"Senator Biden Wants to Give Your Ex-Wife a Free Attorney..."
So says Glenn Sacks:
Why should only women get "free" attorneys basically provided by the government? What about low income men who cannot get custody of their children or men who are falsely accused of domestic violence--where is their free attorney? Isn't this unfair?
Biden’s latest domestic violence bill is the National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network Act, which amends Biden’s Violence Against Women Act to create an extensive network of volunteer attorneys to help abused women. The attorneys would provide free legal help in forging divorce or separation agreements and in winning child custody...
Why should only women get "free" attorneys basically provided by the government? What about low income men who cannot get custody of their children or men who are falsely accused of domestic violence--where is their free attorney? Isn't this unfair?
Labels: men's rights (or lack thereof)
posted by Helen at 2:13 PM
60 Comments:
Ah, but these folk don't believe that there are abused men, much like Queen Victoria didn't believe in lesbians. So if there are no abused men, there is no need to provide attorneys for them...
b.durbin,
Women who make false domestic abuse charges are abusing men. I realize you are being sarcastic, however!
"What about low income men ..."
Like any other kind of men. who cares?
As one who was accused of incredible things, until the facade fell apart, and my kids came back home to me, I can't even speak about it without spinning in circles. Being destroyed is not fun.
Reading about this sends my blood pressure through the roof. I really can't understand this stuff. There are unscrupulous women out to get their ex's, and even more unscrupulous lawyers out there taking 40% of that.
Now what advantage is it to give these women free legal help? There is more to it than meets the eye, for sure. It's called votes.
Yes sir. There is evil in the air. Maybe, just maybe, it is time for another revolution. The last one worked out pretty well. Lasted almost a couple hundred years before things started getting wacky again.
Oh, look, it's supported by NOW! What a surprise. But I have a question:
It looks like the bill passed with a voice vote which is what committee members do when they don't want their vote to be recorded.
This sounds fishy to me. But, I am not a very politically-minded person so maybe it shouldn't. Why wouldn't they want their votes recorded?
NOW and the American Bar Association.
Who'd of thought?
At least NOW wants the American family destroyed because they hate men and boys who become men. Lawyers are willing to do it just for the money.
There are probably two factors at work.
First, Biden is probably ignorant of the evils perpetuated by some women.
Second, women are the largest voting block, and he is likely pandering to them.
First, Biden is probably ignorant of the evils perpetuated by some women.
Second, women are the largest voting block, and he is likely pandering to them.
First - No, Biden doesn't care about the evils perpetuated by women.
Second - yes, he is pandering to women, the largest voting block, by sacrificing men and children at the alter of feminism is routine for politicians. For them "caring" means getting votes anyway they can.
Men are pussies. They can't stand up to women. As I've written before, there is no hope of change except through the courts. But even there, men are pussies.
Men will do nothing. Watch.
Ahhh, why do we need a piece of federal legislation to create a network of volunteer attorneys? Why does the federal government have to get involved --- let me guess,there is some taxpayer money for attorneys involved here somewhere.
I agree with Jeff. This is all because men aren't active in this part of the political process.
All the whining we hear about from men on divorce settlements could have been avoided if the men had the balls to get a pre-nup.
Ask her for a pre-nup. If she won't do it, you know beforehand. If you are too afraid to bring it up, is this the type of relationship you want to get a legally binding contract over?
Men are afraid to ask for pre-nups. Hence, their problems are self-inflicted.
Here's a study in Psychiatric News that shows:
Regarding perpetration of violence, more women than men (25 percent versus 11 percent) were responsible. In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women.
Of course, this won't get Joe Biden any votes from the feminists.
what you are you going to do about it, jeff? You gonna show the rest of us how to be a RealMan(TM), like you?
You're safe insulting men. NOW won't bother you for that.
@kmg:
I agree that men should be more active. But calling all men pussies is quite idiotic.
Women are often instigators of domestic incidents, but the woman is a lot more likely to be seriously injured than the man. Men are stronger.
