|
|
|
|
|
| | Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of viewPage 5 of 10 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) | Conscious Soul -- Because I can say "as far as I am concerned," Brad Pitt is my kids dad, and I want child support from him! That does not nor SHOULD it legally obligate him to support kids that aren't his! That girl should have gone after bio-dad from day one for support. No way should HE be let off the hook financially, just because there's some other guy in the picture. If she wanted support from this guy, she should have gotten him to legally adopt the child. The only person who should be supporting his child is the legal father. There is just way too much room for abuse otherwise.
A step parent can legally adopt if they get the permission from the non-custodial parent. The child wouldn't have three legal parents. But why would that be such a problem, if a child can have 6 men supporting him?
Man, I need to move to Canada. It sure would beat working for a living! | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/13/2010 1:58:22 PM | | exiledbyabusers, you never did get that tin foil helmet, did you? I have read your random, inane conspiracy theory ravings for a couple of days now. You sound like someone who seriously needs to be medicated. And I'm not being sarcastic, I mean it. Seek help. | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/13/2010 2:24:31 PM |
Conscious Soul -- Because I can say "as far as I am concerned," Brad Pitt is my kids dad, and I want child support from him!
Well, technically, you haven't spent four year and half with Brad Pitt, nor had Brad Pitt take care of your 5 years old for nearly all of her life... (please correct me if I am wrong, who knows, perhaps you DID?). Point is, it's not because you are saying that Brad Pitt is a step dad to your child that it is true. Someone who would go to court to get CS from an ex-relationship & step parent would first have to prove that this person actually WAS present in the kid's life, now, wouldn't he? It's not enough to simply pretend it.
Can we agree at least on this? Because if you think asking for a financial contribution from any rich stranger and asking for a financial contribution from an adult who took care and shared most of a kid's life is the same, frankly, I don't see how we can even debate further!
That girl should have gone after bio-dad from day one for support.
Yes, perhaps she should. She may have had her reasons not to go for CS, I have no idea. But what does this have to do at all with the current question? It certainly doesn't invalidate the emotional relationship that are being created between the child and the real caregiver (even if he is not a bio caregiver). Nor does it invalidates the importance of said emotional relationship in a kid's well being.
If she wanted support from this guy, she should have gotten him to legally adopt the child.
In the example I have cited on the original post for this thread, I never said that this mother would go after CS from the non-bio step parent. What I said is that this non bio parent has MORE rights to this child that the bio dad should ever have, and that he should be entitled to legal rights to stay in the picture and continue to care for this kid - had he been fully invested in that kid's life in the first place of course - should the relationship with the other spouse fails.
The only person who should be supporting his child is the legal father.
And as you are well aware, the legal dad isn't always the bio dad. And sometime, the emotional dad is not the legal dad either. So then, what happens in these situations? From the child's well being point of view, what happens then? Everybody washes their hands off the problem, then?
There is just way too much room for abuse otherwise.
There is plenty of abuse already even with deadbeat bio-parents, unfortunately. Restricting the debate to bio parents only certainly won't prevent abuse.
A step parent can legally adopt if they get the permission from the non-custodial parent.
Riight. And what do you do when the said bio non-custodial parent is a manipulator or an abuser? When you are basically awarding that bio non-custodial parent a shiny new lever to use as a manipulation/control tool? Why would someone who has spent NO TIME to be present, to care, to parent, has spent no money, no effort, has provided no help - why would that person have a right to decide if someone who DID care, who was present, who was caring, who spent years parenting - is authorized to adopt "his/her" child? Why would sheer genetic material even mean "ownership" of that child?
The child wouldn't have three legal parents. But why would that be such a problem, if a child can have 6 men supporting him?
Hey, personally, I don't see a problem with a kid having more than 2 legal parents either. It's not my fault the law doesn't want that. But it would make sense to me. After all, we have "common law" marriage. Why shouldn't we have "common law" adoptive parent? | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/13/2010 3:27:15 PM |
Can we agree at least on this? Because if you think asking for a financial contribution from any rich stranger and asking for a financial contribution from an adult who took care and shared most of a kid's life is the same, frankly, I don't see how we can even debate further! No, we can't agree on that. Because I don't think anyone should be supporting anyones kids but their own. If this guy chose to, that would be commendable. But I do not think he should be forced to.
