When paternity testing is useful for the women, it will be enforced and used to prove paternity, so father can pay up. And pay he must, always. If the sperm is the man’s, he has to pay child support.
Man has to pay child support even if pregnancy is result of
deceit,
fraud,
“stolen” sperm taken from a condom and artifically injected,
statutory rape of a minor
or even real rape of an unconscious passe out man by the woman.
On the other hand, cuckolded men are supposed to pay for children of adulterous relations of cheating wives, when the sperm is not theirs. When paternity testing is against the mother’s best interest, they invent the the well being of the child requires that paternity tests be NOT allowed. See “Mother’s baby. Father’s maybe.” Mandatory DNA testing at birth can instate gender equality.
We are awe-struck how feminists manage to tilt all laws so they serve their personal interest.
Males are overrepresented in jail, death row, war death, work accidents, accidental death & involuntary middle age virginity, reproductive failures, mental retardation. Feminist and men’s right’s activist fail to request female quotas in jail. Isn’t it funny? We need quotas in politics, management, Universities. But no quotas among homeless and war dead? No gender equality on Titanic life boat seats!
some women systematically looked up at the top of society and saw men everywhere: most world rulers, presidents, prime ministers, most members of Congress and parliaments, most CEOs of major corporations, and so forth — these are mostly men.
The mistake in that way of thinking is to look only at the top. If one were to look downward to the bottom of society instead, one finds mostly men there too. Who’s in prison, all over the world, as criminals or political prisoners? The population on Death Row has never approached 51% female. Who’s homeless? Again, mostly men. Whom does society use for bad or dangerous jobs? US Department of Labor statistics report that 93% of the people killed on the job are men. Likewise, who gets killed in battle? Even in today’s American army, which has made much of integrating the sexes and putting women into combat, the risks aren’t equal. This year we passed the milestone of 3,000 deaths in Iraq, and of those, 2,938 were men, 62 were women.
Equal rights, equal duty. Did feminists fight for conscription for women?
One can imagine an ancient battle in which the enemy was driven off and the city saved, and the returning soldiers are showered with gold coins. An early feminist might protest that hey, all those men are getting gold coins, half of those coins should go to women. In principle, I agree. But remember, while the men you see are getting gold coins, there are other men you don’t see, who are still bleeding to death on the battlefield from spear wounds. Is There Anything Good About Men? by Roy F. Baumeister
Men outnumber women both among the losers and among the biggest winners
Men take high risks. They reap high rewards, and pay with death, injury, abysmal failures. Feminists are envious of the winners, and oblivious of the losers. They want to get the gold coins without risking their lives in the fight.
Evolution built this higher risk, higher variance even into genetics of male physical features: There are more men that are extremely tall, extremely intelligent, etc and there are more men then women at the bottom, with the lowest IQ, shortest height, etc.
Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.
Over half the males but very few females were reproductive failures
Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. [ . . ] Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago [2005].
I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.
In evolutionary times, in the “EEA” 100 000 years ago, only very few women failed to reproduce, but about 60% of the men were total evolutionary failures. They are the end of their genetic line. Every man or women know that some guys are girl magnets, while others barely stand a chance: Nerds, socially inept, shy, ugly, handicapped. And even nowadays, with legally enforced monogamy, there still is serial monogamy after divorce, and affairs, both practiced mainly by successful men.
In terms of the biological competition to produce offspring, then, men outnumbered women both among the losers and among the biggest winners. [ . . . ] Experts estimate Genghis Khan had several hundred and perhaps more than a thousand children. […] For him, the big risks led to huge payoffs in offspring. My point is that no woman, even if she conquered twice as much territory as Genghis Khan, could have had a thousand children.
And thousand’s of wanna-be Genghis Khan’s died before they had a chance to reproduce. And others were snubbed by women.
Feminists look for equal rights without equal risk & equal losses.
Most cultures have tended to use men for these high-risk, high-payoff slots much more than women. I shall propose there are important pragmatic reasons for this. The result is that some men reap big rewards while others have their lives ruined or even cut short. Most cultures shield their women from the risk and therefore also don’t give them the big rewards
Men outnumber women both among the losers and among the biggest winners
The woman that mutilated her husband, cut off her husband’s dick and threw it out of the car window, forgave her husband, after the husband expressed remorse and asked for forgiveness . And poor Lorena stressed how much her husband had hurt her. No remorse. Yes. You are reading right! The mutilator did not ask forgiveness, no, she forgave! Must see the video.
