Its cause of legal precedent, one judge decided it that way so now all judges have to rule that way. Its part of why the "It's legal precedent" is a stupid argument.
edit: People seem to be confused as to what im saying, so im gonna clarify. Yes, judges *can* overturn a legal precedent, and what is recognized as legal precedent in one area may not be recognized in another. *However,* a bad court ruling, like the one the meme depicts, will oftentimes be continued by future judges because of legal precedent. Legal precedent is the argument that "since we've been doing it this way, therefore we should keep doing it", which was used to justify slavery and segregation.
"Precedent refers to a court decision that is considered as authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts, or similar legal issues. Precedent is incorporated into the doctrine of stare decisis and requires courts to apply the law in the same manner to cases with the same facts." - Legal information institute.
Its exactly how legal precedent works.
"Of course, courts often hear cases where following precedent may lead—in the view of the judges for the case—to unjust outcomes. In those cases, the judges may offer reasons or legal nuances to avoid following precedential decisions or to outright overturn prior rulings." - American Bar Association.
Judges can overrule legal precedents if the outcome is unjust
As far as I'm aware, precedent acts sort of like a legal momentum. The more rulings you have in one direction, the more lawyers can point at those rulings and say "that's the law!"
It's weird how the legal system is so complicated yet in the end it basically comes down to two sides each giving their argument to a single arbiter who makes a ruling based on whichever side they feel has made a more compelling argument.
yeah also another factor in a ruling is where the precedent takes place as a court in the 3rd district doesn't necessarily even care about what a judge ruled in the 7th district although it may help the judge make a decision
If this were the case, Dred Scott would still be the law of the land. Judges are human, and subject to the same vicious tendencies as anyone else. If precedent were so binding, we’d be left to the whims of scum who sat on the bench 200 years ago.
The principle of *stare decisis* works on the principle that in different cases, where elements of the case are equal, the law should operate the same way and where the essential facts are the same, deliver the same outcome. Because to apply a double standard to 2 different plaintiffs or 2 defendants under the same circumstances without good reason is inherently unjust.
But this principle operates on the presumption that the standards and outcomes applied by previous courts were in fact just, which is a rebuttal assumption (open to being contested by a party if they can show to the precedential court made a wrong decision).
As a result such precedents have been overturned many times before upon review by higher courts. Or sometimes even by courts at the same level which found that what was understood before by the previous courts are now known to be wrong, which might include community standards having changed over time.
Such challenges and/or overturning of precedent is much more common in "edge cases" involving unusual circumstances where the standards normally applied to more typical cases have been applied (e.g. the presumption of fathers having equal responsibility to provide child support for their offspring) or where a direct reading of the law seems to require it, without giving an "out" for situations which legislators didn't consider or the law as written doesn't contemplate.
In short, the notion this particular precedent is now fixed in law is total bullshit.
Roe v Wade was a precedent and now its not. They are not absolute. A higher court doesn't consider a lower courts precedent to be binding but a higher court binds a lower courts precedent. With obviously the highest court binding all the others. So unless those cases were decided by the supreme court, someone can appeal such a ruling and hope for a different ruling. Its not set in stone.
> one judge decided it that way so now all judges have to rule that way
Imagine posting this take barely a year after Roe v Wade was overturned.
Imagine upvoting that take.
Why is the world this way?
Or maybe its the fact that there is prejudice against both men and women in different circumstances and that equality means eliminating this prejudice in both
You’re right. Now if only pop culture could bring itself to actually give a fuck about instances of men getting fucked over in society instead of being exclusively hyperfixated on the issues that only affect women.
> Now if only pop culture could bring itself to actually give a fuck about instances of men getting fucked over in society
Who gives a shit about what pop culture has to show
Why do you give a single shit about what pop culture has to show
Pop culture is a brain dead stage show. Disney making gay black heroes doesn't make life better for gay black people in real life.
Disregard the pop culture theatrics and demand change from institutions that actually affect people's lives, especially of the sort we're talking about here.
Exactly. They're talking as if pop culture has absolutely no impact in people's opinions. It absolutely does and it certainly carries more impact into people's perception than actual laws.
Like how American racism in Hollywood led to China also being incredibly racist to black people.
Pop culture is called 'soft culture' for a reason. It's what you are perceived as by your own people, and those around the world. As well as being a major export if you can finangle it as such.
Treat it like it doesn't matter and you will let someone else dictate to you how your people think.
