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.

 

Dad spends $100k and counting trying so save his kids

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by laiguana
 


If you do not support the court's decision to leave those children with the mother, then what can be done to change the fact that women are favored by family courts allowing for such gross injustice in the first place?
edit on 17-6-2011 by CobraCommander because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


There are no studies from respected sources that say women earn more than men overall. If there are, it's few and far between.

Hey..I never said that...I'm simply responding to your claims that all women are out there getting degrees and trying to one up men all the time.

Again, deliberately misinterpreting everything I say to suit your agenda. Predictable that a misogynist would do that, nonetheless.

www.businessinsider.com...

www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
The womans right movement wasnt just Hijacked by Radical Feminists. It was Hijacked from....................Big Business. And women fell for it,hook line and sinker,to this day..........

For example, the Women’s Suffrage Movement was used by big tobacco to get women to smoke, make women appear tougher, brighter and more like men. The result? Both the Movement and smoking were dramatically and successfully advanced, the ads supposedly made voting by women more acceptable by making them appear among other things, more “manly”. The only problem was the women didn’t realize they were being exploited for profit.


With women out of the house and going to work, big business could create whole new markets where non existed before, everything from slow-cooker crock pots and disposable diapers to microwave ovens and pop-tarts, the harried household would need all kinds of time-saving “instant everything” devices and products.

You don’t expect an executive to have time to cook dinner, do you?

And how would you expect them to get to work?

They would all need their own cars wouldn’t they?

And then of course the whole daycare industry would be needed.

KAA-CHING! $$$$$

With women now in the workplace, why we would need to teach men to be more polite and be sure they don’t offend anyone, after all, they are just brutal oppressing knuckle draggers so we need a whole new movement for that. They called that “Political Correctness”. But I digress, that’s for another post on another day.


The problem is that women were hoodwinked into believing that the movement was for and about them, when they were the ones used and abused by the movement and the conspirators behind it.....................

The Flipside of Feminism: After four decades of male bashing, why are women still so unhappy?


I find that social engineering has helped perpetuate the laws we have today.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


No..not cats, 2 iguanas, 1 large dog...They are high maintenance too, just like kids.

Anyway...while women may be getting more degrees...they are also going into debt faster. A degree doesn't always guarantee someone a job either. I stalled grad school to work and mainly because I had no desire to get into heavy debt.


I own a cat now. I have owned numerous reptiles over the years and yes they are very high maintenance and it can get costly. Dogs are very very dependent animals which is why I own a cat now.

However, you made a choice to own those types of pets. You did not give birth to those pets, you went out and bought them, found them, or acquired them yourself in some fashion. So comparing that and using it in an argument that you "have a family to feed" is quite disingenuous at best. That would be the equivalent of a person saying that they have a video game habit to support.

Now I completely agree that women in the work force are NOT paid as much as their male counterparts, but that is not the fault of "men". That is a fault of big business. I have yet to see a women who can correct the problem, actually do it. It is common for any business, to save cost in any way possible. If that means paying a select group a lesser wage, it is going to happen. The only thing that matters in business is the bottom line and it makes no difference who is running that business weather it be man, women, bill goat or dog. They all do the same thing.

I do not agree that women are going into debt faster than men due to education, and men also have no guarantee of getting a job after attaining a degree. That is not a male/female issue either.

And by the way, I am still waiting for a direct answer to a direct question. When you choose to answer it, I would love to hear it, but I am not going to allow my question to be ignored for your convenience, although that probably makes me a misogynist right?



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by CobraCommander
reply to post by laiguana
 


If you do not support the court's decision to leave those children with the mother, then what can be done to change the fact that women are favored by family courts allowing for such gross injustice in the first place?
edit on 17-6-2011 by CobraCommander because: (no reason given)


I don't think they are favored. There is no room for favoritism in the justice system. While...I'm not going to say it doesn't happen...
Every custody battle is different...to think that women are always favored because...of gender alone.....is ignorant and also misogynistic.
In this case, the answer is very clear...given that all the information is legit, the mother is not a suitable parent. She should not have custody of the children. The justice system isn't perfect, but we aren't there to see this case unfold first hand. I don't see how it all ties into feminism, even though that seems to be the agenda behind this thread.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


You wont get a clear answer from her. Her Agenda wouldn't allow her to. Anyone that says it costs MORE to raise a bunch of animals,or claims that there is a comparison to children or animals,needs a lesson in reality.MHO


Family is EQUALITY. It is the social structure,the nucleus that keeps the world turning. When family breaks down,children suffer. You dont see the Judicial system giving out hugs,or advice. You see a monetary system depriving children of the ones they love. You see one or the other,or both parents trying really hard in most cases,but you definitely see the COURTS making horrible decisions,as in the OP's piece. Many women dont see the GENDER-BIAS. The radical ones are inclined to cry "man"wolf,at every chance. Kids are not animals. They are the keepers of tomorrow. They need to be treated as such.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Every issue you come up with has to do with reckless breeding than it has to do with feminism. Feminism insists that women become educated before they have kids to avoid such dilemmas.
So, you find working women a threat to your archiac world view? If that's not a misogynist, I don't know what is.
World markets have expanded long before women joined the work force in any significant numbers. As technology and the world population continues to grow there will always be new markets to discover. If you hate progress so much...you always have the option of leaving for a less developed nation.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by CobraCommander
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


She is a known prostitute and drug user who takes up with men who have sexually abused her children. And this case is not at all rare. The $100k price tag is what makes the news stand out, most men simply could never afford it.

