It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Women- are they the goverments secert agent?

page: 6
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Off the top of my head -

The laws about women not being in the draft were amended in most of the first world nations in the last 5 years. Including the US.

When men contest custody, they are granted sole custody more than 70% of the time. Therefore the stats you see about women being given primary custody are usually in cases where there is shared, or visitation custody and it isn't contested.

Throws a bit of a different light on some of that doens't it?

[edit on 2009/4/9 by Aeons]




posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by deathpoet69

Don't want to start a revolution? blaming women for your lack of.. ahem. "motivation" is just cowardly. Whats even more pathetic is you guys are actually implying that if it weren't for this grand conspiracy you would be leading a revolt and be leading mankind into a new age?!
Sure you would.


..because the ruling elite are just that afraid of you


[edit on 9-4-2009 by riley]


Yes thats exactly it, your understanding now, and of course your going to laugh because you know we know your game.

wow.. you're not being ironic.

darl.. if you can't man up and lead an army thats a reflection on YOUR own charactor- not mine. You seem to be blaming your own cowardess on women yet you haven't even got guts enough to admit that one.

"I'd be a hero to the masses and fight except Mummy said no."

When I read your posts I'm not exactly seeing V for vendetta.. a real leader would not be blaming others for a weak mind. Guess what?

A real leader would not have a weak mind.

the OP is a copout.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by riley]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 



The laws about women not being in the draft were amended in most of the first world nations in the last 5 years. Including the US.


Really? Because I just went to the Selective service website, "Who must register" section:

"Almost all male U.S. citizens, and male aliens living in the U.S., who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service."
www.sss.gov...

Does not mention women ANYWHERE... so, you are wrong.


When men contest custody, they are granted sole custody more than 70% of the time. Therefore the stats you see about women being given primary custody are usually in cases where there is shared, or visitation custody and it isn't contested.

Throws a bit of a different light on some of that doens't it?


Yes, it most certainly does... you are citing the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s Gender Bias Study of 1989 to arrive at those figures, am I right?

Well, anyways.... that is an example of Statistical Manipulation, and if you read this article:

www.breakingthescience.org...

You will see what I mean.


Even if we give the SJC-GBC the benefit of the doubt and assume that they were unaware that the study's author says the data was not collected for the purpose of analyzing gender bias in custody awards, and is not appropriate data for that use, it's still instructive to look at how they manipulated the numbers to come up with the kind of result they did. They asked the question:

In what percent of cases in which the father requests custody is he granted any form of physical custody?

But they neglected to ask the same question with respect to mothers, i.e.:

In what percent of cases in which the mother requests custody is she granted any form of physical custody?

Comparing those two numbers would be the obvious place to start analyzing court bias.


You see, that particular statistic included joint custody in the 70% figure.

Men (In this study) who sought sole custody were in fact only awarded sole custody 25% of the time.

While men who sought sole custody were granted JOINT custody 50% of the time.

Consequently, Women who requested sole custody received it 74% of the time, and joint custody 21% of the time.

This indicates that women receive sole OR joint custody in 95% of cases, while men receive sole OR joint custody 70% of the time.

Awards for PURELY sole custody upon request are more along the lines of:

Men: 25%
Women: 74%

So.... your figure "Off the top of your head" is not only misleading... but due to the way it was phrased, Completely inaccurate.

Your welcome.

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics!”
-Mark Twain


-Edrick

[edit on 9-4-2009 by Edrick]

[edit on 9-4-2009 by Edrick]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Edrick--you are WRONG and breakingthescience.org? What kind of agenda is going on there? certainly nothing scientific hence the catchy name. I am assuming you are part of the fatherhood/men's rights movement or some such and possibly stumbled onto a conspiracy site, because there was a small conspiracy in your life (as in your ex and her friends talked about you behind you back, so now the whole world is out to get you). I dislike disliking people, but your agenda just seems off-topic and has nothing to do with 'secert' agents.




posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mkultraangel
 



Let me get this straight... Aeons makes up statistics, pulls them (ADMITIDLY) off the top of her head, and you are questioning MY RESEARCH?

