1.1. Young people don’t get married !
1.2. Prenuptial agreement.
1.3. Why saving marriage?.
2. ALIMONY
2.1. Alimony as it is awarded now is out of date
2.2. The no fault divorces.
2.3. The attribution of the amount of alimony is not objective.
2.4. Alimony is in the law industry interest.
2.5. Alimony turns against women now.
2.5.1. Alimony degrades women
2.5.2. Alimony turns against second wifes
2.5.3. Alimony turns against breadwinner women.
2.5.4. Alimony turns against mothers
2.6. Alimony is awarded for women who sacrifice her career for the kids.
2.7. Alimony and bad behaviour.
2.7.1. Unwilling to work
2.7.2. Avoiding remarriage
2.7.3. Retirement issue
2.7.4. False claim of domestic violence
2.8. Consequences / What is the effect of this lifetime alimony penalty?.
2.8.1. Destruction of the institution of marriage
2.8.2. Economic suicide for men
2.8.3. Encourage lower earners to marry for money instead of doing a love match.
2.8.4. Divorce used as a threat by lower earner.
2.9. Reform
3. CHILD CUSTODY
3.1. The government solves family problems in a way that destroy families and goes against women, children and men’s interests.
3.1.1. Children interests
3.1.2. Women burden.
3.1.3. Sexism toward fathers
3.2. Gay marriage.
3.3. Mothers interfering with parenting time
3.4. Reform
4. CHILD SUPPORT
4.1. Calculation.
4.2. Consequence: Child support used as a hidden alimony.
4.3. Specific case of poor parents.
4.4. Reform
4.4.1. Calculation
4.4.2. Conditions to end child support
4.4.3. Child custody impacts child support
5. CHILD BIRTH...
5.1. Reform
5.2. Obligation to a child against men’s will.
5.3. Some women bad behaviour.
5.4. He/she should have thought of that before having sex argument.
5.5. Women power on the foetus/body
5.6. Carrying the children argument.
5.7. Men are fathers.
6. RADICAL FEMINISM
6.1. The role of women changed..
6.2. Alimony is against feminism...
6.3. Radical feminists wants both
6.4. Radical feminism is mysandric
6.4.1. Radical feminists argue that divorce is caused by men behaviour
6.4.2. Assumption that men suffer less than women in divorce
6.4.3. Radical feminists are emotionally biased
6.4.4. National Organization of Women Supports Alimony Reform
1. WHY THIS REFORM
1.1. Young people don’t get married!
Unfortunately, divorce is now the tragic end result of fewer than 50 % of all marriages. Wives in less than 80% of cases initiate divorce because the outcome of divorce is overly one-sided. She will almost certainly get automatic alimony (98% of cases), sole custody of your children (84 % of cases). She can exclude you from them, without having to show that you have done anything wrong (34% of fathers never see their children, 42% less than one a month and only yet a high percentage of separated fathers wants to see them but only 7% of wives are condemned for excluding children from their fathers).
The divorce industry enriches when your spouse divorce you and take your children. With alimony and child support, she can demand an amount of half, two-thirds, or more of your income. (The amount is set by committees consisting of feminists, lawyers, and enforcement agents – all of whom have a vested interest in setting the payments as high as possible.) She may spend it however she wishes. You could easily be left with monthly income of a few hundred dollars and once you have sold everything you own and borrowed from relatives, if you fail paying you are told you have “abandoned” your children and incarcerated without trial (condanation in 99% of cases with 24% of imprisonment sanction).
Evidence indicates that, as men discover all this, they have already begun an impromptu marriage "strike:" refusing to marry or start families, knowing they can be criminalized if their wife files for divorce. Is it wise to disseminate such advice? If people stop marrying, what will become of the family and our civilization?
Marriage is already all but dead, legally speaking, and divorce is the principal reason. The fall in the Western birth rate is directly connected with divorce law. We will not restore marriage by burying our heads in the sand, nor simply by preaching to young people to marry.
The way to restore marriage as an institution in which young people can place their trust, their children, and their lives is to make it an enforceable contract. We urgently need a national debate about divorce, child custody, and the terms under which the government can forcibly sunder the bonds between parents and their children. We owe it to future generations, if there are to be any.
1.2. Prenuptial agreement
A lot o people believe that a prenuptial agreement will protect them from a financial catastrophy if they divorce. In reality the prenuptial agreement can at best limit alimony but cannot avoid it, even in California where prenuptial agreement is very powerful. Moreover, Prenuptial agreements are not allowed to regulate issues relating to the children of the marriage, in particular, custody, support and access issues.
1.1. Young people don’t get married!
Unfortunately, divorce is now the tragic end result of fewer than 50 % of all marriages. Wives in less than 80% of cases initiate divorce because the outcome of divorce is overly one-sided. She will almost certainly get automatic alimony (98% of cases), sole custody of your children (84 % of cases). She can exclude you from them, without having to show that you have done anything wrong (34% of fathers never see their children, 42% less than one a month and only yet a high percentage of separated fathers wants to see them but only 7% of wives are condemned for excluding children from their fathers).
The divorce industry enriches when your spouse divorce you and take your children. With alimony and child support, she can demand an amount of half, two-thirds, or more of your income. (The amount is set by committees consisting of feminists, lawyers, and enforcement agents – all of whom have a vested interest in setting the payments as high as possible.) She may spend it however she wishes. You could easily be left with monthly income of a few hundred dollars and once you have sold everything you own and borrowed from relatives, if you fail paying you are told you have “abandoned” your children and incarcerated without trial (condanation in 99% of cases with 24% of imprisonment sanction).
