ClumsyMonkey.net

alan.

http://www.mensactivism.org
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com

there is a huge mens movement in america that is picking up some serious steam in fighting the oppression of men by the misandrist legal system.

please, visit those sites and this one

http://www.ifeminists.com which is run by wendy mcelroy who is by far the best woman ever. i want to marry her so bad.

if anyone wants me to, i will show you how child support is unconstitutional, too.

It takes two to make a child. Just because a woman has to carry it inside her for 9 months doesn't get men off the hook.

Jesus, I wish I knew about this stuff sooner. And what ifeminism is, is what my idea of feminism is. That is what feminism should be fighting for, not trivial bullshit.

And I would like to know your take on why child support is unconstitutional. I am not challenging you here or anyting, I just want to hear your point of view on it.

it's very simple.

1. the constitution of the united states guarantees "equal protection under the law" regardless of colour, creed, gender etc.
2. in 1972, abortion was legalized in the united states.

since 1972, therefore, child support has been unconstitutional. women, since 1972, have had the legal right to opt out of the moral and financial obligations of a child. men have not.

a man has absolutely no legal say in whether or not his unborn child will be born or not. if a man badly wants to keep the baby, the woman can still choose to abort it. if i a man is adamantly against the baby, the woman can still choose to have it. if it "takes two" as is so often said, then why does the father have no rights when it pertains to his child?

if a woman does not want to deal with the difficulties of a baby, she can legally choose not to have it. men cannot.

if any of you knew the half of it when it came to child support none of you would be in favour of it. some examples:

a brazillian man was forced to pay a 10 000 pounds fine and continue paying 100 pounds a month in child support, despite the fact that a DNA test proved he was not the father.

in canada, darrin white's wages were being garnished for his child support and ALIMONY (which is both unconstitutional and morally reprehensible. there is no defense for alimony) to the point where he had less then $100 a month to live on. he lost his job, and his ex wife routinely violated his visitation rights to his children, something which goes absolutely un punished in north america. as a result, mr. white killed himself. his daughter, WHO LOVED HIM, wrote a strongly worded letter to the prime minister, blaming the system for killing her father.

in new zealand, a 12 year old boy who fathered a child with an 18 year old woman (something which would be illegal if the genders were reveresed) is now being forced to pay child support.

in colorado, dylan davis' wife cheated on him while they were still married. after the relationship crumbled, mr. davis took action on a rumour he had heard and took a paternity test. he was not the father of "his" children. he is still being required to pay child support.

mandatory child support is both morally wrong and legally unconstitutional. it must be abolished.

You're not convincing me.

the problem is, where there are undoubtedly misuses of the system, the fact remains that I probably would not be here right now if it weren't for child support.

and what would this world do without me?

ha.

oh, and Aerin, nice Jesus Christ Superstar quote in your signature.

Thank you.

I'll clarify my position a bit, since I've got nothing better to do.

I spend two days out of every 3 weeks flat on my back in excruciating pain. It responds poorly to medication, and it is often seen as "not being really sick" by schools and employers who have never felt this form of agony. Why must I go through this? Because I'm a woman. Biology isn't fair.

I mention that as an example. Men and women are different. They have different issues surrounding their daily lives, different problems, different expectations. To legislate them completely equally would be naive and unfair.

Your point that men have no say in whether a woman keeps a baby or not is interesting, but not convincing. Women naturally put much more time, energy, money, self-sacrifice into raising a child. That's partly biological and partly social. What it boils down to is, a man's investment in raising a child: some sperm and a few minutes of fun. A woman's: 9 months of carrying it, 18 years of raising it, and all the social, emotional, and economic issues that come standard. Obviously, many men do more than the "minimum requirement", but that doesn't make this dichotomy "fair". If a man doesn't want to run the risk of paying child support, he should have protected sex. Abortion is a completely separate issue, and much more complicated than your portrayal. It has very little to do with the issue at hand.

Child support is the government's way of helping women who are stuck with raising children without the kids' father's help. It's trying to balance out a system that biology has rigged against women. Child support payments are NOTHING compared to the physical, social, emotional, etc. help that the man's presence would afford. It just helps children have enough resources to survive.

