I read the news today oh boy! Page 1,518

Quote: Jennie @ 11th April 2014, 10:03 PM BST

Excellent. It might be helpful if you handed out a list of matters that must be dealt with in order of priority.

Absolutely, and if and when you do find an example of white middle class men being discriminated against, I promise to condemn it wholeheartedly.

View original

Priority 1: The call for compulsory 5 year birth control injections on all girls once they reach the age of 13 years old. Will cut down on teenage pregnancy, state dependence, abortion and free up council house places.

Priority 2: Discourage women from always portraying themselves as victims and blaming everything on men. Chicks foster almost all of life's responsibilities on us and then cry when it doesn't go their way.

As for discrimination against white middle class men - council housing, child custody, divorce settlements, life expectancy, retirement age, prison sentences, dangerous occupations, child support payments and let's not even get into the whole breadwinner, gift giver, workaholic stuff.

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 11th April 2014, 11:27 PM BST

, child custody,

View original

Perhaps in the past but not anymore. The family courts (which I used to do some work in and know plenty of people who still do) are extremely accommodating of the rights of both parents. The presumption of is 50/50 shared care. Indeed, if it works for the child, the presumption is 50/50 residency.

In fact, in certain circumstances I think the courts are overly generous. The basic principle is that the child has a right to a relationship with both its parents. But the right is the child's, not the parent's.

As a result, courts will promote contact in cases where one might think it is entirely inappropriate. Even in cases of proven domestic violence, the courts will not stop unsupervised contact as they see there being no risk to the child, only the parent who was the victim of the abuse.

So some of my most violent clients, who hit and punch and throw the child's mother down the stairs still get to take Jimmy to MacDonalds every Saturday. They also have drink and drug issues and I wouldn't leave them in charge of my cat. It's scary.

The family courts used to be institutionally biased towards the mother. But that simply isn't the case anymore. But fundamentally, the system is about the child, not the mother, not the father.

That's why "father's rights" groups piss me off. Children have rights. Parents have responsibilities.

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 11th April 2014, 11:27 PM BST

child support payments

View original

On the same point, the CSA (of CMA as it is now called) is toothless, bureaucratic and ineffectual.

How does having to pay for your child discriminate against white middle class men?

Quote: Jennie @ 11th April 2014, 11:40 PM BST

The family courts used to be institutionally biased towards the mother. But that simply isn't the case anymore. But fundamentally, the system is about the child, not the mother, not the father.

View original

I must admit I'm behind the times on this one and still have perceptions from the old system. I'm pleased to hear that the children get to spend equal time with both parents, even after divorces.

Thank you for bringing me up to date.

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 11th April 2014, 11:27 PM BST

life expectancy

View original

Nature discriminates too?

Quote: Jennie @ 11th April 2014, 11:44 PM BST

How does having to pay for your child discriminate against white middle class men?

View original

Because in some cases, men didn't want to have a child, they wanted to have sex. The cost of a shag is an 18 year sentence of weekly payments. However you slice that up, it's massively unbalanced.

Quote: Jennie @ 11th April 2014, 11:45 PM BST

Nature discriminates too?

View original

No, but we do. Even though we have shorter lives due to a number of factors, the male retirement age is later. How does that make sense?

There will always be anecdotal evidence to the contrary, but generally the courts are pretty good.

The difficulty is, living half the time at two addresses isn't great for a child. Most children need a base, somewhere that is definitively their home. So the most common outcome is that they live with one parent and see the other several times a week, every other weekend and half the holidays.

No presumption about where that would be though. It is honestly a lot better.

Quote: Jennie @ 11th April 2014, 11:49 PM BST

There will always be anecdotal evidence to the contrary, but generally the courts are pretty good.

View original

Unfortunately, it's the anecdotal stories that seem to stick out. The number of people I've met who've all had the same story - wife and mother of their child cheated on them, made up tons of lies about the husband, poisoned their kid's minds against the father, 'won' the children in court, shacked up with another man with a good job but still demanded alimony and child support payments, etc.

I know it's not like that in all cases, but that is the perception that was forged in my mind.

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 11th April 2014, 11:48 PM BST

Because in some cases, men didn't want to have a child, they wanted to have sex. The cost of a shag is an 18 year sentence of weekly payments. However you slice that up, it's massively unbalanced.

View original

Every adult knows that every time they have sex there is a risk of a baby. Even if you are buttoned up to the nines. Everyone is responsible for their own fertility.

The women involved don't necessarily want a baby either. I know there is an imbalance about who decides whether an abortion takes place, but that cannot be rectified without denying someone autonomy over their own body, which is too terrible a prospect to contemplate.

It does not discriminate against someone to make them take responsibility for the consequence of their actions - the free choice they made to do an act by which babies are made.

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 11th April 2014, 11:53 PM BST

Unfortunately, it's the anecdotal stories that seem to stick out. The number of people I've met who've all had the same story - wife and mother of their child cheated on them, made up tons of lies about the husband, poisoned their kid's minds against the father, 'won' the children in court, shacked up with another man with a good job but still demanded alimony and child support payments, etc.

I know it's not like that in all cases, but that is the perception that was forged in my mind.

View original

I am sure there are plenty of awful stories where people divorce and use the children as a pawn in their sick games.

The only bits I would question is the "won the kids in court". I just don't see it happening like that anymore. A good father with suitable accommodation, near the school and a sensible childcare plan is in a very good position to get 50% residency.