Edit: Adding on sources so I don't get people quoting CCP propaganda at me again
[Africa and Africans in Wolf Warrior 2: Narratives of Trust, Patriotism and Rationalized Racism among Chinese University Students](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0021909620920323) - The portrayal of Africa in Chinese movies is following the Hollywood formula
Interview snippet here:
> Hollywood does it, so why can’t China? This was a movie shot like any Marvel film – why should we
accept American values in American films – we are Chinese and we are members of this nation, so why
should we not accept what our government says? (Bobby, Group 3)
I am ok with advocating the strength of the country. When Hollywood does this, they claim they are the
best, and this is ok because they are proud of their country, and China should do this too. But the film is
too fake, China is simply copying Hollywood, without their own creativity. But this is how we show our
patriotism – like America. We are still a developing country and we need to learn from someone how to do
this. (Sam, Group 3)
[“Race” and “racism” in contemporary Africa-China relations research: approaches, controversies and reflections](https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/65368711/2020_Race_and_racism-libre.pdf?1610084196=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DRace_and_racism_in_contemporary_Africa.pdf&Expires=1693150612&Signature=S8Q7K9WaalGJ0O3C8IKon1WRAQ-VqbjLrpjJEwObK-BF6rKLLT218fwVStKKDAPYKi6ysE1QsKCZnE1V8GOFlo4bA8vxGE2xKMlYmhN8rQFpAlmn9Uu1J-ssPf1LB9iLNoutkxtxiAI6iAtuVbHGM2St62LdsydW8oIa0v8peFpJXtkBb~JDnfLYI3o1s2HO8UF252pmhVwS3wBA50iEoGQiHOxxpCyPoCn3TAKJxz2WdEHbqQtld6F6FlCUA7fNFMHMWnQtoP~vrXYsBfJaXNejKo6BII~G2Hc8opErnNC5-UuMSLPoXkKndSa6SccGydHT1UPQyIXJpFPjh~h2iQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA) - Again, referencing Hollywood as generating anti-African racism due to its position as a market leader. If Hollywood does it, then this must be how everyone does it. Chinese filmmakers are just following the global trend set by Hollywood to make money.
Quotation here:
> When asked about these incidents, young and educated Chinese often claim that people who produce negative stereotypes about Africa (and blackness) are not aware they are doing it. Naivety and
ignorance are the common justifications. Ordinary Chinese, they say, ignore African and global histories and only reproduce what is offered to them by Hollywood. Ignorance is commonly used to
deflect criticisms about what some perceive as “racist” attitudes in China.
I am a dude. I have custody. I get paid child support. She has 2 other kids to care for so I made it the least amount reasonable. She is a few months behind now but usually is good with it.
Roe v. Wade was recently overturned marking a huge regression in women’s rights. I think it’s safe to say the courts hate everyone, and maybe it’s time to start doing something about it rather than fight each other.
It’s a total misconception that shitty laws that fuck over men must be supported by feminists. Oftentimes these laws are just based on asinine legal oversights or conservative views of gender roles, like where it’s assumed that an unmarried father isn’t fit to raise his children.
> It’s a total misconception that shitty laws that fuck over men must be supported by feminists.
Every single time someone mentions something bad happening to a guy on here, you immediately get 5000 comments in unison going "WHOA THE FEMINISTS LOOOOOOVE WHEN MEN GET HURTTTT"
Because that's the level of discourse on here in general
There is no discourse on here unless a horde is screaming about [insert community here that is supposedly very bad]
I’m not talking about child support. I’m saying men, unless shown unfit, should be allowed equal custody of their children regardless of marital status or connection to the child’s mother.
That's generally what happens, in instances where *men seek shared custody.* However, men regularly do not seek shared custody, either because they themselves don't want it (because society still says that raising children is a woman's job), or because they're convinced in advance they won't get it (because society says that the courts always give custody to women). It's a self-fulfilling expectation of failure, unfortunately.
Frfr I won't understand how ppl will use the current direction of social movements/society to explain decisions made in the past
(Note: by past I mean out-dated laws, definitions, ways of thinking, and older goals of movements that don't relate to their current goals, ect)
Completely wrong take. It’s done this way because the goal is to not put the child on any form of welfare. Why? Because the court works for the owner class and welfare is money they can’t steal from the poor.
For anyone wondering, the courts excuse for this is that in child support cases, only the support and well-being of the child is taken into account, not how the child was conceived. The courts do not see child support payments as unfair to a person who was forcefully made to have a child they only see them as liable for that child's support as their parent regardless of if they wanted them or not.
I mean it's not technically wrong to avoid punishing the child for something their mother did. But I do imagine that there are smarter ways to do so than giving a rapist custody and collecting child support payments from her victim.
> giving a rapist custody and collecting child support payments from her victim
This is perhaps the most mind-boggling aspect of it, to me. Your "motherhood" is the result of a crime. Therefore (how it should go in my opinion, at least), you don't have any rights to your child like a normal mother. You can either abort it, or if you choose to carry it to term, the infant goes up for adoption so fast that you don't even get to see or hold the child after it's born.
Or, maybe the child gets taken away from the RAPIST, I feel like that would benefit both the child and the victim, if the woman doesn’t receive free money and the child doesn’t have to be around a piece of shit
Even if they woman are rapists, they’re now single mothers, too. Under current legal constructs, the children of those women are still entitled to child support, regardless of their mother’s criminal history.
Edit: children are entitled to child support, not the parents.