Whoever the legal father is, regardless of his DNA, should be supporting the child. If the child is adopted, then the bio father has relinquished his rights and has no legal responsiblity to the child. Mama's live in boyfriend of 6 months should not be supporting kids who are not his. All I see in that situation is potential for abuse, and a revolving doors of "daddies" to support the mom, when she and the kids real father should be doing it themselves.
And you just aren't paying attention...child support and visitation rights are NOT mutually inclusive of each other. A man can be ordered to pay money, and not given rights to visit the child, if you read around in the forums, you will see that. I've read it here before, men paying payments for kids they don't even get to see.
In the US, men who don't pay ordered child support can be tossed right into jail for not paying. However, they don't get ordered to pay it unless it's hammered out in the divorce deal, OR the mother goes after him for support in the courts. And if she doesn't, then it's her own fault, but it's not the fault of some guy she happens to be dating. My kids are the responsibility of ME and their own dad. I can't imagine expecting some other guy to support me and my kids, long after we broke up. That's some entitlement society y'all are bringing up up there. Good luck with that. | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/13/2010 4:24:30 PM | (TAKEN itsallinthesoul) Ok Jack, in fairness to you, you may not have realized that I don't deny the existence of a gender bias in the courts. If you could access all of my postings on this subject, you would see that I am fully aware that the bias exists.
Yes: I have to say, you're extremely fair-minded and balanced in your views.
That being said, it's very easy to tell others what they "should" do; quite another thing to face the same biases they do. The current situation that men face is only superficially similar to what vizmins, or women, ever faced. Men don't think like women, so stop telling us to ACT like women (WRT custody, CS, etc).
ETA: When women didn't have the right to vote, they ALSO didn't have the right to work (mostly), which translates into a lot of free time. Most men today are too busy working, to engage in all sorts of social activism (this is a bit of a sore point with me: people {often well-meaning women} will say that the Suffragettes did it in the 19th-early 20th century, so therefore, the EXACT SAME FORMULA will work today... ain't so).
Men have to face the reality that they have a fight to fight and accept that the only way to make change in society is to fight that fight.
Agreed: the changes, if any, will come from men (specifically, ONE man, or a small number of men) to jump on the grenade, take one for the team, etc etc.
Or, you can do what I, and a lot of other men are doing: NOT spend mega-bucks on a lawyer while living well below the poverty line, DON'T piss off the ex, and just wait till the kids are 18.
There's a METHOD to Jack's madness... 
Is it easier to just accept that the bias exists and lay down....pay pay pay pay? I guess for some like Cap they answer is yes...
Cap, and me, and many other men. Look at what IS happening, rather than what the "ideal" would be.
Jack | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/13/2010 6:03:01 PM |
What I said is that this non bio parent has MORE rights to this child that the bio dad should ever have, and that he should be entitled to legal rights to stay in the picture and continue to care for this kid - had he been fully invested in that kid's life in the first place of course - should the relationship with the other spouse fails.
I don't think you'll get any argument from anyone here with regards to the above.
Where you WILL get disagreement is that while a guy may WANT to keep emotionally invested in a kid's life, it's really messed up to be FORCED to pay for a kid who carries none of the genetic stuff of the FORCEE.
Being forced to do something that feels wrong can result in all sorts of less-than-desireable consequences. Perhaps someday, OP, YOU will be a parent, end up divorced and forced. I'm pretty sure your tune will change.
 | |
|
My I
| | Joined: 1/23/2007
Msg: 107 | |
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/13/2010 8:09:56 PM |
My I: Your entire message 88 is a load of baloney
Let's look at your posts in this thread and compare baloney.
Your post in message#75:
It's just a shitty situation that parents become too selfish or obsessed with their own feelings that they can't see beyond that to the welfare of the child and make choices that reflect that.
Your post in message#92:
I clearly indicated the reason I didn't pursue support was out of respect for the father's decision not to be a parent.
