From /r/bad_cop_no_donut/, Civilian jailer chokes inmate to death on video and still not charged. Victim was in jail for missing child support payments. The true cost of child support?

[–]GeeseLivesMatter 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DankeyDong 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]njskypilot 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (65 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TigerMonarchy 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sasha_ 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TigerMonarchy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]luciansolaris 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 9 years ago (57 children) | Copy Link

[–]njskypilot 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -9 points-8 points-7 points 9 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

[–]HotDealsInTexas 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 9 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[–]HotDealsInTexas 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

...and you just replied in a way that indicates an assumption of blame, that the man has intentionally knocked a girl up and abandoned her.

But the realities is that, while the US has abolished debtor's prisons in every other area, you can be imprisoned for failure to pay child support because you lost your job and were UNABLE to pay the amount demanded by the government. There are numerous stories here and in similar communities of men who have been essentially bankrupted by Child Support, where they have to make the choice between food and shelter or paying the full amount.

And remember: not only can a man be held liable for child support when he did not want the child in the first place but the mother decided to have it without his knowledge or consent, but he need not even consent to the sex act that conceived the child. There are multiple cases of women being awarded child support from men who were underage when the child was conceived. IIRC one of them was actually convicted of statutory rape.

Jailing a man for being unable to pay child support without starving is no different from jailing a woman for aborting a pregnancy which would have endangered her life if carried to term.

But seriously, why are you even on this sub? You're shown a video of a man literally being murdered by police when his crime was, in essence, failing in his male gender role of being a breadwinner, and all you can think of is "What about the womenz?"

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

And remember: not only can a man be held liable for child support when he did not want the child in the first place

Contraceptives. If he didn't want kids, he should have made sure she couldn't get pregnant by him. Wrap the sausage.

but the mother decided to have it without his knowledge or consent, but he need not even consent to the sex act that conceived the child. There are multiple cases of women being awarded child support from men who were underage when the child was conceived. IIRC one of them was actually convicted of statutory rape.

So the entire system should be dismantled, screwing over literally hundreds of thousands of single mothers who were ditched by irresponsible men (and yes, ditched) because of a few criminals exploiting the system? I disagree wholeheartedly. If anything, there should be added legislation to protect male rape victims from being sued for child support, but that's it.

Jailing a man for being unable to pay child support without starving is no different from jailing a woman for aborting a pregnancy which would have endangered her life if carried to term.

You do realize that you can go to a judge and tell them that you've lost your job and cannot afford child support. Not only that, but it takes months and months before they even come after you about the money, and even then, they don't arrest you right away. You get notices first.

But seriously, why are you even on this sub? You're shown a video of a man literally being murdered by police when his crime was, in essence, failing in his male gender role of being a breadwinner, and all you can think of is "What about the womenz?"

Wow. My head is spinning at how much bullshit you've just dropped. Nowhere have I said "What about the women?". If anything, I'm saying "Why is this a Men's Rights issue and not a Criminal issue?" In answering the questions (since I wanna be polite a bit, I'm going to still call them questions), my explanations have organically led to the matters of the women and children in the situations.

[–]HotDealsInTexas 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Contraceptives. If he didn't want kids, he should have made sure she couldn't get pregnant by him. Wrap the sausage.

The same argument can be made regarding women who get abortions or abandon children via safe haven laws.

So the entire system should be dismantled, screwing over literally hundreds of thousands of single mothers who were ditched by irresponsible men (and yes, ditched) because of a few criminals exploiting the system? I disagree wholeheartedly. If anything, there should be added legislation to protect male rape victims from being sued for child support, but that's it.

Should child support be abolished? In an ideal world, no: as you said, there are situations where it is justified. However, given the inhumane conditions in the US prison system, and the lack of prisoner rehabilitation, employers discriminating based on criminal record, etc, imprisoning someone (a) puts them at substantial risk of being raped or murdered, and (b) reduces their long-term earning potential, meaning it is much less likely that they will be able to afford child support payments in the future... so they go back to jail. This is fundamentally bad for society... but the for-profit prisons who lobby lawmakers are happy, so the laws stay on the books.

