Turn on thread page Beta

Information for All Men ( and decent women). watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I have some disturbing news.


    It seems that the Justice System is Biased Against Men.

    It seems that the police only fight male on female domestic violence and ignore violent women who abuse their men.

    It seems the police and mainstream society cannot see " Women as Batterers" even when they are.

    It also seems that some women make false allegations of anything from sexual assault to domestic violence against the men.


    These are not news you will see anywhere else.

    Check this out.

    http://www.menstuff.org/books/byissu...sviolence.html
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    This is spot on! Good post!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wolfman117)
    I have some disturbing news.


    It seems that the Justice System is Biased Against Men.

    It seems that the police only fight male on female domestic violence and ignore violent women who abuse their men.

    It seems the police and mainstream society cannot see " Women as Batterers" even when they are.

    It also seems that some women make false allegations of anything from sexual assault to domestic violence against the men.


    These are not news you will see anywhere else.

    Check this out.

    http://www.menstuff.org/books/byissu...sviolence.html
    Are you asking to be neg repped? Try backing up your points and stop cut n pasting!! I understand that men suffer injustices in cases regarding domestic violence, but I think the more pressing problem is that of bias against men in the divorce courts, of men losing contact with their children because of a system which sees the role of a family matriarch as essential in a childs upbringing. If you wish to pursue your points further please back them up or expect some serious flaming.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I agree that is is a problem as I think would most women. There should be gender equality in all court cases including as was mentioned before Divorce cases.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think that children MUST be entitled to see both parents after a divorce.
    I didnt see my dad for a year after my parents divorced and even though i was 12 that really hurt. To this day i dont know the full circumstances around why i didnt see my dad.
    My friend has a 1 yr old and her parents split when she was 6 months. Her parents find it really hard to b around each other so i now take her 4 times a week to her dads house and then pick her up to take her back to her mums. People think that they're being really immature but when they're together they cant help but fight so its better for Kay not to see that.
    As for violence againest men by women, I would have thought that people would have known about that for a while. Hollyoaks is doing a big storyline about it at the moment. I think that domestic violence in any capacity is shocking and unacceptable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frost105)
    I think that children MUST be entitled to see both parents after a divorce.
    I didnt see my dad for a year after my parents divorced and even though i was 12 that really hurt. To this day i dont know the full circumstances around why i didnt see my dad.
    My friend has a 1 yr old and her parents split when she was 6 months. Her parents find it really hard to b around each other so i now take her 4 times a week to her dads house and then pick her up to take her back to her mums. People think that they're being really immature but when they're together they cant help but fight so its better for Kay not to see that.
    As for violence againest men by women, I would have thought that people would have known about that for a while. Hollyoaks is doing a big storyline about it at the moment. I think that domestic violence in any capacity is shocking and unacceptable.
    I agree that men should have equal rights in court regarding custody og children. Afterall the woman did not give birth on her own but the court seems to hold a different view. The child needs both parents and thus I believe in joint custody unless either one parent is unstable, abusive, alchoholic, addicted, violent or such. Anything which can harm the kid basically. It is not like these problems are characteristic only of the father.

    But I find it immature and unfair when fighting parents make their issue superior to that of the child (namely in the best interest of the child). They tend to use the child as the weapon. Fight your battles but do not involve the kid.

    Man this world is upside down.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    What happens if the parents live hundreds of miles apart? There are lots of factors to consider here. My gf has a little girl and her father lives in north yorkshire (I live in nottingham), it would be impractical to have joint custody, so who do you choose? It is especially difficult as they weren't even married in the first place. Family law is very, very complex I don't think it is simply a case of the courts being blanket biased against men.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    What happens if the parents live hundreds of miles apart? There are lots of factors to consider here. My gf has a little girl and her father lives in north yorkshire (I live in nottingham), it would be impractical to have joint custody, so who do you choose? It is especially difficult as they weren't even married in the first place. Family law is very, very complex I don't think it is simply a case of the courts being blanket biased against men.
    Well would you not agree that when you have children then to a certain extent these must be put first. Their best interest being superior to that of the parent. And surely that entails sacrifices along the way. You work les hours, spend more time with your kids, think twice before being reckless and at times choose not to live too far from the other parent or find some mutal agreement benefitting both?

    Luckily there are various means of transport available today. I just think parents can be selfish at times thinking why should they budge if the other don't whereas they should actually be considering the impact of their decisions on the kids.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Outrageous)
    Well would you not agree that when you have children then to a certain extent these must be put first. Their best interest being superior to that of the parent.
    Not all the time.

    And surely that entails sacrifices along the way. You work les hours, spend more time with your kids, think twice before being reckless and at times choose not to live too far from the other parent or find some mutal agreement benefitting both?
    My gf works part-time and struggles financially so she can be there for her daughter. The kid's father moved to yorkshire shortly after she was born, mmm.

    Luckily there are various means of transport available today. I just think parents can be selfish at times thinking why should they budge if the other don't whereas they should actually be considering the impact of their decisions on the kids.
    Because maybe kids don't need the disruption of being ferried to and from every weekend?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    Not all the time.

    My gf works part-time and struggles financially so she can be there for her daughter. The kid's father moved to yorkshire shortly after she was born, mmm.



    Because maybe kids don't need the disruption of being ferried to and from every weekend?
    No but most of the time - you don't opt for a night of boozing when you have a kid at home do you now? Some sacrifices are called for. Or else don't have kids. Its a responsibility.