Evidence indicates that, as men discover all this, they have already begun an impromptu marriage "strike:" refusing to marry or start families, knowing they can be criminalized if their wife files for divorce. Is it wise to disseminate such advice? If people stop marrying, what will become of the family and our civilization?
Marriage is already all but dead, legally speaking, and divorce is the principal reason. The fall in the Western birth rate is directly connected with divorce law. We will not restore marriage by burying our heads in the sand, nor simply by preaching to young people to marry.
The way to restore marriage as an institution in which young people can place their trust, their children, and their lives is to make it an enforceable contract. We urgently need a national debate about divorce, child custody, and the terms under which the government can forcibly sunder the bonds between parents and their children. We owe it to future generations, if there are to be any.
1.2. Prenuptial agreement
A lot o people believe that a prenuptial agreement will protect them from a financial catastrophy if they divorce. In reality the prenuptial agreement can at best limit alimony but cannot avoid it, even in California where prenuptial agreement is very powerful. Moreover, Prenuptial agreements are not allowed to regulate issues relating to the children of the marriage, in particular, custody, support and access issues.
1.3. W
hy saving marriage?The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. (art 16 of universal declaration of human rights)
The fall in the Western birth rate is directly connected with divorce law.
Children who grow up with both parents in a working family have a huge advantage over single raised children.
Young people need a marriage institution where they can place their trust, their children, and their lives. This is why we need to make it an enforceable contract
Divorces trials are a financial charge to our society, through tribunals.
2. Alimony
The term alimony comes from the Latin word alimonia, and was a rule of sustenance to assure the wife's lodging, food, clothing, and other necessities after divorce. But divorce was only possible in cases of marital misconduct. if the wife committed the misconduct, she was considered to have forfeited any claim to ongoing support. Permanent alimony began to fall out of favor, as it prevented former spouses from beginning new lives.
2.1. Alimony as it is awarded now is out of date
Old times
Permanent alimony was originally conceived at a time (17th Century England) when the role of both men and women in the family and in the workforce was much different than today.
In the old concept of divorce, the couple did not actually divorce, but lived apart and the husband continue to support the wife.
Today
Alimony is now used ostensibly to not only support a spouse, but in many cases to allow him or her to become financially independent, or to live in the style he or she was accustomed to in the marriage
It is true that before the turn of the 20th Century, women's rights were only slightly above those of slaves, but women now go to college, they vote, they can own property, they can file for a no fault divorce and their children are no longer the exclusive property of their husband and neither are they. With the great opportunities that women now have, the chances of them being a burden to the State has diminished greatly, especially for those women who leave a marriage childless or are now empty nesters.
Divorce in m
odern society should represent a "clean break" where each party starts a new life (including remarriage) and does everything possible to become self-supporting.But the granting of alimony has been subverted from its original intended purpose to that of penalizing one spouse and providing a free life-time meal-ticket to the other ex-spouse not to mention separating one spouse from their children. It is obvious that times have changed so drastically that Alimony is truly draconian law that has served out it's purpose.
evolution
Permanent or life time alimony awards no longer reflect the reality of modern marriage and socio-economic trends. Some states (ex. Florida,Texas, Maine) are moving away from permanent alimony awards that are intended to maintain a spouses' standard of living enjoyed during the marriage and are moving towards durational or rehabilitative alimony.
2.2. The no fault divorces
In “No Fault" divorce ( adopted in Massachusetts, Mississippi), higher earning spouses are still required a to pay lesser earning spouses life time support.
Permanent lifetime alimony is the norm for marriages of about 10 years or longer..
Alimony reform proponents believe alimony should not be permanent, rather, transitional - allowing a spouse to become self sufficient
2.3. The attribution of the amount of alimony is not objective.
Alimony is noted for lack consistency, varying widely from state to state and even within a jurisdiction. In some states there are no statutory guidelines concerning support awards leading to wide inconsistency in the support awards given. The support guidelines available to judges in other states are criticized for being unclear, idiosyncratic and nonobjective, for leaving the actual monetary award to the judge resulting in inconsistency and potential unfairness. Unpredictability of alimony awards makes settlement of this issue difficult and erodes the credibility of the judicial system
2.4. Ali
mony is in the law industry interest Family attorneys are only interested to walk away with all the family money, the destruction of families are the least of their problems So inequities in family law are strongly defended by the law industry. The family laws supposedly created to provide spouses with an equitable way: to dissolve their marriage are, in reality, multi-billion dollar that benefits the family law lawyers that represent each side along with the whole legal industry that is associated with the family court system. Resulting from this is a trail of devastation and victims whose lives and those of others close to them are being destroyed
Therefore lawyers and the rest of the legal industry are determined to degrade women by granting awards of alimony that make the statement that women are unable to care for themselves. These rulings are declaring that women are not the equal of men.
2.5. Alimony turns against women now.
2.5.1. Alimony degrades women
Divorce and family law is based on an antiquated social custom that it is a man's responsibility to support women because they are weaker, incapable of being equal to men, and better equipped to raise children. Therefore alimony degrades women by granting the statement that women are unable to care for themselves. These rulings are declaring that women are not the equal of men.