I never liked Biden's Violence Against Women Act. For one thing, it federalized a state issue. There's not a lot of crossing state lines to beat up your wife.
That issue aside, I'd to see low-cost legal aid for divorcing couples so both get a fair shake. I've seen some bad outcomes because one parent had a lawyer and the other didn't. Even people with lawyers can get screwed but it's much worse for low- and moderate-income people.
--to see low-cost legal aid for divorcing couples so both get a fair shake.
Maybe we could invent the role called 'judge' to make sure that both parties get that fair shake.
@Joanne - On the mark!
The awful ex-wife, is as much a myth as the awful ex-husband.
Reading the feminist bashing, and vitriol Helen's male audience direct at the God-awful women - it should surprise no one that these men end up with God-awful women. What self respecting woman in their right mind would subject herself, but more importantly, her future children (daughters) to such.
All I can do is bite my tongue.
Oh, what the hell. Blow me, alice.
By the way, jeff is female. I've read enough of the B.S. coming out of that mouth to realize it.
Jeff: Men will do nothing. Watch.
Oh, I disagree. Men will do something. They will become Tom Leykis acolytes, avoiding marriage like the plague. They will use women only for cheap sexual gratification, and then cold-heartedly kick them to the curb when the novelty wears off. And they will never forget their condoms. Some will even get vasectomies, double-crossing the slutty scheming women who think they can trap a guy into a shotgun marriage.
This comment has been removed by the author.
To Alice an:
Of course!! Men aren't allowed to complain bitterly about living in a feminzai police state for the past 40 years, from which you women have greatly benefited, right??? May I suggest that you learn to do what women have demanded of men for all that time -- shut up and take your licks.
It's my understanding there's some forgiveness of student loans worked into the package to encourage attorneys to volunteer.
As to the DV industry, it's clear that the "services" offered don't even even serve the needs of women, as simply ending a relationship doesn't provide any kind of solution to the problem. The calls to the Domestic Abuse Helpline http://www.dahmw.info from women are increasing because "traditional" programs only help in a very small minority of cases.
Reading the feminist bashing, and vitriol Helen's male audience direct at the God-awful women - it should surprise no one that these men end up with God-awful women. - alice an
Um, this makes no sense at all. Except to prove out the point that a large percentage of women are incredibly disingenuous.
It's like saying "I hate tomatoes so much that it figures I would choose a giant plate of tomatoes for dinner". It is nonsense.
Now if the plate of tomatoes disguised itself as a large steak, then yes indeed I may end up with a plate of them.
If a feminist/liberal/God-awful woman disguises herself as a sweetheart, then likewise I may end up with her even if I hate God-awful women.
To jl:
If a feminist/liberal/God-awful woman disguises herself as a sweetheart, then likewise I may end up with her even if I hate God-awful women.
At the risk of stating the obvious, people vary in their ability to maintain this sort of disguise. In a society where we deal with a lot of strangers, the only way to detect it is to watch the woman in a wide variety of situations, including some where she is under considerable stress. Unfortunately, this investigation can take a lot of time and entail a lot of cost and risk.
Alice wrote: "The awful ex-wife, is as much a myth as the awful ex-husband."
Really? No such thing as an awful former spouse? Never? People get divorced for no reason in your world?
"What self respecting woman in their right mind would subject herself, but more importantly, her future children (daughters) to such."
Telling gender bias there. Got sons?
Trey
Yeah I know Bobh, my main point was that the only way Alice an's assertion held an ounce of reason was to show that if indeed "God-awful women" hating men ended up with "God-awful women", they would have to be tricked into doing so.
But essentially, I think her assertion is ludicrous...ludakriss for all you hip kids watching at home :D
Look on the bright side. If my ex had a free attorney, maybe I wouldn't be paying her legal bills now.
No, but I would, thru taxes.
No thank you.
The courts are useless. This crap can't be fought in the courts, because they don't care about men. Or women and children for that matter. They care about money, and they care about appearing to care about justice.
