Child Support accountability

[–]badhairguy 6 points7 points8 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]Il128 15 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

The studies conducted by women, funded by women's advocates, "prove" that even though women almost universally receive the most valuable assets in a divorce (home, car, "alimony and child support," more than half the man's gross income) the women and children are universally found to be financially worse off.

Of course, the women doing the counting don't count the house, the car and the alimony and child support payments...

Far to many men are left in prison due to their "potential" to pay rather than their ability and women love the system and women actually allow their former spouses, the fathers of their children to rot in jail rather than allow him to pay what he actually can pay.

Women notoriously have chosen to "taken nothing and putting the father in jail" rather choosing to take "something and him being allowed to work."

But hey, the meme is men are bad.

[–]badhairguy 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]eremite00 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]XFDRaven 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago* (27 children) | Copy Link

Child support accountability requires that the woman be accountable in the first place. Feminism's crusade for equality forgot that whole trait the rest of us with a Y chromosome have to bear. Expecting a woman to be accountable in any useful manner in society is like expecting a politician to be honest and fulfill 99% of their promises.

Past discussions in here on the subject boiled down to very simplistic and straight forward means to bring accountability to the table, namely expense reports. In the face of such an otherwise acceptable requirement, the feminists defaulted to their usual bullshit tag line, "think of the children!" No one can blame them though, when a movement is founded on blame for problems, the sudden thought of bearing responsibility (and thus accountability) sounds insane; for when one becomes responsible for their own life it means they have to accept blame for their own bad choices.

Countless threads on reddit have shown this to be an impossible expectation.

[–]thetrollking[S] 8 points9 points10 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]kragshot 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ShakeyBobWillis 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]XFDRaven -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]ShakeyBobWillis 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]XFDRaven -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ShakeyBobWillis 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]XFDRaven -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ShakeyBobWillis 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]XFDRaven -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ShakeyBobWillis 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]XFDRaven1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ShakeyBobWillis1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BolshevikMuppet 5 points6 points7 points 15 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Expecting a woman to be accountable in any useful manner in society is like expecting a politician to be honest and fulfill 99% of their promises.

That's a bit overly broad, don't you think? You're drawing a conclusion about all women from a few sensationalized stories you've seen here and elsewhere? That's like a woman thinking all men are rapists because they've seen really sensational stories about men committing rape. We can at least be consistent and only do the whole "not all men are rapists, most of us are good" if we're going to give women the same benefit of the doubt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic

Countless threads on reddit have shown this to be an impossible expectation.

Yep, 'cause threads on Reddit (especially a subreddit geared toward a specific group of people) are clearly reflective of the entire population as a whole.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]XFDRaven -6 points-5 points-4 points 15 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

That's a bit overly broad, don't you think?

Obviously not, or else I wouldn't have said it.

You're drawing a conclusion about all women from a few sensationalized stories you've seen here and elsewhere?

Personal experiences, legal precedent, legal entitlement cases, etc. The latter two seem to do a pretty good job of backing up this claim. Easiest case in point to claim is the Violence Against Women Act; as we know that only men perpetrate violence upon others.

That's like a woman thinking all men are rapists because they've seen really sensational stories about men committing rape.

You mean the same ones who've been banging away about how they're the victims of said men, and thus need privileges exceeding those of men to the extent they need not be accountable for their choices?

We can at least be consistent and only do the whole "not all men are rapists, most of us are good" if we're going to give women the same benefit of the doubt.

Right, I'm going to go get cancer so I can be warm and fuzzy and share some respect with the disease so I can stop it from harming me. Then I'll do the same for AIDS and other terminal illnesses. Yes, this is a great and well thought out line of reasoning.

Yep, 'cause threads on Reddit (especially a subreddit geared toward a specific group of people) are clearly reflective of the entire population as a whole.

What unreasonable sample size did you have in mind to make a good metric? 12 billion people? 24 billion people? I love that you didn't specify a good solid number to debunk my position and validate yours; of course if you did you wouldn't have much of a case. Did you know that 0% of lesbian couples commit acts of child abuse?!

[–]BolshevikMuppet 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

legal precedent, legal entitlement cases, etc

[Needs Citations]. Yes, we've heard stories here, but if you have some evidence that this is far more widespread and pervasive than truly indicated by some stories on reddit then I'd love to see it. But, I'd wager dimes to dollars that you're really just falling into cognitive biases here.

Easiest case in point to claim is the Violence Against Women Act; as we know that only men perpetrate violence upon others.

It provided $1.6 billion to enhance investigation and prosecution of the violent crime perpetrated against women, increased pre-trial detention of the accused, imposed automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave unprosecuted.

That doesn't sound quite as stark as the implication you make. The VAWA doesn't somehow make it less of a crime to commit assault against a man.

You mean the same ones who've been banging away about how they're the victims of said men, and thus need privileges exceeding those of men to the extent they need not be accountable for their choices?

Rape victims are victims. But, if people here are going to object to the implication that all men are (or should be treated like) rapists, we should give the same respect to women, and not assume they're all selfish and desire to not be held accountable.
You're using a tautology. Your logic boils down to "women don't want to be responsible, I know this because they ask for privileges which render them not accountable". What privileges do they want? The ability to abort a fetus? The ability to expect the child be supported by its father?

Right, I'm going to go get cancer so I can be warm and fuzzy and share some respect with the disease so I can stop it from harming me. Then I'll do the same for AIDS and other terminal illnesses. Yes, this is a great and well thought out line of reasoning.