For the child support system to be morally justifiable, the following must happen:

1: men must either be given the option of Legal Paternal surrender, allowing them to opt out of all rights and responsibilities of parenthood just like women can, OR women who give up their child for adoption should be held liable for child support.

No, LPS is not unfair to women. If she wants the child and the man doesn't, she has the option of either abortion, or maternal surrender. If she DOES want the child, it is reasonable for her to be expected to pay for it herself just like if she used a sperm bank, instead of forcing a man to pay for her unilateral decision to keep it.

2: The bias against men in family courts, resulting in the burden of child support falling overwhelmingly on men, must be ended.

3: Some system must be put in place similar to EBT cards or food stamps to ensure that child support is actually used to support children, and not just as a sneaky way of awarding alimony.

Wow. My head is spinning at how much bullshit you've just dropped. Nowhere have I said "What about the women?". If anything, I'm saying "Why is this a Men's Rights issue and not a Criminal issue?"

Well, there's actually two things. First, a man died in prison due to a law that discriminates against men. This is a men's rights issue just like it would be a black civil rights issue if a black men was beaten to death in a jail cell for the crime of refusing to leave a whites-only restaurant in the Jim Crow south.

Second, our society's dehumanization of criminals is inherently a men's rights issue because the justice system is so heavily biased against men; 90% of the prison population and almost 95% of people shot by police are male, and men get longer prison sentences for the same crimes. Those two facts make this relevant.

In answering the questions (since I wanna be polite a bit, I'm going to still call them questions), my explanations have organically led to the matters of the women and children in the situations.

A summary of this thread.

You: "How is this a men's rights issue?"

Me: "Because men being put in jail for failure to pay child support in the first place is a men's rights issue."

You: "But think about how not doing this would affect women!"

Can you not see how that sounds a little bit insensitive?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

1: men must either be given the option of Legal Paternal surrender, allowing them to opt out of all rights and responsibilities of parenthood just like women can, OR women who give up their child for adoption should be held liable for child support.

Unfeasible. If the father can just opt out, then the child has to rely on its mother's ability to both raise the child 24/7 and somehow earn money. There is a reason people used to value the two-parent system. That unduly disadvantages the child. Why punish the innocent to be fair to the irresponsible?

Additionally, a man can opt out by denying the child is his and refusing to surrender a genetic sample. Alternatively, he can agree with the mother not to sign the child's birth certificate, thereby abdicating any right to treat the child as his. Basically, he and the mother can "agree" that the child isn't his, even if it's his genetic material.

2: The bias against men in family courts, resulting in the burden of child support falling overwhelmingly on men, must be ended.

How? That's a much, much bigger goal that you're making it sound like.

3: Some system must be put in place similar to EBT cards or food stamps to ensure that child support is actually used to support children, and not just as a sneaky way of awarding alimony.

Okay, this steps outside the bounds of men's rights. When a man pays child support, it is the mother's responsibility to ensure the child support actually supports the child. The absent father has the right to call child services and report the mother if he suspects she is using the money on herself instead, and they are required to investigate.

First, a man died in prison due to a law that discriminates against men.

Umm... he died due to another man beating the shit out of him. Wait, so are you saying that if this guy was in jail for murder or arson, that this would be okay? I'm very confused.

This is a men's rights issue just like it would be a black civil rights issue if a black men was beaten to death in a jail cell for the crime of refusing to leave a whites-only restaurant in the Jim Crow south.

Maybe if the jailer was white, I could see that being a feasible argument.

Second, our society's dehumanization of criminals is inherently a men's rights issue because the justice system is so heavily biased against men

Um... correlation without causation, sorry. You'll need to establish a causal link between men going to jail and criminals being dehumanized as a men's rights issue.