The back story: In June of 1993 after having a fight, Lorena cut off her husband’s manhood with a knife while he was asleep, then fled and threw it out of her car window. Later, Lorena’s trial was carried live, and after the stunning testimony, she was ultimately found not guilty by reason of temporary insanity. theinsider.com/news/2098643_John_Lorena_The_Shocking_Bobbitt_Reunion
This is how far feminist inequality attitudes and laws got us. Can you imagine a man that mutilates his wife, cuts off her breasts, gets acquitted. And then shows no remorse but demands and gets an excuse from his victim? The final proof for gender inequality in our days. Men can be castrated, arrested. And women who cut off her husband’s dick get no punishment and demand excuse for his insensitivity!
“[At] our own wedding reception, he left me alone,” says Lorena. “We didn’t have a honeymoon, so to speak, because you left me at our own wedding to flirt with girls.”
“Basically I learned to be a pick-up artist when I was married,” says John, “and that’s something I shouldn’t have done.”
“I’m really sorry,” adds John in a bombshell apology. “There was a lot of neglect there; I wasn’t there for you. You needed me to be there. I wasn’t emotionally, physically — it was a very confusing hard time you went through.”
This is why men get repressed by women. No man says anything. No man’s movement! If it were the other way around, the entire world press would be up in arms. Headlines all over. Feminists calling news rooms, making demonstration, heads of government making statements. But a man getting mutilated by a women? Serves him right, he deserves it. Womanizer. Hurt her feelings.
Does this need a Human-Stupidity analysis?
Feminists managed to totally pervert laws, and the general human undersanding of law, order and justice. As I said in other posts, female capacities to subvert press, organisations and public opinion is nothing more then awe inspiring. Men are stupid victims of the common unconscious manipulation.
I found most of these articles through reddit.com/r/MensRights/. Highly recommended! Please mark my articles for reddit, digg, delicious etc too if you like them!
Consensual sex, followed by rape, followed by consensual sex
Every man is in danger of getting rape accusations at all times. From long term girlfriends, wives, dates, or strangers. Feminists made the world a mine field for men.
Just in case you don’t get the gist of this: the women agreed to several sex acts, then was raped once, and then did a few more consensual sex acts. And of course all this without corraborating evidence like videotapes or witnesses. No man can be safe, if he has a sex life. Except if he is gay.
Judge Lacava said after the consensual sex the pair had a shower together. While the woman was still in the shower Hronas made demands of her in a domineering voice. The woman became scared as Hronas’s voice and demeanour changed, the court heard. Judge Lacava said the rape was “spontaneous and opportunistic” but Hronas did not ask the victim’s consent. A jury found Hronas guilty of one count of rape. The court heard after the rape the pair engaged in further sex acts. http://www.smh.com.au/national/internet-date-led-to-sex-then-rape-20100730-10z4f.html
Poor Homeless Man’s inheritance confiscated to pay alimony for kid he did not father
The homeless man has his only chance in life to get money from an inheritance, but merciless feminists and a justice system slanted to help women at the expense of innocent men will destroy this guy’s chance at happiness and money.
Seventeen years later, in 2008, Tate asked the probate court to intercept tens of thousands of dollars Wilburn was about to inherit from his deceased mother, based on the 1991 support order. Wilburn’s family tracked down 22-year-old Alexis and asked her to take a DNA test, which excluded Wilburn as Alexis’ biological dad. Wilburn’s family hired an attorney, who filed a motion challening the support order. Alexis swore under oath that Wilburn never acted as her dad and she only saw him a few times in her life. The court denied the motion, ruling Wilburn should have challenged the order sooner, despite the fact that he was homeless and living under a bridge. On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal upheld the order on the same grounds, and the California Supreme Court has now declined review. “This is totally unjust,” said Angelucci. “It is wrong to force a man person to pay child support for a child that is not his, especially when he never acted as the dad.” http://www.eworldwire.com/pressreleases/211794
Innocent prisoner freed after 27 years
Cleared and released, Green still has questions for rape victim who misidentified him
This story and more shocking press news follow here
How all due process got dismantled in rape accusations. Feminst power at its best.
Feminism overrides the constitution! Amazing! Rules of due process, presumption of innocence, “innocent until proven guilty”, are fundamental or constitutional law in most countries. Feminists managed to override constitutional guarantees, as they managed to change thousand year old definitions of legal terms like “rape” and “child” (see: Female evolutionary Superiority in social manipulation causes feminist Language Distortions’ universal acceptance ).