    And kids certainly do not need to be deprived of a parent only because transport problems. There are ways to get around that. Unless you have a parent who is not really interested in seeing the child or such.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Outrageous)
    You work les hours, spend more time with your kids, think twice before being reckless and at times choose not to live too far from the other parent or find some mutal agreement benefitting both?

    Luckily there are various means of transport available today. I just think parents can be selfish at times thinking why should they budge if the other don't whereas they should actually be considering the impact of their decisions on the kids.
    Its not always so easy to work less hours when you have kids on your own. My mum worked 60 hours a week at certain times just to get the bills paid and so i could go on school trips cause my dad wasnt giving her anything.

    As for living near the other parent, again that not so easy. Not only do you have to think of work and the cost of places to live but what happens if you meet someone else and move? Its not feasible to put a child on a train and it can cost a lot of money to stay in a hotel every weekend to see your child. Live just isnt that black and white.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frost105)
    Its not always so easy to work less hours when you have kids on your own. My mum worked 60 hours a week at certain times just to get the bills paid and so i could go on school trips cause my dad wasnt giving her anything.

    As for living near the other parent, again that not so easy. Not only do you have to think of work and the cost of places to live but what happens if you meet someone else and move? Its not feasible to put a child on a train and it can cost a lot of money to stay in a hotel every weekend to see your child. Live just isnt that black and white.
    I realize that but you can never generalize.

    There are people who selfishlessly keep their child away from their parent. People who are unfit to be parent in the first place. That is why I said comprimise unless it was vital for me to move to a different city I wouldn't. Its a two street. Two people were involved to begin with and my point is the kid should have both parents. It matters.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Outrageous)
    And kids certainly do not need to be deprived of a parent only because transport problems. There are ways to get around that. Unless you have a parent who is not really interested in seeing the child or such.
    I agree with that to an extent but you have to accept that sometimes it isn't feasable for children to see the other parent every weekend or more reguarly when there are hundreds of miles between the parents. Yes they should see them maybe once a month or during the holidays but more than that may not be feasable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    I agree with that to an extent but you have to accept that sometimes it isn't feasable for children to see the other parent every weekend or more reguarly when there are hundreds of miles between the parents. Yes they should see them maybe once a month or during the holidays but more than that may not be feasable.

    good thing, someone raised this issue, most parents just think about themselves when considering breaking up.
    How else do you explain women who want to keep the children just to spite the fathers.
    With regards the distance, they both knew a child was different from other household stuffs which can be owned and diswoned or handled with disregard to the rules, so its thier duty to consider that before spliting

    About men been sidelined, its their fault, try defending a man and he starts feeling belittled so women are accepted as the weaker sex and protected as such even though we all know the weaker sex story ends in hollywood movies
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Cardaman said:
    Are you asking to be neg repped? Try backing up your points and stop cut n pasting!!
    This is a perfectly good post raising some important questions, you should be neg repped. My opinion on the issue is that if you have a child you have got to take responsibility. That means both parents living close together and both having access to the child. At the moment the system unfairly favours the female- who often deny access to fathers out of spite. The system needs to give both parents equal access.

    Chemistboy- If someone has a child for example your gf, then she should taker responsibility for the child. She made a choice or was irresponsible and now she has to face the consequences.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MMA)
    Chemistboy- If someone has a child for example your gf, then she should taker responsibility for the child. She made a choice or was irresponsible and now she has to face the consequences.
    I think you misunderstand mine and my gf's situation, or are deliberately trying to wind me up. She certainly wasn't irresponsible, she was left in the lurch. Anyhoo the little girl is 6 now and the situation is fine, I was just using a real-life example to show that it is not so easy to give joint custody. But that's enough of that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MMA)
    Cardaman said:
    Chemistboy- If someone has a child for example your gf, then she should taker responsibility for the child. She made a choice or was irresponsible and now she has to face the consequences.
    What consequences are you talking about? If this person had a child, for whom she has taken responsibility, and the father moves away, is she then meant to move to where the father is? How many times should that occur? Surely it was the father's choice to move away from his child, and nothing to do with whether the mother is acting responsibly or not?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    My opinion is that if you have a child you have to put the rights of that child before your own. Firstly, you shouldn't have a child with someone unless you know for certain that the person you are with is responsible enough to be a parent. There is a problem in society at the moment with too many people having children to young- there are too many single parents bringing up children in poor financial conditions. Also, when you do have a child the child should have equal access to BOTH parents. As I have said before many women are very thoughtless and spiteful with regards to access to children, so the law needs to be made more equal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    personaly i think its kinda a good thing as hey males r more inclined to do this sort of thing, so indeed they may put inocent men away but it may be saving more people suffering such crimes by stopping the majority whom do that sort of thing
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MMA)
    Cardaman said:

    At the moment the system unfairly favours the female- who often deny access to fathers out of spite. The system needs to give both parents equal access.

    She made a choice or was irresponsible and now she has to face the consequences.
    i dont think they deny acccess to the father out of spite, its a case of even if he is home they dont click so she feels the need to drive home the point by saying he is never available(which could be true since most men love their work more than their home) but my point is that this is done at the expense of the child

    If you say the woman had a choice and was irresponsible, i wonder what the man was, 'RESPONSIBLE?!' it took two to bring the child to the world, so it takes two responsible partners to raise a child

    i agree that the system needs to give both parents equal acess
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like exams?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.