The baloney starts when you mention selfishness regarding people in general. Yet, in your real life situation, you condone selfishness of the bio-father.... and yours as well, if you think about it.
I guess it's baloney vs bullshit
As far as this is concerned:
I'm sick and tired of hearing that it's in any child's best interests for the parents to be giving children a free ride for the rest of the child's life.
^^^ That's a pathetic view you have, in my opinion. The bio-father who shares responsibility for creating a child gets a free ride (your blessing) while the child who had nothing to do with being created is told "support your own life"
That's beyond baloney and bullshit. | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/13/2010 8:20:03 PM |
divide by 12 months = $1890.75
I had no idea a single parent of one child collects that on social assistance. I guess it makes sense that no body wants to work any more.
Wow thats an awful lot considering a single parent with one child in bc gets 550 to cover shelter and a 375 basic allowance. Totals 925. I know for a fact that Ontario's welfare rate is even lower than BC, because of the fact children are not counted into the basic allowance on the welfare checks. A single parent gets about maybe 700 or so.
http://www.ocap.ca/node/7
so 1890 is very well exagerated, and I would rather work than live off 700 myself.
As for non- bio parents having to pay support, I say that is all wrong and only a greedy person would collect support from both the bio father and the non- bio parent. Everyone has an obligation to their children, key word THEIR children. No one should have to pay child support to a child that is not theirs. | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/13/2010 8:25:26 PM |
Or, you can do what I, and a lot of other men are doing: NOT spend mega-bucks on a lawyer while living well below the poverty line, DON'T piss off the ex, and just wait till the kids are 18.
The truth is lots of parents, not only men, do just as you state above. What we see here is a war between parents being made in to a war between the sexes. Fortunately, most of us are aware that this forum is not indicative of the real world. I know many, many people who are parents, not together and who do the right thing by their children. I have never known, nor have I known anyone personally who has improved their quality of life by dumping a partner & collecting CS. The selfishness that leads to what is being discussed here is not in any way shape or form gender based. Despite many of the comments & insinuations made here, women in possession of their faculties do NOT trick men into getting them pregnant to get rich; it ain't happening!
That having been said, it does seem unfair to charge someone who is not a parent with the financial obligation of a child. On the other hand, I can see some common sense to the argument. It is a difficult issue, at best, and honestly I find it hard to believe that such responsibility is put upon the majority of those who become involved with a single mom, even if the law allows for it. Is it prevalent? Really? (I am asking, not doubting).
Speaking of asking:
Where you WILL get disagreement is that while a guy may WANT to keep emotionally invested in a kid's life, it's really messed up to be FORCED to pay for a kid who carries none of the genetic stuff of the FORCEE.
Being forced to do something that feels wrong can result in all sorts of less-than-desireable consequences. Perhaps someday, OP, YOU will be a parent, end up divorced and forced. I'm pretty sure your tune will change.
Are you saying that if a man wants to be involved in the life of a child not their own, THEN they should be financially responsible? I am not the op, but I am a parent, and I am of the opinion that most single parents are forced, forced to deal with additional financial burdens, additional time constraints, etc., etc., but what has that got to do with this topic?
We could argue that it is just as unfair (perhaps more so) to FORCE a child to have to move, change schools, give up activities, time with their parent, etc., simply because the two people who agreed to give them all those things part ways, and one of those people (who, btw, knew what they were getting in to and unlike the child, had a choice) now has a choice to abandon them. As I said, my initial reaction was that Canada is strange (jk), but this is a thought provoking & difficult topic for any parent, regardless of gender. Of course, were it true that women who become involved with single parents were held to the same responsibility, we might find some of the men a little less vehement and a bit more understanding of both sides of the situation. | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/14/2010 7:18:17 AM |
Are you saying that if a man wants to be involved in the life of a child not their own, THEN they should be financially responsible?
No, I'm saying leave the guy alone. Let HIM decide whether or not he wants to be involved in ANY way with a non-bio kid after a breakup. Being forced to do anything tends to piss people off.
