She Killed His Son but He Must Pay Her Alimony

[Latinoman]

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/7df1b7810a7a9153



Ain't that phucked up?

 

[MacAvoy]

Yes but how does that help us as DJ's?


just being devils advocate, I see these posts about extreme cases and it really doesn't effect 99.99% of us, I just don't see the relevance. Who knows, maybe its just me, maybe I'm missing something.


edit, I actually just read it and I agree that he should still have to pay alimony, the fact that she is a bad person does not negate him from his responsibility under the law.

 

[MacAvoy]

How is having to pay alimony and unjust law? just because she is a criminal doesn't negate her rights, she served her time to society.

 

[penkitten]

horrible!

 

[MacAvoy]

The fact is its the law, men know about it going into a marriage, if they want to avoid paying alimony, they can choose a better wife or have her sign a prenuptial agreement.

 

[penkitten]

not all states enforce alimony , some laws like ky do not have alimony

 

[Master Bates]

The fact is its the law, men know about it going into a marriage, if they want to avoid paying alimony, they can choose a better wife or have her sign a prenuptial agreement.

"It's the law" is not a justification for a law. What kind of backwards logic is that? Laws should be justified to exist, not justified to be done away with.

 

[aliasguy]

-
-
My "family law" attorney told me:

"You are expecting fairness and justice. Get over it. You are going to get neither."
-
-

 

[aliasguy]

And the sad thing is, your attorney is correct. At least as far as the current system. However a little activism can go a long way. Don't let others tell you to just give up. All it takes are some politicians with balls to set things right again. Unfortunately they are few and far between

-
-
-
Oh, this was 2 years ago; it's all over.

He WAS right, but it wasn't as bad as it could have been. I got 50-50 time with the kid, and the monthly child support amount is actually less than I'd thought it'd be.

System still sucks, though.
-
-
-

 

[Last Man Standing]

I'm not surprised!!!!!!!!!

The destruction of the natural male is the goal and hence the family structure! Since the male is the HEAD of the family, destroy him and you destroy the family!!

As I stated a thousand times before - there is an agenda here - the feminist, errrr, Hor agenda/Matrix - which is being enforced by men!!!

All this feminist/Hor shyt is to discourage men from marrying and to encourage the disbanding of the traditional family structure!!

 

[WaterTiger]

I think alimony is a very out dated situation. It was a life-saver back in the 1930's-60's when women didn't work outside of the home after marriage. But now women can get their own jobs and support them selves.

Personally, I'd be embarrassed to accept it.

*Alimony should be UNAVAILABLE if the wife filed for divorce.
*Alimony should have a time limit. (No more than 5 years)

 

[aliasguy]

I think alimony is a very out dated situation. It was a life-saver back in the 1930's-60's when women didn't work outside of the home after marriage. But now women can get their own jobs and support them selves.

Personally, I'd be embarrassed to accept it.

*Alimony should be UNAVAILABLE if the wife filed for divorce.
*Alimony should have a time limit. (No more than 5 years)

-
--
I think "alimony" is B.S., too, but why disallow it just because SHE files? What if he was beating her, or he was f*cking around?

On the other hand, why should she GET alimony if HE files? What if she was a skanky cheat?, and he wanted out? Just because HE filed instead of her, should it make a difference with regard to any alimony?

("Alimony" is wrong either way.)


This is one of the problems with "no-fault" divorce.......it leads to this twisted type of thinking. If one had to have a REAL reason for divorce, then Watertiger's response would never have been needed. The assumptions she makes behind her statement above is understandable, but only makes sense in our current, messed-up system. Sad. Too bad. For all of us. And, mostly, sad for the kids.

-
-
-

 

[ketostix]

I think alimony is a very out dated situation. It was a life-saver back in the 1930's-60's when women didn't work outside of the home after marriage. But now women can get their own jobs and support them selves.

Personally, I'd be embarrassed to accept it.