Pre-nups are ignored by many (most?) courts. If your pre-nup doesn't match the court's templates and standards at the time of your divorce, then they'll just throw it out as "unconscionable."
To drag it back to our patient hostess' original question(s), I strongly suspect that it never crossed Biden's cranium that such unfairness was even possible. Heinlein's Razor applies here: he didn't think it through; likely didn't think much about it at all. But, you know, it's Joe.
As Mark Twain put it, "Suppose you were an idiot. Suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
If you need a prenup, you had better reconsider your marriage plans involving that person.
You haven't spent enough time getting to know that person and, by wanting a prenup, you are showing that you don't forsee the marriage lasting and/or you don't really want a partner; you want a tax deduction and a shack-up honey.
Some of you are writing as if Biden actually has some redeeming qualities, and is perhaps just ill informed.
Joanne Jacobs --
Women are often instigators of domestic incidents, but the woman is a lot more likely to be seriously injured than the man. Men are stronger.
Same thing happens when a little guy picks on a bigger guy. What would be your point?
"Men are pussies. They can't stand up to women. As I've written before, there is no hope of change except through the courts. But even there, men are pussies."
Jeff, men are starting to wise up. Fewer and fewer men are getting married. Those that do, are delaying it till much later in life. Going to the courts will not bear much fruit either as most are amicable to the women.
Men are going to have to make it a social movement without it being a victimization movement. Playing the victim does not sit well with most men's psyche. Till the social impacts are demanded you won't get the political backing necessary to change things.
First major change -- insist on male only charter schools.
"Women are often instigators of domestic incidents, but the woman is a lot more likely to be seriously injured than the man. Men are stronger. "
Joanne,
Though most men have the capability most do not have the will till pushed over the edge. Without will the strongest man on earth is but a weakling.
I just read an important part of the post which explains it to me.
"The attorneys would provide free legal help in forging divorce or separation agreements and in winning child custody. . ."
So the bottom line is purely one of self interest as people who grow up in single parent households are much more likely to vote Democratic. This is just another kind of Democratic ambulance chasing.
Trey
Why does anyone think pre-nups don't hold up in court? If constructed properly by a competent attorney, then it would hold up, even in CA.
Whoever says that even good pre-nups don't hold up is bitter that he did not get one while he had the chance.
Even post-nups can hold up if there are two unbiased witnesses (like your marriage counselor, etc.)
hearing some of the comments here, its interesting to note.. Most of the commentators who are for this thing, are the very people who will benefit.
i wonder why that is.
Jeff and kmg, I see you are the poor deluded feminised males. Pre nups are only there to benefit women, not men, as has been said pre nups can be voided by the courts, or after 10 years, or if there are kids, or if..
so they only work if it benefits women.. to a greater or lesser extent.
come on jeff and kmg, i will ask again what is a real man, is it genetic, is it being kind is it being chivalrous..
and men making groups up to fight injustice against their sex.. lets see its illegal to have men only clubs and organisations, but its ok to have female only.. Legally men cant get together unless its via online, sites like the great dr helens, all help to focus the mind of men.
we as men.. have to take it slowly build up a great force.. and thats happening, we post articles, we spread the word, but the moment we show our true power we get called all rapists, or we want all women bare foot and pregnant, the anti male press is very powerful. its an uphill struggle..
Haven't read the act in detail, and I AM sensitive to gender favoritism, but I have to say that OpenCongress doesn't paint that grim a picture when I skim it. See:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s1515/show
For example,
"Section 3
(1) IN GENERAL-
`(A) GRANTS- The Attorney General may award grants to the American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence to work in collaboration with the American Bar Association Committee on Pro Bono and Public Service and other organizations to create, recruit lawyers for, and provide training, mentoring, and technical assistance for a National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network.