I am not the op, but I am a parent, and I am of the opinion that most single parents are forced, forced to deal with additional financial burdens, additional time constraints, etc., etc., but what has that got to do with this topic?
Well, you are entitled to that opinion, but you'll need to support the statement that are forced to do anything. Many CHOOSE to be single parents and because of their CHOICES have to do what they can, difficult as life may be, but that is NOT the same as being forced by another party.
And, it has quite a bit to do with the topic, because in Canada a parent can FORCE another person to pay for a non-bio kid. One year of acting in loco parentis can mean being FORCED to pay Child Support until that kid is 25.
| |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/14/2010 9:47:51 AM | I believe somebody who is a step-parent would be involved with a bio-parent a bit more than as boy/girlfriend (which to me suggests friendship/dating but not necessarily a marriage-like relationship).
"If the step-parent breaks up with the primary caregiver, and he/she has to pay child support, this also means that he/she is entitled to see the child legally, and act as a legal parent (like an adoption). It means the primary caregiver cannot prevent the step-parent from continuing to be present in the child's life (absent of abuse of course). "
If the step-parent and the bio-parent break-up and the child(ren) do not have the other bio-parent in their life, then I agree, the step-parent is entitled to have access and is legally responsible for child-support etc. just as though the step-parent is a bio-parent.
Step-parent means substitute parent (i.e. replacing a missing parent). To me "step-parent" does not mean one parents intimate friend/partner. To me, second spouses are not step-parents if both bio-parents are involved in the child(ren)'s life.
So, if a woman has a baby and the father of the baby is nowhere to be seen, then he has abandoned his child. The mother meets another man and that man becomes a step-father do the child -- ten years later, mother and step-father break up. Yes, the step-father should have access and be responsible for child support. He has been a father to the child -- not a biological father, but a step-father.
To me that is a very different scenario to the mother and a man dating and being friendly for a couple of years and not living together etc. If the man does not become like a father to the child(ren), how can he be held accountable for the child(ren)'s well-being after he and the mother split? | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/14/2010 4:57:35 PM |
The mother meets another man and that man becomes a step-father do the child -- ten years later, mother and step-father break up. Yes, the step-father should have access and be responsible for child support. He has been a father to the child -- not a biological father, but a step-father.
The problem I have with this attitude is that women are constantly screeching, " I AM NOT LOOKING FOR A FATHER FOR MY KIDS!"....
.... then, when they kick the guy to the curb, they want the guy to pay CS for a kid that isn't his.
Ah, perhaps Jason and his Argonauts learned to ignore the Sirens Song to which so many other men had fallen victim: " I AM NOT LOOKING FOR A FATHER FOR MY KIDS! La-la-la. I DON'T WANT OR NEED A MAN'S MONEY! I DON'T NEED A MAN FOR ANYTHING! La-LAAAAAaaaaa-la!"......
| |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/14/2010 7:46:42 PM |
So, if a woman has a baby and the father of the baby is nowhere to be seen, then he has abandoned his child. The mother meets another man and that man becomes a step-father do the child -- ten years later, mother and step-father break up. Yes, the step-father should have access and be responsible for child support. He has been a father to the child -- not a biological father, but a step-father.
So what ever happened to the wail...i am not looking for a father for my child?
It is gone...the moment the relationship fails...and suddenly.....the loco parentis arguement sets in and how much can she derive in support...and where is the requirement for paying for your own choices?
I agree w/ you. Even though my daughter does not have a father in her life I am not out there looking for one for her. I am looking for someone to talk to and have a good time w/.
Only in Canada you say?http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts1081227.aspx | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/14/2010 8:08:38 PM | Every time this subject comes up, as an 'outsider' (Australian) and a single mother, I am always horrified at the notion of a non-biological, non-adoptive parent being made financially responsible for those children following the breakdown of the relationship.
I just cannot get my head around the issue. I cannot even imagine a new man in my life ever contributing financially to supporting my children whilst we are actually in a relationship. So the thought of him being responsible afterwards is mind boggling.
I guess if a man has married a woman with children and elected to lawfully adopt the children, then that is different. He is in effect at law committing himself as parent to the children in a way that any adoptive parent does. And that is for life.
