patrick.net

How about looking into the reasons WHY some women feel they need to entrap a man or lie about a pregnancy?

The world is NOT FAIR. Women don't make as much as men in the same job, even if you are the fricken Editor of The New York Times! Not only that, if you don't accept lower pay you are called a rude bitch and fired, while a man is called ambitious, tough, and is promoted.

This world is NOT FAIR. Not only do women make less in the exact same jobs, the types of jobs most women are naturally inclined towards do not pay as much as jobs men are naturally inclined towards, in general. I know there are exceptions to this, but this is a generality. Think: hair stylist vs. finance

The world is NOT FAIR. Women by far do most of the child rearing all over the world, both within a married or committed relationship or as single mothers. And all that child rearing is unpaid.

The net result: WOMEN make far LESS than a man! And they are doing at least as much work or more if you include a family.

I am not saying it okay to ever lie to anyone, but how about INSTEAD of vilifying these women, why don't we focus instead on trying to change the huge underlying inequality that leads women to feel they have to lie in order to get what they need and want from life?

If a person feels a sense of their own power and that their needs will be met through their own productive work, their need to scheme, manipulate and lie falls away.

Cherry picking the patriarchal system. I can see that for some things.

On the other hand the US does a pretty good job at giving women no special treatment for bearing children. It is 6 weeks off with partial pay and then get your ass back to work or else forfeit your pay. I disagree with your notion that young men pay for dates and open doors. These rules of engagement have changed-- check out online dating as it happens these days. It very much reduces the male courtship aspect.

But allow me to refer to another thread where someone wanted a Raquel Welch robot to be their domestic assistant. What shall we say was going on there on terms of gender expectations?

No doubt, gender relationships have a lot to be desired. But let's concede, it's complicated and not just a matter of expecting women to make as much as men and doing the same things. Especially in light of reduced pay and glass ceilings.

I generally am amused by the threads of patnet, but on occasion one can make me wince.

I did not mean to hijack the thread. Carry on the jousting.

I hear the ATM machine the guy screwed last week purchased a false pregnancy test, and is suing him for child support.

Indiana Jones says

I am not saying it okay to ever lie to anyone, but how about INSTEAD of vilifying these women, why don't we focus instead on trying to change the huge underlying inequality that leads women to feel they have to lie in order to get what they need and want from life?

Of course women doing something evil should be vilified. It's not acceptable that a person would screw an other to "get what they need and want from life".

Women earn less because once they have 2 kids, they spend less hours working a job. This is not a bad thing. They should work less. The other side of that is fathers have to support their kids, and so the extra money they earn goes to that. No one is arguing against child support by fathers in general, just specific cases and what choices are given to men.

Arguing for strict pay equality is ideological stupidity. Men and women are different. Different things make them happy. Equal access makes sense. Equal pay doesn't.

lahossain says

But I am sure the cases of this are so rare and wonder if it's a fair launch off point to discuss child support laws, which no doubt needs some revamping.

Perhaps this particular method of deceit is rare, but the practice of entrapping men is not. This is just another way to do it. It's one of the oldest stories in the book. Clearly most women don't subscribe, but how often is too much? Do the laws that we have encourage more women to subscribe?

lahossain says

So hey, I just know that I am outnumbered and that threads turn into a talk therapy for dudes. So no big deal, just sayin'. I meant the comment "lightly."

And you should voice your opinion. Of course, there are some guys on this board who will never listen to anything that might alter their world view, but those people exist everywhere.

Are you kidding me? Heraclitus -Did I read clearly you think that women should not receive equal pay? Where do you think women's wages are going? They are going to support the children and family as well.

And you must not have children if you think taking care of children is not "work".

You are making a false comparison. Raping someone is not the same as verbally lying to someone -- go ask any lawyer or judge.

Your argument that women to make the same as men when they take time off for child rearing is nonsense. What the hell do you think a woman is doing when she's having a baby or taking care of children? She is not vacationing in the Bahamas.

Other industrialized countries understand this, and give adequate child care and support to both women and men to raise the next generation.

Indiana Jones says

Your argument that women to make the same as men when they take time off for
child rearing is nonsense. What the hell do you think a woman is doing when
she's having a baby or taking care of children? She is not vacationing in the
Bahamas.

Other industrialized countries understand this, and give adequate child care
and support to both women and men to raise the next generation.

This is neither an excuse nor justification for scheming. I agree that united states could improve with more paid time off after pregnancy and I would be all for universal or greatly subsidized childcare but the absence of these things do not justify scheming or entrapment. People who practice these have fundamental character flaws and need to be shunned by society.