Do you not see your Misandry?

Your Bias?


(as in your ex and her friends talked about you behind you back, so now the whole world is out to get you)


Oh, and are you going to Argue the point, or hurl insults like a child?

I did the research, you did not... until you can back up your statement with PROOF, you should sit this one out doll.

-Edrick

[edit on 9-4-2009 by Edrick]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
I have read the same research as Aeon, so she did not make it up...you know people actually do scientific (emphasis on science) research on these gender issues, they have no agenda and maybe it was out of line to make a judgment about what is going on in your head, but you still haven't really rationally stated what you are REALLY saying....stop beating around the bush and say what you mean, which is something to the effect that "I fear women" or "my ex did such and such..."although this really isn't the forum for that.

I can easily see the misogyny between the lines "dear"



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mkultraangel
 



I can easily see the misogyny between the lines "dear"


As easily as I can see misandry between the lines, sweetie pie.


and maybe it was out of line to make a judgment about what is going on in your head



stop beating around the bush and say what you mean, which is something to the effect that "I fear women" or "my ex did such and such..."


Contradiction:

"a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions"

Hypocrisy:

"an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction"
"insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have."


Cognative Dissonance:

"In psychology, cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling or stress caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously."



you know people actually do scientific (emphasis on science) research on these gender issues.


You came in late... go back a couple of pages and you will see where I quoted those specific scientists research.

-Edrick

[edit on 9-4-2009 by Edrick]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   
No there is no contradiction here (although I can see how you love to try to "win" an argument) the reason that there is no hypocrisy/contradiction is because I said that I should not have speculated on what you THINK, instead I would appreciate you SAYING what you really mean. I have no right to try to figure out what may or may not have made you so adamant in proving your points, I do however have the right to ask you to be clear, because I don't like agendas, which means I like people on these forums to be open minded and most are...you however dahling are jaded and totally slanted in one direction...that which calls for you to evidently pick the "evidence" that suits your purpose and ignore everything else...



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by riley
 



What privileges? new makeup? It sounds like you guys are getting your info off television adds and not real life.. no-one is keeping me complacent and if I buy a pretty pair of shoes or smile sweetly it doesn't suddenly turn me into a weapon of the illuminati trying to enslave the male species.


I am SOOOO glad you asked this question, you want to know what privileges I mean?

Let me enlighten you.

Women are 5 times more likely to be granted custody of children after a divorce
(Source: Current Population Reports, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Series P-20, No. 458)

Custodial mothers are 4 times more likely to receive support payment awards than custodial fathers.
(Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security Policy)

I'm not american so these stats don't apply to everyone.. and you haven't even provided a link or context of information.

Women are expected to be equally represented in high paying Corporate positions and government jobs, but are not expected to be equally represented in the Dangerous, and Hazardous jobs that are traditionally male only.

Why would they be? Most women are not interested in traditionally male jobs.. and ones that are get alot of harrassment.

Women receive the Right to vote as men have, but are not expected to register for a military draft.

You're serious? So if someone has the right to vote you think they should be drafted? or are you saying you think women having the right to vote is wrong..?
Alot of women got beaten by government for protesting for that right. The US does not have a compulsary draft so I'm not sure what you're winging about.. and you already HAVE women in your armed forces.

A woman can completely destroy a mans life just by claiming rape... even if it is later proven to be false, his life is still ruined.

Less than 10% of rapes end in convictions.. dont try tell me that thats somehow a priviledge rape victims enjoy.


In cases where the Man who was paying child support to a custodial mother, turns out NOT to be the biological father from DNA evidence, he must continue child support payments for a child that is not even his.
(Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984, P.L. 98-378, Section 18 as codified at 42 U.S.C. sec. 667)

In AUS fraud is illegal and laws are changing so that women have to pay money back.

Again I'm not american and providing me with sources WITHOUT LINKS to verify is worthless to me.

Approximately 38% of all non custodial fathers have absolutely no visitation rights with their children.
(p.6, col.II, para. 6, lines 4 & 5, Census Bureau P-60, #173)

Are you taking into account the fathers that beat those wives and children or refused to support them? didn't think so..