But in the absence of that, how on earth does anyone justify this philosophy? I honestly thought it was a joke the first time I read it. I am frankly astonished that any man in Canada would ever date a single mother. If we had that type of legislation in Australia I would not expect any man in his right mind to enter into a relationship with me! | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/14/2010 8:25:27 PM |
Well, you are entitled to that opinion, but you'll need to support the statement that are forced to do anything. Many CHOOSE to be single parents and because of their CHOICES have to do what they can, difficult as life may be, but that is NOT the same as being forced by another party.
I guess it depends on your definition of choice. I guess it is a choice to remove one's children from an abusive situation, and I suppose it could be called a choice to continue to care for them & make sacrifices in the name of their welfare. Of course, there are those whose co-parent simply disappeared, and I suppose you could call it a choice that they keep those children, put a roof over their heads, and feed them. Still, I think my point was obvious. It is, after all, a choice to become involved with children who are not yours, as well. It is also a choice to abandon them as well, but that doesn't mean that the consequences of doing so need be borne solely by those kids.
Don't get me wrong, I am far from convinced that this Canadian law is right, but I AM convinced that those who post here evidence bitterness & general disdain for the opposite gender. Truth is, I have too much on my plate to research it, but I am venturing a guess that is not nearly as prevalent as is suggested here.
MePlusTwo., while my head agrees with you, at least to an extent, I am reminded of the newsreels of several children who were torn from their "parents", for one reason or another, after it was determined that biology overrode years of a parent/child relationship. For a parent, and often a step parent, there is far more to this issue than charging cs. | |
|
My I
| | Joined: 1/23/2007
Msg: 116 | |
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/14/2010 8:38:23 PM |
But in the absence of that, how on earth does anyone justify this philosophy?
Actually, they can't justify it.
Those who think they are justifying it, use the child's emotions as their excuse. However, in the next breath, they claim he's not the bio-father so he has no rights except for the right to pay.
You'll also hear empty reasoning like this:
there is far more to this issue than charging cs.
But the end result is still the same = non-bio-father pays... doesn't have any rights. | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/14/2010 10:05:08 PM | | That is unfair! I haven't read the entire thread, but I have read, and have posted, comments that is does NOT seem fair, and further that it would at least make some sense if the ex "step" had some right to continue a relationship with the child. To quote a portion of a post, completely ignoring just that point is self serving & disingenuous. This is supposed to be a discussion, not an opportunity to bash & start an argument. There IS far more to this issue, and there are plenty of us who question this end result, if it is the end result, and it is only if that is an untruth that it makes any sense at all. | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/14/2010 11:11:17 PM | Well, actually, women ARE given special rights under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada.
Subsection 1 covers women as "disadvantaged" group. This is why women can have women's only health clubs, why boys cannot join Guides while girls can join Scouts, why girls can play on boys sports teams but the reverse doesn't happen.
And, as I mentioned before, I went specifically to a lawyer to discuss my rights in regards to family law. HE told me that I didn't have a hope in hell because of the way Equal Rights is written in our Charter.
And, just as you and most women here see it, the courts regard any complaint by a man about rights and legal inequalites as "whining".....~capitano~
^^^^Wow...err... I really meant to say WOW!! Love the TWIST on your logic....and I was especially confused momentarily by the SPIN of your heartfelt concerns about "the kids"...because in the end that is really all that men care about right?.....uhh yeah...subscetions 15 (1) & (2) do not cover the perverted interpitation of the mobgang in this thread. You guys don't like the law....change it!....you may have a few women supporting you...if you didn't continually offend them!
****BTW capitano...just as a footnote for you personally...my cousin (a girl) was the first girl to challenge the supreme court about the rules and regulations that intitiallt disqualified her to play on a "boys" rep hockey team.....google her...Justine Blainey....
I come from the same stock....and don't accept the men in this forum spouting the men's victimhood theories.... | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/14/2010 11:15:23 PM | Sadly Tealwood...you cannot argue or respond to any posts that disagree with you without posting a link to a thread from % YEARS AGO....Get a grip....women have long stopped burning their bras and men still haven't gotten their shiat together!