Automan Empire says

Men are expected to hold doors, pay for everything from dates

I don't think that this is "expected" anymore. There's no reason to date a woman who "expects" this either let alone end up in a long term relationship with her. Woman who expects this is a bonafide golddigger and should be treated in the words of snoop dogg like "7 up."

turtledove says

I always find it amazing that a person would be surprised that a woman might fight for a man's right to equal treatment under the law.

Damn straight. Half of your descendants are going to be male and half are going to be female. So even if you're incapable of empathy, it's in your own selfish interests to strive for equality under law and happiness for people of both genders.

Same goes for all other arbitrary criteria like race, nationality, class, sexual orientation, etc. Eventually your descendants will run the gambit of these traits. Bigotry of any sort ultimately harms your family no matter what arbitrary tribe you currently find yourself.

Indiana Jones says

Are you kidding me? Heraclitus -Did I read clearly you think that women should not receive equal pay? Where do you think women's wages are going? They are going to support the children and family as well.

Yes they should receive equal pay for the same professional work, and they are not doing the same. There are differences in professions and within professions there are differences in how many hours women spend.

Yes taking care of kid is work. It's not my fault if it is not generating a salary. That's the way it is. And consequently women need support from men from whom they have these children.

This doesn't excuse the evil schemes this thread is about, nor the anti-male discrimination written in the laws.

Indiana Jones says

Raping someone is not the same as verbally lying to someone -- go ask any lawyer or judge.

Lying to someone to obtain a financial rent is a form of fraud that should be punished as such.

dublin hillz says

Men are expected to hold doors, pay for everything from dates

I don't think that this is "expected" anymore.

I'm specifically thinking of couples I see where the man walks the long way around the car (now equipped with central locking and even remote), unlocks and holds open the door, then waits till she's settled in and closes it for her.

To me, this smacks of patriarchy and the underlying presumption that the woman is a delicate flower needing to be treated with kid gloves. Fine if it works for that couple, but does it also include the other trappings of patriarchy, like the woman being subservient to the man, letting him make all of the decisions, staying home barefoot and pregnant, etc ad nauseum?

My position is, I'll open the restaurant door, and maybe the car door IF we're approaching it from the passenger side, BUT, open your own damn door some of the time, and also be free to make your own decisions in life with me as an equal partner.

lahossain says

I am the one that does all the power drilling and hardware installing in my
household

Now THAT is HOT in my opinion. I guess I'm a pretty unusual case; blue collar by trade but striving for 21st century gender equality. In middle school, the first grown woman whose image gave me tingles wasn't Farrah Fawcett or Raquel Welch, but a textbook picture of Rosie the Riveter.

turtledove says

But many of us women are still expected to take primary responsibility of the children, cooking, and cleaning.

It's my experience personally, and I've read elsewhere, that this is the old-fashioned way but is much less common today. Many men I know work all day, take care of kids at nights and weekends, cook and clean. That happens in the modern era even when the woman does not have a job.

Automan Empire says

To me, this smacks of patriarchy and the underlying presumption that the woman is a delicate flower

My Republican FIL insisted I ask for his daughter's hand in marriage and I refused on those grounds. I told him that she was not property, and adult and capable of making adult decisions.

Then I said, "where's my dowry?". The point being, "traditionalists" often want the parts of tradition that benefit them, which is logical from their point of view. I don't have to abide by their warped sense of entitlement though.

Heraclitusstudent says

Kid education has been relegated undesirable chore status

Teachers need to be educating the kids. A parent has a right to watch movies/sports or read after work without being bothered with homework management/education. All that parents needs to do is assess from a macro perspective and hold child accountable for lack of performance/bad grades. But the nitty gritty fundamentals need to be handled by the teachers.

Indiana Jones says

The infrastructure that is here was built by men. The bridges, cars, roads, skyscrapers were built by men! Why do you expect a woman to be motivated to fix it?

Women don't want to fix it, and they don't want to build it either. They could build things designed by them, but they don't. The reality is women *don't want* to be independent from men. They won't even try.

Feminism didn't make women independent, it enshrined their dependence into laws.

Heraclitusstudent says

Indiana Jones says

The infrastructure that is here was built by men. The bridges, cars, roads, skyscrapers were built by men! Why do you expect a woman to be motivated to fix it?

Women don't want to fix it, and they don't want to build it either. They could build things designed by them, but they don't. The reality is women *don't want* to be independent from men. They won't even try.

Feminism didn't make women independent, it enshrined their dependence into laws.

