Alimony isn't just paid to women and I can appreciate that there are situations on which paying it for a period of time is justified. Generally in the case of stay-at-home spouses, who have little to no work history.
You're literally calling people who don't agree with you psychos, stating that you don't think rape is a real thing, and advocating assault. What's truly amusing is you're no better than a those radical feminists you hate so much.
You're going all over this comment section and freaking out on anyone who doesn't think exactly like you do. It's not a shaming tactic, it's a legitimate question. And once again, I don't hate men. It's interesting that you're so desperate to misapply that label though.
You're certainly welcome to look it up, I already provided the source. As for your insistence upon spewing baseless assumptions and being unnecessarily caustic -- these seem like a personal issues you might want to work on.
If you lived together and had a joint account, the money would go towards the child -- same as it is going to the child now. You're not paying twice. You're just paying. The state determines how much money is necessary for the child to have basic necessities, extras, and a safety reserve -- and requires you to pay a portion of that, dependant upon income. Estimated monthly cost of a child, according to USDA is around $1100. Depending on the state you're in, that amount could be higher or lower. …
The money isn't for the mother, it's for the child. Food, clothing, toys, games, activities, transportation, etc. The main issue with child support that needs to be remedied is controlling how the money is spent. Like how EBT cards can only be used towards grocery items. But, the fact that you have to contribute financially to the child is definitely not stupid.
This seems like a reach. My history teachers never taught it that way. We were taught that men and women were both falsely persecuted during the days of Salem and that most of the accusers were women.
This happened to a friend of mine in school. He wound up actually being convicted and serving time. It ruined him. He's been in and out of trouble ever since and is a social pariah. Years later, the girl admitted - at a party - that she lied. A group of us took her downstairs and beat the hell out of her since she refused to publicly come forward. I don't really feel great about assaulting her when I look back; but, I'm not really sure what else could have been done to drive it home, just what a…
Nothing. I just don't care for the notion of sacrificing the life of an innocent man in order to satisfy the cult of childhood. You sound like Helen Lovejoy from The Simpsons.
You do realize that what you're doing is the equivalent of labeling all POC as thieves because some of them steal, right? Every group has bad apples -- just look at MGTOW. Does that mean I should decry the men's right movement altogether and label anyone associated with the movement an incel? No, it doesn't. You need to asses each individual as they come along.
Actually, I think quotas, affirmative action, and most special courses are inappropriate and pointless. Do feel free to not make self-serving assumptions.
Not even close. Replying to all of my comments is a bit obsessive, don't you think? I'm discussing an accurate legal definition of rape. It involves intent. Mens Rea is a required element of a criminal act. Therefore there is no such thing as accidental rape. If you did not intend to rape, then it is not rape.
Replying to all of my comments is a bit obsessive, don't you think? I'm discussing an accurate legal definition of rape. It involves intent. Mens Rea is a required element of a criminal act. Therefore there is no such thing as accidental rape. If you did not intend to rape, then it is not rape.
I'm discussing an accurate legal definition of rape. It involves intent. Mens Rea is a required element of a criminal act. Therefore there is no such thing as accidental rape. If you did not intend to rape, then it is not rape.
The medical examination indicated prior sexual abuse. There are physical signs that experts can determine. Couple that with her statement, it is enough to legally go off of in court. I'll admit, it's far from ideal; but, that is what makes rape cases so complicated. You are rarely going to have witnesses and DNA isn't always present.
It was a jury trial. The jury convicted him. You're acting as if the judge and prosecution knew he was innocent and proceeded anyways. That's obviously not what happened. They acted in good faith, based on medical examinations and the daughter's statements. Prosecuting them for the lies of the child would be ludicrous.
Actually, you've spent several hours clinging to that delusion, despite me explaining to you - quite a few times - that it's not true. What you're experiencing is called cognitive dissonance.
"Begging the question" is a logical fallacy. You're asking an invalid question over and over again because you've backed yourself into a corner after repeatedly tossing out multiple false accusations and false assumptions. This is your failed attempt to try and win an argument you lost quite some time ago.
More logical fallacies and ridiculous assumptions 🙄 This is why emotionally driven thought processes tend to be utter drivel. You might want to work on that.
More logical fallacies 🙄 Good feminists are not perfectly happy about innocent men going to jail for rapes they never committed. All that serves to do is hurt men and make it more difficult for actual victims to be believed. Do feel free to not assume something so utterly ridiculous.
You're engaging in logical fallacies. Sure, it's bad that this man was falsely accused and imprisoned by his daughter. However, this has nothing to do with your ignorant banter.
Everything you said. Passion is good when you can keep it in check and not allow it to cause you to become unreasonable and blind to your own biases. Once it gets to that point, it's nothing but folly.