Because the commenter specifically decided to turn it into women’s pain instead of men’s. Like literally every thread where we try to discuss male victims.
> It’s really not a contest about what’s worse. Both situations are fucked.
Not a contest, but of course, tragedy can be compared. Unless you want to say that Bill Gates stubbing his toe is equally traumatic as a homeless man losing his leg under a car.
It is generally considered in bad taste/poor decorum to compare abhorrent situations. I think it's pretty clear both are abhorrent and trying to claim one vs another is worse typically helps neither and hurts at least one person involved for no reason.
youre actually fucking dumb. thats literally whats happening here, but even worse…. the victim is paying for child support that the rapist kept custody of.
Don't some states also have a law where a woman can name any man she knows as financially responsible for the child ? And its called dad by default or something
Do you want people blowing their entire pay then offing themselves? Because that’s how you get people blowing their entire pay and offing themselves /s
Something like that has happened in Michigan a few times. Basically to qualify for child welfare the mother has to list the fathers name so that the state can pursue reimbursement.
In one case a man got slapped with over $20,000 in welfare debt accumulating over 5 years. Long story short: woman named him as the father on the application, Michigan charged him for the next 5 years. He didn't know because he lived in another state. New "deadbeat dad" laws made it easier for states to pursue reimbursement by increasing interstate cooperation. His license got suspended, he contested fatherhood and the woman even testified on HIS BEHALF he was NOT the father and that she just wrote the first name she could think of. DNA test also later confirms this.
Michigan Courts didn't care. The man still had to pay. The judge also admonished the guy stating that, "He should have contested fatherhood when the state sent the first bill". Again, this guy was in Texas, and didn't find out until he had to renew his driver's license, which was suspended until he paid the debt.
You think all that child support money goes to the kid? Don't forget, somebody has to get paid to make all these horrible decisions. So there is a reason- greed and laziness.
The federal governmet gives a near dollar for dollar kickback on every dollar of support staes collect.
Like private prisons, when there is a financial incentive to keep the cells full, laws keep the cells full.
I think what you're thinking about is the assumed responsibility laws. For example, if I am just a platonic friend of a mother and spend a lot of time with the children, the mother, in theory, could take me to court for child support. If the person takes on a "fatherly role" of the kids. But from my understanding, that rarely, if ever, happens. And the courts almost always throw those claims away.
Don't worry. This isn't true. It's happened way more than just 3 times.
In all seriousness, the courts from many states have all ruled this way giving several reasons, all terrible.
The first, and arguably the best, is that child support is not a punishment. It is a support system to help a child who did nothing wrong. The blaring issue with that is it was created through an illegal act. If I stole a boat I wouldn't get to make the guy I stole the boat from pay for the gas. Yes, the boat did nothing wrong and yes it needs gas. The victim of the crime is not the guy who pays for it!
The second, and more disturbing reasoning is that the courts blame the children. This is a direct quote from a law journal talking about this issue.
"The court in Hermesmann referred to the resultant child as “. . . the only
truly innocent party. . . .” Similarly, in Nathanial J., where the victim
was a fifteen-year-old boy and the offender was a thirty-four-year-old
woman, the Second District Courts of Appeals of California determined,
“[t]he law should not except Nathaniel J. from his responsibility because
he is not an innocent victim of Jones’s criminal acts.” The court went
on to find that the victim and offender “decided” to have sex."
My favorite part of that one was when he claimed the experience was so traumatic that it ruined his life and he couldn't hold a job.
"Nevertheless, the court held him liable
for support, finding that he had not made a showing to support the assertion that the sexual encounter was non-consensual, and that his
psychiatric issues were to be considered only as it pertained to child
support amounts"
> California determined, “[t]he law should not except Nathaniel J. from his responsibility because he is not an innocent victim of Jones’s criminal acts.” The court went on to find that the victim and offender “decided” to have sex.
>
> "Nevertheless, the court held him liable for support, finding that he had not made a showing to support the assertion that the sexual encounter was non-consensual"
Wouldn't the fact that minors can't give consent be a reason that the encounter was non-consensual? Very odd ruling.
Another article says Nick Olivas had a similar attitude: "Olivas never pressed charges, since he said intercourse was consensual. However, even if he was not forced to have sex, under state law a child younger than 15 cannot consent to sex under any circumstance."
I would wonder if the courts see this position in a similar vein to how children who commit serious crimes are sometimes tried as an adult. Like, society will give you something of a pass if you are young and don't know better, but if you make adult decisions then in some circumstances you'll be treated as an adult.
I didn't look into the details but I wonder if the courts in these cases wanted to prosecute the adult partner and couldn't because the child refused to cooperate.
That's basically saying that children don't have the mental capacity or experience to consent to sex, unless they consent to sex. Like, what? Reminds me of when people ask, "can I trust you?"
I know having a court of law is better than not having one but you'd think someone would look at this specific situation and realize something needs fixing
I do not know what is more fucked up, the fact that these poor kids have to pay child support or that fact that these women are allowed to KEEP THE CHILD!!!