Women may be able to live independently from men, but they'd really rather not. My very independent woman of a wife got real used to having me do all the fixing, lifting, and really anything traditionally male-oriented that had to be done. Women can do it for themselves, but I think they see that as not winning.

Quigley says

My very independent woman of a wife got real used to having me do all the fixing, lifting, and really anything traditionally male-oriented that had to be done. Women can do it for themselves, but I think they see that as not winning.

Mine doesn't want to learn how the remote control of the TV/sound system works. Not that she couldn't, but she says I'm the remote.

That's how women think.

Then they complain they earn less.

Heraclitusstudent says

The feminist movement was used politically to get to a situation where women have to work a job too. One outcome is it takes 2 salaries to do what 1 salary used to do.

True. Because of the doubling of the labor pool, labor bargaining power has plummeted and the capitalists have thus been able to keep a much larger percentage of the working population's wealth production.

The average worker is eight times as productive as his 1950's counterpart who could live on a single income with money to spare.

Last year, manufacturing output per worker increased to a new record high of $156,500 (see chart), and almost ten times the output per worker in 1947.

Yet, what does the wealth producer take home? Half of that.

In 2012, the average manufacturing worker in the United States earned $77,505 annually, including pay and benefits. The average worker in all industries earned $62,063

In manufacturing, the employer taxes the worker half of his production even before any government (federal, state, or local) taxes him a penny. And it's worse in other fields. Walmart taxes its employees 78.2% of their wealth production.

In every field, this result is because of the power imbalance between capital and wealth producers. Capitalism rewards one and only one thing, bargaining power. Capitalism has never and will never maximize wealth production or the retention of wealth that one creates. Capitalism is primarily a mechanism to redistribute wealth from its creators to a few parasites who "own" everything.

This is why women's entry into the workforce actually hurt everyone including women and their children. Instead of everyone working half as much or each family having twice the income, people had to work longer hours, got less job stability, and were paid less for the production. As a result, the family is in a far more precarious position. If either parents loses his/her job, the family can spiral into poverty, and jobs are much easier to lose today than in the 1970s.

Women entering work force does not drive down wages per se in the long run. The labor participation rate has been plummeting in recent years, yet we do not see increase in wages. What women entering work force does do is turning previously untaxed housewife work into jobs that are liable to taxation: from laundry, house cleaning and takeout restaurant s to day care and after - school programs that are designed merely to keep kids in school until parents get home. That makes the effective income after tax lower.

Employment is not taxation, unless the worker is required by law to work there exclusively, such as prison work camp or military draft. Every piece of capital (that which makes human labor more productive than otherwise would be the case) has to be owned by someone. "State capitalism" aka socialism would just have the politicians own the means of production. The lack of competition results in even worse monopoly. For example, Walmart is having its lunch stolen by Amazon in our country . . . Whereas in North Korea and Cuba, "the people" / aka the Kims and the Castro own the Stores, and Amazon is not allowed at all. "The people" in those countries do own everything; 99.9% of the human population in those countries are not "the people" but slaves.

Reality says

Employment is not taxation

Employers must tax their employees in order to pay for overhead and any economic profit. Whether or not you are honest enough to use the word "tax" to describe this haircut does not change the fact that it is a tax.

And since such a tax is necessary, I'm not complaining about that. However, this tax has been taken to excessive levels, up to 78% in the case of Walmart employees. It should be no more than 20% for poorly ran companies and no more than 10% for well-ran companies. It's the sheer degree of the taxation that I'm complaining about, and if the owners were taxed 78% of their wealth, they'd be up in arms.

Taxation means involuntary take. Private sector employment is a mutually willing exchange. As for the percentages you give, that's just silly. I'm sure Apple makes more than 20% off its iPhone designers. It's not a poorly run company. Your random pulling number out of hat shows why employers and employees have to negotiate their own rates instead of letting bureaucrats and wannabes set rates. If Apple could only make 20% or less off its winners, it would not survive debacles like the Newton.

CL says

You see a man struggle with a heavy box, you walk past him. A woman struggling will get anonymous men to help.

Like Duh! A lady doesn't carry parcels in public.

Going back to men being compelled to be fathers.... I just wanted to quickly mention...

Some cases that are going to have a big impact on your rights as men to choose fatherhood -- or NOT -- are legal cases regarding assisted reproductive technologies.