90% of the prison population and almost 95% of people shot by police are male, and men get longer prison sentences for the same crimes. Those two facts make this relevant.

Nope, they don't. Repeat offenders are predominantly male, and repeat offenses result in longer prison time. Men make up 90% of the prison population, but that doesn't point to a dehumanization of criminals. I need to see a causal link before I accept a correlation as factually related.

A summary of this thread.

You: "How is this a men's rights issue?"

Me: "Because men being put in jail for failure to pay child support in the first place is a men's rights issue."

You: "But think about how not doing this would affect women!"

Can you not see how that sounds a little bit insensitive?

Except that's not what I've been saying. I'm more concerned about the kids than an idiot that let another idiot knock her up. The children don't deserve to be punished for the stupid shit their parents did.

[–]Sasha_ 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sasha_ 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

That's delightfully unrepresentative. If a man doesn't want to parent the kids, society still demands that, for the welfare of the children, that he pay for their upbringing. That's called responsibility. You don't get to fuck over a child's life just because you don't want in any more. The mother still has to raise the kids while daddy goes and gets himself a new girlfriend.

If you leave a woman as a single mother raising children on her own, you had better pay up, because you don't have the right to tell the rest of the taxpaying public to pay for your idiot mistake instead. And if you choose to ignore that, yeah. You should go to jail. You can't just fuck over a person and the kids you had with them!

Does it make it right that this guy died? No. But he was in that jail for reasons that make sense to me.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You do realize that paying isn't always an option, right. In case you haven't noticed, our economy is a bit in the shitter right now. Jobs are going away, being outsourced or replaced by automation and never to return.

Notice that my image explicitly says "can't financially support". Those who choose not to pay, yes that is a different situation. In the case of someone who cannot pay, jailing them becomes debtors' prison. We don't jail people who don't pay for their cars, houses, credit card, electric bill, etc.

Also, they will scale your payments up proportional to your income, so you can't just earn more money to "outrun the payments" (e.g. make the payments only take up a small part of your budget because you make a lot of money). What's worse is that if your income decreases, you might still be expected to keep up with the high payments based on that high income. Yes, a judge has the ability to reduce it, but you are still at the whim of a judge who might decide to fuck you over.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]garglemesh42 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]garglemesh42 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Legal parental surrender, where the responsibility lies with the mother to inform the father during the period where she can still abort that he has to choose whether or not he wants to opt out of supporting the child, at which point she can choose whether or not she wants to carry the child to term, or give it up for adoption shortly after it has been born.

And in places where abortion is not legal? What then? You consider leaving the child in the foster system to be a good option? The foster care system in America is fucking atrocious, or have you not looked into that at all? Hear no evil, see no evil?

Clearly, asking women to make an informed decision about whether or not they want to have a child, knowing that they can't force the father to give her money, is misogyny of the highest order.

Stop talking about the fucking woman. I care about the child, and only the child.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

Hi! Here at /r/mensrights, we welcome discussion with female supremacists. Over at /r / feminism, they ban anyone who dares question their gyno-centric world view.

I understand it's difficult to get out of your dogmatic world-view that men are shit losers, and women are pure and perfect beings. But we'll try to explain why (and how) we believe that people are, well... people. And should be treated as such, no matter the gender.

The simple answer to your questions is that he was trying to exercise his right to not get killed. I'm sure you'll recognize that this is an astonishingly male centric point of view. I mean... from a female supremacist point of view, #killallmen is normal. So why in all living hell would any man, anywhere expect to not get killed... simply because he failed to meet up to a woman's expectations?

Well, we over here at /r/mensrights believe in weird things like "equality". And "innocent until proven guilty", and that "simple monetary debt should not get you killed".

Yeah, we're that weird.

I can also hold up a mirror to show your own utter hatred of, and contempt for, men. I posted a link about a man who died, and your sick response was pretty much so fucking what.