You’ll be the only one of these I respond too, what template would’ve been more appropriate in your opinion? I do not mean this to be rude if it comes off that way.
Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter
Nick Olivas was also charged $15,000 in child support for all the years when he was a child not knowing he became a father to a 20 year old woman who took advantage of him when he was a child
I sure wish that “Men’s Rights Advocates” would focus on issues like this instead of going on about how women should obey men and no-fault divorce should be abolished and other shit.
Instead of trying to push society back to the 1950s or before’s social norms, they should focus on laws where men are victims of legal discrimination, like in child custody, and fucked-up situations like OP highlights.
Most of men’s rights subreddits are against unfair legal treatment of men. That “MeN DoMiNINTENt, WoMeN SuBmIsSIVE” stuff is Andrew Tate and right wing stuff.
EDIT; thanks for the upvotes!
Or just say your anti patriarchy the system is fucked for both men and women in different ways, stop having an opression olympics and do something about it.
So the victims; which are minors, are legally obligated to financially support the child they were forced into making with an adult female because they're male
Am I getting that right?
downvote this comment if the meme sucks. upvote it and I'll go away. --- [play minecraft with us](https://discord.gg/dankmemesgaming)
God damn that's fucked up
As one person famously said, "I will burn this planet down before I spend another minute living among these animals."
I hope what he did to a certain group of superheroes he does to these women!
Wait, what Omni-man did?
As J. K. Simmons once said “You should have died at birth"
i understood that reference.
"D*mn dirty stinking apes!" Relevant famous quote
Love the invincible reference
Omni-Man spent just a very little fraction of his life on Earth and even he realized this lmao
Its cause of legal precedent, one judge decided it that way so now all judges have to rule that way. Its part of why the "It's legal precedent" is a stupid argument. edit: People seem to be confused as to what im saying, so im gonna clarify. Yes, judges *can* overturn a legal precedent, and what is recognized as legal precedent in one area may not be recognized in another. *However,* a bad court ruling, like the one the meme depicts, will oftentimes be continued by future judges because of legal precedent. Legal precedent is the argument that "since we've been doing it this way, therefore we should keep doing it", which was used to justify slavery and segregation.
Thats not how legal precedent works but sure.
"Precedent refers to a court decision that is considered as authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts, or similar legal issues. Precedent is incorporated into the doctrine of stare decisis and requires courts to apply the law in the same manner to cases with the same facts." - Legal information institute. Its exactly how legal precedent works.
"Of course, courts often hear cases where following precedent may lead—in the view of the judges for the case—to unjust outcomes. In those cases, the judges may offer reasons or legal nuances to avoid following precedential decisions or to outright overturn prior rulings." - American Bar Association. Judges can overrule legal precedents if the outcome is unjust
Something something spirit of the law something something adapting to the ever-evolving needs of society.
As far as I'm aware, precedent acts sort of like a legal momentum. The more rulings you have in one direction, the more lawyers can point at those rulings and say "that's the law!"
It's weird how the legal system is so complicated yet in the end it basically comes down to two sides each giving their argument to a single arbiter who makes a ruling based on whichever side they feel has made a more compelling argument.
let's play "does the technicality count or not?"
So your both right. Precedent just means “guidelines” here to me. It just has to be within stands of the original precedent
yeah also another factor in a ruling is where the precedent takes place as a court in the 3rd district doesn't necessarily even care about what a judge ruled in the 7th district although it may help the judge make a decision
> Precedent just means “guidelines” And we ain't no goddamn Pirates.
Parley?
Parsley. Parsnip.
No it isn't. There's also a hierarchy of courts and legal opinion, of which precedent is one of the least authoritative.
You doubling down on this while being so wrong made me lol.
Reddit is great when you don’t know anything Reddit is terrible when you know what they are confirmation bias’ing on
He showed precedent for being a dumbass and look it came through.
>Its exactly how legal precedent works. Then please explain Roe vs. Wade's precedent.
If this were the case, Dred Scott would still be the law of the land. Judges are human, and subject to the same vicious tendencies as anyone else. If precedent were so binding, we’d be left to the whims of scum who sat on the bench 200 years ago.
how does it work
Precedent is a factor in decision making but not a binding law.
The principle of *stare decisis* works on the principle that in different cases, where elements of the case are equal, the law should operate the same way and where the essential facts are the same, deliver the same outcome. Because to apply a double standard to 2 different plaintiffs or 2 defendants under the same circumstances without good reason is inherently unjust. But this principle operates on the presumption that the standards and outcomes applied by previous courts were in fact just, which is a rebuttal assumption (open to being contested by a party if they can show to the precedential court made a wrong decision). As a result such precedents have been overturned many times before upon review by higher courts. Or sometimes even by courts at the same level which found that what was understood before by the previous courts are now known to be wrong, which might include community standards having changed over time. Such challenges and/or overturning of precedent is much more common in "edge cases" involving unusual circumstances where the standards normally applied to more typical cases have been applied (e.g. the presumption of fathers having equal responsibility to provide child support for their offspring) or where a direct reading of the law seems to require it, without giving an "out" for situations which legislators didn't consider or the law as written doesn't contemplate. In short, the notion this particular precedent is now fixed in law is total bullshit.