Sure, the system is occasionally abused. What system isn't? I'm willing to agree that our current system may need to be changed or tweaked, but to do away with it completely would be a social disaster.

Endymion wrote:the problem is, where there are undoubtedly misuses of the system, the fact remains that I probably would not be here right now if it weren't for child support.

same goes for me. child support = good.

same here

This girl named Wendy that I used to play softball with was one of those blonde, blue eyed, pretty types (I guess). Well anyhow, she would not date a guy unless he would pay for everything. She just didn't feel that she had to. I think she's missing a lot of guys that she hasn't given a chance because at our age, who can really afford to pay for everything?! Right now, she's 17 and dating a 23 year old man who bought her a freaking Mustang. That's not love, that's someone buying stuff for you. I guess I could go on my thoughts about a 17 year old and a 23 year old dating probably being just about sex, but I won't really go there either.

I love my boy tremendously, so much that I know that he's going through some financial hardships right now because Broadway has kind of slowed down lately... Therefore, I've paid his rent for the past two months, just so he could stay in New York. He doesn't buy everything for me, nor do I buy everything for him. We take turns paying for dates... I really think that's the best way. I don't see how girls can't feel that they're USING guys if they pay for everything. It doesn't make much sense to me.

And the thing about looks is... yes, you have to be physically attacted to someone... However, if that personality isn't there, it's not ever going to work. And even then when you find , you can usually find things about them that you find attractive. I once dated this guy who was this really beautiful blonde spiky haired blue eyed man, but he had absolutely no personality. He was cute and all, but I dumped him after three dates. My fiancee now, most of my friends are like, "Val!!! You could get someone so much better looking" but that just pisses me off because to me, there is no one better looking, no one sweeter, no one I could possibly care about as much. Most high school girls just don't understand that looks aren't all that there is to a relationship. ::Sigh:: That's probably why the divorce rate is so high.

I totally agree with you Val, and I personally think it has everything to do with the fact that the things that society these days tells us are the most important are money and good looks

as far as looks are concerned, yes there has to be a degree of attraction, but i think beauty is in the eye of the beholder. someone who is traditionally considered "hot" can become completely unattractive if they have nothing to back that up, just as the plainest joe can wind up looking amazing if he's full of charm, personality, and qualities that you look for in a guy BEYOND looks. At least that's what i've found to be the case. I've had circumstances where i'd rather date the guy that everyone else thinks isn't very attractive just because in my eyes he looks great.

and as far as money is involved, it's not the amount of money someone spends but the thought behind it. the guy i'm seeing now bought me a goonies pin! It cost him 33 cents, but the fact that he thought about me made it much more valuable. i would not be impressed if a guy bought me a car, in fact, i'd think that was wrong. you know he's got to have covert intentions!

all that is kinda off topic, but plays on what Val said

i'm constantly told i'm attractive and have a great personality. ok, i'm done.

*climbs back on fence and sits*

nobody has contradicted my argument that child support is unconstitutional. the fact that some of you recieved it etc. does not change the fact that it plainly states that men and woman shall have the same legal rights in the constitution of the united states and currently, men are being denied these rights.

aerin, you said:

a man doesn't want to run the risk of paying child support, he should have protected sex.

this is an excellent example of the double standard i am trying to expose. why is it not the woman's responsibility to have protected sex? in many cases, men have been lied to ("i'm on the pill" etc.) and have still been forced to pay child support.

the fact is, it takes two to have sex. any unprotected sex that occurs between two parties was agreed upon by both. therefore, they should both bear the consequences in the same fashion. where you say "if you don't want to pay child support then wrap it up" i can just as soon say "if you don't want to be stuck with a kid and no money, don't have sex unless he has a condom".

Actually, the minimum time a woman needs to spend with her kid is 9 months (and less, with technology the way it is). All the other stuff is supplementary and not necessary. The fact is in our society women are expected to care for their kids, but I don't see why 50% of the population should be held accountable for a societal myth.

i'll just retrack my statement, it didn't come out right.