Asking a woman how many sexual partners she's had in the past is irrelevant to being raped. It's akin to introducing prior bad acts -- they're not generally admissable because they're too prejudicial and cause the jury to judge subjective nonsense, as opposed to the actual facts surrounding the case. Also, what do you mean by intentional rape or not? Are you implying there's such a thing as accidental rape?
Once again, a very nuanced issue. Good feminists are not looking to make it easy to frame men. In fact, feminism is supposed to be about men's rights, as well. The reason why the "believe all women" thing got pushed so hard is because of all the issues surrounding rape accusations for the victim. It was very common for women to not be believed, have every aspect of their lives called into question, and discredited over stupid things like how she was dressed, promiscuity, the attacker being a spo…
I guess that is something to consider. Would we rather she just kept her trap shut and let her father continue to rot in prison because she didn't want to go to jail? Don't get me wrong, she deserves punishment. But, I think the falsely convicted deserve the chance at having their names cleared, as well. It's a hard choice to make.
The source you're looking at is specifically for college educated women. Super sorry about your utter mediocrity and how that renders you unappealing to women. Best of luck on coping with your bitterness.
70%, not 90%. Also, there are a multitude of reasons as to why divorce is initiated: infidelity, abuse, incompatibility, death of a child, illness, etc. Your "theory" is bunk.
Wow, talk about comparing apples to oranges. Feel free to tell me your solution. Edit: what a shock -- all you did was downvote and provide no potential solutions 🙄
I feel like men should definitely be allowed a say. However, women still get to make the final decision either way. Women are the ones who have to carry it to term and breastfeed it,for starters. On top of that, women are the ones who wind up doing the majority of the childcare/child rearing. Traditionally speaking. Women, also, have to take more time off work due to children -- be it for prenatal visits, giving birth, taking children to doctors appointments, etc. So,in the end, having a child h…
One can imagine that hookers have probably been mistreated by their johns on more than one occasion. Kind of explains the hate. Prostitution should be legal and regulated. Not all women can get laid for free -- thus, the reason there are male prostitutes.
Personally, I see no point in marriage. However, I see nothing wrong with gays and lesbians getting married like everyone else. No one owns children. However, I see nothing wrong with adopting children.
Pushing the right direction is what's important. It seems like that push is already happening and folks on here are acting like it's not and that women just get a pass on everything in life.
Everyone pushes a narrative. Including the members of this sub. Doesn't matter how hard you push, the change will almost always be gradual. Just look how long it took for women to get the right to vote.
You've called me a feminist multiple times, now. I'm gonna go ahead and block you now. You're a ridiculous human being and I'm kinda over it. Best of luck with your numerous issues.
Oh, dear -- yet another evil feminist diatribe. No one is trying to cover up the existence of female sex offenders. Society itself was already predisposed to disbelief on that matter. They didn't require a group to make them think that way. If anything, the recognition of female predators and their punishment has been on the rise over the last decade or so.
The defensive one appears to be you. You're actually getting upset over downvotes. I did peruse your links. The vast majority of them are not valid sources. And, once again, not a feminist. You really need to get a grip, dear.
Oh, dear -- and now you're getting upset over not getting a thumbs up for your long-winded rants, where you post blogs and other Reddit subs and call them proof of your assertions.
Most predators -- male or female -- are treated far too leniently. And there's plenty of both genders still hiding in the shadows. I find it concerning that people want to dither about their gender as opposed to the overall issue of their existence.
I'm not a feminist, dear. You've really got to stop going on these presumptuous rants. The numbers indicate men more than women. It's not a feminist spin. It's just reality. The stats I got are from the DOJ, not some random feminist blog. What's odd is your insistence upon focusing on rape only. I'm discussing crime, in general.
Males commit more crime overall and more violent crime than females. Doesn't mean all men are bad. It's just a fact. Also, I do recognize that men are also the majority of the victims of most violent crimes -- excluding rape. The stats don't support you in your claims of domestic violence though. https://ncadv.org/STATISTICS#:~:text=1%20in%203%20women%20and,be%20considered%20%22domestic%20violence.%22&text=1%20in%207%20women%20and,injured%20by%20an%20intimate%20partner. https://books.google.com/…
It's adorable that you think I'm actually going to read that. Btw, I'm already aware that the concept of rape has been misapplied to things that aren't rape. This doesn't actually negate anything I said.
I'm in the US. However, keep in mind the majority of violent crimes are perpetrated by men and, a lot of times, women actually do kill out of self defense. That may have something to do with how those laws were structured. My intent with what I posted is to provide an array of female offenders with varied term lengths. If you look at it for men, you'll note the term lengths vary as well.
Mens rea is part of the burden of proof. It involves intent and mental capacity to commit a crime. It's, most definitely, not a courtesy -- it's a necessary element of most crimes.
Actually, it does. It's a mitigating factor when choosing the death penalty. Executing people with those issues is a violation of the 8th Amendment. Not to mention, it factors into mens rea.