Prior to the great wave of rape reforms starting in the 1970s, rape advocates reported, with seemingly infinite invention, that women were too scared, too embarrassed, too certain of its futility to report their own rapes. The sexual grievance industry insisted that rape was underreported, and that reforms were needed to do justice to countless women who suffered in silence the brutal indignity of rape. So we kowtowed to the sexual grievance industry to solve “the problem.”
First, we adopted laws that eliminated the requirement of corroboration, which de facto served to flip the old law on its head: now,women don’t need any corroboration of their claims, but men and boys are arrested based solely on even the far-fetched say-so of any woman or girlif they can’t produce corroborating evidence of their innocence.
That wasn’t enough, they said. So we adopted rape shield laws that forbade almost any evidence of the accuser’s prior sexual history with persons other than the accused, a rule that resulted in innumerable innocent men and boys being sent to prison for alleged rapes that never occurred.
That wasn’t enough, they said. So we adopted laws that eliminated the requirement of force, and innocent men and boys who misunderstood the acquiescence of a woman were sent to prison.
That wasn’t enough, they said. So we enacted laws that eliminated the mens rea requirement for rape. Historically, in a rape prosecution, the guilty defendant must have had the intention to have intercourse with a woman without her consent. Too stringent, said the sexual grievance industry, and the requirement was lightened or dropped altogether.
That wasn’t enough, they said. So we enacted laws (in the UK and a handful of US states) that legally forbade naming rape accusers. In the US, the news agencies and outlets have, by common consensus, agreed not to name rape accusers. The mere allegation of rape by the anonymous female, without any other evidence and no matter how far-fetched, invites a man’s name to be splashed all over the newspaper, TV, radio and Internet for the world to titillate at the details of his humiliation.
That wasn’t enough, they said. So we enacted laws that lengthened and even eliminated statutes of limitations for rape, and now, men are sometimes accused of and charged with alleged rapes that occurred 20, 30, 40 or more years after they supposedly occurred, effectively foreclosing the accused from mounting a meaningful defense because the evidence of their innocence has long disappeared. Wait, there is more! This article continues! That still was not enough. Keep reading and click here » Rape Laws: dismantling of due process explained step by step » continues here »
A very feeling movie, about men who are forbidden to see their kids. The movie is quite tame, it does not even mention that men of course have to pay half their income in exchange for not being allowed to see the kid.
The final version of the documentary about the discrimination against fathers in custody cases, and the mayhem it causes in our societies.
Produced by Sara Sivesson, Jerry Wallén, Sandra Atas and Oskar Krantz at the John Bauer high school in Sweden. The film was made as an entry in a Amnesty International contest regarding human rights.
Rumors are that women’s groups protested the movie and Amnesty International thus did not allow the movie in their contest. Another example of the amazing clout feminists wield to manipulate institutions to act in the feminist interest, making special rules and exceptions for feminist issues that the institution would never make for any other issues.
Amnesty sponsored a film competition, but when some finalists produced a film that angered feminists, the film was pulled from Amnesty’s YouTube site. Amnesty denies that pressure from an Uppsala women’s shelter was responsible for suppressing the film, but the shelter itself is gloating about its political clout.
The film, created by four high school students and titled, The Right To Be a Father, is a powerful depiction of how children are taken from their fathers by Sweden’s feminist family courts. Separating children from their fathers is not only a bedrock principle of the war against “patriarchy,” but also the bread-and-butter of the lucrative child custody industry, so it is not surprising that the sisterhood would come down hard on the heresy that feminists violate human rights.
The film was nominated for the final stage of the competition. Amnesty posted it on YouTube, and the creators were invited to the film gala in Gothenburg. “But our film was never shown at the festival, and the day after it also disappeared from Amnesty’s YouTube channel,” says Sara Sivesson, one of the creators. [. . . ]
The power of feminists is awe inspiring.
Feminists conquered and brainwashed the minds of lawmakers, police, press, the United Nations.
And people are not even aware of the sweeping changes feminists did, to encroach upon men’s rights, men’s well being, freedom. How much terror feminists managed to sow with teenage sex and child porn witch hunts. This sounds exaggerated? Please read on.
The feminist social manipulation skill superiority hypothesis
Females are superior in social manipulation & language distortion to foster their reproductive interest (An evolutionary hypothesis).
More provocatively it could be called “feminist cunningness hypothesis”, female evolutionary cunningness hypthesis, …… Any more naming suggestions?