Freedom and equality has it's burdens and liabilities, if we want it then we must shoulder all the consequences that are incorporated in such liberties or surrender rights to a superior. Does not the right to equality carry the weight of responsibility for one's own upkeep?
If you give a woman the full rights of a man, don't you also give her the full freedom of wealth as well as destitution? This is no longer a society of birth to grave support when parents were bound to marry off their daughters with a dowry for the new husband to continue her subsistence.
This is simply not the case in today's society and our laws need to be changed to reflect this fact. The courts declaring that women need to be supported for the rest of their lives is a slap in the face to all women and a declaration that they are not "equal" to men.
Divorce in modern society should represent a "clean break" where each party starts a new life (including remarriage) and does everything possible to become self-supporting.
2.5.2. Alimony turns against second wifes
Males’ second families exist below the economic level of the first wife. Moreover, if the second wife marries the divorced husband, she will have to pay the alimony too, even I her husband dies.
2.5.3. Alimony turns against breadwinner women.
On average, women work fewer hours than men, hold more part-time jobs and earn 77% of what men make. Men also still dominate higher-paying executive ranks.
With the roles of women switching places with men in the workplace, you can be sure that they will increasingly be affected by permanent lifetime alimony in upcoming divorce cases.
With about one-third of the households now having the woman as the breadwinner, the pendulum is now swinging the other way to where women can just as likely end up paying "lifetime" alimony to the men. And those that are paying are more vociferous and outraged that they should be treated equally the same as the men.
The eventual and logical outcome of it will be a growing demand from the women to reform the outmoded alimony laws that will put them at risk of supporting someone for the rest of their lives.
2.5.4. Alimony turns against mothers
As a Mother in today's society, how would you feel if your son were to get married and then divorced only to face a lifetime of servitude in an ongoing "lifetime alimony marriage" where there would be no closure to his life and little likelihood of his ever being able to remarry again. Would you "really" want to see him suffer for the rest of his life in such a situation? It is happening everyday to thousands of men, yet no one tells you about this before marriage. You only find out how insidious it is after the divorce is underway. Then there is no escaping it. The family law courts will have their tentacles in him for the rest of his life. It is time to change the laws that permit this.
2.6. Alimony is awarded for women who sacrifice her career for the kids.
Some men too sacrifice their carreer for the kids. With the roles of women switching places with men in the workplace, fewer spouses stay home today, and raising kid is no longer women monopole. If one decide that staying at home is best, then one decision to do so is a risk one assume, including losing out on other possible career moves. If the spouse insists that one stay and home, one is free to find a better arrangement, or assume the risk that comes with staying at home.
2.7. Alimony and bad behaviour
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvhIMT4iu5Q
2.7.1. Unwilling to work
Often the recipient spouse is not unable to work, but unwilling .
For instance, in one case it examined the wife was a doctor who had not practiced medicine for several years. Even with having to catch up on new medical procedures, she could still earn upwards of $40,000, and she was healthy and able to work.
2.7.2. Avoiding remarriage
The ex-spouse usually lives in concubinage, and avoids remarriage, because she/he would loose alimony from her/his ex-spouse
2.7.3. Retirement issue
At old age of all parties judges force retirees to share their social security for continued support, forcing primarily men/wife back into the work force when they should be enjoying their golden years
2.7.4. F
alse claim of domestic violenceSome women make false claims of domestic violence, sexual or child abuse in order to gain an upper hand in divorce, men are presumed to be guilty rather than innocent by police and by the courts, and that false allegations hurt the real victims of domestic violence.
2.8. Consequences / What is the effect of this lifetime alimony penalty?
2.8.1. Des
truction of the institution of marriageA more insidious result of "lifetime alimony" is that of it being a leading cause of a Marriage Strike that will eventually result in the destruction of the institution of marriage.
- Men knowing that they face a 50%, and that the wives demand 80% of divorces, they fear of eventual "financial suicide" that divorce brings combined with the recipients of lifetime alimony welfare and child support. They are therefore deciding that marriage is detrimental to their future and opt for a live-in arrangement. More couples than ever are now co-habitating rather than getting married. More and more people are foregoing marriage for cohabitation arrangements and as a result, 40% of children being born today are to unwed mothers
- Divorce spouses getting alimony avoid getting re-married because they stand to lose the alimony cash flow so they opt for live-in arrangements
- The alimony payers won’t remarry to avoid imposing their next partner to pay the alimony too, even when the original alimony payer dies.
- With lifetime alimony automatically attributed even in no fault divorces, so easy to obtain, spouses have no incentive to stay in a marriage for “better or worse”. Why try to work things out when it is so easy to walk away? The grass is always greener on the other side isn’t it?
2.8.2. Economic suicide for men
Most spouses contemplating divorce must be prepared for economic suicide. The income that marginally maintained one middle-class household will most surely not be able to maintain two. This is especially so where one spouse is not yet or never has been in the workforce.
2.8.3. Enco
urage lower earners to marry for money instead of doing a love match.The current lifetime payment provisions of the present dissolution statues encourages women to get married with the expectation that if they don’t like the arrangement all they have to do is to have some children, be married for a few years and then they can simply initiate a “no-fault” divorce with the courts granting them a separation bonus of at least one-half the assets, life insurance policy on the husband payable to her, half or more of any pension benefits and numerous other grants. This in addition to obtaining a lifetime income flow of alimony plus child-support for which they have no requirements to account for how it is being used. All because the paying spouse had the unfortunate misfortune of having had a marriage gone bad.