But I know a man personally who spent nearly 3 years fighting for his daughters who were in a very similar, dangerous position. They were molested by her boyfriend, she was arrested for drugs, they lived in squalor so bad that the city stepped in and threatened to condemn the place on two separate occasions. And the man I know was not even fighting to bar the mother from the kids, just trying to get them out of her house to come live with him.


I read the article and it seems more like a "Friend" of the father has written it. There is no proof of anything of which they speak in the article. If police said this and doctors said that, like I already stated before they are under OBLIGATION to turn her case (Call in a report) to the Division of Child Services. Has she been investigated? That was not mentioned only that doctors have supposedly checked his kids and said get them out of the home, again they are UNDER OBLIGATION to report any such things to the correct authorities, sounds to me like it all BS accusations with only what the father said and a friend filing an article backing him up.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana

Every custody battle is different...to think that women are always favored because...of gender alone.....is ignorant and also misogynistic.


The U.S. Census Bureau has reported that fathers with joint custody pay 90.2% of all child support ordered; fathers with limited visitation rights pay 79.1%; and 44.5% of those fathers with NO visitation rights still financially support their children.


Facts dont lie,nor are they ignorant.


Misogynist is a ancient word,being kept alive by those who dont truly want to move forward.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Thanks for the research on that article ldyserenity...and now the truth is out in the open. But don't expect that they will see it any different..they have to fullfill this agenda about feminism being the enemy...and every shortcoming in their lives ought to be blamed on the feminists. The mind of a misogynist is very simple to understand and also very predictable.

Guess this discussion is now officially over for me...anything more would be a waste.
edit on 17-6-2011 by laiguana because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana

Originally posted by CobraCommander
reply to post by laiguana
 


If you do not support the court's decision to leave those children with the mother, then what can be done to change the fact that women are favored by family courts allowing for such gross injustice in the first place?
edit on 17-6-2011 by CobraCommander because: (no reason given)


I don't think they are favored. There is no room for favoritism in the justice system. While...I'm not going to say it doesn't happen...
Every custody battle is different...to think that women are always favored because...of gender alone.....is ignorant and also misogynistic.
In this case, the answer is very clear...given that all the information is legit, the mother is not a suitable parent. She should not have custody of the children. The justice system isn't perfect, but we aren't there to see this case unfold first hand. I don't see how it all ties into feminism, even though that seems to be the agenda behind this thread.


You are simply being obtuse and ignoring the facts. And the fact is that family courts favor women greatly. It is the rare instance that a father is given custody, even after a lengthy, costly custody battle such as the one cited in the OP. Men are certainly not given custody by default, or without a fight, as women are. And then we can even take it a step further to look at how many women pay child support. You want to about how women don't make as much as men? Let's talk about how often and how much women pay in palimony or child support. Do you think that if "Jack" ever gets custody, the courts will make "Jill" pay support, or throw her in jail for NOT paying support?



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
reply to post by MrWendal
 


Apparently you jumped into it...not even bothering to read anything I've said regarding the mother in the OP...and accused me of supporting her without question.
By misrepresenting what I've said..I was forced to point you out as a misogynist. Now...I don't care if you continue to say I still favor the mother in this case, because it's not true...and I will be happy to continue making reference to your misogynist agenda.


Thank you for answering my question. Now let us go back and see if I did indeed misrepresent what you said. My reply to you was from your post which states

Originally posted by laiguana
I am a feminist and I don't apologize for being a feminist, because feminism also gave me the right to vote, hold a job and own property. Anti-feminists want to blame feminism for custody disputes. That makes no sense to me. Both parents are responsible for the children, but who is going to look after them? Will the father have the means to stay home and look after the children? If he does then, sure...let him go at it. If he's going to be a full time employee...I don't understand how he could raise a child on his own. Explain how a child will get the proper care when their only parent is working full time. It doesn't seem like it would. Why deny them the other parent that would be willing to look after them in that case?

It appears like you're overlooking the child's rights in this.
edit on 16-6-2011 by laiguana because: (no reason given)


Now right off the bat you claim that "anti-feminist want to blame feminism for custody disputes". That is completely incorrect. Just because a person points out the clear bias does not automatically make them an "Anti-Feminist" nor a misogynist.

You then go on to say that "both parents are responsible for the children, but who will look after them? Will the father have the means to stay home and look after the kids?" Which in my opinion makes you a complete hypocrite. Are these your concerns when a mother has custody as well? How do you expect a single mother to stay home and look after the kids? Fact is, unless she has help she can not do it either. She will be forced to go out and work, just like my mother did. Yet you are implying that men should not have custody because they will have to work.