Did you just compare women to cancer? Or feminists to HIV? Do you recognize how that makes you sound unreasonable?

I love that you didn't specify a good solid number to debunk my position and validate yours

It's called "statistical analysis". For this kind of study, a thousand representative cases (randomly selected and properly weighed) would likely give us a reasonable basis for the discussion. If we saw that the vast majority of women refused to 'take responsibility' (I'll even let you come up with the operational definition), then your statement "Expecting a woman to be accountable in any useful manner in society is like expecting a politician to be honest and fulfill 99% of their promises" might be correct.

I guess I assumed you wouldn't want to get into the statistics, I'm happy to do so if you're willing to fund the study.

[–]XFDRaven -4 points-3 points-2 points 15 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

It provided $1.6 billion to enhance investigation and prosecution of the violent crime perpetrated against women, increased pre-trial detention of the accused, imposed automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave unprosecuted. That doesn't sound quite as stark as the implication you make. The VAWA doesn't somehow make it less of a crime to commit assault against a man.

Boy because if there's one thing that reeks of equality, its giving special favoritism to a particular sex. You're banging away quite a bit about cognitive bias, so show some lack of it by identifying how this one small part of the big picture you've mentioned. Here's a small hint: let's detain you longer just because!

The whole of the law is built upon, and slanted to the notion that women are only victims. Given the line you quoted, you likely copied it from Wikipedia, so let's run with the other bits of useless information: "Since its original passage in 1994, VAWA's focus has expanded to address—in addition to domestic violence—dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking." Both sexes perform these acts in reality, however per the wording of the bill and considering the groups behind it, it only applies to men. The language used infers men without explicitly stating it; (whee women make semen!).

In that bill, funding is granted to create women exclusive shelters for DV. Since it's actually all about equality, find the clause that gives dedicated funding for male only shelters. The SCOTUS has even found parts of it to be unconstitutional, but what do they know?

VAWA gives malicious women a power that no man gets to wield, simply stating "I was assaulted" automatically gets the guy thrown in jail. Show me the equivalent when the sexes are reversed. Cognitive biases eh? Hell, just for fun! http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/e60uz/antimale_legislation_roundup/

(1)"Domestic violence" means the infliction or threat of physical harm against past or present adult or adolescent female intimate partners, and shall include physical, sexual, and psychological abuse against the woman, and is a part of a pattern of assaultive, coercive, and controlling behaviors directed at achieving compliance from or control over, that woman.

Yeah, there's some cognitive biased. You're a goddamned genius! Such law lets women get away from the responsibility and accountability of their actions in many ways. They can regret having sex with a man, claim rape and remedy her conscious. She can levy the law to threaten and blackmail the guy. She has a number of routes to abuse so that she doesn't have to face some consequence to her action.

Other laws are on the books that operate on women being some kind of mystical "underprivileged" class who needs extra handouts. You have to be at least 24 to get financial aid if you're a man, but 18 if you're a woman; at least when I applied for FAFSA. Being the loudest asshole for your side doesn't make your side right.

Rape victims are victims. But, if people here are going to object to the implication that all men are (or should be treated like) rapists, we should give the same respect to women, and not assume they're all selfish and desire to not be held accountable.

WOOSH

You're using a tautology. Your logic boils down to "women don't want to be responsible, I know this because they ask for privileges which render them not accountable". What privileges do they want? The ability to abort a fetus? The ability to expect the child be supported by its father?

WOOOSH

You're using the typical gimmick of rephrasing the subject in a light that you can more easily attack. No, I won't be going with that road. Go to a bad side of town. Get assaulted by some thug. Now go try and befriend him in jail and let me know how that goes.

Respect is not given, it is earned. Whining about what they don't get that men do, such as the fictitious wage gap, complaining that men are rapists, and the numerous other ramblings of Feminist ideology does not earn respect. Calling men enemies to varying degrees does not make me feel warm and tingly and suddenly want to respect them.

Did you just compare women to cancer? Or feminists to HIV? Do you recognize how that makes you sound unreasonable?

I wish reddit came with sound effects. The sound of the point rushing over your head would have created a sonic boom. Lets pretend you have a micron of worth: Not all feminists are women, and not all women are feminists, yes? With that out of the way,

Disease

a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms.
a harmful development

So a social movement that marginalizes men, creates laws of punishment without proof, and automatically assumes them as rapists. That impairs a normal and healthy society and it's a harmful development. Yeah I think I'll put Feminists and Feminism in the same bucket as HIV and Cancer; but I must admit Cancer would be easier to live with - you usually know when it's going to be done consuming you. It must have sounded unreasonable when a few Jews got paranoid about how the Nazi's were getting in the early 1930s too, the wise ones got out while they could. Given your apologist language, they must be traitorous and weak individuals. They should have embraced their oppressors. Are you seriously so fucking dense that you think seeing someone who views you as an enemy is best handled by being completely open and taking any abuse they dish out?

It's called "statistical analysis". For this kind of study, a thousand representative cases (randomly selected and properly weighed) would likely give us a reasonable basis for the discussion. If we saw that the vast majority of women refused to 'take responsibility' (I'll even let you come up with the operational definition), then your statement "Expecting a woman to be accountable in any useful manner in society is like expecting a politician to be honest and fulfill 99% of their promises" might be correct. I guess I assumed you wouldn't want to get into the statistics, I'm happy to do so if you're willing to fund the study.