In this system, the lower earner is encouraged to marry higher earners instead of making a love match, and be tempted to divorce to get money from her/his ex high earner husband/wife without wanting to work, and avoid remarrying his/her next low earner boyfriend/girlfriend to keep this lifetime alimony.
2.8.4. Divorce used as a threat by lower earner.
In the other hand the higher earner would be held as a threat by he lower earner to loose a very important part of his possessions, and be trapped on an unwanted relationship.
2.9. Reform
Two simple questions:
1) whether alimony should be temporary or permanent ?
2) does the lesser earning spouse deserve alimony to meet his/her basic needs or to enough to sustain "the lifestyle accustomed to during the civil union or marriage ?
In many cases, some help is justified and necessary to provide rehabilitative support to deserving spouses.
· If the spouse left her to move with her husband because he had a better promotion
· If the “both” decided the wife should stay home to take care of the house and the kids.
The main idea is that it should not be a pension for an unemployed person, this is not the responsibility of the ex husband.
The time of alimony shall no exceed three years, necessary for either party to acquire sufficient education or training to enable such party to find appropriate employment.
3. Prenuptial agreement
For the same reasons developed on the Alimony section, the prenuptial agreement should be automatically included in marriage contracts, except if both demanded not to include it. Most of the time and especially for young persons, they are ashamed to ask for such contracts or simply ignore divorces issues and the law. This would protect both the husband and the wife.
4. Child custody
4.1. The government solves family problems in a way that destroy families and goes against women, children and men’s interests
4.1.1. Ch
ildren interests
Children have a fundamental human right to an opportunity and relationship with both their mother and father. Studies show that children in shared custody settings are better adjusted and have fewer social problems such as low academic achievement, crime, pregnancy, substance abuse, depression and suicide, shared parenting is in fact in the best interests of the child. Social policy measures should encourage this involvement.
4.1.2. Women burden.
Judges give child custody to women on the assumption to do it for the sake of the child, because they think women are the best to raise kids. This is wrong and sexist.
To them women
deserve child support because they can’t handle both raising the kid and work, their schedules will be full, her resume will be devalued, and they will that it will impact her job like maturity leave or switch to part time job. Women also need that money until they can get on their feet or find someone else to help her with the children.
This is an evidence that giving full custody is a burden the women. If the father get 50% of childhood, her agenda will be lightened and shell be able to keep her full time job. The father’s schedule will be as much disturbed as the women’s, and both parents would be treated equally.
4.1.3. S
exism toward fathers
A narrow role is given to fathers in society. During the divorce, custody of children is too routinely given to mothers (95% of cases) yet equal involvement of fathers and mothers in the upbringing of their children is essential, according to the principle that a child has both parents living,
Lower percentage of separated fathers as custodial parents is a result of choices made by fathers rather than bias of family court. To judges child custody and childcare goes to women because women are the best to raise kids, which is a sexist and wrong a priori. For the sake of the children, let's not reduce the man into a perpetual state of poverty he has no chance of escaping. Children need their fathers too.
4.2. Gay marriage
One of the arguments against same sex marriage and/or same sex couples adopting is that both parents are needed for healthy child rearing. Yet divorce completely contradicts that.
4.3. Mothers interfering with parenting time
Some mothers interfere with the father's parenting time and that such interference should be stopped.. Parenting time interference can result from the custodial parent's relocation beyond a practical distance from the noncustodial parent. There must be a rebuttable presumption prohibiting such relocations.
4.4. R
eform
We need a 50/50 shared custody, shared parenting. so that children would spend equal time with each parent unless there were reasons against it. Such laws require parents be directed to develop a mutually agreeable parenting plan. If they are unable to do so, judges order an equal time-share of physical custody between the parents, unless it is not practical or in the best interests of the children. the parents should live close enough to each other that the child does not need to forfeit friends or activities when visiting the other parent.
5. Child support
5.1. Calculation
Child support guidelines are based on maintaining the children's standard of living after separation, on the assumption that the children live with one parent and never with the other. Current guidelines are arbitrary, provide mothers with financial incentives to divorce, and leave fathers with little discretionary income to enjoy with the children during their parenting time.
5.2. Consequence: Child support used as a hidden alimony
Men wouldn't complain so much about child support if it was better regulated, and women didn't use it as a hidden alimony expensing it for their purpose instead of the child claim they need even more because the check can't cover their expenses.
Child support is mostly a fraud and isn't monitored close enough. In most cases men overpay their fair share of support.
5.3. Specific case of poor parents
it is often difficult for fathers in financial hardship or who take on a larger care giving role with their children to have their child support payments lowered. He also states that unemployment is the primary cause of child support arrears, and further states that these arrearages make the father subject to arrest and imprisonment without due process
5.4. Reform
5.4.1. Calculation
Guidelines should be based on a Cost Shares model, in which child support would be based on the average income of the parents and the estimated child costs incurred by both parents Law should value a broader definition of fathering for poor fathers by reducing the focus on collecting child support and encouraging the informal contributions (such as groceries, clothes, toys, time with the children) of these fathers, by counting these contributions as child support.