I don't think you'd have the same response to an article about a woman getting killed by the police over a traffic ticket. Or a gay man being bashed by the police. Or a black man being killed by the police just because he's black.

Why do I think so? Because at some level, I believe you're not completely lost as human being. You're not entirely filled with hatred and loathing for humanity.

Just for men.

I'm going to ask that you show "empathy". I know it's hard, but I'm sure you have empathy for women, children, minorities, gays, dogs, chickens, and kittens. I'm going to ask you to extend that empathy to one more group of people, called "men".

Yes, I dared to call men "people". This is a shock for you, but you'll get used to it in time. It's no worse of a shock than a racist finally admitting that "blacks are people, too." Or a homophone admitting that "gays are people, too".

See, we here at /r/mensrights have done something called "read'. And "think". And "pay attention". As a (mostly) bunch of straight white men, we're not racist ("holy shit!" you say!), we're not homophobic ("fuck off", says Liv47), and we don't hate women ("now you're fucking SHITTING me" says Liv47)

We've read history. We've learned from history. We've seen racism towards Jews, blacks, hispanics, etc. We've seen intolerance towards against women, gays, etc. And we reject all of it.

All of it.

Whether that bigotry is directed towards all Jews, blacks, gays, women, or (drum roll), men, it's all wrong. It's all evil.

We oppose it all.

Are you going to support people, or are you going to stick with the ranks of female supremacists? Does your hatred of men really go that deep that you have no empathy for a human being who died?

You can choose "yes", and spend the rest of your life filled with loathing and disgust. Or, you can choose "no", and spend the rest of your life caring about all people, no matter their race, gender, religion, etc.

It's up to you. Choose hatred or love. You can't choose both.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Hi! Here at /r/mensrights, we welcome discussion with female supremacists.

Oh, I can already tell this is going to go super-well. Though, "female supremacist" is a new one. Usually people just accuse me of being a feminist (which I guess is the same thing?).

I understand it's difficult to get out of your dogmatic world-view that men are shit losers, and women are pure and perfect beings. But we'll try to explain why (and how) we believe that people are, well... people. And should be treated as such, no matter the gender.

I can tell that I've struck a nerve. I guess having my own thoughts on the issue must not sit well with you. I can't say that I've ever suggested to anyone ever that I think men are "shit losers", or that women are pure and perfect. But you know who are shit losers? People who do shit-losery things like not take care of their kids.

The simple answer to your questions is that he was trying to exercise his right to not get killed. I'm sure you'll recognize that this is an astonishingly male centric point of view. I mean... from a female supremacist point of view, #killallmen is normal. So why in all living hell would any man, anywhere expect to not get killed... simply because he failed to meet up to a woman's expectations?

So a male guard killing a male inmate is an example of an unbalanced system working in favour of women against him?

And are you going to be tossing "you're a feminist shitlord" grenades the whole time, or can you restrain yourself and stick to the topic?

Well, we over here at /r/mensrights believe in weird things like "equality". And "innocent until proven guilty", and that "simple monetary debt should not get you killed".

I guess that answers my question.

Okay, so debt shouldn't get you killed. That sounds reasonable. But the jailer didn't kill him because he was in debt. And he wasn't in jail because he was in debt. He went to jail because not paying child support is child neglect. Neglecting your child - the child you are legally bound to support - is a crime.

I can also hold up a mirror to show your own utter hatred of, and contempt for, men. I posted a link about a man who died, and your sick response was pretty much so fucking what.

Okayyyy, no. My response was "how was this a men's rights issue?" How was this man being killed by a male guard a demonstration of feminism or women withholding this man's rights?

I don't think you'd have the same response to an article about a woman getting killed by the police over a traffic ticket. Or a gay man being bashed by the police. Or a black man being killed by the police just because he's black.

But again, this inmate wasn't killed for being a man.

Why do I think so? Because at some level, I believe you're not completely lost as human being. You're not entirely filled with hatred and loathing for humanity.

Just for men.