Aaaand you still didn't cite anything. Color me surprised. So tautological nonsense from the person going on about tautology. Well I'll be open here, give me a good academic study that asserts women to six-sigma are rational, thoughtful and intelligent people to such a degree none of them would embrace sexist legislation, pursue anti-male social stigmas and actually work out child support in a manner that exclusively covers the kid as well as custody time.

The universe will probably have collapsed before that study comes out.

[–]BolshevikMuppet 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Both sexes perform these acts in reality, however per the wording of the bill and considering the groups behind it, it only applies to men. The language used infers men without explicitly stating it; (whee women make semen!).

The fun thing about law is that the plain language is applied. When a woman commits DV, or date rape, or sexual assault, the same provisions apply. But, you're moving far afield of anything close to proving your point. You implied that the entirety of the female gender is resistant to accepting responsibility. Showing a bill which is meant to punish DV and sexual assault doesn't prove that.

Just the facts, man.

VAWA gives malicious women a power that no man gets to wield, simply stating "I was assaulted" automatically gets the guy thrown in jail. Show me the equivalent when the sexes are reversed. Cognitive biases eh?

How often does this occur? Do you have statistics, or anything but vague conspiracy theories and a few select instances? Furthermore, the same provisions would apply (and do apply) in the reverse. But, as I said, since the point to which I objected was your overbroad and unsupported statement that expecting women to take responsibility is as unreasonable as expecting politicians to follow through on 99% of their promises, you need to provide some evidence that women "refuse to take responsibility".

If you want to do this real debate style (or litigation style), define your terms and prove them. Simply saying "women don't take responsibility, and here's an example of inequity" is like saying "men like to rape, and here's an example of a dude liking child porn". The latter is bad, and may reflect poorly on the broader group, but doesn't prove your initial claim.

WOOSH

Please don't misinterpret or misrepresent my disagreement with your fundamental point (that women don't want to be held accountable for anything in society) as a misunderstanding of it. In case you missed my point: if we're going to complain about overgeneralizations of men, we shouldn't do it to women. To be even more simple: don't be hypocritical.

You're using the typical gimmick of rephrasing the subject in a light that you can more easily attack. No, I won't be going with that road. Go to a bad side of town. Get assaulted by some thug. Now go try and befriend him in jail and let me know how that goes.

I think you could ask any number of people you'd like, and most would agree that my restatement and simplification of your point was fair. Your pedantic, tortuous, and overly circumlocutory post was simply unwieldy. If you feel my characterization was unfair, please explain to me in what way it was a misstatement.

Can you please explain your comparison to a street thug? As far as I know, the vast majority of women and even of feminists aren't beating men. If you have some evidence to the contrary, please share.

Respect is not given, it is earned. Whining about what they don't get that men do, such as the fictitious wage gap, complaining that men are rapists, and the numerous other ramblings of Feminist ideology does not earn respect.

That's a philosophy, not an axiom. But, perhaps respect is the wrong word. Let's instead have some self-respect, and not be hypocritical, mmmmkay?
Fictitious wage gap? I've looked at plenty of studies, and the gap still exists, with varying explanations for why. Some of those explanations make feminists wrong, some make them right, and there's evidence on all sides. If you have something so completely conclusive, I urge you to publish it for the good of all of humanity.
Some men are rapists. But, do you not see the irony in admonishing women for belief that men (writ large) are rapists (essentially deriding them for assuming that most men are rapists based on the minority who actually are), while believing that women (writ large) don't want to take responsibility? Gooses, ganders, pots, kettles.

Jesus I wish reddit came with sound effects. The sound of the point rushing over your head would have created a sonic boom.

Once again, disagreeing with you should not be mistaken for misunderstanding. I promise, you're not Kant, your words of wisdom are not so impenetrably brilliant that we mere mortals cannot comprehend.

Lets pretend you have a micron of worth

"Let's". If you're going to insult someone, use proper grammar.
A "micron" (also known as a micrometer) is a unit of measuring distance, not mass. That's like saying "let's pretend that you have an inch of worth". If you want to use the big boy words, know what you're doing, all right?

So a social movement that marginalizes men, creates laws of punishment without proof, and automatically assumes them as rapists

So, what you're saying is that a social movement which assumes ill of an entire gender without proof is bad? Got it.

(I'm hoping you can see the inconsistency here).

a few Jews got paranoid about how the Nazi's were getting in the early 1930s too.

Godwin's Law. And, boy, it took you long enough. Feminist = Nazi is kind of the mainstay of the more extreme elements of the mensrights movement.

Aaaand you still didn't cite anything. Color me surprised. So tautological nonsense from the person going on about tautology.

Do you really want the citation for what would be a statistically valid sample? Okay.

Assuming we want a confidence level of 95% (which means we're 95% sure that the results are reflective of the population, and a confidence interval of 1 (as little variation as possible within the standard, this would mean the "margin for error"), we use the formula:

n= t² x p(1-p)/ m²

Where:

n = sample size t = confidence level (standardized at 1.96 for 95%) p = estimated "proper" response rate (in this case, .99 (or 99%), since you accuse all women of this) m = margin for error (we'll use .01)

With this, we have a need for:

380 respondents.

Taking into account the population (using calculators found online) we would need closer to ten-thousand, but I'll take the lower number.

I'd be happy to find a firm to run the study for you, if you'd like to put up the money for it, I know some great statistical researchers.

