"Do you have a source or did that happen to you?" Lol Just because someone is advocating to stop something horrible doesn't mean it happened directly to them, Silly. Everyone should be fighting to end this horrific nightmare. As far as a source, you're not going to find a source on line for something like that, you didn't know that Google scrubs and buries any and all politically incorrect facts from the internet? Especially anything that reflects badly on women and minorities, all the information on Google is the standard 'women can do no wrong.' Lol It's why you're unaware of all of this to begin with, that and MSM never talks about it either. No, you're going to have to research that kind of information in books- a good place to start is with this one: 'Taken Into Custody' by Steven Baskerville https://www.amazon.com/Taken-Into-Custody-Against-Marriage/dp/1581825943 .. he cites all of that information in the book.
Don't sweat it. You probably would have been divorced in a handful of years, and had to pay her 40% of your salary. Just find a younger girl to date for 7.5 years. Women change after they get married. She would have become someone you wished you hadn't married and she would probably know her power position and you would be under her thumb. That is not very "manly." There are plenty of FISH in the sea. Just go get a new one. Love is an illusion and men should beat that feeling back if it makes them make poor financial decisions. The only time I think men should get married is if they get lucky like John Kerry and meet a girl better looking and richer than themselves.
For the most part, men should never get married. There are 1,000,000 men in jail for failure to pay child support. Most of those men just couldn't pay (job loss, etc.). The money can be spent by the ex-spouse without any strings attached (so it is really just spousal support). Do you want to be legally obliged to pay her to fuck other men?
Good book on what happens to men in divorce court: http://www.amazon.com/Taken-into-Custody-Fatherhood-Marriage/dp/1581825943/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280992303&sr=8-1
> If you can’t find any sources to back up your claims
Just one of a dozen:
https://www.amazon.com/Taken-Into-Custody-Against-Marriage/dp/1581825943
>maybe it’s not the media. Maybe you’re just wrong. Have you considered that?
Not only are you completely oblivious as to what is going on in the world in which you live (very sad and pathetic) as in women have God like legal power o over children, men, marriage and family and the reason the family is destroyed in the US, you're also completely ignorant of the ever tightening noose by Google and social media to scrub any information that doesn't fit a radical Leftist narrative. Not all information is on line, Puto, don't know what else to tell you. Have you considered that maybe you're just extremely lazy and low IQ?
Excellent. A great book on these issues is stephen baskerville's taken into custody. This nyt article is also great
No problem about the responses. I am usually wishy washy with my reddit addiction.
>I think a man who shirks his duty of caring for his offspring is a much weaker person then a women who decides it is not the right time to bring another life into the world.
Child support is not about a man shirking his duty to care for his offspring. There is not an epidemic of father's abandoning their children. It is a very rare occurrence when it does happen and, more often than not when it happens, it is the state who has forced the father out of the child's life. Child support is the state forcing a man to pay money to someone who has ownership of his child. That ownership was given to that person by the state and usually against the will of the man.
Just as the pro-choice argument is that the state should not have a say in a woman's choice, the same should apply to men in custody battles. Why is it not okay for the state to dictate the woman's choices but it is okay for the state to dictate the man's? Every day father's have their children forcibly taken from them by the state, given to someone else by the state, and the father's are forced to pay monthly to and by the state.
There is the common misconception that if the state is not there to force father's to "support" their children then all father's would just run off never to be heard from again. While this may happen in some cases, it happens very rarely. And women are prone to doing it as well. Why do we feel it is okay to allow the state to incarcerate a parent because he cannot pay a monthly bill that the state has imposed on him for being a parent? A father could pay child support for 10 years on time and then fall behind and he will have his driver's license suspended, business license suspended, passport revoked, and be incarcerated. It is a horrible horrible system that is destroying the family unit in America.
The original intention of Child Support was to relieve the state of the burden of caring for women who had children on welfare. It was supposed to only be in effect for fathers whose children were receiving state support. Instead of the state paying welfare to the women they started making the fathers foot the bill. Over the years child support has expanded to include every father. It will not be long before child support is going to be a mandatory bill for every parent regardless of whether they are married or not. Simply having a child will be cause enough for the state to place a monthly bill on both parents that you must pay or they will take your children. I fight against this system because I do not want my children to have to go through it when they grow up.
For a good read on the subject, check out <em>Taken Into Custody</em> by Dr. Baskerville.
Separating children from their fathers is an industry.
There is great profit to be made in breaking up families, and there are many professions that derive great income as vultures, facilitating the process.