A woman alone has the right to chose to carry a child to term, or to have an abortion, but a man has no right to Chose to be a parent in such a fashion.

So.. you are telling me a woman having autonomy over her OWN BODY is enjoying an unfair priviledge?

He certainly does choose to become a parent.. when he doesn't take steps to protect himself when ejeculating inside a fertile woman. No this is not fair but neither is biology.. she's the one who's going to have to give birth (or abort) it. How fun!


Despite the push for "Modernity" of Gender relations, men are still expected to initiate relationships, as women seem to be incapable of such acts of "Equality".

What? Is this from your census then? They're certainly are not. If that were true there would be no human species.

You COULD argue with my above data... but you would have to take that up with the Department of Census, Health and Human Services, and Department of Defense.

Your above "data"? So that census included who asks who out? really..? No.. thats just YOUR opinion which you have tried to missrepresent as fact.

A census from when? I saw 1984 mentioned so I'm not even sure if your data is relevent. When is this census dated? If it is not actually in this century the it's redundent.

I could go ON AND ON about this kind of crap... But I'll let you absorb this first.

Crap is right.. next time you post "data" could you make sure you use "ex" tags so I can actually see whats your work and whats theirs and could you provide a actual link so we can see when the census was taken and what context the facts you present are in? thanks so much..



There is also the possibilty that YOU are being brainwashed by the "ruling elite" into thinking women are being used against you to keep you down. What are you doing right now? Instead of fighting against the ruling elite themselves you are fighting against women who are meant to be just the middle men in their evil plot. Way to keep your eye on the ball there mate.


"In war, it is of extreme importance to attack the enemies strategy"
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War.

Make up your mind.. first it was the ruling elite using women as weapons to oppress.. now it's just women that are the enemy? While you are hating on us you are NOT standing up to the ruling elite. I think you are too scared to and are using women to excuse your fear.

Blaming your failings on women will NOT make you a man.



Don't want to start a revolution? blaming women for your lack of.. ahem. "motivation" is just cowardly. Whats even more pathetic is you guys are actually implying that if it weren't for this grand conspiracy you would be leading a revolt and be leading mankind into a new age?!


You seem to be missing a key point here... this war is fought in the MIND.

So, the ideal attack strategy is to convince others that the bars to the "Cage" are in fact... REAL.

Your paranoia that women have enslaved you is very real.. but it's baseless.

..and very convenient if you don't want to stand up to the government.


[edit on 10-4-2009 by riley]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mkultraangel
 



No there is no contradiction here


Yes there is... you say that "and maybe it was out of line to make a judgment about what is going on in your head", and then in th next sentence, you presume to know my motivations:

"stop beating around the bush and say what you mean, which is something to the effect that "I fear women" or "my ex did such and such..."

Do you see what I meant now?

You say that maybe it was out of line, and yet you do it again... this is Hypocrisy.

And yes, attacks in this manner ARE out of line.

If you want to be taken seriously, then just argue the point... do not attack the debater.


the reason that there is no hypocrisy/contradiction is because I said that I should not have speculated on what you THINK, instead I would appreciate you SAYING what you really mean.


That would have been useful to say in the first place... I have already stated my viewpoint several pages back, and I see no reason to repost them every 2 pages or so.

OP asked me (in page 3 I think) to explain my position, and I obliged him... see that for the answer to your question.


I have no right to try to figure out what may or may not have made you so adamant in proving your points, I do however have the right to ask you to be clear, because I don't like agendas, which means I like people on these forums to be open minded and most are


If you wish clarification in ANY of my arguments, or request PROOF of my statements, all you have to do is ask...

Attacking me is NOT a way to pose an argument.

And, as I have already stated, I have explained myself in previous pages on this post.

IF you reread these and still need clarification, then ask me in regards to specific points, or whereabouts, and I will be more than happy to further clarify my position.


you however dahling are jaded


We are all jaded in one sense or another honey-bunny.


and totally slanted in one direction...that which calls for you to evidently pick the "evidence" that suits your purpose and ignore everything else...


