Oh. You feel persecuted?
I'm sure many men do today- whoever was listed on a domestic or divorce court docket. Basically a purge
lain:But
Let's ignore that- it doesn't do women any favors, and that's all that matters right?
Racism, Bigotry and Misogyny at TOL
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
I'm sure many men do today- whoever was listed on a domestic or divorce court docket. Basically a purge
lain:But
Let's ignore that- it doesn't do women any favors, and that's all that matters right?
Oh. I see. You have not been allowed to speak, consistently ... nonstop ... full speed ahead ... about your imaginary problems with women? NEWSFLASH! That is what you go on and on and on and on ... and on about 95% of time you are posting on TOL.
Perhaps it's the best you can do.
lain:
Oh. You feel persecuted?
IF they are lowlife, domestic abusers, then good ... they shouldn't just *feel persecuted* but should be prosecuted. Lose things that are important to them. Until such a time they grow up enough to understand that NO ONE has the right (outside of self-defense) to put their hands on another individual.
Yeah, that's what you choose to focus on, so that it makes you feel better about the fact that men get the short end everyday in this country by women, or for the advantage of women.
That's what you all do. That's how one remains safe from being called a 'misogynist'.
It's a bad joke, really
You aren't speaking to problems with women. You're mostly hurling angry, unfounded and unsupported accusations from a personal, obviously emotional foundation. That's not an invitation to discourse.
I know. I tried to actually educated you on the law and what was and wasn't true about your understanding of it and you were only interested in continuing your diatribe.
You're 'education' is very one-sided and biased. Basically, if one were to go with what say, then men are not being treated unfairly at all- which is completely contrary to a great deal of things I have shown on here- which you say are 'unsupported'.
Yeah, you all are in denial about the problem. Or, under a spell- a very feminine spell
Rather, the training of a lawyer is in the development of a precise critical thinking skill set and its application to an instruction in the depths and particulars of the law.
Rather, if you listened to what I actually say you'd understand that while men and women can be and sometimes are treated unfairly, the error is usually found in the judgment of men and not in the law. Fortunately, where the error is demonstrable their is, within the law, recourse.
Such as? You've asserted a great deal. But that's not really proof.
I don't believe in magic. Though I do believe in magicians. . . I even enjoy their performances. But you need a new trick, that isn't a rabbit or a hat you're pulling it out of.Yeah, you all are in denial about the problem. Or, under a spell- a very feminine spell
lain:
Last edited:
69% of divorces are enacted by women
85% of custody hearings thereafter result in the woman's favor
97% of combatant deaths are men
80% of suicides are of men
93% of work related deaths are men
83% of the homeless are men
Nonetheless, there are 8 women's shelters for ever 1 men's shelter
Women unemployment rate: 8.1%
Male unemployment rate: 10.3
There are three women in college for every two men.
Take notice to these statistics- I want you to think about it for a second.
For divorce, you argue domestic abuse
For custody, you say women are better caregivers
For combatant deaths, it's the 3% who are women that stands out
For suicides, women actually mock that- they take pride in being happier
For the homeless, ~men are just lazy~
For so many women shelters, it's because they are helpless
For the unemployment rate, ~men are deadbeats~ #imganativepaygap
For college, ~women are dedicated~ #quotas
Yeah, good ol' ~quotas~. You know the law, TOWN HERETIC, why don't you tell us all what the law really means when it says 'equality' in the fine legal print?
Maybe you'll be happy to share with the rest just how ridiculous it really is- that's it's nothing like the 'equality' people want to think it is. You may as well be honest about it because I already know
You all completely ignore every single thing on this list to support women. I can make that list five times as long as it is now, with the real nasty stuff- but there's little point. The purpose of this post was to show just how feminized and captured you all are
85% of custody hearings thereafter result in the woman's favor
97% of combatant deaths are men
80% of suicides are of men
93% of work related deaths are men
83% of the homeless are men
Nonetheless, there are 8 women's shelters for ever 1 men's shelter
Women unemployment rate: 8.1%
Male unemployment rate: 10.3
There are three women in college for every two men.
Take notice to these statistics- I want you to think about it for a second.
For divorce, you argue domestic abuse
For custody, you say women are better caregivers
For combatant deaths, it's the 3% who are women that stands out
For suicides, women actually mock that- they take pride in being happier
For the homeless, ~men are just lazy~
For so many women shelters, it's because they are helpless
For the unemployment rate, ~men are deadbeats~ #imganativepaygap
For college, ~women are dedicated~ #quotas
Yeah, good ol' ~quotas~. You know the law, TOWN HERETIC, why don't you tell us all what the law really means when it says 'equality' in the fine legal print?