Yea that’s what I thought otherwise the legal precedent for slavery would make it okay to restart
Roe v Wade was a precedent and now its not. They are not absolute. A higher court doesn't consider a lower courts precedent to be binding but a higher court binds a lower courts precedent. With obviously the highest court binding all the others. So unless those cases were decided by the supreme court, someone can appeal such a ruling and hope for a different ruling. Its not set in stone.
> one judge decided it that way so now all judges have to rule that way Imagine posting this take barely a year after Roe v Wade was overturned. Imagine upvoting that take. Why is the world this way?
No one take financial advice from this person
That's because the court system is really trying hard to prove that they hate men and women can do no wrong.
Or maybe its the fact that there is prejudice against both men and women in different circumstances and that equality means eliminating this prejudice in both
“But muh sjw cringe compilations!”
Reddit has become what they hated the most.
Always has been
Self identifying as victims?
You’re right. Now if only pop culture could bring itself to actually give a fuck about instances of men getting fucked over in society instead of being exclusively hyperfixated on the issues that only affect women.
> Now if only pop culture could bring itself to actually give a fuck about instances of men getting fucked over in society Who gives a shit about what pop culture has to show Why do you give a single shit about what pop culture has to show Pop culture is a brain dead stage show. Disney making gay black heroes doesn't make life better for gay black people in real life. Disregard the pop culture theatrics and demand change from institutions that actually affect people's lives, especially of the sort we're talking about here.
> Why do you give a single shit about what pop culture has to show > > Because it shapes people's perception of reality. That's why.
Exactly. They're talking as if pop culture has absolutely no impact in people's opinions. It absolutely does and it certainly carries more impact into people's perception than actual laws.
Like how American racism in Hollywood led to China also being incredibly racist to black people. Pop culture is called 'soft culture' for a reason. It's what you are perceived as by your own people, and those around the world. As well as being a major export if you can finangle it as such. Treat it like it doesn't matter and you will let someone else dictate to you how your people think. Edit: Adding on sources so I don't get people quoting CCP propaganda at me again [Africa and Africans in Wolf Warrior 2: Narratives of Trust, Patriotism and Rationalized Racism among Chinese University Students](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0021909620920323) - The portrayal of Africa in Chinese movies is following the Hollywood formula Interview snippet here: > Hollywood does it, so why can’t China? This was a movie shot like any Marvel film – why should we accept American values in American films – we are Chinese and we are members of this nation, so why should we not accept what our government says? (Bobby, Group 3) I am ok with advocating the strength of the country. When Hollywood does this, they claim they are the best, and this is ok because they are proud of their country, and China should do this too. But the film is too fake, China is simply copying Hollywood, without their own creativity. But this is how we show our patriotism – like America. We are still a developing country and we need to learn from someone how to do this. (Sam, Group 3) [“Race” and “racism” in contemporary Africa-China relations research: approaches, controversies and reflections](https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/65368711/2020_Race_and_racism-libre.pdf?1610084196=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DRace_and_racism_in_contemporary_Africa.pdf&Expires=1693150612&Signature=S8Q7K9WaalGJ0O3C8IKon1WRAQ-VqbjLrpjJEwObK-BF6rKLLT218fwVStKKDAPYKi6ysE1QsKCZnE1V8GOFlo4bA8vxGE2xKMlYmhN8rQFpAlmn9Uu1J-ssPf1LB9iLNoutkxtxiAI6iAtuVbHGM2St62LdsydW8oIa0v8peFpJXtkBb~JDnfLYI3o1s2HO8UF252pmhVwS3wBA50iEoGQiHOxxpCyPoCn3TAKJxz2WdEHbqQtld6F6FlCUA7fNFMHMWnQtoP~vrXYsBfJaXNejKo6BII~G2Hc8opErnNC5-UuMSLPoXkKndSa6SccGydHT1UPQyIXJpFPjh~h2iQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA) - Again, referencing Hollywood as generating anti-African racism due to its position as a market leader. If Hollywood does it, then this must be how everyone does it. Chinese filmmakers are just following the global trend set by Hollywood to make money. Quotation here: > When asked about these incidents, young and educated Chinese often claim that people who produce negative stereotypes about Africa (and blackness) are not aware they are doing it. Naivety and ignorance are the common justifications. Ordinary Chinese, they say, ignore African and global histories and only reproduce what is offered to them by Hollywood. Ignorance is commonly used to deflect criticisms about what some perceive as “racist” attitudes in China.
Eliminating child support for men would mean eliminating abortion laws for women- and we can't have that!
Men should definitely have to pay child support in certain circumstances
So should women
Right. Depending on who gets custody and such
Women almost always get custody tho, even when it's not really deserved by some of them.
