be out of there. I don't have an obligation to support someone else based on lies, and they are lies. It wasn't the truth, it was the opposite of the truth, hence, a lie.
You know, the truth is better than a lie. Sorry kid, your mother screwed some other guy and lied to me, I'm not really your father. He is out there though. Go ask your mother where he is because he might be really wanting to know he has a wonderful son and would love to take care of you and he'll love you and hug you and call you George.

r.e. Why do I keep insisting that she lied when we don't have all the facts.
Fact 1: He's not the father.
Fact 2: She claimed he was to both him and the state.

Why is it easier to give benefit of doubt to a woman not knowing that she had sex with someone behind her partners back, but, blame the guy for not doing everything by the book, so he now has to pay for a kid that's not his for 20 years?

This issue is one that can only affect men. Paternity suits regarding women are not possible excepting cases of babies being swapped by accident.
There are problems with statute limitations. e.g. An "accused" father has only a year in some cases to respond. There are legal issues, the state doesn't even have to hand the paperwork to the "accused" father, just deliver it to his last known address. That one year starts from there. So what we get is "accused" fathers that never even saw the paperwork suddenly finding themselves no option to question it. I'm not kidding. It's crazy.

A practicing law firms opinion

If you’ve slept with other men then you need to make a complete disclosure to the man you believe is the father. A complete disclosure is necessary for the man to agree he is the father. In those instances the man should have the option to consider DNA testing before agreeing to consent to paternity.

Fair is fair and it appears that Frank Hatley didn’t have all the necessary information before agreeing to reimburse the State of Georgia. If he had I would have no sympathy for him today.

The video at the bottom of that page is a must see. A woman filed a child support case against a man and got it. She never even had a baby. That's fraud, clear and cut. IMHO, so is telling a man you are with that he is the father when you are having sex with other people.

Then again, who cares, it's just men.
A 15 year old boy was statutorily raped and ordered to pay child support.
Another didn't even have intercourse, she gave him a blowjob and then impregnated herself.

This one is just out there though:

In the case decided Tuesday, David Salazar and his wife agreed that they separated 14 months before she had a baby girl by another man in November 2001. But the couple was too poor to pay for a divorce, his attorney said. A hospital clerk ordered the mother to list Salazar as father on the birth certificate. The Missouri Division of Child Support Enforcement named Salazar the father without DNA testing. Salazar did not attend a hearing to contest the paternity finding. A Buchanan County judge later found him guilty of not paying $278 a month in child support and sentenced him to 28 days in jail. Salazar appealed, but lost Tuesday in a 6-5 ruling by the appeals court in Kansas City. He could not be reached for comment.

These are all men's issues that are not relevant and people want to pretend don't exist. I can dig up the actual statistics for all this stuff and it's far worse than I am making out here.

Appologies if this is incoherrent or sounds brisk. Getting eaten alive by no seums in 90f heat. Going out of the boat for a while...

[Rommie]

Pretty sure that would have resulted in a huge argument or breakup, since they were still a couple at that point and you know, trust is all important and stuff.

Actually no, from the article it says that they broke up soon after the child was born, and the child support wasn't sought until two years later when she asked for state aid. So the rest of that line of thought doesn't apply. Nice rant though.

They broke up after the child was born. She applied two years after. All true. When did he accept that he was going to be a father? The day she told him he was.
What came after that point also came after he already accepted he was the father.

That's not how it works. You were saying he wouldn't go against her and file a paternity test because it shows he didn't trust his partner. I'm pointing out at that point they were no longer partners by this point.

As I said though, you do seem to keep mistaking money to her for money for the child, which is what the state is interested in. That's why I keep bringing it up. And I hate to say it, but now that I think about it she might have genuinely thought he was the father. (Weirder shit has happened in the world than a woman getting blackout drunk and having a one night stand she doesn't remember.) I'm not saying that's what happened, but I don't think it's fair to keep insisting that she repeatedly lied for many years either when we don't have all the facts.

I'm not mistaking it. The state cannot force a person that is not the father to pay for a child that is not his. I don't care if the state is interested in the child, the mother or their own personal image. What the state did is forcing someone that has committed no crime to pay for something that was based on a lie, and they are complicit in enforcing that because they took the simple option by not verifying it. They took the mothers word.

If I was duped for years into believing that a child was mine and it wasn't, I'd be out of there. I don't have an obligation to support someone else based on lies, and they are lies. It wasn't the truth, it was the opposite of the truth, hence, a lie.
You know, the truth is better than a lie. Sorry kid, your mother screwed some other guy and lied to me, I'm not really your father. He is out there though. Go ask your mother where he is because he might be really wanting to know he has a wonderful son and would love to take care of you and he'll love you and hug you and call you George.

r.e. Why do I keep insisting that she lied when we don't have all the facts.
Fact 1: He's not the father.
Fact 2: She claimed he was to both him and the state.