In January, for example, a Kansas judge ordered a sperm donor to pay child support after he donated sperm to a same-sex couple. He responded to an ad the couple had placed on Craigslist. When the couple fell on hard times (they had broken up, too) and needed state assistance, the state went after the sperm donor, who wasn't even listed on the birth certificate, to recover the money. The state argued that they couldn't collect from the women because they don't recognize same-sex unions, even though both women were the legal, adoptive parents of the little girl. Seriously messed up case.

http://news.msn.com/us/judge-rules-kan-sperm-donor-owes-child-support

Another big one is disposition of cryopreserved embryos (IVF) after divorce....

turtledove says

http://news.msn.com/us/judge-rules-kan-sperm-donor-owes-child-support

From that article: ""In this case, quite simply, the parties failed to perform to statutory requirement of the Kansas Parentage Act in not enlisting a licensed physician at some point in the artificial insemination process, and the parties' self-designation of (Marotta) as a sperm donor is insufficient to relieve (Marotta) of parental right and responsibilities to the child," [Judge] Mattivi wrote."

In addition, the court's opinion does not mention adoption, and says the custodial parent did not list any co-parent when applying for public assistance. Kansas law does not recognize same-sex marriage and does not permit co-parent adoption for an 'unmarried' couple.

A primary purpose of family law is preventing people from ending up on public assistance, and a secondary purpose of law in general is emphasizing the power of licensing (which results in a panoply of revenue and power maximizing measures). In the reported case, the parties failed to hire a licensed doctor, and ended up on public assistance.

BTW regarding marriage equality, part of the controversy has related to two different views of its purpose. Certain preachers have asserted that the state is a mere functionary recording the religious rite of holy matrimony, and that marriage is a sacred word going back to the Book of Genesis. In fact that book was written in ancient Hebrew, the English language did not even exist at that time, the word "marriage" is defined by statute, and a major purpose of enabling two people to undertake that statutory commitment is to reduce the risk of either spouse ending up on public assistance. The Kansas case illustrates the self-defeating obstinacy of many red states, where the pretext of 'traditional values' ends up perpetuating poverty and dependence in countless ways.

Yup, Indie, men invent technology in order to get laid. That's why men have to make more than women: in order to pay child support. That's also why women should not pick men making less or equal to themselves. LOL

Indiana Jones says

Technology is the male's convoluted surrogate of a female's natural ability to create and bear a child.

And when they create and bear a population of 9 billions, it will take a lot of technology to support them.

turtledove says

the state went after the sperm donor, who wasn't even listed on the birth certificate, to recover the money.

That's a case of "be careful what you do with your sperm".
How about that one:
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/02/you-might-change-your-mind-about-oral-sex-after-hearing-about-what-this-woman-did-2895124.html
"So here’s the messed up story that began many years ago: A doctor named Sharon Irons was having an affair with a Chicago family physician named Richard Phillips. Apparently, they never had sexual intercourse, but she would perform oral sex on him. Well, after Phillips ejaculated in Irons’ mouth one night, she decided to store the semen in her cheeks and then spit it into a test tube. She later used the semen to impregnate herself.

Two years later, Irons filed a paternity lawsuit against Phillips, and the DNA test confirmed he is the father of her child. Subsequently, Phillips was ordered to pay $800 a month in child support. He claimed that she stole his sperm, but the court rejected that stance, saying his sperm was given to her as a “gift,” “an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a donee,” according to the court decision. Therefore, the sperm was hers to keep. The judge even added, “There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request.”

All of this is sad, hilarious, and low-down all at the same time. But here’s where the joke ends: There’s a child out there who was brought into the world in a cloud of malice and betrayal."

Any good looking female doctor in the house? Blow me, and you can have the gift that will give you $800/mo.

For what it's worth... When I was in my working heyday, I never felt that I was treated any differently from the men. I worked in male-dominated industries. I was well paid, respected, promoted.

When I had my kids, I decided that my job was inconsistent with having children. I worked in product launches for Motorola. I traveled constantly. In the weeks leading up to a launch, I worked insane hours. I loathed women who constantly had to leave because of something that came up at home. It wasn't fair to everyone else. I remember thinking that I needed to rent a kid so I could get a day off.

When I had my children, I left my six-figure salary job and took a job as a staff accountant making less than half of what I made before. But I had regular hours. They were completely flexible with me whenever my kids were sick. They never made me feel bad if my home obligations had to come first.

The reason I made the switch is because I didn't want to feel torn trying to be everything at work and everything at home. I also didn't want to be one of those women I used to roll my eyes about their constant "problems." I took a lot of pride in my work. It would have been embarrassing to me to have to depend on others to pick up the slack in a job that allowed for zero slack. So I took a job with slack built in. It came at a cost, but my kiddos and my sanity are worth it.