You say I am cherry picking? then provide contradictory evidence, and I will respond to it.

Don't just attack with no refuting argument, I am not an unreasonable person, but when attacked, I WILL defend myself.


-Edrick



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   

I'm not american so these stats don't apply to everyone.. and you haven't even provided a link or context of information.


Yes, these statistics are from America only... so you are correct there.

The information in parenthesis () is the study that the information was obtained from.


Why would they be? Most women are not interested in traditionally male jobs.. and ones that are get alot of harrassment.


Corporate CEO is a traditionally Male Job... are you sating that women are not interested in it?

Politician is a traditionally male job, are you saying that women are not interested in it?

Do you assume that men enjoy these dangerous jobs? these hazardous jobs?

Or do you think they take them because they need the money more than they care about discomfort?

My point is... women only want equal representation in the Traditional male jobs that Pay Highly, and DO NOT SUCK.

This would be one of the reasons for the "Glass Ceiling" that women talk about alot.

Typically, the majority of the good paying jobs, women just do not want, because they are dangerous or uncomfortable.


You're serious? So if someone has the right to vote you think they should be drafted? or are you saying you think women having thr right to vote is wrong? Alot of women got beaten by government for protesting for that right. The US does not have a complsury draft so I'm not sure what you're winging about.. and you already HAVE women in your armed forces.


My point is, that men have a much higher burden of responsibility for maintaining the RIGHT to vote, and women do not.

As far as women in the Military... They are mostly in non combat positions, and the VAST majority of infantry forces are Male.

My point is, men have to DIE for the right to vote, women do not *HAVE* to... Women get to CHOSE to die for their rights... men, throughout history did not have the right to chose.

Think the Civil War, World War 2, and Vietnam.


Less than 10% of rapes end in convictions.. dont try tell me that thats somehow a priviledge rape victims enjoy.


No, it is a privlidge that WOMEN enjoy, to ACCUSE a man of rape (When none has happened) and destroy his life.

This should not be construed as advocacy of rape... but crying wolf is morally apprehensible.


In AUS fraud is illegal and laws are changing so that women have to pay money back.


I am unaware of AUS law... all of my info is derived from United States law... This information was not known to me, but I gnerally only research USA affairs (As I live there)

That is good to know, thanks.


Are you taking into account the fathers that beat those wives and children or refused to support them? didn't think so..


Did the statistics include men who have no visitation because their ex-wife falsely accused him of rape or child abuse?


So.. you are telling me a woman having autonomy over her OWN BODY is enjoying an unfair priviledge?


This particular discussion is getting dangerously close to an abortion discussion... if that is where you want to go, then by all means, I will argue the point, Just thought I would give you the choice.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by Edrick]

[edit on 10-4-2009 by Edrick]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by riley
 



He certainly does choose to become a parent.. when he doesn't take steps to protect himself when ejeculating inside a fertile woman.


Because women NEVER lie about being on the pill... or steal a guys sperm from a discarded condom... right?

LOL!


Your above "data"? So that census included who asked who out? really..?


No, if there is no reference sourced... then it is my own personal observation, and should be taken as such. I may have placed that little tid bit in an inappropriate place (Hindsight) but even though I have no documented evidence to back that one up, it is undeniably true.

In that instance, women typically wait for a man to approach them (There are exceptions, but they are just that... Exceptions)


Make up your mind.. first it was the ruling elite using women as weapons to oppress.. now it's just women that are the enemy?


I never changed my stance.

I never said that women are the enemy... I stated that women are being USED by the enemy, and I have stated this consistently throughout my postings.


I think you are too scared to and are using women to excuse your fear.


So you THINK.



Your paranoia that women have enslaved you is very real.. but it's baseless.


Your persistence in assuming that that is my position is mind boggling.


..and very convenient if you don't want to stand up to the government.


And your presumption that I am not standing up to the government is merely a baseless presumption...

Once again, you do not know me, DO NOT PRETEND TO.


-Edrick



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by riley
 



He certainly does choose to become a parent.. when he doesn't take steps to protect himself when ejeculating inside a fertile woman.