5.4.2. Conditions to end child support
Child support should be terminated under certain conditions, such as if the custodial parent limits access to the children by moving away against the wishes of the other parent, gives fraudulent testimony, or if paternity fraud is discovered, because two men should not have to pay child support for the same child.
5.4.3. Child custody impacts child support
If the father gets 50% of childhood, her agenda will be lightened and she will be able to keep her full time job. The father’s schedule will be as much disturbed as the women’s. Both parents should therefore equitably share the child support.
6. CHILD BIRTH
6.1. Reform
1. See the case of an unmarried man and women. If the woman fall pregnant without the men’s consent and the man wants the abortion and the women doesn't, he should in no way be obligated to support the child or the mother in any way what so ever. He may have got her pregnant, but he is obviously willing to make up for that by paying for an abortion. He should not be obligated to pay for the next 18 years of his life, because a woman didn't agree with him. Men should give financial compensation for the pregnancy and the pain of childbirth. If he changes his mind, he can ask for shared custody 50/50. If he changes his mind after obtaining custody he will have to pay child support.
2. See the case of an unmarried man and women .As she carries a human to be which DNA is half the father. If the women does want to abort, and the man doesn't, she mustn’t be allowed to abort but she should not be obligated to mother the baby, or pay for support of the child. The woman would pay no child support. If she changes her mind, she can ask for shard custody 50/50. If she change her mind after obtaining custody she will have to pay child support.
3. If both want to abort, so be it!
4. Now if they are married. No married man should be able to dip out of support of a child he has in marriage unless stated so in the marriage contract. No married woman should be able to abort a child her husband wants to keep unless that's a rule placed in the marriage contract.
5. If they are not married and both decide to have a child, and the father retracts, he will have to pay child support. But if he changes his mind again, he can ask for shared custody 50/50. If the mother changes her mind, she has to pay child support. If she changes her mind again, she can ask for shared custody 50/50. If both change their mind, the child goes to an orphanage, and if the child is adopted, they can’t ask for custody, but can get visits.
6. If the mother cannot determine the parentage, she must provide Fetal Cell/DNA Prenatal Paternity Test.
If the DNA test fails with the suspected father she has the duty to find the real one.
If the suspected father refuses the paternity test, he will have to pay child custody, even if the child is not his.
If the real father ignore the existence of the child before the 36th week, he can apply rule 1.
7. If there is a medical reason that endangers the mother to keep the pregnancy, then she has full authority to abort.
6.2. Obligation to a child against men’s will
We need to create an administrative procedure that would free men from the obligations to a child against their will (ex by a woman who falsely claims to be contraceptives, inseminate herself with a used condom) or simply an unwanted child (ex when the ineffectiveness of contraception), the development of a "pill for men, free DNA tests to detect possible fraud parenting, etc.
There are a myriad of birth control options available today. Male condom, Women condom, spermicide, contraceptive pill, next morning pill, pregnancy test, check of the menstruations, nausea, abortion, sexual education. An unwanted pregnancy harder to have and there are effective ways to detect pregnancy and abortion is legal and safe for the mother.
I read a story about a man who broke up with his girlfriend and had to pay child support for her kid even though he wasn't the father, the judge(woman) ruled the interests of the child came first. So then the girlfriend got back together with the father and the guy was stuck paying child support for this couple.
I read a story somewhere of a guy who married a woman who already had a kid, he knew this and was okay with it. Eventually, for the sake of the family, he decided to adopt the child as his own. Later, she divorced him and he was force to pay child support, even though she was living with and had restarted a relationship with the biological father of the child.
6.3. Some women bad behaviour
In the current system some women legally trap a man, and get paid by the biological father for raising his child with her other boyfriend. This is called paternity fraud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_fraud
6.4. He/she should have thought of that before having sex argument
If "should have thought about that before sex" is good enough for 1, it's good enough for 2.
If someone want to stay a virgin until marriage, it's a respectful choice. But law must stick to its time, customs evolve and sex today is used for many more purposes than making kids.
6.5. Women power on the foetus/body
The foetus is not the body of the mother, it’s in her body, that is different.
The foetus is neither an object, nor a human being actually but it’s a human to be. The argument "I can do with my body as I please, its my body!" is illogical. Some women want to consider the foetus as a parasite, to dehumanise it, and at the same time to consider it her body, so she can appropriate full power on it. The illogical thing is that a parasite is by definition a different body from the host, it can’t be both!
6.6. Carrying the children argument
Carrying the child and give birth, shouldn’t give 100% of responsibility for the decision to keep the child or not, men should be involved in the decision too. None can change nature, but men can give financial compensation for the pregnancy and the pain experience during childbirth.
Even if they are married and they both decide to have a child she can just get an abortion without his knowledge or consent at all!
6.7. Men are fathers
Men are fathers, not a sperm bank and a cash machine. They have to be involved in all the decisions concerning the foetus and the baby. Is the only right men have is to pay 18 to 23 years? Remember that even in her body, this is still his baby too.
7. RADICAL FEMINISM
I used to be a strong supporter of women's rights. But the woman's rights moment isn't about making the sexes equal under the law. It used to be. Back when women were fighting for the right to vote, a woman arrested for voting stood before a judge. The judge told the woman that he was letting her go because she was a woman and that he would have tossed her in jail if she was a man. The woman refused the judge's mercy and said if she broke the law, she deserved to be tossed in the slammer just like a man. But the woman's rights moment changed. It's about women getting one over men. They want all of the privileges and none of the responsible that comes with equal rights. Women shouldn't get alimony if they divorce. They should go to work just like a man.