[–]XFDRaven -4 points-3 points-2 points 15 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Eh you've done very well to derail me from the top post of mine. Your future in politics looks good.

That being said,

How often does this occur? Do you have statistics, or anything but vague conspiracy theories and a few select instances? Furthermore, the same provisions would apply (and do apply) in the reverse. But, as I said, since the point to which I objected was your overbroad and unsupported statement that expecting women to take responsibility is as unreasonable as expecting politicians to follow through on 99% of their promises, you need to provide some evidence that women "refuse to take responsibility".

Explain specifically why it isn't a valid point. The system as it stands requires no paper trail for the woman, nor does there exist a means to the dad to request an audit. As such, there is then no established requirement of accountability of the women. There exists no well defined study by an indifferent agency to investigate child support spending, I speculate they're spending such funds on their new department that caters to women.

Women frequently come up in the news as doing heinous crimes and getting token punishments in stark parallel to equivalent punishments men receive. There are no feminists protesting their congress representatives to increase the punishment for women. No, instead they champion for government protections and benefits. We see numerous counts of false rape allegations come to light and then see that the male(s) in the case are found to be innocent yet their lives are tarnished forever and very rarely do we see the accusor ever get so much as a second glance. The Duke Lacrosse team makes a great case for that. You also never see any feminist groups rally for the boy's side, only the woman's side. Even then, once she was found to be lying, no feminist could be found saying she should have been held accountable. Accountability is not a trait I can associate to women with any kind of serious face.

You seem to be under the impression that you mean something to me such that I should be trying to convince you. It's admirable that you're at least a skeptic enough to say "prove to me why I'm wrong." I'm far more calloused, but think I'm in the same group for the most part, but you have done nothing to convince me otherwise.

If you want to do this real debate style (or litigation style), define your terms and prove them. Simply saying "women don't take responsibility, and here's an example of inequity" is like saying "men like to rape, and here's an example of a dude liking child porn". The latter is bad, and may reflect poorly on the broader group, but doesn't prove your initial claim.

I've not formally done any debate. Might have been fun. It would have been a great tool to have, especially in dealing with politician types, but I am a normie. As an individual, one builds behaviors based on life experiences. If those experiences classify "people with these traits behave in this manner, and this manner is hostile to you," that individual lives life on that rule. Compare that to a different individual who hears, not experiences, the same tag line. The latter individual operates on a rule that is non-sensible, it may work against their favor (e.g. racism). I fit into the former individual, based off of life experiences. So thus far, your simple assertion that I'm wrong because you say I am has far less weight compared to my own personal experiences. As I've stated to other feminists before, when they can show me members of their leadership (the most vocal advocates of feminism) doing anything that is genuinely for equality, I will begin to be swayed. As it stands, all we have is their leadership and rolemodels going on about all men are at least potential rapists if they haven't already committed it, and that any father who wants time with their kids is a pedophile. That I can give a citation to; go read "The Female Eunuch," Germaine Grier has been one of the most cited Feminist leaders in the whole mess of misandry.

Once again, disagreeing with you should not be mistaken for misunderstanding. I promise, you're not Kant, your words of wisdom are not so impenetrably brilliant that we mere mortals cannot comprehend.

This is a deliberate misrepresentation which became something of my joke. Your rewording of my position did not accurately describe the position I was attempting to describe. In short, you pulled a Glenn Beck.

Can you please explain your comparison to a street thug? As far as I know, the vast majority of women and even of feminists aren't beating men. If you have some evidence to the contrary, please share.

This is partly why I have a hard time assuming you have any genuine interest in this thread. Your contextual interpretation switches from abstract to literal. Should the above be genuine, the simplest concept is that a hostile actor is not a friend and should not be considered as such more so after they have shown to make good on their intent to harm.

Godwin's Law. And, boy, it took you long enough. Feminist = Nazi is kind of the mainstay of the more extreme elements of the mensrights movement.

So you really were being deliberately obtuse in hopes of getting a Godwin? While your type love to claim "Godwin's law, you automatically lose," just because it's over used does not make its point invalid or less meaningful. The fact you're putting words in my mouth validates the point that you're not genuine and simply trying to be subversive. Quote me where I'm claiming that Feminists are creating Man-concentration camps and hauling males away in box cars to be gassed to death. Across most cultures, the holocaust was a well defined event in history textbooks. As such, it's a reasonable bet that someone who you do not seem to be able to communicate with knows of that event in the least. There are other old sayings that could be used, but given your deliberate obtuseness went for the more black and white example.

"Let's". If you're going to insult someone, use proper grammar.

A "micron" (also known as a micrometer) is a unit of measuring distance, not mass. That's like saying "let's pretend that you have an inch of worth". If you want to use the big boy words, know what you're doing, all right?

'Lets' has always been a messy one along with it's versus its. Such is life, and honestly I can't say I care too much when it's going on with someone on reddit, especially when they seem to deny the negative impacts of the misandrist laws; if I were paid to deal with such people I would write on the level that pay demands. And yes, I'm aware of micron as being a micrometer. Specifically it's 10^-6 meters. It is in the exact same token as "an inch of worth." You seem to measure worth in a weight. So your point about "big boy words" is irrelevant since you're using a different unit and if you were to give something a weight it comes from density times volume. Without volume you get no weight, and volume is described by units of length cubed. If you're going to go this route, understand what units are, and how they interact with each other okay?