I don't experience hatred, because it is a useless behaviour. I'm experiencing disappointment right now, though. Can't help it; I wasn't prepared for this level of unwarranted vitriol.

I'm going to ask that you show "empathy". I know it's hard, but I'm sure you have empathy for women, children, minorities, gays, minorities, dogs, chickens, and kittens. I'm going to ask you to extend that empathy to one more group of people, called "men".

Yes, I dared to call men "people". This is a shock for you, but you'll get used to it in time. It's no worse of a shock than a racist finally admitting that "blacks are people, too." Or a homophone admitting that "gays are people, too".

Question; what is between passive-aggressive and aggressive? Because whatever it is, you're being it. You've actually drifted away from addressing the topic and are attacking me personally, ad hominem. Not only that, but you're so far off the mark about what my views are, that I actually want to risk shameless self-promotion by linking you to something I wrote here on this subreddit. Please feel free to read it, as you may realize that you've been pants-down shitting on the wrong person for the wrong reasons.

See, we here at /r/mensrights have done something called "read'. And "think". And "pay attention". As a (mostly) bunch of straight white men, we're not racist ("holy shit!" you say!), we're not homophobic ("fuck off", says Liv47), and we don't hate women ("now you're fucking SHITTING me" says Liv47)

I refer you to the piece I wrote, and then implore you to ask yourself, "Was I really paying attention?" Because this entire reply has been a holy-fuck moment for me to sit down with my morning coffee to.

Are you going to support people, or are you going to stick with the ranks of female supremacists? Does your hatred of men really go that deep that you have no empathy for a human being who died?

After this bitter angry rant accusing me of being a heartless female supremacist, not to mention talking to me like I'm eight years old - you want to play up the empathy card? This is like getting lectured about drugs by Keith Richards.

...am I too young to make that reference?

You can choose "yes", and spend the rest of your life filled with loathing and disgust. Or, you can choose "no", and spend the rest of your life caring about all people, no matter their race, gender, religion, etc.

It's up to you. Choose hatred or love. You can't choose both.

Well, this has been an exercise. But, in case you haven't read what I linked to you, I am a proud anti-feminist. My world view is heavily critical of people and I make it a point to question what I see before making my judgments. In this case, I questioned whether the murder of a man in prison by another man constitutes a men's rights issue.

And boy-howdy, did you go places with that.

For the record, I have a keen fondness for people not being murdered. Unless it's an abortion, because I'm pro-choice. I am against capital punishment, and I am in favour of gun control. I have no love for feminists, and I'm certain by now that they have no love for me. In fact, I've been banned from just about every feministy-type subreddit I have stumbled across since opening an account on this website. Granted, it wasn't hard. Feminists panic whenever independent thought happens near them.

But for all your insistence that you read and pay attention, it was a real struggle not to just toss up a memey image of Captain Picard choking back a laugh. You didn't read my posts here at all. You took one remark out of context and shit your teacups about it.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

So.. you're either a feminist, a troll or crazy. It's all the same to me.

Okay, so debt shouldn't get you killed. That sounds reasonable. But the jailer didn't kill him because he was in debt. And he wasn't in jail because he was in debt. He went to jail because not paying child support is child neglect.

In every one of the "go to jail for non-payment" cases, the court order says "for non payment of child support" or similar legal wording. Nothing every says "child neglect".

So you're a liar.

But again, this inmate wasn't killed for being a man.

Please educate me as to where women go to jail for non-payment of child support. It's so rare as to be negligible.

So yes, he was in jail for being a man. And then got killed because he was in jail. And no, not everyone in jail gets killed.

So you're again a liar.

Not only that, but you're so far off the mark about what my views are, that I actually want to risk shameless self-promotion by linking you to something I wrote here on this subreddit.

Yeah, I read that. So?

I'm responding to your comments in this thread, which are pretty much shitting on men. And ignoring all responsibility for women.

Well, this has been an exercise. But, in case you haven't read what I linked to you, I am a proud anti-feminist.