7.1
. The role of women changed
Women are no longer, the property of men, non-voters, uneducated and whose only career options were to become school teachers or prostitutes, as the old men argued
Women held 49.83% of the nation's 132 million jobs in June and they're gaining the vast majority of jobs in the few sectors of the economy that are growing, according to the most recent numbers available from the Bureau of Labour Statistics.
The fact is that the legal system is biased against men. And radical feminists still complains about society being a patriarchal monocracy designed to rape women.
7.2. Alimony is against feminism
Lawyers and the rest of the legal industry are determined to degrade women by granting awards of alimony that make the statement that women are unable to care for themselves. These rulings are declaring that women are not the equal of men.
7.3. Radical feminists wants both
When the women's movement first started and NOW was in it infancy, they group attempted to have alimony laws abolished. Since the early 70's NOW has abandoned that position. But I find it interesting that they admitted early in their quest for equality that women would not be equal to men unless they were willing to assume the same risks as men.
Rather than embracing a role of independence or going back to being the protected sex, radical feminists have decided that they want both
They try to shame and emasculate their opponents rather than have to stand on actual reason or evidence. The very first thing it did when it came in was alert everyone it had a vagina so that it would get treated special. Radical feminists do not want equal rights. Their agenda is inequality.
Radical feminists should change their statement of purpose from that of "seeking true equality for all women exercising all the privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men" to a more realistic one that includes the comment from George Orwell's 1984 where it stated that: "some people are created more equal than others
They want all the advantages of being protected by the system and enjoying a double standard in relationships, while at the same time demanding to be totally independent from the men in their lives. It doesn't work that way- women shoud either get one or the other, not both.
7.4. Radical feminism is mysandric
7.4.1. Radical feminists argue that divorce is caused by men behaviour
Stigmatising men ad victimising women is the radical feminist strategy that led us to this situation. This is a sexist argument implying men are innate evil and women are innate good.
Women do not demand 80% of divorces not because men are cheating. The overwhelming majority are demanded with no faults from both parts.
7.4.2. Assumption that men suffer less than women in divorce
The belief that men suffer less than women in divorces cases is by definition sexist (see sexism definition)
Men suicide 4 times more than women, mostly after divorces cases. In proportion, statistics show that men suicide a lot more than women after a divorce
Sexism is the belief or attitude that one gender or sex is inferior to, less competent, or less valuable than the other. It is also called male and female chauvinism.
7.4.3. Radical feminists are emotionally biased
We can’t have a pertinent balanced and reasonable discussion with someone who is obviously emotionally bias. Radical feminists act a selfish and shortsighted way.
7.4.4.
National Organization of Women Supports Alimony Reform
.....WE REJECT the current assumptions that a man must carry the sole burden of supporting himself, his wife, and family, and that a woman is automatically entitled to lifelong support by a man upon her marriage, or that marriage, home and family are primarily woman's world and responsibility -- hers, to dominate -- his to support. We believe that a true partnership between the sexes demands a different concept of marriage, an equitable sharing of the responsibilities of home and children and of the economic burdens of their support. We believe that proper recognition should be given to the economic and social value of homemaking and child-care. To these ends, we will seek to open a re-examination of laws and mores governing marriage and divorce, for we believe that the current state of `half-equity" between the sexes discriminates against both men and women, and is the cause of much unnecessary hostility between the sexes."
4.1. The government solves family problems in a way that destroy families and goes against women, children and men’s interests
4.1.1. Ch
ildren interestsChildren have a fundamental human right to an opportunity and relationship with both their mother and father. Studies show that children in shared custody settings are better adjusted and have fewer social problems such as low academic achievement, crime, pregnancy, substance abuse, depression and suicide, shared parenting is in fact in the best interests of the child. Social policy measures should encourage this involvement.
4.1.2. Women burden.
Judges give child custody to women on the assumption to do it for the sake of the child, because they think women are the best to raise kids. This is wrong and sexist.
To them women
deserve child support because they can’t handle both raising the kid and work, their schedules will be full, her resume will be devalued, and they will that it will impact her job like maturity leave or switch to part time job. Women also need that money until they can get on their feet or find someone else to help her with the children.This is an evidence that giving full custody is a burden the women. If the father get 50% of childhood, her agenda will be lightened and shell be able to keep her full time job. The father’s schedule will be as much disturbed as the women’s, and both parents would be treated equally.
4.1.3. S
exism toward fathersA narrow role is given to fathers in society. During the divorce, custody of children is too routinely given to mothers (95% of cases) yet equal involvement of fathers and mothers in the upbringing of their children is essential, according to the principle that a child has both parents living,
Lower percentage of separated fathers as custodial parents is a result of choices made by fathers rather than bias of family court. To judges child custody and childcare goes to women because women are the best to raise kids, which is a sexist and wrong a priori. For the sake of the children, let's not reduce the man into a perpetual state of poverty he has no chance of escaping. Children need their fathers too.
4.2. Gay marriage
One of the arguments against same sex marriage and/or same sex couples adopting is that both parents are needed for healthy child rearing. Yet divorce completely contradicts that.