`(B) USE OF FUNDS- Funds allocated to the American Bar Association's Commission on Domestic Violence under this subsection shall be used to--
`(i) create and maintain a network to field and manage inquiries from volunteer lawyers seeking to represent and assist victims of domestic violence;
`(ii) solicit lawyers to serve as volunteer lawyers in the network;
`(iii) retain dedicated staff to support volunteer attorneys by--
`(I) providing field technical assistance inquiries;
`(II) providing on-going mentoring and support;
`(III) collaborating with national domestic violence legal technical assistance providers and statewide legal coordinators and local legal services programs; and
`(IV) developing legal education and other training materials; and
`(iv) maintain a point of contact with the statewide legal coordinator in each State regarding coordination of training, mentoring, and supporting volunteer attorneys representing victims of domestic violence."
Again, didn't really dig into it, your mileage may vary. But mostly it mentions 'victims' with gender unspecified. the only thing new I saw specifically mentioning women was the 'immigrant women' clause. Irritating, but not catrostrophic.
Anyone else see a particular bent in the text ?
Oh, and Sgt Ted,
While I do agree that many folks jump into marriage with no forethought (which is what I think you were alluding to), I'll add what I told my mother-in-law when she was bent to learn that I and my wife will BOTH recommend prenups to our sons:
I won't recommend a pre-nup to my sons because they're stupid or shortsighted, or because I think they are marrying the wrong woman.
I don't recommend that a police officer wear body armor because I think he's stupid or shortsighted, or doing something wrong.
I don't recommend that my aunt Fannie (who doesn't actually exist) wear her seatbelt because I think she is stupid, or shortsighted, or a terrible driver.
I don't recommend that my brother get more life insurance because I think he's going to die soon.
Wise humans use reasonable methods to change their environment to better suit them, and to aid in their survival. Man has achieved primacy not because he's faster than a cheetah or stronger than a lion, but because at least some of the race's members acted smart in anticipating problems and preparing for them beforehand.
Anyone can change, husband or wife.
But in the USA in the 21st century, in the vast majority of the time, the legal deck is stacked against the male gender. Just review the title of "the Office on Violence Against Women," I'm not hallucinating.
To fail to recognize that, and to fail to take reasonable steps to protect oneself against that is to accept adversity with the dim, uncomprehending obliviousness of a bovine.
I recommend pre-nups because in the 21st century, they are the smart thing to do, along with seatbelts, fire extinguishers, 401Ks, etc.
Understand, I will tell my boys:
If she won't sign a pre-nup, run away. If you won't sign your beloved's pre-nup, I'll tell HER to run away, too. If you think asking for a pre-nup sends a message, what do you suppose refusing to sign one signals ?
My wife and I have been together 22 years this fall. So one might say we wouldn't have "needed" one, either. Well, my house hasn't burnt down, either. But I still have a fire extinguisher in the kitchen, fresh batteries in the smoke detectors, and I don't plan on canceling the property insurance anytime soon.
If my wife and I had met today, we agree that we'd both do the pre-nup routine.
You may not feel the need. And perhaps you don't. My dad never wore a seatbelt except when riging in my car. But sometimes one man's folly is another's prudent preparation.
the myth of "strong man = violent man", as used here by Joanna "the woman is a lot more likely to be seriously injured than the man. Men are stronger" has been proven wrong in dozens of studies.
here's a list of such research:
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
B. Durbin, Wikipedia says that claim is false, although they only list a book as the source so it is not easy to verify.
"the woman is a lot more likely to be seriously injured than the man. Men are stronger"
This is just a cheap excuse used to justify allowing women to hit men with lesser or no consequences. It is the female equivalent to "the bitch had it coming".
Hi, Helen. Don't you just love all those enumerated powers like the right to free lawyers....and it gets ever better with lawyers for women only...
Been pondering this ever since I first saw it.
"Free Attorney".
Really?
Hard to imagine that.
Free Attorney.
Naww. Cain't be did.
You must mean "taxpayer-paid-for attorney".
Still sucks. Now I not only have to pay for the attorney (no change there), I have to pay the vigorish for the pols too.
and by the way, this is really sexism at its best/worst..Biden is trying to be extra nice to women, because they really, really are inferior and need it.... but it's really sexism at its worst because it's patronizing....the soft bigotry of lowered expectations and greater need.