Who is so "pro men" that pretty much all of your opinions in this thread have been downvoted and argued with... for being anti-male.

I guess I made a mistake. You're not a feminist. You just hate everyone.

In this case, I questioned whether the murder of a man in prison by another man constitutes a men's rights issue.

And then continued to argue the point with ludicrous anti-male arguments.

So no, I didn't take "one remark" out of context. I looked at the entirety of what you posted, and concluded you're not skeptical. You're just a troll who likes to shit on everyone.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

So.. you're either a feminist, a troll or crazy. It's all the same to me.

You're a very up sort of person, I can tell.

In every one of the "go to jail for non-payment" cases, the court order says "for non payment of child support" or similar legal wording. Nothing every says "child neglect".

So you're a liar.

Uh huh. And the reason that non-payment of child support is illegal is...? Come on, you can do it.

It's child neglect, that's right! Neglect is a form of endangerment, and child endangerment is what?

A crime! Very good!

Please educate me as to where women go to jail for non-payment of child support. It's so rare as to be negligible.

I dunno. I've never heard of a woman not paying her child support. If I see an example, I'll letcha know.

So yes, he was in jail for being a man. And then got killed because he was in jail. And no, not everyone in jail gets killed.

So you're again a liar.

Correlation without causation. He didn't pay his child support, so he was slapped with jail time. He was in jail, and in that jail, he was killed. He wasn't killed because he was in jail. He was just killed in jail. You haven't established causation between him being in jail and the jailer killing him. You've only established that both of those things happened. It's like telling someone that because a racist fixed their car, they are now racist for driving it. You're linking two ideas related only by coincidence.

Yeah, I read that. So?

I'm responding to your comments in this thread, which are pretty much shitting on men. And ignoring all responsibility for women.

What did women do in this instance? You're talking about a law that was established before Feminism was ever a movement, before women had a voice in legislature, written by men to ensure that other men fufilled their societal obligations. If you disagree with that, fine. But what responsibility did women play in this man's death? It was a male guard that killed him.

Who is so "pro men" that pretty much all of your opinions in this thread have been downvoted and argued with... for being anti-male.

I guess I made a mistake. You're not a feminist. You just hate everyone.

Ad hominem attack. Now you're not even trying.

So no, I didn't take "one remark" out of context. I looked at the entirety of what you posted, and concluded you're not skeptical. You're just a troll who likes to shit on everyone.

So I am shitting on everyone because I questioned whether this was a men's rights issue or not. I've gone to great lengths to explain to you what my position here is and you have elected to flat-out ignore it and paint your own narrative as if I wasn't saying a thing.

I've said it too many times for this to be amusing any more. I believe that this is not a men's rights issue. The victim was murdered by a male guard. The reason for him being in prison had nothing to do with his death, because being in jail should never get you killed, no matter what you did. The person at fault here is the jailer who put a man having a manic episode into a strangle hold until he died. A jailer who is male and was very likely not motivated to kill by the fact that the person he killed was male. Surprise, surprise - every inmate in that jail was a man because prisons are segregated by gender. Any time an inmate dies in that prison, it's a man. That's not sexism. That's just math.

But I guess I shouldn't expect you to even bother reading what I say. You'll just keep repeating that I'm a feminist shitlord that hates everyone, in spite of everything I say.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

And the reason that non-payment of child support is illegal is...?

Feminist agendas? Feminist groups who've pushed for harsher punishments for non-payment of support? Who've pushed for lowering the amount where non-payment can be called a felony? Who fight against fathers getting equal access for kids? Who fight against mothers getting held responsible for their child neglect? Who fight for men to pay for kids who aren't theirs?

In all of those situations, there's a common agenda: men have responsibility and no authority. Women have authority and no responsibility.

So far, you're pretty much matching that agenda. Which is why I called you a feminist and a female supremacist.

It's child neglect, that's right!

That's wrong.