4.3. Mothers interfering with parenting time
Some mothers interfere with the father's parenting time and that such interference should be stopped.. Parenting time interference can result from the custodial parent's relocation beyond a practical distance from the noncustodial parent. There must be a rebuttable presumption prohibiting such relocations.
4.4. R
eformWe need a 50/50 shared custody, shared parenting. so that children would spend equal time with each parent unless there were reasons against it. Such laws require parents be directed to develop a mutually agreeable parenting plan. If they are unable to do so, judges order an equal time-share of physical custody between the parents, unless it is not practical or in the best interests of the children. the parents should live close enough to each other that the child does not need to forfeit friends or activities when visiting the other parent.
5. Child support
5.1. Calculation
Child support guidelines are based on maintaining the children's standard of living after separation, on the assumption that the children live with one parent and never with the other. Current guidelines are arbitrary, provide mothers with financial incentives to divorce, and leave fathers with little discretionary income to enjoy with the children during their parenting time.
5.2. Consequence: Child support used as a hidden alimony
Men wouldn't complain so much about child support if it was better regulated, and women didn't use it as a hidden alimony expensing it for their purpose instead of the child claim they need even more because the check can't cover their expenses.
Child support is mostly a fraud and isn't monitored close enough. In most cases men overpay their fair share of support.
5.3. Specific case of poor parents
it is often difficult for fathers in financial hardship or who take on a larger care giving role with their children to have their child support payments lowered. He also states that unemployment is the primary cause of child support arrears, and further states that these arrearages make the father subject to arrest and imprisonment without due process
5.4. Reform
5.4.1. Calculation
Guidelines should be based on a Cost Shares model, in which child support would be based on the average income of the parents and the estimated child costs incurred by both parents Law should value a broader definition of fathering for poor fathers by reducing the focus on collecting child support and encouraging the informal contributions (such as groceries, clothes, toys, time with the children) of these fathers, by counting these contributions as child support.
5.4.2. Conditions to end child support
Child support should be terminated under certain conditions, such as if the custodial parent limits access to the children by moving away against the wishes of the other parent, gives fraudulent testimony, or if paternity fraud is discovered, because two men should not have to pay child support for the same child.
5.4.3. Child custody impacts child support
If the father gets 50% of childhood, her agenda will be lightened and she will be able to keep her full time job. The father’s schedule will be as much disturbed as the women’s. Both parents should therefore equitably share the child support.
6. CHILD BIRTH
6.1. Reform
1. See the case of an unmarried man and women. If the woman fall pregnant without the men’s consent and the man wants the abortion and the women doesn't, he should in no way be obligated to support the child or the mother in any way what so ever. He may have got her pregnant, but he is obviously willing to make up for that by paying for an abortion. He should not be obligated to pay for the next 18 years of his life, because a woman didn't agree with him. Men should give financial compensation for the pregnancy and the pain of childbirth. If he changes his mind, he can ask for shared custody 50/50. If he changes his mind after obtaining custody he will have to pay child support.
2. See the case of an unmarried man and women .As she carries a human to be which DNA is half the father. If the women does want to abort, and the man doesn't, she mustn’t be allowed to abort but she should not be obligated to mother the baby, or pay for support of the child. The woman would pay no child support. If she changes her mind, she can ask for shard custody 50/50. If she change her mind after obtaining custody she will have to pay child support.
3. If both want to abort, so be it!
4. Now if they are married. No married man should be able to dip out of support of a child he has in marriage unless stated so in the marriage contract. No married woman should be able to abort a child her husband wants to keep unless that's a rule placed in the marriage contract.
5. If they are not married and both decide to have a child, and the father retracts, he will have to pay child support. But if he changes his mind again, he can ask for shared custody 50/50. If the mother changes her mind, she has to pay child support. If she changes her mind again, she can ask for shared custody 50/50. If both change their mind, the child goes to an orphanage, and if the child is adopted, they can’t ask for custody, but can get visits.
6. If the mother cannot determine the parentage, she must provide Fetal Cell/DNA Prenatal Paternity Test.
If the DNA test fails with the suspected father she has the duty to find the real one.
If the suspected father refuses the paternity test, he will have to pay child custody, even if the child is not his.
If the real father ignore the existence of the child before the 36th week, he can apply rule 1.
7. If there is a medical reason that endangers the mother to keep the pregnancy, then she has full authority to abort.
6.2. Obligation to a child against men’s will
We need to create an administrative procedure that would free men from the obligations to a child against their will (ex by a woman who falsely claims to be contraceptives, inseminate herself with a used condom) or simply an unwanted child (ex when the ineffectiveness of contraception), the development of a "pill for men, free DNA tests to detect possible fraud parenting, etc.
There are a myriad of birth control options available today. Male condom, Women condom, spermicide, contraceptive pill, next morning pill, pregnancy test, check of the menstruations, nausea, abortion, sexual education. An unwanted pregnancy harder to have and there are effective ways to detect pregnancy and abortion is legal and safe for the mother.
I read a story about a man who broke up with his girlfriend and had to pay child support for her kid even though he wasn't the father, the judge(woman) ruled the interests of the child came first. So then the girlfriend got back together with the father and the guy was stuck paying child support for this couple.
I read a story somewhere of a guy who married a woman who already had a kid, he knew this and was okay with it. Eventually, for the sake of the family, he decided to adopt the child as his own. Later, she divorced him and he was force to pay child support, even though she was living with and had restarted a relationship with the biological father of the child.