No thanks, Sen. Biden.
1charlie2 - the wording may be non-gender specific but if you think the implementation of this bill would be applied equally between genders I have a bridge to sell you.
Funny. Jeff, aka RealMan(TM), comes here to set all us men (or, as he likes to call us, p***ies), and when we fire back, the RealMan(TM) is no where to be found.
I would quite enjoy seeing the roll call vote on a gender equity amendment mandating that funding shall be split male/female in accord with the sex split on initiating gender violence. It would be a bad bill anyway but the roll call would be... educational.
I've occasionally wondered if the U.S. might not be better off if we were to nationalize the Law industry, at least the criminal law industry.
Break Lawyers up into solicitors (contracts, wills, etc) and barristers (criminal prosecution and defense). Make all barristers public servants and don't allow them to unionize.
Take the money out of class-action lawsuits and make legal representation equally accessible to all.
Law is the government's job anyway.
I don't know how well that would all work though. Britain has followed that system AFAIK. Anyone know how well it works?
"Why does anyone think pre-nups don't hold up in court?"
Because that's what the courts say.
"If constructed properly by a competent attorney, then it would hold up, even in CA."
I don't know anything about CA personally, but not according to every lawyer and book I've consulted.
I should clarify, though. Although pre-nups are pretty much subject to the court's whim, I still think they're a good idea in principle. The Law given at Sinai was a pre-nup, and the same pattern has been followed in Jewish marriages (in the form of a ketubah) ever since. Who knows? Maybe in twenty years the courts might start respecting private contracts again.
in principle jay c, but we all know what high minded people are judges today.
jason i live in the Uk, and it seems to be working out ok, of course they want our british law to be more americanised.. no wig and gown,
We've discussed the "chivalry disease" here before. That's the condition where middle aged and elderly baby boomers repeatedly abuse men as a way of pandering to women. Biden's law is a prime example.
Many of these people have psychological reference points from around 1959. When an idiot like Biden has his staff write a law like this, his reference point is something like "Leave It To Beaver" or "Father Knows Best." I know I don't have to remind anyone here that it's 2008 and American society has changed radically. People like Biden are building a warped, unjust society based on a guilt-massaging and absurdly dated vision of what the world is like RIGHT NOW.
It's like when Hillary was screaming years ago about "what am I supposed to do?...stay home and bake cookies?!?" That statement is nothing but a calculated attempt to shame and manipulate people over a social condition for women that does not exist anymore except in legend. The legend, unfortunately, is very much alive amongst our brain-dead baby boomer politicians and our politically correct media culture.
Perhaps clergy and judges should issue mirandas at weddings.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in future arguments or in the family courts. Your wife has the right to an attorney, and one will be provided for her by your tax dollars.
When I saw that the ABA was involved, that was all I needed to know. This is the organization that routinely fills its pages with left-liberal causes, has a president who wears a bow tie, and very often rates those right of center as less than fully qualified for the bench. Oh, and it keeps up tuition costs to law school by mandating significant extraneous costs and limits how many practicing attorneys can teach their areas of expertise by limiting the number of adjunct faculty. And, it is currently working on mandating violation of the Civil Rights Acts and 14th Amdt. in its proposed affirmative action requirements (ignoring the two Michigan cases).
My experience with prenuptial agreements is that even if competently drafted, all they really protect are current assets and possibly against alimony, etc. The big loophole is child support and custody, and provisions for them are routinely rejected as being against public policy and for the benefit of the children.
So, you may be able to limit a former wife to limited alimony and from getting the family business (assuming that it was brought into the marriage), but it most often won't help when it comes to getting fair custody or realistic child support.
I have been a victom of this exact process. Having no $$ I was denied a lawyer to answer sopsed crimanl charges, in a family court? With no $$ no lawyer facing my and my childs abuser as well as her lawyer and the extream story of years of lies. the most likely out come will be that I will loose my daughter and go to prison. All for things that never took place. at least if I had the right to a lawyer I would have some one that might be able to get the law to work for me.
徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home