See Darren White. http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/barbara-kay-one-fathers-fight-for-gender-neutral-justice

Ordered to pay more than he earns in combined spousal and child support. While his second wife's salary was the same as his.

Please convince me that children who are adequately fed and clothed deserve to have their father go to jail for non-payment of support which is impossible for him to pay.

Please convince me that when a mother gets welfare, child benefits, etc., and the father support is paid to the state... that non-payment of support is child neglect.

Please convince me that a blanket statement like yours is in any way just, humane, or moral.

You can't. Because it's not. You're holding men responsible for everything, no matter what.

You're talking about a law that was established before Feminism was ever a movement, before women had a voice in legislature, written by men to ensure that other men fufilled their societal obligations.

Before feminism was a movement, men had the default custody of their children. And didn't pay support. And the women who left marriages didn't have to pay support, either. It was only with the advent of feminism that custody got swapped, and men had to pay (where women didn't before).

So... you're a liar.

You claim to be an anti-feminist, but your statements here show you hold mostly the same positions as feminists.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Feminist agendas? Feminist groups who've pushed for harsher punishments for non-payment of support? Who've pushed for lowering the amount where non-payment can be called a felony? Who fight against fathers getting equal access for kids? Who fight against mothers getting held responsible for their child neglect? Who fight for men to pay for kids who aren't theirs?

In all of those situations, there's a common agenda: men have responsibility and no authority. Women have authority and no responsibility.

You'll have to cite your sources for this one.

Please convince me that children who are adequately fed and clothed deserve to have their father go to jail for non-payment of support which is impossible for him to pay.

Okay, so you have shown one example of someone whose circumstances are extraordinarily out of his favour. You're hoping to use that to say that every man should be given a free pass not to pay for the kids he makes?

Please convince me that a blanket statement like yours is in any way just, humane, or moral.

You can't. Because it's not. You're holding men responsible for everything, no matter what.

I'm holding people responsible for their actions. That's why child support is divided between the parents. A father doesn't 100% of the child's expenses. And speaking of blanket statements, you're making a few of them yourself, aren't you? After all, you're taking the fact that I disagree with you on child support law and using that to assert that I'm wholly and completely a feminist with "the same positions" (plural, positions) as feminists. Good game.

Before feminism was a movement, men had the default custody of their children. And didn't pay support. And the women who left marriages didn't have to pay support, either. It was only with the advent of feminism that custody got swapped, and men had to pay (where women didn't before).

So... you're a liar.

The Tender Years Doctrine was adopted in the mid-to-late 19th century, before the advent of Women's Suffrage (which would lead to the Feminist Movement in later years), which was a presumption of common law that young children should remain in the care of their mother, should the marriage between their mother and father end before their deaths. Since its inception, the doctrine has slowly been challenged and phased out, in favour of the Best Interests Doctrine, which asserts that in all circumstances, the best interests of the child is the highest priority. So, despite the rise of feminism, the law of the United States actually favours the welfare of the child and diminished the power of women to assume they will be the default caregiver.

So... actually, you're a liar.

You claim to be an anti-feminist, but your statements here show you hold mostly the same positions as feminists.

Y'know, if you had bothered to look outside this thread at other posts I've made, you'd see you're full of shit. But again, I don't really expect that much out of you, considering how absolutely awful you're behaving. Like, I thought I had met some bad apples here but you're like a bag of bad apples sitting in an abandoned grocery store in the middle of a radioactive exclusion zone.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

You'll have to cite your sources for this one.

Well... if you've followed this subreddit for any length of time, you would have seen many, many, sources.

You're hoping to use that to say that every man should be given a free pass not to pay for the kids he makes?

Stop your projection. I'm not making blanket statements that all men who don't (or can't) pay support are evil. I'm saying there are sometimes extenuating circumstances.

A father doesn't 100% of the child's expenses.

So non-payment of support (under your theory) can only be partial neglect? And not blanket "child neglect" like you've been saying.