Go Figure | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/15/2010 8:18:42 AM |
****BTW capitano...just as a footnote for you personally...my cousin (a girl) was the first girl to challenge the supreme court about the rules and regulations that intitiallt disqualified her to play on a "boys" rep hockey team.....google her...Justine Blainey....
I come from the same stock....and don't accept the men in this forum spouting the men's victimhood theories....
OK, I remember this case very well. My daughter benefited from the ruling some ten years later in that she had the choice to play in boys or girls hockey. (Actually, when she started hockey, a number of girls were playing in both but now you can play in one or the other but not both).
However, you can't possibly be using this without realizing it is an example of discrimination that benefits females but not males. Girls now have the choice to play on a boys' team or a girls team while boys cannot cross over the gender line. There's reasons for it, but it IS discrimination based on sex. The only reason it is allowed is the point Capitano was making about the special status of women under the Charter. | |
|
| |
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/15/2010 12:04:31 PM |
However, you can't possibly be using this without realizing it is an example of discrimination that benefits females but not males. Girls now have the choice to play on a boys' team or a girls team while boys cannot cross over the gender line.
This is the very principle of diversity & protection of the minority.
This is *NOT* discrimination! Discrimination is when a group with the power attempts to exlude or deny a minority group because they are what they are. On the other hand, when the powerless / minority group establishes an exclysion of the power / majority group, it's a measure of PROTECTION. Not discrimination. Eventually, after a few decades, the difference in power cease to exist and then the minority group no longer needs a division for protection. It takes time.
For instance, women who attempted to play hockey a decade ago were harassed, sexually assaulted, and verbally degraded. And you'd find it "discriminatory" that they'd want to create their own, safe, woman-only hockey teams??? Can you see how the law subsection protects the woman who, for instance, would rather join a woman-only harassment-free hockey team?
On the flip side, men are NOT threatened, harassed or sexually assaulted because a woman would join their hockey team. Their hockey team is simply "hockey", not a protected safe group against harassment. To prevent woman from joining the REGULAR hockey team would be discriminatory. If it had not been sexist and harassing in the FIRST place, woman would not have had to create their own woman-only team at all.
If you cannot understand the difference in the two situations, you should take a course in diversity. Funny thing, most people who can't understand the difference are often members of the white, male, north american and straight groups...
Even more interesting: for the CS and parenting roles, where men are actually the minority / powerless group, mostmen will still biach against the equality sub law, not realizing it is actually in their favor this time. But women fought for decades to be recognized as the minority / powerless group thet were, and still are in many areas today except parenting. Men on the other hand are mostly clueless about how to fight for rights and equality. And as long as they cling to their outdated conception of feminism as the ennemy, of their manhood as being defined by their ability to be tuff and be providers, as long as they cling to the false idea that the women are out there to get them and refuse to acknowledge their own priviledges a d women past battles - it will stay that way. | |
|
| |
| |
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/15/2010 4:16:16 PM | Discrimination is when a group with the power attempts to exlude or deny a minority group because they are what they are.
Right, but, like why are women, who have the power of a governmental stamp of approval, resulting in MORE power than men, able to exclude men from their clubs, enjoy affirmative action job hiring priority while maintaining their Victim Label?
HEY! Wait a second.... besides that, aren't men the minority? Don't women make up something like 51% of the population?
Even more interesting: for the CS and parenting roles, where men are actually the minority / powerless group, mostmen will still biach against the equality sub law, not realizing it is actually in their favor this time.
Nice of you to acknowledge that men DO, in fact, have no power when it comes to family law, CS, but you seem to forget that you, like most feminists, constantly point at men as the privileged, power-hungry, power-controlling, neanderthal, oppressive, card-holding members of the mythical Patriarchy.
The bit you don't seem to realize is that courts are afraid to go against what women want or be seen as anti-female while being anti-male is good, though it's nice to see that you can at least come close to understanding something from a male perspective.
Frankly, I'm surprised.
| |
|
|
|
Home
login 