Past that, thanks for at least coming up with a solid number. Now each of us has to find a study that meets it. Still, you never did address the feminists' study of 78, the VAWA, the pro-woman-only policies of California, or any of the other bits which actually went against your inferred belief that no law is pro-woman only.

The summarily short version is that since I am male, I am faced with the consequences of whatever the woman decides when she decides to terminate a relationship and take me to the cleaners. (50%/70%/etc as the common numbers seem to be, but like your other statement about findings it varies) I'll be at the court's mercy on how much I'm going to be paying out per month so she can sit at home and do nothing. I'll be at the court's mercy if I lose my job, and the same when she decides she wants more money. As a male, I am faced with this in addition to women going on about men being rapists. And I have been given the "you're a potential rapist" line from women you seem to claim do not exist. So by all reason there exists no cause to give trust or expectation of responsibility or accountability to women. That is not equality, that is women's entitlement.

(I do wish reddit had a preview button instead of post only.)

[–]BolshevikMuppet 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Eh you've done very well to derail me from the top post of mine. Your future in politics looks good.

I've attempted to stay on topic (a specific question of whether you can substantiate the claim that the women writ large refuse to take responsibility). You've strayed into "well, there are some laws and instances in which injustice occurs against men", which is not germane.

Explain specifically why it isn't a valid point.

It's overbroad and unsubstantiated. I said that in my first response, and you've yet to either back off of the conclusory and overly categorical nature of the statement, or prove it. That's why it's invalid. If I say the sky is fluorescent pink, you'd expect me to prove it, no?

The system as it stands requires no paper trail for the woman, nor does there exist a means to the dad to request an audit. As such, there is then no established requirement of accountability of the women. There exists no well defined study by an indifferent agency to investigate child support spending, I speculate they're spending such funds on their new department that caters to women.

That's far afield. Is there accountability in the system right now? No. Does that prove that no women would take responsibility or are responsible? No. Either prove your original statement, or retract it.

Accountability is not a trait I can associate to women with any kind of serious face.

Again, you're using anecdotes to substitute for hard data. We all have examples of women being irresponsible and refusing accountability. We all have examples of men doing the same. And we all have examples of men and women being responsible and accountable. The problem is making a statement like "expecting women [applying your judgment to the entire gender] to accept being accountable is like expecting politicians to follow through on 99% of what they promise" needs to be substantiated not by showing that some women refuse to be accountable, but that the vast majority or (preferably) all women refuse accountability.

you're at least a skeptic enough to say"prove to me why I'm wrong." I'm far more calloused, but think I'm in the same group for the most part, but you have done nothing to convince me otherwise.

That's where you're being mistaken. You're assuming that your statement is the null hypothesis (a statistics term, basically the 'normal' from which we need proof to show a deviation), while mine is claiming something "new". That's incorrect. The null hypothesis is that a population does not exhibit a trait. You must show women refuse to take accountability. It's your burden of proof.

So thus far, your simple assertion that I'm wrong because you say I am has far less weight compared to my own personal experiences

I say you've yet to substantiate your claims. That's not saying "you're wrong", but that you must actually give evidence (beyond subjective "life experience", and sensationalist stories in the news). As I said, if I accused you of shooting your girlfriend, you'd probably want me to have to prove it, right?

when they can show me members of their leadership (the most vocal advocates of feminism) doing anything that is genuinely for equality, I will begin to be swayed

The question of whether women are for equality is separate from whether women refuse to accept accountability in any way. You cannot prove one claim of bad conduct by proving another. If I accuse you of rape, you probably don't want me introducing evidence that you robbed a liquor store (and I can't).

As it stands, all we have is their leadership and rolemodels going on about all men are at least potential rapists if they haven't already committed it, and that any father who wants time with their kids is a pedophile

Precisely. It's wrong to make assumptions about an entire group of people based on the actions of a small minority.

SO STOP DOING IT

just because it's over used does not make its point invalid or less meaningful. The fact you're putting words in my mouth validates the point that you're not genuine and simply trying to be subversive.

Comparing the "worry" of Jews in pre-WWII Germany to the "worry" of men now is disingenuous at best, outright offensive at worst. Prove the "concern" is valid, not just that "well, see, other people have been concerned in the past, and they were right to be worried, so men must be right now".

Quote me where I'm claiming that Feminists are creating Man-concentration camps and hauling males away in box cars to be gassed to death

At least you're not completely silly about this, I guess. But, justifying your oversensitivity and paranoia by saying that "well, the Jews would have been right to be paranoid" is specious at best.

Past that, thanks for at least coming up with a solid number. Now each of us has to find a study that meets it. Still, you never did address the feminists' study of 78, the VAWA, the pro-woman-only policies of California, or any of the other bits which actually went against your inferred belief that no law is pro-woman only.

Burden of proof is on the one making an affirmative claim (to wit your claim that no women accept accountability). If you can find me tthe study confirming that, I'll be happy to find countervailing evidence.

Or you could just back off of your unreasonably broad statement and admit that you were being too general.

As to the rest of it, it's off topic to the fundamental issue (and I wish you'd stay on point) which is whether your original statement is correct.

I'll be at the court's mercy on how much I'm going to be paying out per month so she can sit at home and do nothing

And I assume you have some data showing that all women who receive maintenance refuse to work? Remember, per your "no women want to be accountable" statement above, it must be all women.