I'll note you've ignored the rest of my points about why support is in many cases not paid to the child. Which not only guts your position, but shows that you know it guts your position.

You don't have a defence, so your argument is "la la la, I can't hear you".

Since its inception, the doctrine has slowly been challenged and phased out, in favour of the Best Interests Doctrine, which asserts that in all circumstances, the best interests of the child is the highest priority.

<laughs> Which in practice means that the mother gets custody 90% of the time.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Well... if you've followed this subreddit for any length of time, you would have seen many, many, sources.

Cop out. If you don't have any sources, just say so.

Stop your projection. I'm not making blanket statements that all men who don't (or can't) pay support are evil. I'm saying there are sometimes extenuating circumstances.

No one is arguing that there aren't extenuating circumstances and no one has said that all men who don't pay child support are evil. That's your projection. I normally don't have to point out that not all men are the same because on a normal day, I don't get called a man-hating feminist. Like, this is actually something of a surprise.

So non-payment of support (under your theory) can only be partial neglect? And not blanket "child neglect" like you've been saying.

Faulty statement. If he pays 0% of his share, he is fully neglectful, even if the child is only partly neglected because of his total neglect. In non-extenuating circumstances. I guess I have to add that caveat every time I mention anything now, since you're a sobbing little bitch that doesn't understand nuance.

I'll note you've ignored the rest of my points about why support is in many cases not paid to the child. Which not only guts your position, but shows that you know it guts your position.

Yyyyeah, y'know I double-checked your posts here in response to me, just to be sure, and you don't make any points about why support isn't paid to the child. In places where you weren't making ad hominem attacks against my character in lieu of responding to my opinion regarding the original topic (which this is massively derailed from), you insinuated that a man being murdered by another man is somehow Feminism hard at work - which even for an anti-feminist is a hard sell - crushing the soul of men, and you made these remarks;

Ordered to pay more than he earns in combined spousal and child support. While his second wife's salary was the same as his.

Please convince me that children who are adequately fed and clothed deserve to have their father go to jail for non-payment of support which is impossible for him to pay.

Please convince me that when a mother gets welfare, child benefits, etc., and the father support is paid to the state... that non-payment of support is child neglect.

A man being ordered to pay more than he can earn isn't fair. But it's also an extreme exception, not the common rule. If that were true, we'd see an epidemic of men murdering their babymamas or mass suicides on a scale that would cause panic in the streets. This isn't happening, so it's hard to believe that men paying child support are truly all like this unfortunate man.

And by the way, just because a mother gets state welfare doesn't mean that Daddy's off the hook. If there is no one to help her raise a child, how is she supposed to work and attend the baby? Women aren't superheroes.

You don't have a defence, so your argument is "la la la, I can't hear you".

The irony is just squeezing on my rib cage.

Which in practice means that the mother gets custody 90% of the time.

Do you see how far off-track you have to go to make a valid point? Man killed in prison (not a men's rights issue). Man in prison because he failed to pay child support for many months without appealing to a judge (not a men's rights issue). Man's reasons for not paying child support are not yet known (logically faulty to assume it's because feminism until some kind of proof exists). Man's reason for being separated from his children's mother unknown (logical fault to assume it's because he's a man and therefore a men's rights issue). Man's likelihood of having gotten custody of his children is statistically 10% (men's rights issue, unless he was actually an unfit parent).

The mental gymnastics you've had to go through just to get to something I can agree with you on is astounding. You had to skip over the fact that he wasn't killed for being a man, and wasn't jailed for being a man, and leap over the fact that no one knows why his payments weren't being made, or whether he was trying to be a good dad, and dig your teeth into the fact that he was less likely to get custody as opposed to visitation.

[–]Sasha_ 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

From /r/bad_cop_no_donut/, Civilian jailer chokes inmate to death on video and still not charged. Victim was in jail for missing child support payments. The true cost of child support?

Comments

MURDERED BY THE STATE OVER CHILD SUPPORT!