One of the extremely unfortunate results of feminism.

[McGiver]

If I was angry, like you, I would find counter stats. It's as simple as google.  I can't be assed.
As I said before opinions are easy to come by. And stats can be skewed.
I was simply pointing out your best and final argument to schleed is lame-o

Stop being angry about EVERYTHING. Take yourself out of your own mind and attempt to see things through another's non white middle class poring male American perspective.
Good luck with that, bigot.

[Bastet]

If I was angry, like you, I would find counter stats. It's as simple as google.  I can't be assed.
As I said before opinions are easy to come by. And stats can be skewed.
I was simply pointing out your best and final argument to schleed is lame-o

Stop being angry about EVERYTHING. Take yourself out of your own mind and attempt to see things through another's non white middle class poring male American perspective.
Good luck with that, bigot.

 

[RageBeoulve]

If I was angry, like you, I would find counter stats. It's as simple as google.  I can't be assed.
As I said before opinions are easy to come by. And stats can be skewed.
I was simply pointing out your best and final argument to schleed is lame-o

Stop being angry about EVERYTHING. Take yourself out of your own mind and attempt to see things through another's non white middle class poring male American perspective.
Good luck with that, bigot.

Translation: Oh yeah your argument sucks and you'e such a racist sexist bigot, but i'm such a wildly intelligent person that I will show you mercy.

Whatever, Jags. Weaksauce. 

[Bastet]

If I was angry, like you, I would find counter stats. It's as simple as google.  I can't be assed.
As I said before opinions are easy to come by. And stats can be skewed.
I was simply pointing out your best and final argument to schleed is lame-o

Stop being angry about EVERYTHING. Take yourself out of your own mind and attempt to see things through another's non white middle class poring male American perspective.
Good luck with that, bigot.

Translation: Oh yeah your argument sucks and you'e such a racist sexist bigot, but i'm such a wildly intelligent person that I will show you mercy.

Whatever, Jags. Weaksauce. 

Mmm sauce.

[McGiver]

If I was angry, like you, I would find counter stats. It's as simple as google.  I can't be assed.
As I said before opinions are easy to come by. And stats can be skewed.
I was simply pointing out your best and final argument to schleed is lame-o

Stop being angry about EVERYTHING. Take yourself out of your own mind and attempt to see things through another's non white middle class poring male American perspective.
Good luck with that, bigot.

Translation: Oh yeah your argument sucks and you'e such a racist sexist bigot, but i'm such a wildly intelligent person that I will show you mercy.

Whatever, Jags. Weaksauce. 

nope, just less closed minded.

[Beardy McFuckface]

Most of what he saying is right, but he's tacking it to feminists rather than it's radicals. He is confusing feminism, which is really just an outdated name for "gender equality" these days, for radical man-hating feminism. Changing feminism's name to reflect the fact it's really just about gender equality (ie. something less wordy than "gender egalitarianism") will differentiate it from the radical side of it.

You'll get radicals in any religion or ideology. Rage fails to see that. He's a bit of a radical of his own views anyway, and seems to come off as a stereotypical posterchild of right-wing libertarianism mixed with paranoia. (cue posts of BACK YER SHIT UP despite most of his recent posts proving it)

[McGiver]

Most of what he saying is right, but he's tacking it to feminists rather than it's radicals. He is confusing feminism, which is really just an outdated name for "gender equality" these days, for radical man-hating feminism. Changing feminism's name to reflect the fact it's really just about gender equality (ie. something less wordy than "gender egalitarianism") will differentiate it from the radical side of it.

You'll get radicals in any religion or ideology. Rage fails to see that. He's a bit of a radical of his own views anyway, and seems to come off as a stereotypical posterchild of right-wing libertarianism mixed with paranoia. (cue posts of BACK YER SHIT UP despite most of his recent posts proving it)

and to be quite honest....this is why I only peruse what he has to say.  It seems like a broken record played for a deaf person.

[RageBeoulve]

Most of what he saying is right, but he's tacking it to feminists rather than it's radicals. He is confusing feminism, which is really just an outdated name for "gender equality" these days, for radical man-hating feminism. Changing feminism's name to reflect the fact it's really just about gender equality (ie. something less wordy than "gender egalitarianism") will differentiate it from the radical side of it.

You'll get radicals in any religion or ideology. Rage fails to see that. He's a bit of a radical of his own views anyway, and seems to come off as a stereotypical posterchild of right-wing libertarianism mixed with paranoia. (cue posts of BACK YER SHIT UP despite most of his recent posts proving it)

and to be quite honest....this is why I only peruse what he has to say.  It seems like a broken record played for a deaf person.

You sound the same to me, actually. Its obvious you skimmed the fuck out of my posts when you say the "STATS" I posted were biased. I didn't post any fucking stats, you moron. You don't even read anything, which solidifies your image as a piece of shit in my view. Especially when you throw labels at me like close minded.

