Thursday, May 19, 2011

"... no one can picture that same legal fate befalling Maria Shriver."

Roissy:

The Arnold scandal is interesting in another way: it holds a mirror up to our discriminatory, absurdist legal system. As Helen Smith says, what if this had been Maria’s kid? In today’s anti-male legal climate, Arnold would have been on the hook for child support if Maria had a ten year old kid by another man on the downlow. The courts and their femcunt foot soldiers would say “in the interest of the children” and “a bond has been formed” and all that self-serving horse shit that is nothing but cover for institutionalizing the second-class treatment of men. And then Arnold, still reeling from the news that Maria had been cheating on him, would suffer the additional body blow of financial responsibility for raising the bastard spawn of Maria’s infidelity.

Of course, no one can picture that same legal fate befalling Maria Shriver. There’s no court in the land that will saddle Maria with a court order to pay up for Arnold’s love child. If they did, Oprah would command an army of yentas to storm the Capitol building until legislators changed the law, quaking in fear before all that female empowerment.

And yet, according to most women and their male sycophants, it’s perfectly fine, nay even morally just, to exact this same malevolent injustice upon men.

To that I give a hale and hearty FUUUUUUUUUUUCK YOUUUUUUUU.

Cursing is a start, but organized political action against those who enact these legal injustices against men is better.

Labels:

46 Comments:

Blogger JG said...

Kudos to Helen that she is getting quoted now by people like Roissy. Not that he is the be-all-and-end-all, but he does really have insight for the most part into men's situations.

5:05 PM, May 19, 2011  
Blogger JG said...

Real insight into life is something that a lot of psychologists struggle with - I have seen better *real* psychologists among securities salesmen, religious types like Joel Osteen and used-car salesmen than among Ph.D. types.

But I think Helen is hitting it.

5:10 PM, May 19, 2011  
Blogger Armed Texan said...

While I do think the current legal situation is absurd, the two scenarios offered are not equivalent. In one, one spouse was not involved in the raising of the child and was not even aware of his existence. In the other, the mother having a bastard child, the spouse was fooled in to believing the child to be his own and raised the child for years, developing a relationship. For a 10 year old, it is bad enough to find out that the guy you thought was your father really isn't and that your mother is a lying, cheating [choose your own explicative], but then to have the one parent you can still trust also betray you must be beyond devastating.

I would not write or enforce a law that required the male spouse to continue his parental responsibilities and financial support, but I would encourage him to do so for the sake of the child. (I would also advise him to divorce the lying, cheating [choose your own explicative] and sue for full custody.)

5:28 PM, May 19, 2011  
Blogger ZorroPrimo said...

Yeah. Um, the cursing wasn't necessary, but the sentiment and insight were spot-on.

And JG's right: Someone like Helen getting cited (positively) by a PUA like Roissy is actually quite flattering, given the general faultline between the established psychological community and...guys who specialize in banging chicks.

Oh, what a wonderful world!

6:13 PM, May 19, 2011  
Blogger kmg said...

Helen,

Here is a good article on how criminalizing men for behaviors that would previously have been considered normal, will turn more normal men into criminals.

Or as they say, when it is against the law to get laid, only outlaws will get laid.

6:22 PM, May 19, 2011  
Blogger kmg said...

Helen,

The Futurist has created a strategy that enables a small number of men to bring awareness to misandry :

http://www.singularity2050.com/2011/01/the-time-has-arrived.html

Please bring visibility to this.

6:24 PM, May 19, 2011  
Blogger kmg said...

PUAs have a faaaaaar deeper understanding of human psychology than any 'certified' PhD.

This is because PUAs are 100% result-oriented, which forces the elimination of all politically-correct garbage.

Unlearning is sometimes more important than learning.

6:27 PM, May 19, 2011  
Blogger kmg said...

The Futurist's call to action on how to bring awareness to misandry.

It is highly scalable and cost-effective.

6:28 PM, May 19, 2011  
Blogger ZorroPrimo said...

Not suprised that article came from Delusion Damage. He's one of my favorite PUA bloggers.