The courts take no account of allegations of cheating etc when it comes to child residency and contact. It is all about child welfare.

You are right that a father would still have to pay child support (if he didn't have the kids >50% of the time) whoever the mother was living with. That's because they are his kids and not the responsibility of the other man.

Quote: Jennie @ 11th April 2014, 11:53 PM BST

Every adult knows that every time they have sex there is a risk of a baby. Even if you are buttoned up to the nines. Everyone is responsible for their own fertility.

View original

Are you really going to use that defence? Really? Oh dear. Your arguments were pretty cogent and intelligent up until now, but just as you were reaching the final hurdle, boom, the rider was unseated.

Quote: Jennie @ 12th April 2014, 12:00 AM BST

The only bits I would question is the "won the kids in court". I just don't see it happening like that anymore. A good father with suitable accommodation, near the school and a sensible childcare plan is in a very good position to get 50% residency.

View original

People can be quite evil and devious, fake stories of domestic and child abuse, false charges brought up against the husband, the wife moving far away and taking the kids, fabricated tales brought out by the wife's solicitor or family members, etc.

I've heard a lot of dark tales.

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 12th April 2014, 12:02 AM BST

Are you really going to use that defence? Really? Oh dear. Your arguments were pretty cogent and intelligent up until now, but just as you were reaching the final hurdle, boom, the rider was unseated.

View original

OK let me break down what I said to see what upsets you so.

"Every adult knows that every time they have sex there is a risk of a baby."

Hmmm. It can't be that, unless I need to have an awkward birds/bees type chat with a stranger on the internet.

"Even if you are buttoned up to the nines."

Contraception fails. Again, I was kind of hoping the school nurse would have covered this in year 10.

"Everyone is responsible for their own fertility."

The only way you could disagree with that is to say the men are not responsible for their own fertility. That they have no say in whether life is created or not. That in this, our most fundamental biological imperative, men are just bit players.

Are you really saying that? If you don't mind me saying, I find that a bit sexist.

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 12th April 2014, 12:08 AM BST

People can be quite evil and devious, fake stories of domestic and child abuse, false charges brought up against the husband, the wife moving far away and taking the kids, fabricated tales brought out by the wife's solicitor or family members, etc.

I've heard a lot of dark tales.

View original

Yeah, people (men and women) are shits. My argument is that the system itself has worked hard to be fair to both parents and to recognise the equally important role they have in the upbringing of a child. Obviously those that use the system are a different matter.

Be careful though, as Dr Phil says - "no matter how flat you make a pancake, there are always two sides". Sage words.

Quote: Jennie @ 12th April 2014, 12:13 AM BST

"Everyone is responsible for their own fertility."

The only way you could disagree with that is to say the men are not responsible for their own fertility. That they have no say in whether life is created or not. That in this, our most fundamental biological imperative, men are just bit players.

Are you really saying that? If you don't mind me saying, I find that a bit sexist.

View original

I am saying exactly that in the most sexist way possible. Men are weak when it comes to sex, women know this. One minute you're getting a blowie, the next she's on your lap - no time to have a conversation about fertility, STDs and the philosophy of shared responsibility, it's happening.

It's like giving a starving man a cake and saying: 'There might be poison in this, there might not'. 99 times out of a 100, the starving man is going to risk eating it.

Quote: Jennie @ 12th April 2014, 12:13 AM BST

Be careful though, as Dr Phil says - "no matter how flat you make a pancake, there are always two sides". Sage words.

View original

Wise words indeed.

I don't think you've quite explained why say "This is artistic expression; It's just a craze on the internet; I can't be held responsible for what people post on my page;" isn't a defence, Jennie.

Well well, RC defeated in argument at every turn by a calmly intelligent and rational "chick"!

Quote: beaky @ 12th April 2014, 10:17 AM BST

Well well, RC defeated in argument at every turn by a calmly intelligent and rational "chick"!

View original

Rubbish! How was I defeated? What evidence did Jennie supply to prove her argument? At what point did I admit defeat? How has my view on the topic been changed? I bet you thought Nick Clegg defeated Nigel Farage, you lefty swine.

Onto the more serious and wider philosophical ramifications of the argument. We have all seen pictures of strangers on the Internet, we've all seen photos that were uploaded without the subject's permission and we have all judged these people. It is who we are, it is what we do.

But, we have now decided that we cannot look and judge a distinct group of people, that they are in some way special, that their activities can never be criticised even though they perform these actions in public. Who are these people that we must never lambast or scorn - EDL members, Muslims, Christian fundamentalists, Transsexuals? No, they're women eating food on the Tube.

Let's break it down even further, why is this group special? What separates them from the rest of humanity? Is it riding the Tube? Is it eating in public? Is it eating food on the Tube? Is it that they are women? This is where we get into the murky realms of inclusionist feminist theory and the victimisation race to the bottom.

Don't get me wrong, in everyone's mind Jennie has won the argument, it is incredibly easy to side with 'the good guys' on this one. Just remember that you've sided with anti-social behaviour, that you've admitted women are weaker than men and need protecting, that the rights of one tiny minority - women grazing on public transport has trumped another tiny minority - people looking at women grazing on public transport - both were carrying out legal activities and yet only one had rights. Most frighteningly of all, this campaign by the press and feminists turned a minor web page with 14,000 members into a nationwide phenomenon, wracking up hundreds of thousands of views.

'Hey, I know you! You're the banana lady!'

Why do the arguments always have to be about guns or women?