Hypothesis: Females are vastly superior in social manipulation skills
In evolution, everything is result of an evolutionary arms race. (cheetah and gazelle’s running skills, bacteria vs. our bodily defense system, …) Skills and capacities get honed over time, to solve evolutionary tasks. Women, in evolutionary time, had the hard task to convince a much stronger man to assume his paternal role and take care of her offspring (which might be his, or even just his cuckold offspring). In any argument, men had clear superiority with 2 powerful weapons
economical superiority: men were the hunters, they had the meat, they also could defend and own territory
physical superiority: men could always win an argument by brute force, by simple violence.
So to achieve some kind of evolutionary long term equilibrium, women must have developed some weapeons to counter men’s economical & physical power. What weapons could they have?
Social manipulation: gossiping among women, ganging up together against the common enemy, making intrigues, badmouthing a man, destroying his reputation, manipulating the opinion of other men (and women).
Women would actually need the skills to win over other men to defend the female agenda. In order to counter men’s physical superiority, women needed to be better then men at these social manipulation skills. They could not confront men clearly straight on, or else men could resort to the big stick argument. They would have to “con” men into doing what is in women’s interest, without men noticing.
Women would have to manipulate epecially skillfully, when it has to do with reproductive success, with getting men to provide for them and their kids, with men staying away from other women.
So the historical stone age balance of power is:
men have economical and physical superiority,
women have verbal manipulation, cunningness, intrigue, social manipulation.
Nowadays, men surrendered their physical and economical power. Women maintained and expanded their verbal manipulative social power
Men surrendered both their advantages. Winning an argument with physical violence became criminalized. Women got to earn their own money, plus they get the government to collect pension money and child support from fathers that must pay up but have no say over how their money is being used. So most of the male power advantage waned.
Mass media and the internet even increased the verbal manipulative power of women beyond what they had in the evolutionary EEA, 50 000 years ago.
This would explain womens total win on all fronts. They started winning when they outlawed bigamy, made it a crime for consensual adults to engange in marriage with several partners, and now are curtailing the rights to have consensual sex for pay, with adolescents, take one’s own photograph and doing DNA tests on one’s own children.
Anecdotal and other Evidence
It is self evident that women must have developed some skills to counter the obvious male physical superiority.
I will explain the
reasoning behind my female-social-manipulation-superiority hypothesis.
Feminism as middle aged womens trade union to promote their selfish reproductive interest, even their plain interest in an easy life, trying to curb men’s access to more attractive or cheaper competitors.
I was wondering:
Why and with which methods do the feminist trade unions score such resounding victories
how do feminists convince everyone else to promote their goals?
And why are they winning the war on all fronts with absolute resounding victory?
there must be a special evolutionary skill how feminists manage to convince male law makers to support their warped feminist “women studies” logic and distract from the egalitarian goal of creating “men’s studies” and “men’s rights” (Feminist arguments against prostitution debunked)
I have been converted by the arguments of the antifeminists, that
the feminist movement’s main goal is to reduce male choice in female partners, to force men to dedicate their lives to unattractive, high spending, ruinously expensive feminist sex partners.
I add to this my hypothesis
The balance of power between men and women tilted in favor of women because
Men mostly stopped using physical & economical power,
women maintained their superior social manipulation power and thus,
world-wide, women are biasing laws totally in their favor in clear detriment of men
In evolutionary times (EEA, environment of evolutionary adaptedness), males had superior physical strength, fighting skills, and economical power as meat providing hunters.
Females, to defend their interest, had to use social skills, social manipulation, shaming, intrigue, cunningness trying to counter male physical superiority (anyone got research links on that?)
Now males surrendered the advantages of physical strength, even of economic strength. Suddenly, in the last half century, in the male-female conflicts of interest, all the female agendas win in politics. Feminists hide their agenda behind absurd warped arguments, shaming, willful misuse of language,
Feminists argue that prostitution is dangerous, unhealty, unpleasant, demeaning, not a free choice. These arguments that can be brought against menial jobs, professional boxing, military service. Personally, I think that spending one’s life fixing up people’s teeth, staring into smelly mouths all day long, is demeaning. And going to a war that one is opposed to, this is like a year long repeated rape.
Many feminists are strongly opposed to prostitution, as they see the practice as a form of violence against women, which should not be tolerated by society […]
Many men are strongly opposed to military service, as they see this practice as a form of violence against men, which should not be tolerated by society.
Military service often is involuntary, and desertion punished by execution.
These feminists argue that, in most cases, prostitution is not a conscious and calculated choice.