Because women NEVER lie about being on the pill... or steal a guys sperm from a discarded condom... right?

LOL!

yep.. choosing to take a woman's word for it is SO much more effective than wearing a condom.
I gave many leactures to a cousin of mine about this.. first I warned him then asked why he ignored my warnings.

"..but condoms are uncomfortable". He was well aware there was a real possibilty she was lieing but getting off was of a higher priority. ergo; it was his own choice and responsibility.

and wtf are you on about stealing discarded sperm? somehow I do not think that happens very often if it does at all. I heared it happened to a rich basketball player once. Once.. that hardly means all women would stoop to such actions.



Your above "data"? So that census included who asked who out? really..?


No, if there is no reference sourced... then it is my own personal observation, and should be taken as such. I may have placed that little tid bit in an inappropriate place (Hindsight) but even though I have no documented evidence to back that one up, it is undeniably true.

Actually most of your posts are mixed in with supposed "census facts" and your own opinions. You have made no distinction between the two so it reads like you are missrepresenting.

You still have not said WHEN this cencus is dated so it's credibilty is still in question imo.

In that instance, women typically wait for a man to approach them (There are exceptions, but they are just that... Exceptions)

So I'm just coincidentally an exception to the rule..? You've already made huge generalisations about women.. I'm not in the minority or an exception to any generalisation YOU have pinned on my gender. (imposing generalisations on women is in itself a form of oppression btw.) Some women also allow men to know their advances are welcome.. regardless of who approaches who courtship can be initiated by a woman simply by giving eye contact with a smile. If you are unable to read courtship signals or do not recieve them that is not the fault of all women.



Make up your mind.. first it was the ruling elite using women as weapons to oppress.. now it's just women that are the enemy?


I never changed my stance.

I never said that women are the enemy... I stated that women are being USED by the enemy, and I have stated this consistently throughout my postings.

Yet when you are corrected about the nature of women (you claim to know all about) you hop to the other foot and say we are just exceptions to your rules. Again.. make up your mind.



I think you are too scared to and are using women to excuse your fear.


So you THINK.



Your paranoia that women have enslaved you is very real.. but it's baseless.


Your persistence in assuming that that is my position is mind boggling.


..and very convenient if you don't want to stand up to the government.


And your presumption that I am not standing up to the government is merely a baseless presumption...

Once again, you do not know me, DO NOT PRETEND TO.


-Edrick

You have openly blamed women for your inabilty to want to fight against your alleged oppressors. Women have no literally enslaved you and are not forcing you to do anything against your will so yes it is all in your head.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by riley]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   
I missed this reply as you cut off the quotes. Could you at least keep your responses to one post instead of splitting them?

Originally posted by Edrick

I'm not american so these stats don't apply to everyone.. and you haven't even provided a link or context of information.


Yes, these statistics are from America only... so you are correct there.

The information in parenthesis () is the study that the information was obtained from.

huh? did you not read where I asked you to add a link and a date?


Why would they be? Most women are not interested in traditionally male jobs.. and ones that are get alot of harrassment.


Corporate CEO is a traditionally Male Job... are you sating that women are not interested in it?

Incorrect. For something to be traditional it needs to actually have some history.. corporate CEOs didn't really exist a hundred years ago and were more family business.

Politician is a traditionally male job, are you saying that women are not interested in it?

Actually thats wrong too. It's had a higher ratio of men but women have ALWAYS been a part of politics. Read up on some history.

Do you assume that men enjoy these dangerous jobs? these hazardous jobs?

Or do you think they take them because they need the money more than they care about discomfort?

Actually I know men who have had "hazardous" jobs and they enjoyed the element of danger. There are some women who like these jobs as well but,as I said before they have a harder time getting accepted. Regardless most "men" wouldn't be able to do those kind of jobs anyway.

My point is... women only want equal representation in the Traditional male jobs that Pay Highly, and DO NOT SUCK.

This would be one of the reasons for the "Glass Ceiling" that women talk about alot.