6.3. Some women bad behaviour
In the current system some women legally trap a man, and get paid by the biological father for raising his child with her other boyfriend. This is called paternity fraud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_fraud
6.4. He/she should have thought of that before having sex argument
If "should have thought about that before sex" is good enough for 1, it's good enough for 2.
If someone want to stay a virgin until marriage, it's a respectful choice. But law must stick to its time, customs evolve and sex today is used for many more purposes than making kids.
6.5. Women power on the foetus/body
The foetus is not the body of the mother, it’s in her body, that is different.
The foetus is neither an object, nor a human being actually but it’s a human to be. The argument "I can do with my body as I please, its my body!" is illogical. Some women want to consider the foetus as a parasite, to dehumanise it, and at the same time to consider it her body, so she can appropriate full power on it. The illogical thing is that a parasite is by definition a different body from the host, it can’t be both!
6.6. Carrying the children argument
Carrying the child and give birth, shouldn’t give 100% of responsibility for the decision to keep the child or not, men should be involved in the decision too. None can change nature, but men can give financial compensation for the pregnancy and the pain experience during childbirth.
Even if they are married and they both decide to have a child she can just get an abortion without his knowledge or consent at all!
6.7. Men are fathers
Men are fathers, not a sperm bank and a cash machine. They have to be involved in all the decisions concerning the foetus and the baby. Is the only right men have is to pay 18 to 23 years? Remember that even in her body, this is still his baby too.
7. RADICAL FEMINISM
I used to be a strong supporter of women's rights. But the woman's rights moment isn't about making the sexes equal under the law. It used to be. Back when women were fighting for the right to vote, a woman arrested for voting stood before a judge. The judge told the woman that he was letting her go because she was a woman and that he would have tossed her in jail if she was a man. The woman refused the judge's mercy and said if she broke the law, she deserved to be tossed in the slammer just like a man. But the woman's rights moment changed. It's about women getting one over men. They want all of the privileges and none of the responsible that comes with equal rights. Women shouldn't get alimony if they divorce. They should go to work just like a man.
7.1
. The role of women changedWomen are no longer, the property of men, non-voters, uneducated and whose only career options were to become school teachers or prostitutes, as the old men argued
Women held 49.83% of the nation's 132 million jobs in June and they're gaining the vast majority of jobs in the few sectors of the economy that are growing, according to the most recent numbers available from the Bureau of Labour Statistics.
The fact is that the legal system is biased against men. And radical feminists still complains about society being a patriarchal monocracy designed to rape women.
7.2. Alimony is against feminism
Lawyers and the rest of the legal industry are determined to degrade women by granting awards of alimony that make the statement that women are unable to care for themselves. These rulings are declaring that women are not the equal of men.
7.3. Radical feminists wants both
When the women's movement first started and NOW was in it infancy, they group attempted to have alimony laws abolished. Since the early 70's NOW has abandoned that position. But I find it interesting that they admitted early in their quest for equality that women would not be equal to men unless they were willing to assume the same risks as men.
Rather than embracing a role of independence or going back to being the protected sex, radical feminists have decided that they want both
They try to shame and emasculate their opponents rather than have to stand on actual reason or evidence. The very first thing it did when it came in was alert everyone it had a vagina so that it would get treated special. Radical feminists do not want equal rights. Their agenda is inequality.
Radical feminists should change their statement of purpose from that of "seeking true equality for all women exercising all the privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men" to a more realistic one that includes the comment from George Orwell's 1984 where it stated that: "some people are created more equal than others
They want all the advantages of being protected by the system and enjoying a double standard in relationships, while at the same time demanding to be totally independent from the men in their lives. It doesn't work that way- women shoud either get one or the other, not both.
7.4. Radical feminism is mysandric
7.4.1. Radical feminists argue that divorce is caused by men behaviour
Stigmatising men ad victimising women is the radical feminist strategy that led us to this situation. This is a sexist argument implying men are innate evil and women are innate good.
Women do not demand 80% of divorces not because men are cheating. The overwhelming majority are demanded with no faults from both parts.
7.4.2. Assumption that men suffer less than women in divorce
The belief that men suffer less than women in divorces cases is by definition sexist (see sexism definition)
Men suicide 4 times more than women, mostly after divorces cases. In proportion, statistics show that men suicide a lot more than women after a divorce
Sexism is the belief or attitude that one gender or sex is inferior to, less competent, or less valuable than the other. It is also called male and female chauvinism.
7.4.3. Radical feminists are emotionally biased
We can’t have a pertinent balanced and reasonable discussion with someone who is obviously emotionally bias. Radical feminists act a selfish and shortsighted way.
7.4.4.
National Organization of Women Supports Alimony Reform.....WE REJECT the current assumptions that a man must carry the sole burden of supporting himself, his wife, and family, and that a woman is automatically entitled to lifelong support by a man upon her marriage, or that marriage, home and family are primarily woman's world and responsibility -- hers, to dominate -- his to support. We believe that a true partnership between the sexes demands a different concept of marriage, an equitable sharing of the responsibilities of home and children and of the economic burdens of their support. We believe that proper recognition should be given to the economic and social value of homemaking and child-care. To these ends, we will seek to open a re-examination of laws and mores governing marriage and divorce, for we believe that the current state of `half-equity" between the sexes discriminates against both men and women, and is the cause of much unnecessary hostility between the sexes."