As a male, I am faced with this in addition to women going on about men being rapists. And I have been given the "you're a potential rapist" line from women you seem to claim do not exist

I absolutely accept that there are women who believe all men are rapists in training. And I believe that's unfair. But, if I object to that kind of overgeneralization and stereotyping, I must object to your original statement as well.

Gooses, ganders.

Pots, kettles.

So by all reason there exists no cause to give trust or expectation of responsibility or accountability to women

You've given no evidence that all women refuse to be responsible or accountable. You've given an awful lot of anecdotes, but nothing showing that the entire population of women is as you describe. Stereotypes are bad remember?

Also, per the study:

Given the parameters set (based on your original statement) I would only need to find around ten women (out of the entire survey set) who are responsible or accountable in order to prove (with statistical certainty) that you're wrong.

Do you want to lay down a bet on whether I'd find ten women in a random (representative) sample of 360? I've got a couple of thousand I'd wager.

EDIT:

I missed some of your points, so I'm tacking them on here:

This is a deliberate misrepresentation which became something of my joke. Your rewording of my position did not accurately describe the position I was attempting to describe. In short, you pulled a Glenn Beck.

You not only imply that I didn't comprehend your points, but outright state it (that it "went over my head"). How is responding that your points were not so complex and brilliant that I could not understand anything of an inaccuracy?

the simplest concept is that a hostile actor is not a friend and should not be considered as such more so after they have shown to make good on their intent to harm.

Your unproved assumption (that women, or even feminists (again, you state it categorically, so I must assume you mean all)) are hostile and harmful to men (again, all) is without basis in any evidence provided. And, given that, there is nothing to evince an intent to harm.

[–]XFDRaven -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

It's overbroad and unsubstantiated. I said that in my first response, and you've yet to either back off of the conclusory and overly categorical nature of the statement, or prove it. That's why it's invalid. If I say the sky is fluorescent pink, you'd expect me to prove it, no?

It's substantiated with the reasons I've given so far as I've found fit, enforced by my personal experiences. You've said it yourself, you can find 3 different studies that give 3 different answers. So in the end, we go by our experiences with no conclusive alternative. My experiences affirm what I've stated. I stand by it. I have nothing to lose in sticking to them, and gain everything that would otherwise be taken from me if I was willfully ignorant of the issues and went in saying, "this time it will be different."

Either prove your original statement, or retract it.

No. More on this later.

Precisely. It's wrong to make assumptions about an entire group of people based on the actions of a small minority. SO STOP DOING IT

A small minority is the Aryan Nation. A not-small "minority" is the politicians in Washington. Equating them as both insignificant purely by their numbers is dishonest. Note, I specifically state the leadership. I could not care any less what some fringe feminist that lives in a dirt hut thinks; she has no power. I do care what the feminist with legal power thinks because it will affect me.

Comparing the "worry" of Jews in pre-WWII Germany to the "worry" of men now is disingenuous at best, outright offensive at worst.

Sometimes destructive tests are necessary to get more data.

Burden of proof is on the one making an affirmative claim (to wit your claim that no women accept accountability). If you can find me tthe study confirming that, I'll be happy to find countervailing evidence. Or you could just back off of your unreasonably broad statement and admit that you were being too general. As to the rest of it, it's off topic to the fundamental issue (and I wish you'd stay on point) which is whether your original statement is correct.

And here we go. I think this is where we've been on different planes. I never intended on trying to convince you of my position. It's simply my position. I'll assert what I please as my experience has held it true. So long as Feminists go on with their crap and whining, I'll continue binning them and those who benefit from their terrible policies. When their leadership starts to be more inclusive to the world than just women, I'll begin to change my tune.

I absolutely accept that there are women who believe all men are rapists in training. And I believe that's unfair. But, if I object to that kind of overgeneralization and stereotyping, I must object to your original statement as well.

Good. Consistency is the hallmark of sound engineering.

Stereotypes are bad remember?

Stereotypes are social creations based on the cumulative (and usually negative) experiences of the people within that social circle. This is where my point between personal experiences defining a person's views versus being told how other people are comes in. Regardless they all are reduced from cumulative experiences and then seasoned with amplification. Everyone operates on varying kinds of stereotypes; it's a coping mechanism for human limitations. The question that should be asked is the metric of that stereotype. Melanin content is not indicative of anything regarding a person's attributes. A group of people who whine about not getting paid equally when they take more time off than their counterparts, does say quite a bit.

Do you want to lay down a bet on whether I'd find ten women in a random (representative) sample of 360? I've got a couple of thousand I'd wager. I can find 10 women right now who fulfill my viewpoint. 1/36th isn't very significant; it isn't the mean for sure.

You not only imply that I didn't comprehend your points, but outright state it (that it "went over my head"). How is responding that your points were not so complex and brilliant that I could not understand anything of an inaccuracy?

You rewrote what I had said into something else. Either you were baiting me, or you didn't get it. I think that's pretty straight forward.

Your unproved assumption (that women, or even feminists (again, you state it categorically, so I must assume you mean all)) are hostile and harmful to men (again, all) is without basis in any evidence provided. And, given that, there is nothing to evince an intent to harm.

You're correct. I do mean all feminists. I've been on the hostile receiving end of "feminism." You don't shoot someone and expect them to be your friend. Even by the nature of the term used, infers preference to once sex. I doubt you would try to defend the position if some white supremacist group who called themselves whitists said they were for equality of all colors while working on policy that gave preferential treatment to 'white' people only.

