Don't repeat feminist lies and propaganda. Most men are not deadbeats unless they are negros. Single parents is a woman created problem because women cause men to breakup with them or they initiate it themselves because of their unchecked entitlement. Things like child support and alimony give incentive for women to act poorly. Why would a man knowing cause the end of a marriage when he will have to pay for the woman he hates? Deadbeat dads is a joke. The fathers are victims of the gynocracy.
So if "most men" are not deadbeats, why are you trying to incentivize it and protect them?
Single parents is a woman created problem because women cause men to breakup with them or they initiate it themselves because of their unchecked entitlement.
LOL! You must be friends with Impy. When the man breaks up, it's the woman's fault, when the woman breaks up, it's the woman's fault! Nuclear war? WOMEN'S FAULT!
Things like child support and alimony give incentive for women to act poorly.
And no child support at all gives men incentive to act poorly.
Why would a man knowing cause the end of a marriage when he will have to pay for the woman he hates? Deadbeat dads is a joke. The fathers are victims of the gynocracy.
Tony, where I live women get paid more the less the father sees the child.
Want to guess on the outcome of that? I'll give you a hint: I've twice had to defend myself from accusations of being a child molester, both made by the same person. Both thrown out of court for having no evidence of any kind. This is a technique that is called "The Silver Bullet" in the USA. Hitting a guy with both a child custody and criminal prosecution at the same time. Women literally teach it to each other in internet forums. Well, it failed the first time (thought it took two years to beat) and the second time was to punish me for asking to see my daughter more. My experience is far from unusual. One conversation with any family lawyer in the field will paint a really consistent picture of the realities.
Women keep the kids in 80% of breakups. If she does keep the children, she is entitled to more of the assets of the union. Here, with two kids she can claim 80% of the assets in a property settlement, plus child support (which is highest if the father has no shared custody) plus she becomes entitled to a government pension until the youngest of the children turn thirteen. Women weaponize the sympathetic court system to get paid. These are facts.
If women want mens' money, then they should negotiate for it. You want no fault divorce? Fine, it shouldn't come bundled with indentured servitude at the threat of jail time (in the USA). Men should be able to negotiate.
If a woman can't solely support the kids, then she should share custody or (gasp) let them be with their dad, who can certainly support them in almost every case. Remember that the Dad's parents probably want to see their grandkids. They can offer help and support, if they want. Right now they are almost entirely cut out.
Your idea that men would walk away and let their kids starve... Holy fuck. Even in the distant past, before this awful situation, that was rare. Mostly what happened was fathers raised their kids, after proving that the mother was at fault for the divorce. If the man was shown to be at fault, then they had to pay.
For a raging faggot you sure are a god damned simp.
I'll give you a hint: I've twice had to defend myself from accusations of being a child molester, both made by the same person. Both thrown out of court for having no evidence of any kind. This is a technique that is called "The Silver Bullet" in the USA.
And you have to pay the creature who made these false accusations? In my opinion, and I'm not recommending it to you, it would be fully justified to go after such a person with a real bullet, or at the very least a slander lawsuit.
Women keep the kids in 80% of breakups.
Who decides who gets the kids?
If she does keep the children, she is entitled to more of the assets of the union. Here, with two kids she can claim 80% of the assets in a property settlement, plus child support (which is highest if the father has no shared custody) plus she becomes entitled to a government pension until the youngest of the children turn thirteen. Women weaponize the sympathetic court system to get paid. These are facts.
You paint a rather bad picture. But if we agree that this is bad, why can it also not be bad for there to be no child support so deadbeats can just go around having kids without lifting a finger to support them in any way?
If women want mens' money, then they should negotiate for it. You want no fault divorce? Fine, it shouldn't come bundled with indentured servitude at the threat of jail time (in the USA). Men should be able to negotiate.
So why then marry at all?
If a woman can't solely support the kids, then she should share custody or (gasp) let them be with their dad, who can certainly support them in almost every case. Remember that the Dad's parents probably want to see their grandkids. They can offer help and support, if they want. Right now they are almost entirely cut out.
That seems reasonable. What if the dad doesn't want custody and doesn't want to pay any child support? I'm sure there are folks like that out there, and there'll be only more of them if there are no legal restraints on it whatsoever.