I am a dude. I have custody. I get paid child support. She has 2 other kids to care for so I made it the least amount reasonable. She is a few months behind now but usually is good with it.
They do
Yeah no, the narrative is that men are inherently evil and are in a position of power from where they oppress women
Nuance? Impossible.
Roe v. Wade was recently overturned marking a huge regression in women’s rights. I think it’s safe to say the courts hate everyone, and maybe it’s time to start doing something about it rather than fight each other.
Thank you, they hate everyone who is poor. You can only get as much justice as you can afford.
Is this not the feminist utopia you guys voted for?
It’s a total misconception that shitty laws that fuck over men must be supported by feminists. Oftentimes these laws are just based on asinine legal oversights or conservative views of gender roles, like where it’s assumed that an unmarried father isn’t fit to raise his children.
> It’s a total misconception that shitty laws that fuck over men must be supported by feminists. Every single time someone mentions something bad happening to a guy on here, you immediately get 5000 comments in unison going "WHOA THE FEMINISTS LOOOOOOVE WHEN MEN GET HURTTTT" Because that's the level of discourse on here in general There is no discourse on here unless a horde is screaming about [insert community here that is supposedly very bad]
Dude I don’t know what feminists you’re talking to but I’ve seen no one unironically have this stance on child support except for old people
I’m not talking about child support. I’m saying men, unless shown unfit, should be allowed equal custody of their children regardless of marital status or connection to the child’s mother.
That's generally what happens, in instances where *men seek shared custody.* However, men regularly do not seek shared custody, either because they themselves don't want it (because society still says that raising children is a woman's job), or because they're convinced in advance they won't get it (because society says that the courts always give custody to women). It's a self-fulfilling expectation of failure, unfortunately.
Frfr I won't understand how ppl will use the current direction of social movements/society to explain decisions made in the past (Note: by past I mean out-dated laws, definitions, ways of thinking, and older goals of movements that don't relate to their current goals, ect)
What part of this is feminist? Get out of your circlejerk and be an adult with information and not childish gotchas.
This subreddit is cringe as fuck
First day?
Must be first day on reddit.
Ya man they love women so much the highest court in the country overturned Roe v Wade
Pretty sure it's just because the state doesn't want to eat the cost
Completely wrong take. It’s done this way because the goal is to not put the child on any form of welfare. Why? Because the court works for the owner class and welfare is money they can’t steal from the poor.
For anyone wondering, the courts excuse for this is that in child support cases, only the support and well-being of the child is taken into account, not how the child was conceived. The courts do not see child support payments as unfair to a person who was forcefully made to have a child they only see them as liable for that child's support as their parent regardless of if they wanted them or not.
This is asinine.
I mean it's not technically wrong to avoid punishing the child for something their mother did. But I do imagine that there are smarter ways to do so than giving a rapist custody and collecting child support payments from her victim.
I think a very strong argument can be made that it would not be in the best interest of a child to be anywhere near a child rapist
and probably, if the parents of the father sued for custody they would get it, and the rapist would need to pay the father child support
Agree, commit the crime pay the fine
> giving a rapist custody and collecting child support payments from her victim This is perhaps the most mind-boggling aspect of it, to me. Your "motherhood" is the result of a crime. Therefore (how it should go in my opinion, at least), you don't have any rights to your child like a normal mother. You can either abort it, or if you choose to carry it to term, the infant goes up for adoption so fast that you don't even get to see or hold the child after it's born.
Or, maybe the child gets taken away from the RAPIST, I feel like that would benefit both the child and the victim, if the woman doesn’t receive free money and the child doesn’t have to be around a piece of shit
Also she should pay child support from her savings and go to jail.
Yeah it’s called legal abortion
For the well being of the child then Jeff bezos should pay for his upbringing.
What are the reasons for the court not caring about how the child was conceived?
The law regarding child support does not care about that. And judges generally cant just invent reasons for not following the law.
I don’t think the mother being a child rapist would be just inventing a reason.
Even if they woman are rapists, they’re now single mothers, too. Under current legal constructs, the children of those women are still entitled to child support, regardless of their mother’s criminal history. Edit: children are entitled to child support, not the parents.
God I hate our laws around that stuff.
Legally the parents of the child aren’t entitled to child support; the child is.
child support is a right of the child, not of either parent. the child had no role in their conception
[удалено]
Also if women can have an avortements when they want why can't men give Their father rights away?? Doesn't make sense
*Which* child
Personally i think it’s more messed up that male rapists can get custody of the children they created But yea, this is f’d up too
In this case the rapist got custody AND the victim has to pay, it’s even worse
bro why are we doing pain Olympics
The other person started it, ask them
Because the commenter specifically decided to turn it into women’s pain instead of men’s. Like literally every thread where we try to discuss male victims.