[–]BolshevikMuppet 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's substantiated with the reasons I've given so far as I've found fit, enforced by my personal experiences

So, anecdotes count as data? Awesome. I'll tell all the stats folks that they aren't needed anymore.

You've said it yourself, you can find 3 different studies that give 3 different answers. So in the end, we go by our experiences with no conclusive alternative

No, actually I stated that the studies on the wage gap are inconclusive. The fact that it would be almost impossible to prove your point with a statistically valid study does not make your point inherently true. Nor does it exclude the necessity for you to prove your claims.

My experiences affirm what I've stated. I stand by it.

You've met every woman on the planet and none of them wanted to be accountable for anything? Jesus, how do you find time to post on Reddit, dude? You must have a lot of work just to keep up with new eighteen-year-olds around the world.

I have nothing to lose in sticking to them, and gain everything that would otherwise be taken from me if I was willfully ignorant of the issues and went in saying, "this time it will be different."

That statement is unrelated to the question of whether women take responsibility, and hence not relevant. Furthermore, "this time will be different" from what other time?

A not-small "minority" is the politicians in Washington. Equating them as both insignificant purely by their numbers is dishonest

Actually, the politicians in Washington are a minority. That's what a "minority" is. Simply having power isn't the point. And since you didn't say "women in power in Washington don't want to take responsibility" nor "women who are influential in Feminist organizations don't want to be accountable", you still have to defend the categorical statement about all women. Ergo the statement that:

I could not care any less what some fringe feminist that lives in a dirt hut thinks; she has no power. I do care what the feminist with legal power thinks because it will affect me.

Is patently untrue. You must care what the fringe feminist, or what the feminists without legal power, thinks because they're also women and your statement was about all women. Are you sure you don't want to now qualify or retract the statement?

Sometimes destructive tests are necessary to get more data.

If you had any data, I'd be happy.

I never intended on trying to convince you of my position. It's simply my position

Oh, lord no. You won't persuade me with this tripe, and I had no hope that you could. But, that won't stop me from pointing out why you're absolutely wrong by every measure of debating standards, logical analysis, or even simple reason.

I'll assert what I please as my experience has held it true

So you admit that there's no data to support your assertion? And, hence, that it's entirely subjective and without basis in anything other than your own experience (which is not, itself "proof")?

Stereotypes are social creations based on the cumulative (and usually negative) experiences of the people within that social circle. This is where my point between personal experiences defining a person's views versus being told how other people comes in

So a woman who believes all men are rapists is justified and reasonable only if she herself has been either raped, or threatened with rape, or exposed to it through a close friend? That would, at least, be consistent.

Though it would require you to never again complain about how "hurr, not all men are rapists, stop treating us like it".

You rewrote what I had said into something else. Either you were baiting me, or you didn't get it. I think that's pretty straight forward.

As I said, if there's an inaccuracy in my restatement, point it out and I will happily change it. Simply objecting because a more direct explanation of your point makes it sound bad isn't reasonable. If the only way your point doesn't sound silly is to couch it in pontification and obfuscation, you don't have a good potin.

You're correct. I do mean all feminists

And you've met all feminists? Wow.

I doubt you would try to defend the position if some white supremacist group who called themselves whitists said they were for equality of all colors while working on policy that gave preferential treatment to 'white' people only.

If someone were to say (of all white people) that they're racist because of the actions of one segment of their population, I would object to that stereotyping.

But, as feminism and white supremacy are different, your analogy is inapt. Interesting, though, that you back off from your original all women to just all feminists. Do I smell some capitulation?

But, can we simply end this? You're never going to substantiate your point, which makes the entire discussion silly. Until you can actually give even a small shred of real evidence for your statement that all women refuse to accept responsibility or accountability. You can repeat "hurr, it's based on my experience", but no rational person would take that as proof.

[–]XFDRaven0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So, anecdotes count as data? Awesome. I'll tell all the stats folks that they aren't needed anymore.

If you wish.

You've met every woman on the planet and none of them wanted to be accountable for anything? Jesus, how do you find time to post on Reddit, dude? You must have a lot of work just to keep up with new eighteen-year-olds around the world.

Okay...

That statement is unrelated to the question of whether women take responsibility, and hence not relevant. Furthermore, "this time will be different" from what other time?

If this time is sample N, then other time is probably N-1, N-2... N-x.

Actually, the politicians in Washington are a minority. That's what a "minority" is. Simply having power isn't the point.

Right. Which was said in regards to the difference between the two minorities. Having power is exactly the point.

Is patently untrue.

Bush and the rest of the system drafted all sorts of bad law such as the Patriot Act, and did really bad things. Saying it's untrue, is untrue.

Are you sure you don't want to now qualify or retract the statement?

Yup.

If you had any data, I'd be happy.

Well okay, give these guys a call, they do destructive metallurgical testing. Doesn't pertain to the subject, but it gets data on destructive tests.

You won't persuade me with this tripe, and I had no hope that you could.

In looking at your history, your legal studies come up one-sided; specifically you challenged someone "see law is sexist because women are degraded here" and then when I presented the California law which defined sexism as something that only happens to women, you dismissed it as just verbage which is not actually taken in sex-identified context. So you're basically unconditionally right because you say you are. Were I actually a scholar doing full on research on the study you would likely continue the same thing with a different slant, instead attacking the data or some other mechanism.

So you admit that there's no data to support your assertion?

We're going in circles now. I have data of my experience to support my assertion. I act on that data, behave around women with that data, etc. I'm not going to get into the semantics game.