At least I read your fucking posts, you hypocrite.

Moving on.

You'll get radicals in any religion or ideology. Rage fails to see that. He's a bit of a radical of his own views anyway, and seems to come off as a stereotypical posterchild of right-wing libertarianism mixed with paranoia. (cue posts of BACK YER SHIT UP despite most of his recent posts proving it)

You're off on some things, but I will not deny being pretty radical. The way things are in the world today, I think if you're not taking a radical stance against it then you must be mentally retarded. Next up, the right left statement. Fuck that shit, Schleed. I am non-partisan, and militantly so. I would like to see the party system completely destroyed.

And I disagree with your stance on "radical" feminism. I think radical feminism is pretty much the norm now, and is designed to progressively get worse by infecting the minds of impressionable youngsters at universities and through media. It is not a movement for equality, its a movement for special treatment.

[McGiver]

I say most stats are biased.


My issue is with you telling schleed to come up with evidence....like you did.
I say...it is not evidence.

[Bastet]

I say most stats are biased.


My issue is with you telling schleed to come up with evidence....like you did.
I say...it is not evidence.

My farts smell better than your farts.

[Al Swearegen]

Most of what he saying is right, but he's tacking it to feminists rather than it's radicals. He is confusing feminism, which is really just an outdated name for "gender equality" these days, for radical man-hating feminism. Changing feminism's name to reflect the fact it's really just about gender equality (ie. something less wordy than "gender egalitarianism") will differentiate it from the radical side of it.

You'll get radicals in any religion or ideology. Rage fails to see that. He's a bit of a radical of his own views anyway, and seems to come off as a stereotypical posterchild of right-wing libertarianism mixed with paranoia. (cue posts of BACK YER SHIT UP despite most of his recent posts proving it)

Nope. You are well meaning enough Shleed but I don't know who sold you this ideology.
Feminism is not about gender equality and is not a different name for gender equality. Feminism is for females. They are the end recipients. If males get ANY benefit, it is not by design.

We do not have to look to radical feminist ideas.
Society actively seeks to further women ahead of men in an attempt to "bring them up to par" This is the theory. In practice whilst they strived for housing for women to tackle women who are victims of domestic violence, where are the men's shelters? What about the difference in prison sentencing? What about the Child Support laws? What about the men's rights movements? What about the difference in male and female educational standards at school? What about Paternity/Maternity leave differences? What about the misinformation about me and women pay gaps?
Why is there so much information difference in so many areas where woman are NOT on par but quite obviously all over the blokes, YET still the push for "more equality" in these areas?
Why are feminists not supporting the men's movement? Why are feminists not supporting men's housing....oh well ask Erin Pizzey what happens if you try to assert that men need shelters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey

Society has been dictated to by feminists and not just hardline radicals and a lot of the presumptions are based on bullshit, nothing more than feelings or fears or wants. a lot of the fearmongering is as successful as the fearmongering about terrorists after 9/11 (years after) and just as successful in thinking that society has to give up rights or change their views for their own good over a lot of things that they possibly ought not.

[Parts]

I saw this yesterday and thought of this thread.

A former portfolio manager on Wall Street who says he simply doesn't have the money to pay alimony of nearly $78,000 annually after job losses and using up his savings will be spending his nights and weekends in jail for the foreseeable future.

Noting that Ari Schochet owes $233,000 to his former wife of 17 years, a New Jersey judge on Monday ruled that he must continue to serve the part-time contempt sentence unless and until he comes up with a down payment of $25,000, Bloomberg reports.

Schochet's pro bono lawyer, Benjamin Kelsen, said during a hearing in the Bergen County case that Schochet wants to pay but can't and unsuccessfully sought Schochet's release pending a 30-day review. With child support, Schochet's total annual obligation to his ex-wife is nearly $100,000.

Link

I have know several men screwed in this fashion one that was forced to live in his truck and threatened with jail after losing his job but still told he had to pay the same amount.  Sure I have know guys who fucked over women and got away with it but the courts are very much stacked against men in these things

[McGiver]

I saw this yesterday and thought of this thread.

A former portfolio manager on Wall Street who says he simply doesn't have the money to pay alimony of nearly $78,000 annually after job losses and using up his savings will be spending his nights and weekends in jail for the foreseeable future.

Noting that Ari Schochet owes $233,000 to his former wife of 17 years, a New Jersey judge on Monday ruled that he must continue to serve the part-time contempt sentence unless and until he comes up with a down payment of $25,000, Bloomberg reports.

Schochet's pro bono lawyer, Benjamin Kelsen, said during a hearing in the Bergen County case that Schochet wants to pay but can't and unsuccessfully sought Schochet's release pending a 30-day review. With child support, Schochet's total annual obligation to his ex-wife is nearly $100,000.

Link

I have know several men screwed in this fashion one that was forced to live in his truck and threatened with jail after losing his job but still told he had to pay the same amount.  Sure I have know guys who fucked over women and got away with it but the courts are very much stacked against men in these things

interesting story.  How could this happen?  There is usually a formula used to figure out how much alimony and child support is.