And with all due respect to Helen, Carl Jung and Karl Menninger, I agree that ersults-oriented investigation yields more fruitful results (no pun intended) than investigations conducted in an environment where political ideology and political correctness can sink a researchers career.

With the PUAs, only failure yields failure; the sentiments of one's peers are but diddly.

6:29 PM, May 19, 2011  
Blogger JG said...

"... I agree that ersults-oriented investigation yields more fruitful results (no pun intended) than investigations conducted in an environment where political ideology and political correctness can sink a researchers career."

----

Yup. I don't really have a problem with spinning your wheels around in theory (I did enough of it when I was young), but there's some "theory" that is just a political agenda and not worth wasting time on if you are really on a search for the truth in life.

The people back around the beginning of the last century who were diddling around with Albert Einstein's theory of relativity were doing useful work. People who spend time with some feminist's theory of why men suck lots more than women are just spinning their wheels. Unfortunately, the latter is what I suspect among some Ph.D. candidates in psychology or education or social work or that stuff.

6:39 PM, May 19, 2011  
Blogger ZorroPrimo said...

On a related topic, it occurs to me that Maria Shriver and Sandra Bullock have some things in common.

Much as they didn't "deserve" what happened to them, when you consider what WAS KNOWN about their boyfriends (Ahnuld was a well-known serial groper and sexual harrasser, and Jesse James was a foul-mouthed, tattooed biker dude who was married to a porn queen), both of these women really should share a stateroom aboard the USS WHAT THE FUCK WAS I THINKING?!!

If women can't tell a philanderer and cad-in-the-making when they're dating them, how much pity do they deserve when these bad boys fail to keep their pants on?

You sleep in the bed you make. I have damned little sympathy for either of these drooling daydreamers.

7:04 PM, May 19, 2011  
Blogger Uncle Sol said...

I can't help but think that if they passed a law that said upon divorce there must be a paternity test of all children in the family, and the father will not be financially responsible for any of the children that are not his, that we might have far fewer women filing for divorce. While we're at it, if the father can name who the child's father really is and prove it (by same paternity test) both the mother and the biological father should be financially liable to the cuckold for having supported the child up to that point in the child's life.

7:05 PM, May 19, 2011  
Blogger ZorroPrimo said...

The Force is strong with Uncle Sol.

7:08 PM, May 19, 2011  
Blogger kmg said...

Uncle Sol,

That is correct, but remember that feminists like things just the way they are. Getting the sperm of the badboy while using the money of the niceguy is their ideal scenario.

That is why allowing women to vote causes the collapse of that society 100 years hence.

ZorroPrimo,

As Roissy often says, women like such men *because* of this behavior, not in spite of it. Ay serial killer gets tons of love letters from women who know nothing about him except that he killed people.

The female brain is less adjusted to modern notions of civilization than people would like to believe.

8:05 PM, May 19, 2011  
Blogger GawainsGhost said...

This was actually the topic on a talk show, I think it was Montel Williams, back in the 80s. He was outraged about it.

He had six guys on who were all victims of adultery and forced to pay child support for children who were not in fact theirs. And there was nothing any of them could do about it. Write the checks, or your wages and tax returns will be confiscated--in fact, you could be arrested and imprisoned, but you'll still owe the adultress money when you are released.

Then he had this female lawyer on, who went through the usual mantra, "good of the child," blah blah blah. Then she said something striking. She said that the law could not be changed because the court system would be flooded by millions of men claiming back payment of child support. I found that strange, because I don't think changing the law, removing presumptive paternity, would necessarily be retroactive, simply prevent further abuse of men's rights.

This adultress, this maid, was married at the time of the affair, and her husband is named as the father on the birth certificate. Legally, he is on the hook for child support; Arnold is not.

In fact, it's even worse than that. A single woman with whom you've never had sex, can claim you're the father of her child, write your name on the birth certificate, and if you don't go down to court and contest it, demand a paternity test, within the allotted time, which can be merely a matter of weeks, you're on the hook for child support. 20% for 18 years, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Like apples? How do you like them apples?