Then you say, " If he does then, sure...let him go at it. If he's going to be a full time employee...I don't understand how he could raise a child on his own. Explain how a child will get the proper care when their only parent is working full time." which just highlights your bias. You do not understand how a man can be a full time employee and still raise a child on his own, but women do it. So are you implying that men can not do the same thing as women can do? You may call yourself a "feminist" but I think the truth here is you are a "sexist".

So the fact is, I did read your post and replied to it. You do not come right out and state that you support this mother, but you clearly imply it by making a case for why the father should not have custody. That is not a misrepresentation of what you said, it IS what you said.

As far as my "misogynist agenda", I do hope you continue to point it out, because every time you do it you show your ignorance. Anyone who can read, anyone who does not have a bias agenda to start with can see just how incorrect you are and rather than admitting you are incorrect, you would just rather be right.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Every issue you come up with has to do with reckless breeding than it has to do with feminism. Feminism insists that women become educated before they have kids to avoid such dilemmas.
So, you find working women a threat to your archiac world view? If that's not a misogynist, I don't know what is.
World markets have expanded long before women joined the work force in any significant numbers. As technology and the world population continues to grow there will always be new markets to discover. If you hate progress so much...you always have the option of leaving for a less developed nation.


Every issue I come up with,is a Fact. Where did I say I hate progress? Isnt changing the archaic laws,that keep women as the lonely housewife that cant do anything but breed,worthy in your eyes? Where did I say I hate women? Feminism and womens suffrage has been WON !!!! Why are you still fighting the good fight? Why dont you move to some less developed nation,and help free your fellow women from the hands of their male oppressors?
I jest,just wanted to show you how funny you sound,beating a war drum,when there is NO war anymore. Now when it comes to children,you KNOW nothing about them,as you stated with your animal analogy. So you dont know whats right,unless it comes to animals. Please bring some facts to the table.I have. And one more thing. The radical feminist agenda,and "misogynist" label you have placed on EVERY male here,makes your argument even less realistic.
edit on 17-6-2011 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Every issue you come up with has to do with reckless breeding than it has to do with feminism. Feminism insists that women become educated before they have kids to avoid such dilemmas.
So, you find working women a threat to your archiac world view? If that's not a misogynist, I don't know what is.
World markets have expanded long before women joined the work force in any significant numbers. As technology and the world population continues to grow there will always be new markets to discover. If you hate progress so much...you always have the option of leaving for a less developed nation.


Reckless breeding is the subject of an article linked in the OP. "Modern feminist narcissism and the sperm bank."



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


Is there any articles with the box the kids came in. Ive searched,but alas.....I didnt find one.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
And if you think all women get off easy or get special treatment...
Read this:
Woman sentenced to Jail For Spanking Her Kid



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
And if you think all women get off easy or get special treatment...
Read this:
Woman sentenced to Jail For Spanking Her Kid


and this case has nothing to do with Family Court...it was a Criminal Court case. So how is this relevant?



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity

I read the article and it seems more like a "Friend" of the father has written it. There is no proof of anything of which they speak in the article. If police said this and doctors said that, like I already stated before they are under OBLIGATION to turn her case (Call in a report) to the Division of Child Services. Has she been investigated? That was not mentioned only that doctors have supposedly checked his kids and said get them out of the home, again they are UNDER OBLIGATION to report any such things to the correct authorities, sounds to me like it all BS accusations with only what the father said and a friend filing an article backing him up.


Well, it's your prerogative whether or not to trust a news source, but I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the article or the information in the supporting links, particularly when I have seen such an extreme case personally from beginning to end. I have also seen similar cases many times in various stages, and even cared for children who were caught up in struggles such as these and placed in state care for a time. This article is but one example of an epidemic, not an aberration.

Where you talk about all these "obligations," yes, they do have these obligations. That is exactly the point. They are failing in their obligations as a direct result of socio-political feminism.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
And if you think all women get off easy or get special treatment...
Read this:
Woman sentenced to Jail For Spanking Her Kid


As MOST here have been saying.The system is corrupt. For EVERY story I hear like that,I can give 5 more where a father gets shafted. Just ask the 90% that dont have primary placement of their children,based on gender bias.......
edit on 17-6-2011 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
And if you think all women get off easy or get special treatment...
Read this:
Woman sentenced to Jail For Spanking Her Kid


No, I didn't say that either. In fact, I explicitly stated otherwise. The system does fail women time and time again. But your link only makes an apples and oranges comparison that has nothing to do with gender bias or custody issues. Yes, courts make stupid rulings all the time. But when those stupid rulings are so often unilaterally in favor of women rather than the men involved in the case, we see that there is a gender bias. A bias implemented and perpetuated by the feminist lobby and more insidious social engineering plots which actually seek to undermine women, not empower them.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join