No. A keyboard does not require extra strength to use and you don't need testicles to have a savvy business mind. You do not need to be male to be a CEO so there's no reason why women should be penalised for not having a penis.


Typically, the majority of the good paying jobs, women just do not want, because they are dangerous or uncomfortable.

So are you going to actually back this up?



You're serious? So if someone has the right to vote you think they should be drafted? or are you saying you think women having thr right to vote is wrong? Alot of women got beaten by government for protesting for that right. The US does not have a complsury draft so I'm not sure what you're winging about.. and you already HAVE women in your armed forces.


My point is, that men have a much higher burden of responsibility for maintaining the RIGHT to vote, and women do not.

No they don't.. and there is no "burden of responsibilty". Women already FAUGHT for the right to vote. I think it's pretty disgusting that you should be so dismissive of that history. Try take it away and you will see that women have been maintaining that right.

thank you for letting us all know that you do not think women should be allowed to vote. I'm getting a much better idea of how you view us now.



As far as women in the Military... They are mostly in non combat positions, and the VAST majority of infantry forces are Male.

Pretty sure women are not allowed to be on the front line and they would if they could. Personally I think they should have the choice but thats another issue.

My point is, men have to DIE for the right to vote, women do not *HAVE* to...

Are you really this ignorant? Women HAVE died for the right to vote and the right to be free.

Women get to CHOSE to die for their rights... men, throughout history did not have the right to chose.

Is this the history where women were property of their husbands and could legally be bashed and raped by them?

Think the Civil War, World War 2, and Vietnam.

I'm not american but women did actually DIE in your civil war.. many women faught and died in world war two as well and vietnam shouldn't have happened.


Less than 10% of rapes end in convictions.. dont try tell me that thats somehow a priviledge rape victims enjoy.


No, it is a privlidge that WOMEN enjoy, to ACCUSE a man of rape (When none has happened) and destroy his life.

This should not be construed as advocacy of rape... but crying wolf is morally apprehensible.

Actually you just dismissed the fact that only 10% of rapes end in conviction.. thats ALOT of men getting away with a crime so yes it does sound like you are a rape advocate. You talk about the "vast majority" of women yet you mention false rape claims as though they happen all the time when we both know they would account for a very small percentage. Don't keep using that to make generalisations about all women.. not only is it dishonest but it makes things harder for real rape victims because you are prepetuating myths that they are all liars or something. That is shameful.

I'm not going to bother talking with you any further. You claim women do not deserve the right to vote yet they faught and bled for it. You mention men fighting in ww2 yet women faught and died as well. You speak as though women have had it easy yet 200 years ago women were seen as mere property of men and 50 years ago it was still legal to rape within mariage.

You even cry about women not making the first move like thats somehow unfair and part of this oppresson? I see.. so when women have sex and get pregnant they're being evil and trapping men.. and when they don't ask men out they're also just being evil and controlling men? So we're either sluts or frigid bitches then? thought so..


[edit on 10-4-2009 by riley]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by riley
 


Ok Riley, Mkultraangel, and Aeons... You wanted Citations and Sources?

Well... I made it REAL easy for you:

Regarding my earlier statements:

-------


Women are 5 times more likely to be granted custody of children after a divorce
(Source: Current Population Reports, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Series P-20, No. 458)


This referenced the US Department of Census "Current Population Reports" p-20 series. (Population Characteristics)

The newest report (1998) Details the Percentage of children in single parent households, in which 84.1% live with their mother.

The Abstract for that report can be found here:
www.census.gov...

-------


Custodial mothers are 4 times more likely to receive support payment awards than custodial fathers.
(Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security Policy)


The newest version of this statistical information is the P-23-189 (1991), which can be found here:

www.census.gov...

The relevant information is on page 30

-------


Women are expected to be equally represented in high paying Corporate positions and government jobs, but are not expected to be equally represented in the Dangerous, and Hazardous jobs that are traditionally male only.


This information (And it is SO TOTALLY TRUE) can be found in the Department of labor National Wage Data Spreadsheet... Located HERE:

www.bls.gov...