Perhaps Arnold will do the honorable thing and provide for his bastard son. But the betrayed husband is still legally required to pay child support. In other words, the adultress would then have two sources of income, for having an affair. Think about that for a long while.

I don't know how much money Arnold will be able to pay her, because I do know that Maria Shriver is going to sue the living shit out of him. And she has all the power in court.

8:12 PM, May 19, 2011  
Blogger ZorroPrimo said...

I am reminded of remarks Ann Coulter has made on several occasions to the effect that women should not be allowed to vote because they almost invariably vote liberal...and stupid. {or is that a tautology?}

8:12 PM, May 19, 2011  
Blogger kmg said...

ZorroPrimo,

Of course. We have yet to witness if a society can withstand 100 years of women voting. The US crosses that mark in 2019. Things are not looking good.

A lot of Republican men think that feminism is only a leftist thing. Wrong. GOP women differ form leftist women only on a few points, but generally are just as aggressive as leftist women in transferring wealth from men to women.

Women voting Republican = the GOP becoming a big-government party, rather than women becoming fiscally prudent.

9:35 PM, May 19, 2011  
Blogger DADvocate said...

Roissy forgot to mention, at least in the part you excerpt, that had Maria had the child by another man not only would Arnold pay child support but Maria would still get at least half of everything in a divorce no matter how little she contributed. That plus the healthy child support would put her way ahead of Arnold.

11:20 PM, May 19, 2011  
Blogger ZorroPrimo said...

@GawainsGhost:

"A single woman with whom you've never had sex, can claim you're the father of her child, write your name on the birth certificate, and if you don't go down to court and contest it, demand a paternity test, within the allotted time, which can be merely a matter of weeks, you're on the hook for child support. 20% for 18 years, and there's nothing you can do about it."

Is the man notified by the court, or is all this perfidy conducted in secret? Seriously, this sounds too harrowing to be real. Any woman can make ME pay for her kid when I don't even know her?! Are you sure it works like this? It sounds preposterously easy to swindle over 100K out of any man the way you express it.

11:32 PM, May 19, 2011  
Blogger kmg said...

Is the man notified by the court, or is all this perfidy conducted in secret? Seriously, this sounds too harrowing to be real. Any woman can make ME pay for her kid when I don't even know her?! Are you sure it works like this? It sounds preposterously easy to swindle over 100K out of any man the way you express it.

Yes, it happens. The key is, he is served at a secret location, and so does not know to show up in court, thus losing the case.

Remember that feminists have lobbied for police departments to receive bonus grants based on how much 'child support' is collected (a law enthusiastically supported by those man-hating social conservatives), so the entire system has an incentive to separate innocent men from their wealth.

Go to The Spearhead and ask questions, to learn more. Also be sure to check out 'A Voice for Men Radio Show' by Paul Elam.

America is far closer to Stalinist Communism than many people realize.

12:49 AM, May 20, 2011  
Blogger Doom said...

No, the justice system, just as with the political system, has been jacked. Until men stand up and take their places nothing will be done. Either ignoring the laws in large numbers, going socially Galt (which seems to be the default), or through other more active means, the system simply will not merely reverse itself. A thousand chanting feminists might be intimidating, but a thousand really angry men is down right spooky.

Then again, I'm not sure the American male has enough testosterone left to do more than make pink lettered protest signs and speak somewhat 'not nicely'... so long as it doesn't offend or threaten, at all. Whatever.

3:07 AM, May 20, 2011  
Blogger ZorroPrimo said...

More optimistically, I assume the Internet will help a lot by informing more tech-savvy men about the realities of divorce court, child support and presumptive paternity.

However, until there is a National Organization of Men lobbying in DC and telling lawmakers to stop tossing the American male under the bus, no laws will change. I agree with several posters here that the biggest threat we have are the lefty fembots and the social conservative mangina chivalry junkies like Joe "Public Cunnilingus" Biden.

I've tooled around some of the MRA sites, and I like a lot of what I see, but much of their presentation comes off like whiny *male feminist* crampiness. I think they need to polish their image (although Paul Elam does a very good job).