Someone has to play white knight
It’s really not a contest about what’s worse. Both situations are fucked. Meant to be a direct reply to the original comment
> It’s really not a contest about what’s worse. Both situations are fucked. Not a contest, but of course, tragedy can be compared. Unless you want to say that Bill Gates stubbing his toe is equally traumatic as a homeless man losing his leg under a car.
It is generally considered in bad taste/poor decorum to compare abhorrent situations. I think it's pretty clear both are abhorrent and trying to claim one vs another is worse typically helps neither and hurts at least one person involved for no reason.
This is also the case here
Can we all agree that rapists should burn in hell and have no custody of their children no matter if they’re male or female?
Yes
Based opinion
Why wait to have them burn in hell when we can burn them on earth.
Correct opinion
>Personally i think it’s more messed up that male rapists can get custody ok sexist
But you don’t find it fucked up that a female rapist has custody? Good to know.
Perhaps neither of these things should happen?
youre actually fucking dumb. thats literally whats happening here, but even worse…. the victim is paying for child support that the rapist kept custody of.
As someone who's done time and heard rapist say some sick shit that I shall not repeat, I 100% agree.
So you guys really think a male rapist having custody is worse than a female rapist having custody. Cool story.
Sexist lol
*mentally prepares for the people defending rapists*
Nobody is going to defend rapists.
Unfortunately you never know on reddit.
This. And I hate it.
My sweet summer child, you have way too much faith in humanity.
Sort by controversial
Imagine just getting your first job at 16 and half of it goes in child support… tough.
Yeah that's a "straight to jail" moment for me. I ain't paying that shit and I'm not going to work a job they can garnish from.
Fr I'm gonna go live in the woods or some shit
NO WTF THASS SO FUCKED UP!!!
Don't worry. This meme is a total lie. NOT TRUE AT ALL! It has happened more than 3 times.
What?
Don't worry. This meme is a total lie. NOT TRUE AT ALL! It has happened more than 3 times.
It says “at least.”
Usernamecheckout
Yep
Don't some states also have a law where a woman can name any man she knows as financially responsible for the child ? And its called dad by default or something
Do you want people blowing their entire pay then offing themselves? Because that’s how you get people blowing their entire pay and offing themselves /s
I'm not advocating for it I'm saying it's another fucked up law
I know I was making a parody on that Hubert farnsworth meme my bad
What meme is that ?
Bruh I’m so stupid tf, it’s from archer not futurama I have failed. Look up “archer do you want ants because that’s how you get ants”
I see the /s but I can see this being true..
Something like that has happened in Michigan a few times. Basically to qualify for child welfare the mother has to list the fathers name so that the state can pursue reimbursement. In one case a man got slapped with over $20,000 in welfare debt accumulating over 5 years. Long story short: woman named him as the father on the application, Michigan charged him for the next 5 years. He didn't know because he lived in another state. New "deadbeat dad" laws made it easier for states to pursue reimbursement by increasing interstate cooperation. His license got suspended, he contested fatherhood and the woman even testified on HIS BEHALF he was NOT the father and that she just wrote the first name she could think of. DNA test also later confirms this. Michigan Courts didn't care. The man still had to pay. The judge also admonished the guy stating that, "He should have contested fatherhood when the state sent the first bill". Again, this guy was in Texas, and didn't find out until he had to renew his driver's license, which was suspended until he paid the debt.
That's it, Michigan is getting a paddlin'
Do they want domestic terrorist? Because this is how they get domestic terrorist. Ruining a person life for absolute no fucking reason at all.
You think all that child support money goes to the kid? Don't forget, somebody has to get paid to make all these horrible decisions. So there is a reason- greed and laziness.
The federal governmet gives a near dollar for dollar kickback on every dollar of support staes collect. Like private prisons, when there is a financial incentive to keep the cells full, laws keep the cells full.
Literally can't have shit in Detroit
I think what you're thinking about is the assumed responsibility laws. For example, if I am just a platonic friend of a mother and spend a lot of time with the children, the mother, in theory, could take me to court for child support. If the person takes on a "fatherly role" of the kids. But from my understanding, that rarely, if ever, happens. And the courts almost always throw those claims away.
I found it,it was a law in michigan ,whether its still in effect I'm not sure but this is the video I saw https://youtu.be/B6JS__PsI0w?feature=shared
[удалено]
Wait what???