Maybe you'll be happy to share with the rest just how ridiculous it really is- that's it's nothing like the 'equality' people want to think it is. You may as well be honest about it because I already know
You all completely ignore every single thing on this list to support women. I can make that list five times as long as it is now, with the real nasty stuff- but there's little point. The purpose of this post was to show just how feminized and captured you all are
Yep, domestic abuse. It's a danger to the family members, especially the CHILDREN, who are unfortunate enough to have one of these low life's as part of their family. I would tell you to ask Phil Hartman or Nancy and Daniel Benoit, but they are victims of the type of maniacal abuse that you pretend is nonexistent.
:yawn: Cool story.
"According to one of the most thorough surveys of child custody outcomes, which looked at Wisconsin between 1996 and 2007, the percentage of divorce cases in which the mother got sole custody dropped from 60.4 to 45.7 percent while the percentage of equal shared custody cases, in just that decade, doubled from 15.8 to 30.5. And a recent survey by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers shows a rapid increase in mothers paying child support." from Dad's Day in Court, Slate Magazine
We're disproportionately the initiators of violence. I don't think that's helping you.
Seems high, though as with violence, in every country that I know of that keeps the statistics both violent acts against others and violence against self are male markers, sadly.
Men work in much more dangerous occupations, typically. How is that a woman problem?
Women's shelters are typically about abuse, not homelessness. Most of those habitually homeless adults have histories of mental issues and your numbers aren't lining up with the latest statistics I've seen, supra.
"A typical sheltered homeless person is a single, middle-aged man and a member of a minority group. Of all those who sought emergency shelter or transitional housing during 2009, the following characteristics were observed: 78 percent of all sheltered homeless persons are adults. 61 percent are male."
So not that different. And a lot of women are still homemakers. I'm sure that impacts the number if it's accurate.
"The inside track on Washington politics.
By Nick Anderson March 26, 2014.
For 35 years, women have outnumbered men in American colleges. Federal data show that female students became the majority in 1979 and for the past decade have accounted for about 57 percent of enrollment at degree-granting institutions."
Your figure is a little high.
No, I've noted that a great many women seek divorce on those grounds. 37% of divorces are filed over infidelity. Emotional and/or physical abuse was cited about as frequently.
Not only haven't I said that, I've said that the tender years presumption that women are better nurturers has been dismissed from the law.
I have no idea what you mean by that.
Should a woman feel badly about feeling better?
I've never heard that. I've spoken to mental illness and a number of contributing factors.
Nope, supra.
No, though I can't see how you're going to blame women for doing better in the job market, assuming they are. I'd suspect it goes to the sort of jobs men typically hold, especially in lower income brackets.
That's your real problem. You can't think beyond your expectations. You see things that aren't there and curse people for "pretending" they aren't.
Good for Wisconsin
The majority is still in women's favor.
And women are disproportionately the antagonizing influence or, even the reason, for a lot of that violence.
Men build the world and die doing it.
So how do women get off on having more advantage within it, and, why are men not venerated for it but women are venerated simply for utilizing it :think:
Riiight. Write it off on domestic abuse. Go figure.
That's why you see soooo many homeless women on the street
Men are more likely to forgive infidelity and abuse because divorce is NOT a prospect for them. It hurts them more emotionally and financially- this is not so true with women.
'Dismissed from the law' does not mean a judge cannot still rule in a woman's favor because he feels they are better caregivers. I'm glad you brought that up because it's a perfect example of how deleting something from the law does not imply it being illegal to still do as what was deleted- there has to be an actual proclamation saying to not do so.
At men's expense, it's a bad joke.
'Equality' is not egalitarian in the law, it is forced. It is obvious that them 'doing better' is really equality enforced within market to put them in higher places.
That is to say, it is an illusion.
To no surprise- the entire matter is a facade, and you'd rather dwell in it than see reality.
It was a reflective study. Now, where are you getting your data?Good for Wisconsin
The majority is still in women's favor.
Blame the victim? If you can't manage better than that you should stop trying.
And then they just give it away to...well, no. Then what do you want, a cookie? :chew:
They don't gizmo. If you'd been paying attention when I was citing to authority you'd recall which sex was disproportionately poor and victimized by the other (hint: it wasn't men).
Why aren't men venerated for serving their own interests? Really.
lain:You were wondering why there were more shelters for women. The reason is that a good many women's shelters are specifically for women and children seeking shelter from domestic violence. I don't have the figures you didn't supply, but my best guess would be that's the difference.