-------


In cases where the Man who was paying child support to a custodial mother, turns out NOT to be the biological father from DNA evidence, he must continue child support payments for a child that is not even his.
(Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984, P.L. 98-378, Section 18 as codified at 42 U.S.C. sec. 667)


This refers to U.S. Code, Title 42, Chapter 7, Subchapter IV, Part D, Section 666 (Ironically enough)

www4.law.cornell.edu...

If you look at Subsection A-5C, (Voluntary Paternity) you will see that if a Male believes that the child is his, and acknowledges that he believes that he is the father OF the child, he is then legally responsible for the child (for the purposes of child support payments) whether a later DNA test proves him NOT the father, or not.

(This would include signing the Birth certificate as "Father")

The numbers under my citation referred to House Resolution 4325, (Also known as Public Law 98-378) which was signed into law on October 1st, 1984.

-------


Non custodial mothers who are ordered to pay child support are twice as likely to default on payments than non custodial fathers who are ordered to pay child support.
(Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security Policy)


Once again, this information can be found in The Department of Health and Human services Factsheet, P-23-189 (1991), which can be found here:

www.census.gov...

The relevant information is on page 31

-------

So, that about does it... just click on the links, and the information is right there.


Are the United States Federal Government, and Cornell University Law School good enough sources for you?

Yeah? I thought so.


-Edrick

[edit on 10-4-2009 by Edrick]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
they get used to all the coming and going

Nice one.


"Don't get too attached dear. They have a tendency to wander off and die out there."


What is a woman that you forsake her,
And the hearth-fire and the home-acre.
To go with the old grey Widow-maker?

She has no house to lay a guest in
But one chill bed for all to rest in,
That the pale suns and the stray bergs nest in.

She has no strong white arms to fold you,
But the ten-times-fingering weed to hold you
Out on the rocks where the tide has rolled you.

Yet, when the signs of summer thicken,
And the ice breaks, and the birch-buds quicken,
Yearly you turn from our side, and sicken-

Sicken again for the shouts and the slaughters.
You steal away to the lapping waters,
And look at your ship in her winter-quarters.

You forget our mirth, and talk at the tables,
The kine in the shed and the horse in the stables
To pitch her sides and go over her cables.

Then you drive out where the storm-clouds swallow,
And the sound of your oar-blades, falling hollow,
Is all we have left through the months to follow.

Ah, what is Woman that you forsake her,
And the hearth-fire and the home-acre,
To go with the old grey Widow-maker?

- Rudyard Kipling,
Harp Song of the Dane Women



Men who whine about women's wiles and being woman-whipped have clearly fallen from the nobility of Kipling's Danish breed.

[edit on 10/4/09 by Astyanax]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by deathpoet69
 


women are natural revolutionary fighters

On the contrary, electoral and other evidence indicates that women are (very slightly) more conservative than men.


they are convincing speakers, better than any man

How many great speeches by women have you heard or read that were up to the standard of the Gettysburg Address? Or Pericles' speech to the Athenians at the opening of the Peloponnesian War? Or Winston Churchill's amazing radio speeches during the Second World War? Or Martin Luther King's 'dream' speech? Or - I could go on and on and on. How many great speeches by women have you even heard of?

I'm not saying that women can't be great speakers. But in a male-dominated society they rarely get the chance. Your statement is nonsense.

So, I am afraid, is the rest of your post.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by riley
 



I missed this reply as you cut off the quotes. Could you at least keep your responses to want post instead of splitting them?


There is a 4000 character limit, I have to split them.


Incorrect. For something to be traditional it needs to actually have some history.. corporate CEOs didn't exist a hundred years ago.


"The alleged oldest commercial corporation in the world, the Stora Kopparberg mining community in Falun, Sweden, obtained a charter from King Magnus Eriksson in 1347"

Is that history enough for you? 600 some odd years qualify?

Dutch East India Company ring a bell?

Chartered in 1602?


Actually thats wrong too. It's had a higher rastio of men but women have ALWAYS been a part of politics. Read up on some history.


Yeah, men have been nanny's all throughout history, that does not mean that being a nanny isn't a traditionally Female job.


