Anonymous asked: How do you feel about child support? Should men and women both be made to pay, or should nobody, or what?
It depends on the situation during the marriage/relationship. I don’t think it’s necessarily always a problem, but the system needs overhaul, as men are the ones who usually get fucked by child support.
Dude, do you not understand the concept of burden of proof? Like, if you say “gravity is just a myth,” you don’t get to say to me “substantiate your claims that gravity exists, or I win.” If you decide to make a radical claim that’s counter to common sense and the evidence, it’s up to you to prove it, not up to everyone else to disprove it. If you want to say that there is some kind of institutional bias against men, the burden of proof is on you to provide some kind of evidence for that assertion.
But, even if that weren’t the case, even if the burden wasn’t on you, our position (that women and men are both equally expected to pay child support) is still more than “substantiated.” You wanna know where you can find our sources? It’s called the goddamned law. To my knowledge, the domestic laws in every jurisdiction talk only of “parents” and never “mothers” or “fathers.” Find me a current law on the books that says fathers have to pay more than mothers. Go ahead; I’ll wait.
(snipped the rest, because this is the meat of the difference)
And they’re back with the old topic finally!
De jure: possession of Crack is is punished harsher than cocaine, and this law is race and class nuetral
It is not discrimination AT ALL. and the entire criminal justice system does not discrimate at all.
De facto: people that posses crack are more likely to be black and/or poor, where as cocaine tends to be possessed by the rich and/or the white.
It is discrimination, and the entire “criminal justice” system is racist and classist as fuck.
The MRM argues de facto anti-male/pro-female discrimination from de jure “gender neutral” law and justice system.
Just like feminists do when faced with ‘gender neutral’ laws that make killing a fetus some degree of murder.
So Lol@MRA: Why the fuck do you support de jure theory of law?
Sigh. Yes, everyone understands the difference between de jure and de facto. But your pedantic little post fails to see that your criminal law analogy is inapt. See, what you’re describing with the cocaine example is a law that treats two similar things in two different ways. And since different groups of people are associated with those two things, one group gets treated differently (and unfairly).
But that’s not what’s happening in family law. It’s not just the de jure face of the laws which are gender neutral - men and women are treated the same in family law. If you make more money, you’ll be made to pay more money. If you are the better, more involved parent, you’ll be awarded more parenting time. Gender is not even a consideration. It doesn’t matter.
What you may be trying to get at are the results. There are two ways in which the results of family law cases differ by gender: men statistically pay more in child support and men statistically end up with less overall parenting time with their children. But rather than take these numbers as institutional “bias against men,” without any evidence, it’s important to actually understand the reasons for these numbers.
The child support one is the simplest to explain (and I already have). Child support is based on income, and men statistically make more than women. So the fact that they statistically pay more in child support than women is a result of a societal bias in favor of men, not a judicial bias against men.
The fact that men get less parenting time overall is also not the result of judicial bias, because the vast majority of parenting time arrangements are settled by the parties themselves, without ever going before a judge. What that means is that the parents agree that the mother should be the primary residential parent. The fathers’ own choices can hardly be seen as a result of a bias against them. And, as the kicker, the numbers I’ve seen show that when cases do go in front of a judge, men have a better than 50% chance of winning more parenting time than women.
So, your de facto theory doesn’t work here. Men and women are treated exactly the same by the family law court system, and any differences in the resulting child support and parenting time arrangements are due to, respectively, men’s higher income and their own choices to forgo primary parental responsibility. There is no bias against men in family law, whether de jure or de facto. You have still not provided anything that says otherwise. Because you can’t. Because it doesn’t exist. Because there is no bias against men in family law.