{Street sweeping, toilet cleaning, professional boxing, panhandling, begging, robbing, military service} in most cases, are not a conscious and calculated choice.
Getting a husband that pays spousal support for the rest of his life is a much better choice.
Most women who become prostitutes do so because they were forced or coerced by a pimp or by human trafficking, or, when it is an independent decision, it is generally the result of extreme poverty and lack of opportunity, or of serious underlying problems, such as drug addiction, past trauma (especially child sexual abuse) and other unfortunate circumstances.
{Panhandling and begging,robbing} may be caused by childhood traumas, abuse, drug addiction. {Street sweeping, toilet cleaning, professional boxing} are usually the result of extreme poverty or caused by unfortunate circumstances.
Furthermore, feminists simply deny the existence of cases of rich well off prostitutes. See
These feminists point out that women from the lowest socioeconomic classes—impoverished women, women with a low level of education, women from the most disadvantaged racial and ethnic minorities—are overrepresented in prostitution all over the world.
Let us point out that women/men from the lowest socioeconomic classes—impoverished women/men, women/men with a low level of education, women/men from the most disadvantaged racial and ethnic minorities—are overrepresented in {Street sweeping, toilet cleaning, professional boxing, military service, panhandling, begging, robbing} all over the world.
“If prostitution is a free choice, why are the women with the fewest choices the ones most often found doing it?” (MacKinnon, 1993)[9
“If {Street sweeping, toilet cleaning, professional boxing, military service, panhandling, begging, robbing} is a free choice, why are the women/men with the fewest choices the ones most often found doing it?” (MacKinnon, 1993)[9
why do feminists get away with such drivel and even get academic recognition? Even men kind of buy this ridiculous feminist BS.
Most prostitutes are in a very difficult period of their lives and most want to leave this occupation.
Most {Street sweeping, toilet cleaning, professional boxing, panhandling, begging, robbing} professionals are in a very difficult period of their lives and most want to leave this occupation. Except highly successful professional boxers, and highly successful prostitutes, whose existence the feminists duly ignore.
Catharine MacKinnon argues that “In prostitution, women have sex with men they would never otherwise have sex with.
We argue that “In {Street sweeping, toilet cleaning, professional boxing, panhandling, begging, robbing} , women/men clean streets they otherwise never would clean, fight men they otherwise would not fight.
The money thus acts as a form of force, not as a measure of consent. It acts like physical force does in rape.” [11]
The money thus acts as a form of force, not as a measure of consent. It acts like physical force does in slavery.”
Anti-prostitution feminists argue that prostitution is a practice which leads to serious negative long term effects for the prostitutes, such as severe trauma, stress, depression, anxiety, self medication through alcohol and drug abuse, eating disorders and a greater risk for self harm and suicide
Prize fighting, boxing, heading a ball in soccer leads to serious long term health effects, potential brain damage.
Being a high executive, manager, causes severe long term consequences like stress, heart attack, obesity.
It is amazing how feminist women get away with manipulating language, distorting facts, and got their agenda all the way up to the United Nations. And thanks to their deceitful language most men somehow get swayed by their warped arguments.
Term
common definition
feminist extension & re-definition
provocative re-definition
victim
somebody or something harmed; somebody duped
$ 400 an hour luxury prostitute “victims”, that earn much more then most of their customers
the prostitute’s customer is the victim of his raging hormones that make him spend too much money
selling a body
sale is a final one time transaction that changes ownership. Like selling into slavery.
“sale” is a one hour “rental” to provide an hour of sexual services.
A construction helper sells his body for money in exchange for often unhealthy work; a fire fighter, a soldier, a full contact figher sells his body, risiking his health and his life.
A journalist, physician, engineer sells his brain to provide services to people.
Violence is the expression of physical or verbal force against self or other, compelling action against one’s will on pain of being hurt. … en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence
exchanging sex for money by mutual agreement (is violence against women).
A woman that pays money to put up an ad offering sexual services. If you answer the ad you are violent against the woman.
obviously, drafting a non-volunteer soldier for war is violence against men;
obviously, a firefighter who sells his body to pull people out of burning houses is violence against men;
by feminist definition, even a construction worker who sells his body to lug wood and cement, is suffering violence, because he would rather be at the beach or receive welfare.
Am I the only one that is lost why people buy this BS, why they have offer academic carreers to such manipulative, cunning, deceiving, misleading and totally illogical people?
Why they influence even United Nation Policy?
Why are men stupid enough to let themselves be lead astray by such arguments? Seems women really have more verbal intelligence then men.