If marriage is not repaired to a sane state, it bodes very badly for the future of this country. You cannot raise well adjusted children in any arrangement other than a Mom & Dad environment, and that means marriage. Where no kids are involved, I don't care what people do.

Women have spent half a century getting organized and politics-savvy. We have to catch up. The biggest hurdle is our male aversion to complaining. Boys are treated like garbage in the schools and men are measured against a pathetically small number of celebrity womanizers. Popular media treats fatherhood like a joke. This is ridiculous.

Another problem is the reality that 70% of disposable income is in HER hands. That means media will cater mercilessly to the female perspective. Boycotts must be staged against sponsors of anti-male advertising. Plan on seeing LOTS of that!

I would like to live long enough to see NOW and feminism get the black eye they richly deserve. That won't happen without organized lobbying.

3:28 AM, May 20, 2011  
Blogger randian said...

A single woman with whom you've never had sex, can claim you're the father of her child, write your name on the birth certificate, and if you don't go down to court and contest it, demand a paternity test, within the allotted time, which can be merely a matter of weeks, you're on the hook for child support.

It is somewhat surprising that this hasn't happened (so far as I know) to a rich, famous man. Why not name Bill Gates as the father? Once the clock has tolled he has no recourse. California courts are particularly egregious at permitting knowingly fraudulent paternity petitions (ones with obviously bogus addresses) to be enforced.

3:48 AM, May 20, 2011  
Blogger JG said...

"A single woman with whom you've never had sex, can claim you're the father of her child, write your name on the birth certificate, and if you don't go down to court and contest it, demand a paternity test, within the allotted time, which can be merely a matter of weeks, you're on the hook for child support."

---

It's just like any other suit, I can also sue Bill Gates for breach of contract for $100 million. But he has to be served, he will be given an opportunity to answer the complaint, and he can get a default judgment overturned if he wasn't served properly. Just like in the case of a paternity suit against some random guy.

I guess a difference is that I would probably be fined by the court for bringing an absolutely baseless and phony breach-of-contract suit, but courts don't seem to want to fine the little princesses who name the wrong names in paternity suits. Otherwise, this is kind of fear-mongering.

4:01 AM, May 20, 2011  
Blogger randian said...

But he has to be served, he will be given an opportunity to answer the complaint, and he can get a default judgment overturned if he wasn't served properly. Just like in the case of a paternity suit against some random guy.

Absolutely, positively, wrong. Family courts routinely deny "improper service" challenges to paternity claims, and appellate courts routinely uphold them. If you don't respond in time, you're dead.

5:27 AM, May 20, 2011  
Blogger JG said...

"If you don't respond in time, you're dead."

-----

If the issue is not responding in time (i.e. within 20 or 30 days or whatever the period is), then you WERE served. "Regular" civil courts will also issue a default judgment if you were served and just don't answer.

If you are saying that a person is not served at all, but the court refuses to hear it in a child support action, give me a concrete example or two.

5:34 AM, May 20, 2011  
Blogger JG said...

What sometimes happens is that a guy gets a summons and complaint and just thinks it's some administrative thing that will get worked out - because he knows he is not the biological father. So he just doesn't answer the complaint.

THAT does happen, and it's deadly.

But that's not an issue of proper service.

5:38 AM, May 20, 2011  
Blogger JG said...

I also realize that there can be a disconnect between proper service and actual notice - and that courts are sometimes a bit deaf about that - but that also exists in other civil cases.

5:43 AM, May 20, 2011  
Blogger randian said...

If the issue is not responding in time (i.e. within 20 or 30 days or whatever the period is), then you WERE served.

In regular civil court, if I get served at an incorrect address the default judgment can be overturned once I find out about it. Failure to respond isn't irrevocable if I can show good cause.

In family court, that's not true. If you don't respond in time a default paternity judgment cannot be undone. Good cause is irrelevant and the court will not entertain motions to overturn. That is wholly unjust, and incentivizes plaintiff's to lie on their paternity application.

7:08 AM, May 20, 2011  
Blogger TMink said...

I see a distinction regarding bonding with the child. The man should not be forced to pay support of course, but I would encourage the man to consider raising the child on his own with the lying mom footing the bill.

The child is actually innocent, just like his dad. Those two might make a go of it, with the mom footing the bill and staying out of the picture.

Trey

7:49 AM, May 20, 2011  
Blogger TMink said...

kmg, it seems to me that the pick up artists are wonderful at applied psychology in a very limited area. But as far as I have read, their area of interest is not very broad. heh.

That is nothing to diminish the excellent points concerning how mental health workers trained from a feminist or social justice perspective are clueless and at least potentially dangerous.

Trey

7:52 AM, May 20, 2011  
Blogger JG said...

TMink,

Something I have noticed about a lot of psychologists is that they are very resistant to measuring effectiveness. They really are.

The few studies that have been done on Rorschach tests, for instance, show that they are just as good as reading tea leaves. They do not produce results better than chance.

But lots of psychologists swear by those tests, and if you bring up the subject of MEASURING efficacy and results, they will simply ignore you. They won't even argue the point, they won't think about measuring results, they will ignore it.

8:01 AM, May 20, 2011  
Blogger JG said...

And the point is not whether Rorschach tests are useless or not, it is that lots of psychologists (not all) don't seem to care if they are useless or not and have no curiosity about it.

Effectiveness / results should be a major point in any kind of method. I would think.

8:03 AM, May 20, 2011  
Blogger ErikZ said...

Why not name Bill Gates as the father?

Continue with that line of thought. If it's that easy to get rich people entangled in legal BS, why not hit them up for money by using the legal system?

People already do this. This is why rich people have good relationships with their lawyers who constantly deal with issues like this.

9:14 AM, May 20, 2011  
Blogger GawainsGhost said...

Well, the notice is served by the court. But if you received a notice that claimed you were the father of a child by a woman you had never met, what would you do?

If you ignored the notice, it would be at your peril.

The reason why rich men like Bill Gates don't get paternity claims is because these guys have lawyers, very expensive lawyers who know how to dispense with these things. The average guy does not have that advantage.

And it has happened on numerous occasions. Some guy gets a court notice, says to himself I don't even know this girl, so he ignores it. Once the court establishes paternity, he's screwed.

10:36 AM, May 20, 2011  
Blogger JG said...

"The average guy does not have that advantage."

----

You answer the complaint within the amount of time stated in big letters or you get a lawyer to do it.

What advantage are you talking about?

10:43 AM, May 20, 2011  
Blogger JG said...

Rich men DO get paternity suits if they boned the woman, and they DO pay child support, sometimes astronomical amounts. Examples from the media: Boris Becker, Daryl Strawberry, Puff Daddy (or whatever his current name is), Mick Jaggar etc.

10:47 AM, May 20, 2011  
Blogger blahga the hutt said...

Nothing wrong with swearing and no, legal action isn't really required.

All you need to do is say, "fuck this nonsense," and walk away from it. I really don't know why this is so difficult for most guys. Too much whining how things are unfair. The government cannot force anyone to get into a relationship.

12:11 PM, May 20, 2011  
Blogger TMink said...

JG, the metaanlysis disagrees with you about Rorschach validity. "MMPI, Rorschach, and WAIS: A meta-analytic comparison of reliability, stability, and validity.
Parker, Kevin C.; Hanson, R. Karl; Hunsley, John
Psychological Bulletin, Vol 103(3), May 1988, 367-373. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.367 AbstractWe estimated the average reliability, stability, and validity of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), Rorschach Inkblot Test, and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) from articles published in the Journal of Personality Assessment and the Journal of Clinical Psychology between 1970 and 1981. Following standard psychometric theory, reliability values exceeded stability values, which exceeded validity values. Validity studies based on theory, prior research, or both showed greater effects than did studies lacking a theoretical or empirical rationale. In general, the reliability and stability of all three tests were acceptable and approximately equivalent. The convergent-validity estimates for the Rorschach and MMPI were not significantly different, but both these estimates were lower than the estimate for the WAIS. It appears that both the MMPI and Rorschach can be considered to have adequate psychometric properties if used for the purpose for which they were designed and validated. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)"

Having quoted that, I know two other people in Nashville that use it. And I only get to use it about three times a year. It is dying out.

But I think that the Rorschach depends on excellent training and tons of experience. I have neither, so I never, never, never use it alone.

Trey

12:37 PM, May 20, 2011  
Blogger Joe said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5:36 PM, May 20, 2011  
Blogger Joe said...

A single woman with whom you've never had sex, can claim you're the father of her child, write your name on the birth certificate, and if you don't go down to court and contest it, demand a paternity test, within the allotted time, which can be merely a matter of weeks, you're on the hook for child support.

That's not true in many states. To make it slightly more weird, in those states the birth certificate may not hold any probitive value in establishing paternity for births out of wedlock. In this situation, the parents have to fill out a separate form declaring paternity. Failure to do so can actually become a problem if the woman splits from the guy or later marries him and then gets divorced; she may not be able to actually collect child support. On the flip side, the father may not be able to get custody and/or visitation rights. In worse case where the mother dies, this can turn into a legal nightmare.

(Any real lawyers out there who can correct this are welcome.)

5:38 PM, May 20, 2011  
Blogger GawainsGhost said...

Laws vary from state to state. I can only speak on the law in my state.

But I personally know one guy that it happened to. This girl just said, he's the father. He ignored her because he knew he wasn't; he'd never even met her. But the court slapped him with child support anyway.

6:00 PM, May 20, 2011  
Blogger GawainsGhost said...

By the way, he's a good look at the modern American girl and the current state of feminism.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-19/slut-walks-are-organized-by-liberal-feminists-but-dont-help-women/full/

6:04 PM, May 20, 2011  
Blogger ray said...

maria married ahnulled to strut her celeb hunk in front of girlfriends (got old quik tho)

ahnulled married for the governorship, so he could keep pretending to himself that he's a big man

it'd be tough to find a couple over the past decade who've done more comprehensive and lasting damage to western boys and men -- by the millions

they are traitors to god and nation, cancers upon humanity

may they both rot in hell with the Seal of Kali stamped on their fat foreheads

ray

9:47 PM, May 20, 2011  
Blogger ZorroPrimo said...

@ray:

"it'd be tough to find a couple over the past decade who've done more comprehensive and lasting damage to western boys and men -- by the millions"

Bill & Hillary

So THERE!

NB: I agree completely with your analysis of why they married, though. Celebrity marriages have nothing to do with love, devotion or any other of that romance silliness. It's all about power, money, and career prospects.

10:50 PM, May 20, 2011  
Blogger golddigger said...

"And the point is not whether Rorschach tests are useless or not, it is that lots of psychologists (not all) don't seem to care if they are useless or not and have no curiosity about it."

This doesn't apply to Rorschach, but many psychological tests exist purely for funding purposes. Programs need to be able to demonstrate that their efforts are delivering results. Rising scores on a client's pre and post-tests can justify funding, especially for exotic therapies like equine assisted therapy. There's no substitute.

On an unrelated note, much has been made of this notion that men with options, and Arnold is certainly one, choose women in their early twenties (this maid looked very old) with physical characteristics the maid wouldn't have had even in her prime. Does no one else think the woman was an odd choice for a lover? Even for a very average man, much less a handsome movie star?

Also, in school I read a famous Constitutional case from California. Michael H or something. Anyway, a woman was married to one man and had an affair with another, with whom she conceived a child--paternity tests proved it. She reconciled with the husband. He was the presumed father and he, understandably, didn't want the little girl to have anything to do with her bio father, the mother's erstwhile lover. The lover sued to establish paternity and get visitation on substantive due process grounds.

He was denied. The Supreme Court affirmed. Under California law, if a child is born to married, cohabiting parents and the husband is not infertile, no one can challenge paternity except the husband or the wife. Not even the child. I remember it because it seemed so sad. I hate family law. There are no winners.

9:15 PM, May 23, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home