The reason why the courts favor women is because, for years men would simply up and leave,   Not owning p to their financial responsibilities.   
I don't know how the laws got changed, whether it be feminism or a general public who said enough is enough.  But in any case, someone stopped crying about it and went out and solved the problem.

So, if feminism is such a dastardly thing....stop your fucking bitching and do something about it.

[McGiver]

The rest of the article

Although Family Court Judge Ronny Jo Siegel pointed out that Schochet could have sought a separate hearing concerning his ability to pay, Schochet and others say doing so is expensive and the system is difficult for a nonlawyer to navigate.

Those behind the state's alimony reform movement say it should be easier for individuals to show that they can't afford to pay court-ordered alimony and harder to jail a former spouse for failing to do so.

“State judges are incarcerating non-criminals without even a sentence,” said attorney Stuart Meissner, a candidate in an October special election for U.S. Senate who has made alimony reform part of his platform. He says individuals should be represented by counsel and given a hearing to determine ability to pay before they are incarcerated.

Legislation to reduce or even eliminate alimony is being considered in at least 10 states, including New Jersey. However, even though women are now a mainstay of the American workforce, the concept of supporting a stay-at-home spouse, post-divorce, isn't entirely a relic of history, says attorney Laura W. Morgan, who operates Family Law Consulting in Charlottesville, Va. Among other reasons, women on average still earn less than men, she points out.

Sharona Grossberg, the ex-wife of Schochet, told the judge on Monday that she has had to get three jobs to cover the cost of raising the couple's four girls.

“I feed my daughters, I clothe them, I pay for their health insurance, I keep gas in the car,” Grossberg said. “My paycheck doesn’t cover the expenses that are necessary. I cannot do this alone.”

Her ex-husband says his part-time entry-level job as a stock transfer agent leaves him with about $100 per month after his wages are taxed and garnished. Occasional work for a florist brings in some extra bucks.

Jailed at least eight times during the past two years for missing required payments to Grossberg, he now follows a routine before each family court hearing, including wearing a nicotine patch to deal with a lack of cigarettes behind bars and writing key phone numbers on his arm in permanent ink, an earlier Bloomberg article reported.

“When I tell people what’s happened to me these last two years, they say, ‘Your story can’t possibly be true, and you must be in court because you beat your wife,’” he told the news agency. “This has nothing to do with anything other than money.”

There is something more going on here.  Why does she have to work so much.  She also has to work three jobs.

[Al Swearegen]

I saw this yesterday and thought of this thread.

A former portfolio manager on Wall Street who says he simply doesn't have the money to pay alimony of nearly $78,000 annually after job losses and using up his savings will be spending his nights and weekends in jail for the foreseeable future.

Noting that Ari Schochet owes $233,000 to his former wife of 17 years, a New Jersey judge on Monday ruled that he must continue to serve the part-time contempt sentence unless and until he comes up with a down payment of $25,000, Bloomberg reports.

Schochet's pro bono lawyer, Benjamin Kelsen, said during a hearing in the Bergen County case that Schochet wants to pay but can't and unsuccessfully sought Schochet's release pending a 30-day review. With child support, Schochet's total annual obligation to his ex-wife is nearly $100,000.

Link

I have know several men screwed in this fashion one that was forced to live in his truck and threatened with jail after losing his job but still told he had to pay the same amount.  Sure I have know guys who fucked over women and got away with it but the courts are very much stacked against men in these things

interesting story.  How could this happen?  There is usually a formula used to figure out how much alimony and child support is.

The reason why the courts favor women is because, for years men would simply up and leave,   Not owning p to their financial responsibilities.   
I don't know how the laws got changed, whether it be feminism or a general public who said enough is enough.  But in any case, someone stopped crying about it and went out and solved the problem.

So, if feminism is such a dastardly thing....stop your fucking bitching and do something about it.

You are not honestly saying you don't know how it happens?
Child Support was certainly supposed to be a an encouragement for men to pay for their children. The amount was supposed to be an amount about equivalent to what it would be to make the man financially better off to stay with his wife...only with the passage of time and change in society, now separation and divorce is resounding initiated by the wife rather than the husband. So the husband is forced to pay child support to stop him leaving his wife but can not stop her leaving him.
The wife will often get government pensions and Mother support and child maintenance from the Father and a larger chunk of the family estate, and the guy? Well the guy get's fucked by a system that seeks to supplant his role in the family dynamic and make him obsolete.
And McJagger YOU know as well as I know that men are not creatures with gender bias. They compete against other men in pretty much everything and are not taught or socialised to share, they are taught to suck it up and deal with things.

I have no idea why you are asking these kinds of questions and faking ignorance BUT I strongly suspect you are just trying to further the debate and like Fox News are pressing buttons to get mileage.