Why is it easier to give benefit of doubt to a woman not knowing that she had sex with someone behind her partners back, but, blame the guy for not doing everything by the book, so he now has to pay for a kid that's not his for 20 years?

Because our society, and every legal jurisdiction to some degree, chooses to prioritize: the wellbeing of the child or the rights of the purported father. It's not the kid's fault that mom lied, and this is the only dad the kid has ever known. Depriving the child of that relationship and of the resources of having two parents would be harmful to that child (and arguably society), so the rights and wellbeing of the child win out.

You and I also seem to disagree that fatherhood is purely defined by genetics. If this person acted like a father for over a dozen years by providing resources for the kid, then . The child did not lie, the child didn't care about his/her personal image, or any of the things you keep throwing against the mother. I am arguing that the needs of said child are obviously bigger than you seem to think (Also, yet again, yes, the mom's a bitch, but I don't care about her, I care about the kid who is the innocent party.) And I'm saying that innocent kid's rights are greater than those of the duped dad who made the mistake, yes. We obviously disagree on this point. I will argue though that that's not an anti-male thing to say, however because said child may well be a boy and not a girl.

The rest are all arguments to authority and straw man arguments because those cases are different and I don't think what I keep outlining here applies in all those cases. And I don't have time for detail here, so I won't go into it.

[vendic]

Sorry, I've been posting in general rather than that specific case.

I can stick to that case though. I'll sum it up pretty easily.
I am pro choice. Men should have the right to choose who they support unless they are biologically responsible for them.
I believe that a man who is not the biological father of a child should have a choice through the entire child's life if he wants to support that child or not.
In short, I believe in a non biological fathers right of choice if he wants to, or not, to support that child to full term (22 years).
The exact same way I believe it is a woman's choice if she wants to abort a pregnancy.

[Tarragon]

Why is the state so willing to be her accomplice with so little actual evidence before they do?
Furthermore, why is the state not charging her, she is meant to list all possible fathers so they can verify?
She only named him and they accepted that, just like the guy did.

That is fucked up.

The state was set up and is still largely run by a Christianist patriarchy. A man takes care of his own. And if it's not his own, then he should be punished for not sexing or beating his wife enough to keep her faithful. And if they're not married, then they be fornicatin and deserve whatever they get, because kids are a punishment, except when they're not, and only the preacherman can tell you which you deserved and got.

[geonuc]

...A practicing law firms opinion...

I don't want to jump into this too far but I will say after reading that link that you need to find another law firm to use to support your arguments. That article is an embarrassment to the legal profession.

[vendic]

...A practicing law firms opinion...

I don't want to jump into this too far but I will say after reading that link that you need to find another law firm to use to support your arguments. That article is an embarrassment to the legal profession.

Really?

rofl
I'm not laughing at you, just loved your response.

The guy that wrote the article:

Stephen D. Lombardi who has practiced civil trial litigation (personal injury lawyer-litigator, accidents, construction site injuries including death and workers’ compensation cases) for over 35 years. He holds a law license in Iowa and Florida.

He is a practicing lawyer.
What has the world come to if you can't even trust a lawyer anymore! lol

[vendic]

The state was set up and is still largely run by a Christianist patriarchy. A man takes care of his own. And if it's not his own, then he should be punished for not sexing or beating his wife enough to keep her faithful. And if they're not married, then they be fornicatin and deserve whatever they get, because kids are a punishment, except when they're not, and only the preacherman can tell you which you deserved and got.

I have a problem with the whole patriarchy theory. A few actually.
Firstly, the theory is used to explain how men have been exploiting women for centuries.
But that doesn't reconcile with the fact that men are not exactly getting a good deal out of it when we look at the statistics.
If patriarchy theory wants to be taken seriously, they should be more specific, it's more likely that powerful men get the good deals out of it. The average male is screwed by it just like the average woman is (just in different ways) and claiming it's all men that have an advantage is insane.

[SciFi Chick]

Sorry, I've been posting in general rather than that specific case.

I can stick to that case though. I'll sum it up pretty easily.
I am pro choice. Men should have the right to choose who they support unless they are biologically responsible for them.
I believe that a man who is not the biological father of a child should have a choice through the entire child's life if he wants to support that child or not.
In short, I believe in a non biological fathers right of choice if he wants to, or not, to support that child to full term (22 years).
The exact same way I believe it is a woman's choice if she wants to abort a pregnancy.

I don't entirely agree, because, adoption. I just think you have to be very careful in the language you use.