Your idea that men would walk away and let their kids starve... Holy fuck. Even in the distant past, before this awful situation, that was rare. Mostly what happened was fathers raised their kids, after proving that the mother was at fault for the divorce. If the man was shown to be at fault, then they had to pay.
I'm sure some would, even now. Do you remember the black woman who had 9 kids with 8 different men asking: so who is going to feed my kids? So that number would only increase if there is no standard at all.
You won't have an argument from me that modern divorce culture and permissiveness regarding the matter is bad. Despite being a raging faggot, as you say, I am a traditionalist.
For a raging faggot you sure are a god damned simp.
Not every position taken that you think "benefits women" is motivated by simpery. Some people just think what would be the just solution in a given situation. And definitely, allowing kids to starve because the dad is a deadbeat is not great.
I don't think there is a solution that is good and just in all cases. Even if we follow your guidelines, it would mean that a very rich husband who is not a great parent would great custody of the kids because he can support them, and the wife who is a better parent would not because she can't.
Any series of laws is going to have horror stories. The question is which leads to the minimum of such outcomes.
If the women initiates the breakup, then she takes the kids before the father gets home, or similar.
The courts almost never ever take the children from one parent and give them to the other. Therefore the party with the kids wins by default.
You paint a rather bad picture. But if we agree that this is bad, why can it also not be bad for there to be no child support so deadbeats can just go around having kids without lifting a finger to support them in any way?
Women have every control over bearing a child or not. Men do not have reproductive rights past the initial decision to have intercourse or not. If birth control should fail, or should the woman lie about it, then he has no further say in if he should be a father or how much and when he should pay.
You want a solution? Fine. The fathers get custody in every case of dispute. So, men don't control womens' bodies (to force an abortion etc) but they can't profit from the children either.
After that, leave it to negotiation between couples.
If the women initiates the breakup, then she takes the kids before the father gets home, or similar.
The courts almost never ever take the children from one parent and give them to the other. Therefore the party with the kids wins by default.
This is bizarre. How is that not kidnapping?
You want a solution? Fine. The fathers get custody in every case of dispute. So, men don't control womens' bodies (to force an abortion etc) but they can't profit from the children either.
So if the father is manifestly unfit, still give it to him because of some ridiculous notion of 'profting'?
After that, leave it to negotiation between couples.
I wonder how common what you say is. Because it mystifies me. Are things so much worse in the US, or am I simply not aware of similar things happening here?
I don't want women in the military. What we should be doing is writing to have alimony and child support removed from the legal system entirely.
And welfare for single mothers as well. It's time to stop letting whores make anyone and everyone pay for their bad choices.
I too support a Deadbeat Dad Bill of Rights.
Don't repeat feminist lies and propaganda. Most men are not deadbeats unless they are negros. Single parents is a woman created problem because women cause men to breakup with them or they initiate it themselves because of their unchecked entitlement. Things like child support and alimony give incentive for women to act poorly. Why would a man knowing cause the end of a marriage when he will have to pay for the woman he hates? Deadbeat dads is a joke. The fathers are victims of the gynocracy.
So if "most men" are not deadbeats, why are you trying to incentivize it and protect them?
LOL! You must be friends with Impy. When the man breaks up, it's the woman's fault, when the woman breaks up, it's the woman's fault! Nuclear war? WOMEN'S FAULT!
And no child support at all gives men incentive to act poorly.
You're literally batshit crazy.
Tony, where I live women get paid more the less the father sees the child.
Want to guess on the outcome of that? I'll give you a hint: I've twice had to defend myself from accusations of being a child molester, both made by the same person. Both thrown out of court for having no evidence of any kind. This is a technique that is called "The Silver Bullet" in the USA. Hitting a guy with both a child custody and criminal prosecution at the same time. Women literally teach it to each other in internet forums. Well, it failed the first time (thought it took two years to beat) and the second time was to punish me for asking to see my daughter more. My experience is far from unusual. One conversation with any family lawyer in the field will paint a really consistent picture of the realities.
Women keep the kids in 80% of breakups. If she does keep the children, she is entitled to more of the assets of the union. Here, with two kids she can claim 80% of the assets in a property settlement, plus child support (which is highest if the father has no shared custody) plus she becomes entitled to a government pension until the youngest of the children turn thirteen. Women weaponize the sympathetic court system to get paid. These are facts.
If women want mens' money, then they should negotiate for it. You want no fault divorce? Fine, it shouldn't come bundled with indentured servitude at the threat of jail time (in the USA). Men should be able to negotiate.
If a woman can't solely support the kids, then she should share custody or (gasp) let them be with their dad, who can certainly support them in almost every case. Remember that the Dad's parents probably want to see their grandkids. They can offer help and support, if they want. Right now they are almost entirely cut out.
Your idea that men would walk away and let their kids starve... Holy fuck. Even in the distant past, before this awful situation, that was rare. Mostly what happened was fathers raised their kids, after proving that the mother was at fault for the divorce. If the man was shown to be at fault, then they had to pay.
For a raging faggot you sure are a god damned simp.
What do you expect from a mod of r/dickgirls.
That's an oddly specific thing/sub to mention given it was what Ahaus kept spamming about when ban evading and posting from throwaways.
And you have to pay the creature who made these false accusations? In my opinion, and I'm not recommending it to you, it would be fully justified to go after such a person with a real bullet, or at the very least a slander lawsuit.
Who decides who gets the kids?
You paint a rather bad picture. But if we agree that this is bad, why can it also not be bad for there to be no child support so deadbeats can just go around having kids without lifting a finger to support them in any way?
So why then marry at all?
That seems reasonable. What if the dad doesn't want custody and doesn't want to pay any child support? I'm sure there are folks like that out there, and there'll be only more of them if there are no legal restraints on it whatsoever.
I'm sure some would, even now. Do you remember the black woman who had 9 kids with 8 different men asking: so who is going to feed my kids? So that number would only increase if there is no standard at all.
You won't have an argument from me that modern divorce culture and permissiveness regarding the matter is bad. Despite being a raging faggot, as you say, I am a traditionalist.
Not every position taken that you think "benefits women" is motivated by simpery. Some people just think what would be the just solution in a given situation. And definitely, allowing kids to starve because the dad is a deadbeat is not great.
I don't think there is a solution that is good and just in all cases. Even if we follow your guidelines, it would mean that a very rich husband who is not a great parent would great custody of the kids because he can support them, and the wife who is a better parent would not because she can't.
Any series of laws is going to have horror stories. The question is which leads to the minimum of such outcomes.
If the women initiates the breakup, then she takes the kids before the father gets home, or similar.
The courts almost never ever take the children from one parent and give them to the other. Therefore the party with the kids wins by default.
Women have every control over bearing a child or not. Men do not have reproductive rights past the initial decision to have intercourse or not. If birth control should fail, or should the woman lie about it, then he has no further say in if he should be a father or how much and when he should pay.
You want a solution? Fine. The fathers get custody in every case of dispute. So, men don't control womens' bodies (to force an abortion etc) but they can't profit from the children either.
After that, leave it to negotiation between couples.
This is bizarre. How is that not kidnapping?
So if the father is manifestly unfit, still give it to him because of some ridiculous notion of 'profting'?
I wonder how common what you say is. Because it mystifies me. Are things so much worse in the US, or am I simply not aware of similar things happening here?
You are a simp and deadbeat mother enabler.
I see you're fresh out of counterarguments.
Why argue with my enemy?
Who is your enemy?
Well, do you believe yourself "most men" are actually "deadbeats"? What is being incentivised and how prevalent is this behaviour?
Not at all, that was a strawman by that batshit crazy moron. But of course, if you start encouraging men to be deadbetas, you'll get more of it.
Retard take
Wait, so Putin the Great is a participant in the MORE FEMININE GENOCIDE?
I knew it! As evidenced by the fact that he had a daughter and then didn't have her aborted, same as Trump.
Why would I support someone who provides for the upkeep of someone who wants me literally dead and tortured?
Are you denying that the womens want us dead and tortured?
How come Putin's laws supposedly allow for it?
lol, so Putin institutes laws, women use them against their ex-husbands who refuse to pay alimony and... it's the women's fault?
You're absolutely mental. Particularly because you think this is about "harming people" rather than... getting money.
How come it's the Democrats who support 'drafting' women? Remember when you claimed this proved that they were turning on the womens?
LOL. You have batshit crazy explanations for literally anything.
There's no one who cares.
With your strategic and political genius, which gave us "DeSantis is bribed and blackmailed by the womens", that side is sure to win.
I'm not VOTING for those feminist PUPPETS who do not acknowledge OUR HUMAN VALUE. Vote for Democrats so the womens can be drafted and sent to war!
You have no human value.