So a woman who believes all men are rapists is justified and reasonable only if she herself has been either raped, or threatened with rape, or exposed to it through a close friend? That would, at least, be consistent.

Leave off the "through a close friend" and it's almost agreeable. It becomes understandable then, through the mechanism I described some time ago.

Though it would require you to never again complain about how "hurr, not all men are rapists, stop treating us like it".

Uhm, no.

And you've met all feminists? Wow.

Hyperbole is awesome.

If someone were to say (of all white people) that they're racist because of the actions of one segment of their population, I would object to that stereotyping.

Not what I said.

But, can we simply end this?

Sure.

Until you can actually give even a small shred of real evidence for your statement that all women refuse to accept responsibility or accountability.

Do the same for me please, but that they want accountability and responsibility.

You can repeat "hurr, it's based on my experience", but no rational person would take that as proof.

I'll agree to this much! It isn't proof, it's a trend. The fun thing about trends is that they can tell a small part of a given picture, mainly because they're first order approximations. I think thats been your biggest block in trying to attack me; it's not an absolute and unconditionally described model.

Now, if it were a second order model, it would be more accurate, third more accurate still, etc. In such conditions not only is there a refinement of what is really going on to the tee, but the explanations on the negatives and positives (and how to classify them) improves. This is really why the legal system gets to be as sick as it does, and why politics continue to just get worse. The higher the order of a given analysis, the longer it takes to get to the conclusion, the less clean things appear.

This is where the trend-line risk is; for example 5-8 people hijacked planes and crashed into the towers (I forget how many, and that isn't an intentional joke). They happened to be brown and muslism. Speed ahead and we get many more brown people that happen to be muslim killing themselves as suicide bombers. The trend isn't that brown people who are muslim suicide bombers. The noise floor comes up but the trend isn't "brown people gonna kill you." Now, if building a trend about people who ally themselves with the Taliban as fighters and bombers, it's going to trend that if you meet one they will probably try to kill you. That's the first order approximation.

The next level adds a classification, you find that the poor members are the suicide bombers, the wealthy just fund them. Third you begin to find more differences, etc. If you had to go into a situation which deals with them, and are any sort of normal, you're going to be highly suspicious of whether or not you're going to be dead when it's over. You're very likely thinking, "okay see, so you can't say all muslims are taliban" which is correct.

In a given Afghani town that is believed to have many members of said Taliban, it becomes a question of probable risk. On one extreme, one (retarded asshole) person would say just shoot em all - he actively forces risk assumption to 0 by altering the state of the system. The other extreme, assume that no one will harm them (the angle you're proposing, though not to the degree of extremeity) and risk getting killed, and the realistic middle ground - suspect that any one is possibly going to try and kill you and work within the means you have (the extreme version of my position). It's approximated risk and its management.

People do it in all areas of life. Get food poisoning from a restaurant? Some will never go there again (keep risk at zero), Some will try again, others will ignore it (shit happens). Got a shitty domestic car? Many will never buy that brand again (the impact of the risk is higher than food poisoning), others will tough it out and may buy again, others consider it a prime opportunity to mod into oblivion to the point it's underivable. In all of those situations, there isn't any absolute findings to say "such and such is good," so they have to work within the means of reason that they have. I won't tie it back to the original discussion since we're both bored at this point, but thats my two cents.

Cheers.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]BolshevikMuppet 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]XFDRaven 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There is a parameter that needs to be brought into the picture here that I've never seen brought in:

Duration of Custody.

Let's ignore the politics of custody battles and start with an assumption of 50/50 custody.

Electricity

The largest sink of money is the home's water heater & (if applicable) electric heat. Lights, stove, etc make up relatively little of the total bill (and this can be backed up by utility companies, with different %s based on where you're located).

So you have to look at it as a periodic cost. At 50% custody time, half the month the kid(s) consume 0% of the total power, and the other time, the kids consume 100% of the total power. So the final bill is 50% of the kid(s)' total bill cost. Each parent pays their own power bill (and the same applies to every other utility).

If I were to come up with a simple equation for the "operating expenses" of a home for either parent:

$credit_due = monthly_utility_payment * (time_with_custody%/2)

If one parent has the kid(s) for 75% of the time, and the bill is $120, 120 * 0.75/2 = $45

Entertainment is not mandatory; libraries are free.

Shoes, clothing, etc, generate receipts, so those are not items that it should be unreasonable to expect a paper trail on.

Realistically, it could be broken down into 3 accounting levels:

daily operational costs
- Distances to typical places visited for daily life can be found easily with google maps and such, one gas recipt calculates mpg, then you have a rough gas cost.
- Food costs have receipts. Reimbursements = totals x 0.6, no reimbursements for fast food.
- etc; quick consumable costs
Healthy living costs
- Shoes, cloths, etc all have receipts associated. credit is totals x 0.5
- Sports or similar costs incurred, same gig, credit is half the cost
Oh shit costs
- Hospital visits, medical, etc. the special case. Should be 50%, but depending on the medical insurance, total cost, etc is not set in stone.

Realistically, the hard part is the first month to establish the initial costs. There-after it becomes routine.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]XFDRaven 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kragshot -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Child Support accountability
Author	thetrollking
Upvotes	23
Comments	40
Date	November 14, 2010 2:49 AM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/e5tch/child_support_accountability/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/child-support-accountability.1045995 https://theredarchive.com/post/1045995

Comments