*Alimony should be UNAVAILABLE if the wife filed for divorce.
*Alimony should have a time limit. (No more than 5 years)

Alimony and child support should be based on "fault" by a preponderance of evidence, the same standard for any other civil trial. The problem is judges and courts are generally unjust and unfair. Men should be getting alimony a lot of times.

And in Family courts there's real no preponderance of evidence standard those courts are the most unjust, unfair and biased against males.

Really though it just shows the pro female/antimale bias persuasive in the whole of society. I think LMS is pretty much right.

 

[MacAvoy]

There is no point in debating what the law should be as we don't have a role in changing it. Your better off focussing your time on things that you can improve in your life.

 

[jonwon]

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/7df1b7810a7a9153



Ain't that phucked up?

Whats messed up is the women having a history of violance towards the husband that goes ignored, if the women stated the husband was violant she would get 'everything', in this case, his claims still landed his children to be kept in the care of the sick bitc*.

but i blame the government intervention more then i blame her, the biggest evil is the fuc*ing state and this is not an extreme case, this is 'reality' many fathers watch there kids being ripped from them to go to some BDP bitc* or some other female sick fuc*, whilst father with mental problems get castrated, women are never ever held accountable.

oh i like the 'puss* pass' she only gets a few years, no doubt she will get custody of the other child too, what a fuc*ing sick world we live in, made only worse by the totally stupid fuc*s in power, the wife has issues but they have been 'rewarded' by the actions of men in power that we have no control over.

This shi* makes me angry to be male, what even makes it worse is idiots coming into defend this retarded Bias, I will never get married and i will never have kids, because of this exact thing: Being paraniod? who cares at the end of the day as soon has i get married again and have a child, i am at the fuc8ing mercy of this corrupt *****e system and i hate that far too much to comply with it.

And that pis*es me off.

Yes it does have a place in the mature DJ section, men need to know what there dealing with.

 

[ketostix]

There is no point in debating what the law should be as we don't have a role in changing it.

Wrong, it is everyone's role in changing it. The laws were changed into women's favor by public (female) opinion and they can and should be changed back by public opinion. Granted it's not going to happen directly from discussing it on Sosuave, but not too many men are going to succeed if they all ignore things that are detrimental to their success.

 

[ketostix]

I agree with ketostix, this is horrible advice. We are citizens and we decide the law. For evil to win, all you need do is nothing. Work with legislators, donate money to their campaigns, make sure they hear you and others on these things. Get involved.

And we elect judges too. Obviously the feminist mindset and agenda has a strong foothold in government, partly because men allowed them to go ahead with it for so long, so it'd be hard to change it overnight.

My point is in general that women use shame and withdrawal or boycotting to keep control. If a man complains about oppressive issues that favor women, then women will say he's negative, bitter, unmanly, can't get women, a woman hater etc., then they'll boycott him and try to convince everyone else to as well. Yet any butch feminist can find a man if she wants one. So it would be hard for men to do anything about it now.

Women always had an advantage in dating and in relationships, but it's a shame they've taken their advantage into government and commerce. Women are not fair minded and don't have a sense of fair play. They have no business influencing government and controlling commerce IMO.

If you could find a hot woman that hated feminism, you'd be set and free to really raise a stink

 

[jonwon]

If you could find a hot woman that hated feminism, you'd be set and free to really raise a stink

Impossible, this will be almost has hard as finding a 40 year old virgin in the western sphere.

If only, i think this would be akin to the search of the holy grail.

 

[mrRuckus]

I hear water boarding isn't torture.

 

[3countriesPlan]

Wrong, it is everyone's role in changing it. The laws were changed into women's favor by public (female) opinion and they can and should be changed back by public opinion. Granted it's not going to happen directly from discussing it on Sosuave, but not too many men are going to succeed if they all ignore things that are detrimental to their success.

the laws were changed because of public opinion AND also with the notion of being progressive. Being progressive means not favoring guys according to these people. When they think of not favroing guys, they tend to overcompensate which is human nature... they will keep overcompensating and attacking men.. that is till a war breaks out and women suddenly need men to defend them again...:kick: