Or worse, deserved it.
Feminist author Susan Faludi wrote the book Stiffed a while back that made a pretty good point that American males, working and middle class, took it in the shorts over the last generation or so. And exploded the BS that the ground they lost was the fault of feminism. I agree. That bitch ex-wife who blows the child support on her boyfriend’s car payment (or the legal system that allows it)? That’s not feminism.
Yeah, really unlike me, since, as I mentioned, I’m a dude.
As to your second paragraph: Cite?
I don’t think that’s correct, Leaffan, based on the Canada Revenue Agency’s web-site.
This one says that the person paying support deducts it from his/her income:
And this one says that the person receiving support adds it to his/her income:
Of course, I’m not a tax lawyer or an accountant, so don’t rely on me next year when you do your taxes!
When this issue came up in the Supreme Court 18 years ago, this allocation of taxes was upheld against an equality challenge brought by a woman who was receiving the support; Court found that allowing the payor to deduct it and requiring the recipient to add it to income was not discriminatory: Thibaudeau v. Canada
I love the MRAs. Always good for a laugh. Keep tilting at those windmills!
You know that windmills are representative of a phallus just spinning away which is further evidence of men’s systemic oppression in society.
Thanks for that.
That is OK. Feminists at the University of Toronto who view MRAs as a threat to be silenced by any means are much worse.
Protesting someone as a speaker, someone who has a lot of pretty horrible things to say about women, is not “silencing them by any means”. But if you believe that to be the case, I can assure you that your gender has never experienced actual institutional “silencing”.
As stated eloquently above, both men and women suffer from gendered stereotypes, so it’s as much a women’s rights issue as a men’s rights issue if someone’s divorce or child support or custody or any other legal issue is impacted by their sex in any unnecessary way. (I can’t think of a good example of a necessary way, but I’m sure if I said there shouldn’t be any impact, someone would think of an exception.)
If you are for men’s equality in child custody, your enemy is probably not feminists in general. Your enemy is
Traditionalists who insist that men can’t care for children and women are made to be mothers,
The small subset of feminists who are anti-male, and
Both men and women who don’t really think about it but who think that this is just the way things are.
Category one is losing power all the time. Category two is small and generally better to ignore. Category three is the biggest, and the most shiftable.
Category three people can be reached via outreach and education. But what won’t work is to come off like the men who take no interest in the kids at all until the day they discover that they’ll have to pay child support if they don’t share custody and suddenly they are being screwed if they don’t get custody.
Judges tend to put the kids into the home with the main caregiver. In the US, that person is usually the mother because in the US the mother is usually the main caregiver. That is the dynamic that underlies many (not all) custody decisions in the US, and until the idea of child care being “woman’s work” is eliminated not just in official documents but in average households, that will continue to underlie child custody decisions.
Statistically, even women who work full time spend more time on child care and housework than their spouses who also work full time. If you never change this, women will always get custody more often (assuming we don’t go back to old rules that children belong to their fathers).
Child support is the only part she should not be paying taxes for. Alimony is taxable to your ex-wife, and deductible by you.
Nope, you are wrong. A right, by definition, applies equally to everyone. In the United States there is no right to health care (which would include your abortion and prostate examples), no right to food, clothing or shelter. Your examples are “needs” - vastly different than a right. A right cannot be bought, sold or transferred to another - you can’t legally assign your right to vote to someone else, you cannot sign over your right to life to another, nor assign your liberty. Neither can you buy more of them. You can give them up or forfeit them, but you cannot assign them to someone else. I can legally sign over my health care needs to another, I can give away my clothes, food and shelter for someone else to use. I can buy as much of any of them as I can afford. Those are needs. And just because the law assigns the responsibility to parent(s) to provide food, clothing and shelter to a child does not mean the child has a right to any of those. If the parent(s) renig on those responsibilities then someone else must fill in or the child goes without. A right does not depend on the actions of another.
“Equality” (root word “equal”) absolutely DOES mean “being the same as”. Look it up. The phrase “each according to their needs” has not about equality, it is the basis of the socialist political philosophy. It is designed to meet needs while minimizing (or assigning to government) rights. The US system grants rights and gives one the opportunity to meet their needs.
Are there men’s issues, women’s issues, kid’s issues, etc.? Absolutely. And they should be addressed. But don’t confuse them with rights. They are very different.
And, by the way, just because the UN labels a need as a right doesn’t make it so. It doesn’t fit the definition. If the glove doesn’t fit…
So just out of curiosity, in a situation in which women as a group are being denied rights, you would refer to those as…what, exactly? People’s rights issues that are only affecting women? Yeah, that’s probably a better way to term it than what we’ve been doing all along.
:rolleyes:
Look, if you are not going to go by the established definition of the words, then there is no sense in continuing. A right applies to everyone equally, period. The word “rights” is defined as “that which is due to anyone by just claim”. The key word there is “anyone”. Not “any man”, not “any woman”. Anyone. There are no rights that apply to a specific group. Either everyone has it, or it is not a right. You can waste time rolling your eyes all day, or you could learn the difference between rights, needs, wants, responsibilities, issues and desires. Different words for different things.
I don’t do debates because I don’t have time to continually check a thread for responses. I’m done.
Says who? Source, please. And as I’m sure you are aware, there are a lot of definitions of a lot of words from a lot of sources.
Did you want to actually answer my question, or just word vomit about your specific definition of rights.
I’ll break it down for you.
Before women were allowed to vote, and the “right” to vote was being applied to everyone equally who was male, would you consider the suffrage movement to be a women’s rights issue? Or just a person’s rights issue that was being denied specifically to women?
This is a complete distortion of what happened, and it makes you and your cause seems foolish when you bring it up.
I tend to agree but really I don’t think men are a disadvantage in divorce cases. From what I have seen the majority of cases are pretty well decided, there are always fringe cases that are wrong but that is on both sides. I have seen people use children as a weapon in divorce and this makes me sad, the dead beat parent is horrible but again it is on both sides. Yes we need a better system to handle this but again it is not a gender issue.
As a man I do not share common interests with all men, some are religious, right wing, hippies etc and they have very different views on what I would call “rights” to me. So for this reason I will not join an MRA.
All those blokes bitching about alimony and child support need to shut up and just do the right thing.
As a man all I want is fair justice and for people to accept that we are equal but different.
Please note this is from a recently divorced man in Australia.
[QUOTE=sisu]
So for this reason I will not join an MRA.
[/QUOTE]
No one is forcing you to join a movement. If this conversation has gotten at least one lurker interested in the issue then my effort was not wasted.
All the power to you I guess, just stating my view that this issue is overblown and just because I am a man does not mean I agree with everything another man says.
CCitizen, I’m curious; when is the last time you got laid?