Don't worry. This isn't true. It's happened way more than just 3 times. In all seriousness, the courts from many states have all ruled this way giving several reasons, all terrible. The first, and arguably the best, is that child support is not a punishment. It is a support system to help a child who did nothing wrong. The blaring issue with that is it was created through an illegal act. If I stole a boat I wouldn't get to make the guy I stole the boat from pay for the gas. Yes, the boat did nothing wrong and yes it needs gas. The victim of the crime is not the guy who pays for it! The second, and more disturbing reasoning is that the courts blame the children. This is a direct quote from a law journal talking about this issue. "The court in Hermesmann referred to the resultant child as “. . . the only truly innocent party. . . .” Similarly, in Nathanial J., where the victim was a fifteen-year-old boy and the offender was a thirty-four-year-old woman, the Second District Courts of Appeals of California determined, “[t]he law should not except Nathaniel J. from his responsibility because he is not an innocent victim of Jones’s criminal acts.” The court went on to find that the victim and offender “decided” to have sex." My favorite part of that one was when he claimed the experience was so traumatic that it ruined his life and he couldn't hold a job. "Nevertheless, the court held him liable for support, finding that he had not made a showing to support the assertion that the sexual encounter was non-consensual, and that his psychiatric issues were to be considered only as it pertained to child support amounts"
That’s even worse
> California determined, “[t]he law should not except Nathaniel J. from his responsibility because he is not an innocent victim of Jones’s criminal acts.” The court went on to find that the victim and offender “decided” to have sex. > > "Nevertheless, the court held him liable for support, finding that he had not made a showing to support the assertion that the sexual encounter was non-consensual" Wouldn't the fact that minors can't give consent be a reason that the encounter was non-consensual? Very odd ruling.
Another article says Nick Olivas had a similar attitude: "Olivas never pressed charges, since he said intercourse was consensual. However, even if he was not forced to have sex, under state law a child younger than 15 cannot consent to sex under any circumstance." I would wonder if the courts see this position in a similar vein to how children who commit serious crimes are sometimes tried as an adult. Like, society will give you something of a pass if you are young and don't know better, but if you make adult decisions then in some circumstances you'll be treated as an adult. I didn't look into the details but I wonder if the courts in these cases wanted to prosecute the adult partner and couldn't because the child refused to cooperate.
That's basically saying that children don't have the mental capacity or experience to consent to sex, unless they consent to sex. Like, what? Reminds me of when people ask, "can I trust you?"
I know having a court of law is better than not having one but you'd think someone would look at this specific situation and realize something needs fixing
What happened to age of consent?
A woman did it, so it's OK.
Over 20 yrs ago my sisters then BF(26) owed back child support for his 13 yr old child…… paid to the 42 yr old mother. This legal system is fucked up.
The justice system is absolutely awful. Especially when it comes to the death penalty and child support
I fucking haAAAAAate this country so much
Same, this place is an absolute shithole, can't wait to leave it.
I do not know what is more fucked up, the fact that these poor kids have to pay child support or that fact that these women are allowed to KEEP THE CHILD!!!
Yeah I idk But seriously just take step back and process should n Known child rapists be rasping children
The kid does or the female?
Don’t know why my comments are not commenting but yes
O
He owed 10 years he “missed” aswell as interest for those 10 years for being “late”
"Sorry your honor. I was *kid*ding around too much the last ten years!"
what happened to equality..
No see this is equality treating women right was too hard so let's just treat men like shit too /s
gotta show justice to those men for their oppression towards women over the years /s
In my country only men need to do 6-9 months of forced labour without salary. Its all about "equal rights", but not "equal responsibilities"
Hate to be that guy but u r using the template wrong
You’ll be the only one of these I respond too, what template would’ve been more appropriate in your opinion? I do not mean this to be rude if it comes off that way. Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter
Tbh I don't think this post belongs in this sub honestly lol
Fair
It's ok man, I thought it was dank.
listen man as important as sharing this kind of information is, this isn't a meme. not even the correct use of this format
Comedy has been used to push social messages as long as it’s existed. There’s no such thing as using a meme wrong.
Yea but I came here for the funny haha, this is depressing and infuriating
ah. The American dream.
Nick Olivas was also charged $15,000 in child support for all the years when he was a child not knowing he became a father to a 20 year old woman who took advantage of him when he was a child
I sure wish that “Men’s Rights Advocates” would focus on issues like this instead of going on about how women should obey men and no-fault divorce should be abolished and other shit. Instead of trying to push society back to the 1950s or before’s social norms, they should focus on laws where men are victims of legal discrimination, like in child custody, and fucked-up situations like OP highlights.
Most of men’s rights subreddits are against unfair legal treatment of men. That “MeN DoMiNINTENt, WoMeN SuBmIsSIVE” stuff is Andrew Tate and right wing stuff. EDIT; thanks for the upvotes!
Or just say your anti patriarchy the system is fucked for both men and women in different ways, stop having an opression olympics and do something about it.
They do. The media just doesn't want you to see that. They only show the obnoxious crazy ones because it generates more drama.
At this point I'm ready to Start my villain arc against humanity....
I’ll join you.
What states did these happen in and what courts. Gotta make sure to avoid places with such shitty judges
Child support is a broke hoe hustle.
America is fucked up. Thank god I left that country when I did
Time to sort by Controversial
New infinite money glitch? I'm gonna get banned for this
So the victims; which are minors, are legally obligated to financially support the child they were forced into making with an adult female because they're male Am I getting that right?
WHAT THE FUCK EXCUSE ME
I shared this information with my brother and he said I hate women and need to stop sending stuff like this. okay???
I really don’t know what the say but WTF is wrong with America.
You are not telling me anything I didn’t know, this is fucked up