You think you'd find the victims of domestic violence walking the streets when there are shelters for them?
Neither of those statements are objectively true, which is why you declare but don't actually support them. In fact, women are more likely to forgive infidelity. Anyone who wants to just google the question and read the results.
"A 2002 study out of the University of Texas further claimed that not only do men find it harder to forgive sexual (over emotional infidelity) than women, but they are more likely to terminate a relationship over it."
Here's where you legal education is showing...what it means is that a judge acting without justification on the point can have his disposition questioned and overturned on appeal.
It actually doesn't if you understand how the courts actually work. Thanks for providing me with the opportunity to underscore that you don't.
I asked, should women feel bad about feeling better?
Another connection existing entirely within your bias and not as an expression of empirical fact.
The law doesn't aim to make men equals in more than right. It cannot make you better, smarter, or more rational than you are.
Well, it's no surprise to find you blaming someone else for your error...the rest of your empty sleeve is, again, rubbish.
From everywhere else :idunno:
That's the problem with statistics- you can always find a counter one. In your case, you found the needle in the haystack.
It is a common fact that a great deal of violence between men has to do with a woman. In cases where it is the other way around- when women are fighting over men- the man is usually seen as bad.
This is not the case with women. In all actuality, they are often seen as the one's who are in distress. Blows my mind, but it's not surprising when you look at the fact that in most divorces, women are always seen as the poor victims, WHICH IS WHY THEY GET AN ADVANTAGE IN COURT.
Women have far greater support systems then men. It is why you don't see many homeless women or women in jail- they have a tendency to virtually never even see these circumstances.
Why aren't men venerated for serving their own interests? Really.
Women are. I mean, did you even think before you wrote that
lain:It doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the homeless are male. And from what I've seen of domestic assault, the man goes to jail and can't even return to his own house until court months later- plenty of time for the wife to do all manner of screwed up, sheisty things.
There's a difference between a 'relationship' and a 'marriage'. I read the studies, and in marriage they are more likely to forgive- for the exact reasons I laid out.
I read an article which states that this is simply not true, evidenced by the mere minor drop in women winning.
They are aware that their 'happiness' is at the expense of men. They know it very well when they act the way they act- maybe you just never took notice or connected the dots, but they collectively have prided themselves on producing enmity between them and men. That's what feminism did, and which you apparently support.
Not authoritatively. I'd be happy to compile and compare, but you need to cite something.
You're not connecting enough dots. So far it's: men fight over or about women and you think the men are blamed for it...by whom and in what sense? Next you suggest women fight over men. Sure. I doubt it's as common, but okay. And you think men are blamed for that...again, by whom and in what meaningful sense. This just sounds like a contrived complaint.
You keep declaring things like that, but it's not demonstrably true. So if you say more women apply for divorce, sure. And the party applying has to establish grounds. If you want an advantage then those grounds need to be more than irreconcilable differences. Basically, as I noted the last time you ignored free legal counsel on the point by someone who has actually handled the matter in a court, you have two sorts of jurisdictions with different controls. In an equitable distribution state the judge decides how the marital estate is settled by considering, among other factors, fault. In community property either a prenup or statutes will control the division. Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin are all community property states, with Alaska allowing for an opt in option.
No, you tend to see a lot more men in prison because men are disproportionately responsible for violent crime. By way of example, in 2014, 80% of those arrested for violent crime were men. The DOJ notes that between 1980 and 2008, men were convicted of just over 90% of homicides, and where children under 5 years of age were murdered by a parent the male was the convicted perp 80% of the time.
We're a violent sex.
You wrote: "why are men not venerated for it but women are venerated simply for utilizing it"Women are. I mean, did you even think before you wrote that
I know your point was to fling some more poo on women, but your poor placement/use of the negative reduces to the statement that men are not venerated. I answered on the absurd context of that part.
Why would anyone want to change that? I'm only noting your numbers are suspect. But I've spoken to this issue with you before too. You left my answer on it without rebuttal, as you did on the tender years bit and other points of law.
I know this won't make sense to you, but a man who beats his wife shouldn't be allowed to return home absent consent on the part of the injured party and the only demonstrable screw up is him.
What studies?
What article, published where?
Until the mid 1800s children were essentially property and men almost always took custody as the result of a divorce. That was changed by the Custody of Infants Acts, which established a maternal preference. Eventually it became referred to as the Tender Years presumption. Eventually, a couple of states found objections that went as high as their S. Ct. and the practice was held a violation of the 14th Ammendment's Equal Protection clause. Other states, reading the writing on that wall, dismissed the presumption from their own considerations. Consequently the standard became the best interests of the child. More recent trends are strongly in favor of joint custody with one parent retaining primary physical custody that is usually about keeping the child in the customary home and with the parent most responsible for taking care of the children during the marriage.
