Ned Holstein and Glenn Sacks: Bill would give 'duped dads' some fairness under the law.
posted by Helen at 3:59 PM
Thursday, June 02, 2011
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Facing Violence
- The PickUp Artist
- "... no one can picture that same legal fate befal...
- What if Shriver had to pay for a child that wasn't...
- The wonder of Matt Drudge
- I am glad to see that Blogger is working again. It...
- John Hawkins interviews Warren Farrell about his b...
- CNBC: "Prices at the Pump Likely to Keep Rising." ...
- Married couples now a minority in Tennessee
- CNBC: More Couples Arguing About Money, Sneaking P...
14 Comments:
Awesomeness!
I can only hope that the legislature makes a just law. The old one is horrid.
Trey
'Feminists' will oppose this strongly, revealing their true colors for the umpteenth time.
Remember, it was natural for a woman to want the sperm of man A, while using the resources of man B.
Civilization, of course, requires that women evolve beyond such behaviors, but feminists would like to ensure that women devolve back into some feral state.
So yes, feminists will want to ensure that cuckolded men still pay for children that are not theirs. Watch for language like 'the mother should decide which paternity is best for the child', etc.
Since this is the equivalent of a woman raping a man, most feminists thus want to incentivize and legalize rape, as long as the victim is a man.
Frankly, seeing how so many women (not just feminists, but even Republican women) want to legalize cuckolding, and will justify it with all sorts of ludicrous rationales, is pretty much what convinced me that a society that allows women to vote dies about 100 years after the fact.
Seriously, check back on the state of the US in 2019.
Most women will oppose this bill, the fact of which should be educational to ALL men.
@kmg: Totally agree.
The solipsism is breathtaking.
Bills like this should be pushed if only to demonstrate that most women don't really see men as fully human. Rather, they see men in much the same way as the Japanese view whales - a resource to be pillaged like there is no tomorrow, rather than as intelligent beings that can feel pain.
The fundamentals of the US constitution are directly at odds with female nature, and thus women having the right to vote, after 3-4 generations (which is where we are now), will systematically lead to the destruction of the basic human rights enshrined in the US constitution (or any other first-world constitution).
Saying such a thing today is considered extreme (in the West), but future historians will debate it openly (and by future, I mean 30 years from now).
Feminism is the new Jim Crow. It really is.
Along the lines of the whole solipsism thing, I recall an incident years ago when I was speaking with two female coworkers. One announced her love of the novels of Thomas Hardy. The other said she totally loved Harry Potter.
I'm not so muuch a Hardy fan, but I perused through Harry Potter one afternoon and found it swill for 10 year olds. But, hey, that's just me.
I'm wondering how most women would view a man who, in front of his peers, said he totally got off on ebonybooty.com or latinahooters.com.
I mean really, it's one thing to enjoy one's guilty pleasures, but to have the absence of mind to let the world know of your little kinks is something I cannot countenance.
When feminists push their little agenda, it only convinces me that apart from being sexists and misandric in the extreme, they have no problem with letting the world know how blackhearted and vile they are. It's like there is no accountability for women today. They can be as evil as they like and it's completely excused.
Sorry if I sound like some troll on an MRA website, but kmg's posts really hit home with me. That the presumption of paternity is public policy in the US makes me embarrassed to be an American.
Jim Crow precisely!
Zorro,
For sure. Feminism is the only vehicle via which injustices that have no place in any first-world democracy can be rationalized as normal.
Ponder this - for all the debates about whether the top tax rate should be 35% or 40%, about 10-30% of the US male population is effectively under a 75% tax rate due to alimony and childimony, that too from a 'no fault' outcome.
That cannot be good for the economy. Why should such men invent anything new, or start companies?
The UK is even worse than the US. Over there, judges openly decree that women should receive lighter sentences for the same crime, relative to men.
The reason for feminism, of course, is mangina/whiteknight men. They think appeasing women gets them laid (when, as we know, women are actually repulsed by such a man). That is also why the Republian party supports any and all leftism as long as it is packaged as 'chivalry'.
Google 'Democrats and Republicans unite to form the Misandry party'.
I'm well aware of the Joe Biden phenomenon. White knights are such pussies, even a lesbian would turn away.
I'm no anthropologist, but it seems to me like all of the oppression of women, worldwide and throughout history -- whether it be having to wear veils in public, or being forbidden to travel without a chaperone; and everything else, up to and including female "circumcision" -- can be traced to the rightful desire of men to be certain of their paternity.
I don't see how any feminist could be against mandated paternity testing. It's something the human race should have done 10,000 years ago.
I don't see how any feminist could be against mandated paternity testing.
Because you don't know what 'feminism' is truly about.
Read 'The Spearhead' and 'Citizen Renegade' blogs for the next 30 days.
It's something the human race should have done 10,000 years ago.
Men are the only gender that ever left the animal kingdom. That pickup artists are teaching seemingly silly tactics that do in fact help men bed a series of women, is proof of this.
kmg, you may find some of the writing at www.heretical.com interesting, particularly the base and spoiled female.
kmg —
My statement that I couldn't see "how any feminist could be against mandated paternity testing" was written tongue-in-cheek, and I would have thought the levity of my very next sentence would have been the obvious clue.
Post a Comment
<< Home