Actually I know men who have had "hazardous" jobs and they enjoyed the element of danger. There are some women who like these jobs as well but,as I said before they have a harder time getting accepted. Regardless most "men" wouldn't be able to do those kind of jobs anyway.


Not sure what you mant by that last part there... but yeah, there ARE some men who do the dangerous jobs for the adrenaline rush...

What about Trash collector, sanitation worker, street sweeper, these are jobs that you would be hard pressed to find any women in.


My point is... women only want equal representation in the Traditional male jobs that Pay Highly, and DO NOT SUCK.

This would be one of the reasons for the "Glass Ceiling" that women talk about alot.


No. A keyboard does not require extra strength to use and you don't need testicles to have a savvy business mind. You do not need to be male to be a CEO so there's no reason why women should be penalised for not having a penis.


Your response made no sense... I don't know what you mean there... Elaborate please?


My point is, that men have a much higher burden of responsibility for maintaining the RIGHT to vote, and women do not.


No they don't.. and there is no "burden of responsibilty". Women already FAUGHT for the right to vote.. I think it's pretty disgusting that you should be so dismissive of that history. Try take it away and you will see that women have been mainatining that right.


You are saying that there is no burden of responsibility to keep you free?

Are you saying that all of the men in uniform have died, to protect your ungrateful neck, have died in vain?

Let me ask you something.... WHO did women FIGHT for this right?

[edit on 10-4-2009 by Edrick]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by riley
 



thank you for letting us all know that you do not think women should be allowed to vote. I'm getting a much better idea of how you view us now.


Thank you for once again presuming to know what I am thinking... this is not your place.

I am using this subject as an example... do not presume to know my motivations, desires, or beliefs.... You Don't


Pretty sure women are not allowed to be on the front line and they would if they could. Personally I think they should have the choice but thats another issue.


Well, they fought for the vote, couldn't they fight for active combat if they wanted?


Are you really this ignorant? Women HAVE died for the right to vote and the right to be free.


You are missing my point entirely... you are not REQUIRED to die for your freedom.

MEN ARE.

YOU have the LUXURY of avoiding combat, as ALL women do.

MEN must fight and DIE to maintain the very freedoms that we all posses.

IF the United States deems it nessecary, I will be forced into combat, against my will, to kill or be killed.

Can you, as a Woman, make that same statement?


Is this the hostory where women were property of their husbands and could legally be bashed and raped by them?


No, this is the history where women could stay at home and play with the children, while men had to toil under horrible conditions to provide food and shelter for his family.

OR go to anouther country in the midst of bullets and bombs, while women stayed safe in the Home Country.


Actually you just dismissed the fact that only 10% of rapes end in conviction.


Do you have a Source for your statistic, or is that just fabricated?

And it is "10% of rape ACCUSATIONS end in conviction" there is a diffrence.


You talk about the "vast majority" of women yet you mention false rape claims as though they happen all the time when we both know they would account for a very small percentage.


No, we both dont know that... source please?


I'm not going to bother talking with you any further.





You claim women do not deserve the right to vote....


Never claimed that dear, you assumed it.


You even cry about women not making the first move like thats somehow unfair and part of this oppresson? I see.. so when women have sex and get pregnant they're being evil and trapping men.. and when they don't ask men out they're also just being evil and controlling men? So we're either sluts of frigid bitches then? thought so.


As a majority, women do NOT initiate relationships... it is not in their nature.

Your postulate is artificial and deceiving, as if those are the only two options... you are arguing with your emotions, and projecting your own anger onto my, and this discussion.

IF you want to argue the point, then calm down, and act rationaly.

-Edrick



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   
In The Book of Dave by Will Self, a misogynistic, mentally unstable London cab driver locked in a custody battle with his ex-wife actually ends up creating a future society in which the domestic separation of men and women is enforced, children have to spend equal amounts of time with both parents, and women are chattels and sex slaves, regarded as the source of all evil in the world.

Deathpoet and Edrick should read this book. It portrays their ideal world - and shows what a nightmare it would be if it ever came to pass.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join