Or were you just making chit-chat?
Honestly...I think you're a little screwy on the point. That is to say, a bit unbalanced, emotionally invested and unhappy. From this skewed perspective come all sorts of ideas that I don't believe would appeal to you or anyone otherwise.
I support rational thought and approach over grudge and emotional blinkering.
There was a time when a man got into an argument with his wife. When she went to the bedroom and shut the door, he pushed it open and it shoved her back.
The man went to court, knowing he would not be found guilty for assault because, I mean come on now.. the prosecutor got into all the little details, actually demonstrating how he pushed this door open, and the man was laughing inside about how dumb it was.
But then, to his surprise, the judge found him guilty of assault.
He was also surprised to see that, upon returning to his home after months, his wife had moved out- she took everything of worth, and sold what couldn't fit into the apartment she put down with the check he deposited the day of his arrest.
I know this won't make sense to you, but the very fact that women are even capable of legally doing this is utterly absurd- just as absurd as those like yourself who minimize it and shove it off for you're obsession with 'protecting women'.
Please. Half of all 'domestic abuse' cases are exaggerated nonsense and you know it. They take advantage of your obsession
I'm not going to put in much more effort with you on this. You're not trying a case, you're presenting the barest glimpse of a matter presented with more than one voice present to an impartial trier of fact and likely with lawyers involved. A woman who feels fearful enough to retreat to another room and close a door is one of the voices you aren't speaking for...though in my experience you don't shove a closed door open unless it's on a peculiar hinge. You break the mechanism. The woman was then struck by that and whatever the surrounding testimony and evidence was it was sufficient that the judge appears to grant a restraining order lasting months. I have no reason to trust your judgement on the points, less reason to trust someone like the guy involved.There was a time when a man got into an argument with his wife. When she went to the bedroom and shut the door, he pushed it open and it shoved her back.
The man went to court, knowing he would not be found guilty for assault because, I mean come on now.. the prosecutor got into all the little details, actually demonstrating how he pushed this door open, and the man was laughing inside about how dumb it was.
But then, to his surprise, the judge found him guilty of assault.
He was also surprised to see that, upon returning to his home after months, his wife had moved out- she took everything of worth, and sold what couldn't fit into the apartment she put down with the check he deposited the day of his arrest.
I know this won't make sense to you, but the very fact that women are even capable of legally doing this is utterly absurd- just as absurd as those like yourself who minimize it and shove it off for you're obsession with 'protecting women'.
Please. Half of all 'domestic abuse' cases are exaggerated nonsense and you know it. They take advantage of your obsession
As a rule, women don't immediately flee a residence they have a court order to be in possession of unless they are in fear and attempting to hide/protect themselves from someone they feel won't respect it. The fellow had all sorts of options from the beginning. He had the right to counsel, to appeal the order, and the right to ask for a status quo order dealing with joint assets pending disposition by hearing. After the fact he had the right to institute proceedings to recover property or its value.
And protecting women and children (and once in a blue moon, men) from abusive partners and husbands wasn't an obsession. It was simply what I did. I was fortunate to be in a position to help people in need protect themselves and their children from people with serious problems.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Thank you. For the response - and for the work you did on behalf of those who needed it.
So a man's life is ruined.. because he shoved a door open.
You don't get it- there needs to be protections for men, and a repeal on what counts as 'assault' in the home setting. Because as you can see, the woman bears absolutely no responsibility in the matter- he didn't act as a benevolent angel, but by no means had an intent to hurt his wife.
There's nothing good with any of that- it's atrocious and quite frankly, the very fact that you are or were a lawyer means that I don't have much reason to trust you either. You want to defend what you defended to hold up a given standing you have chosen for others to see.
Yeah, how often does that work?
When you have a bias reaching across the courts, social services, anon anon which favors women, a man just finds himself wasting his money on actions that hardly suffice.
Rusha and Anna thank you for taking their side- on everything. You'd be a 'misogynist' if you didn't
They agree that a man's life should be ruined if a man loses his temper- there's nothing more to say, really. They don't care about anything other than what serves their self interest, and you are their champion. Good job defending something that is intrinsically immoral.
That's why God commands them to remain silent and for men to be their head_
But let's ignore all that, wouldn't want to bring up what you hold to allegedly be your sacred, true values
lain: