|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:33 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| red dog wrote: |
| JG and BB made good points. However, the OP was definitely born in the right decade. |
Rather unclear here as well.
So, you aren't going to clarify what exactly you meant to be analyzed or obliterated by the mods? Several posters have expressed curiosity thus far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting responses people...I think in my original post, I was trying to point out how LOOKING like a ho, ie. g-strings protruding unabashedly-even in middle schools (saw it teaching in Canada 5 years ago), all these women celebrities seemingly becoming famous just from having the 'ho-quotient, and just a general attitude of sleaziness that was never out there in the 80s and early 90s. It's ALL out there now. I'm surprised as a man, because it just seemed like it happened almost overnight. We went from grundge-rock, to g-strings seemingly overnight. In the past, men were always blamed for objectifying women, but it's clearly women who are choosing to get ahead, or get laid, or get fame, by letting it all hang out.
As for child custody laws, married spouses have virtually the same rights to visitation. That means shared custody is automatic, one spouse cannot leave the province in Canada (may be different in the States, but probably very simliar) without the other spouse saying it is ok, if they wish to take the child, and child support is based on incomes, as is alimony, I believe. As for unmarried parents, which is a huge number of couples, unless a common-law relationship was established, the man basically has no rights to custody. A mother can move, and the courts allow it no questions asked, as far as I know.
IMO, feminists played the inequality card for all it was worth, and Oprah et. al added fuel to the fire, to the extent that men in North America have been incredibly neutered. That's why a lot of men who come to Asia love it, because they don't have to worry about all the PC-bullshit. And no, I'm not saying women didn't have legitimate issues, nor do they still face a lot of stuff. I'm saying there is a movement of men saying, we can't be ourselves without offending women, without a threat of a lawsuit, ie. Kobe Bryant, ie. Duke "rape" case, ie. false allegations of abuse by students, ie. alleged spousal abuse, etc. The benefit of the doubt is always on the alleged victim (nearly always female), yet what about innocent until proven guilty? For example, rape victims have their identities protected, by accusers do not. How does that make sense? You haven't been proven guilty, and, which party holds a big stigma, the accuser or the victim? This is patently ridiculous in my opinion.
So, segway from the ho-ification, but previous posts went in this direction, and they all are related in one way or another anyway.
Oh, and Red Dog, I didn't get your "You were born in the right decade" comment. Please elaborate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| having subdued their men, western women are now moving on to anyone who still provides a challenge and will dominate them, ie blacks. Fine by me as I'm all for the mixing of the races. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| As for child custody laws, married spouses have virtually the same rights to visitation. That means shared custody is automatic, one spouse cannot leave the province in Canada (may be different in the States, but probably very simliar) without the other spouse saying it is ok, if they wish to take the child, and child support is based on incomes, as is alimony, I believe. As for unmarried parents, which is a huge number of couples, unless a common-law relationship was established, the man basically has no rights to custody. A mother can move, and the courts allow it no questions asked, as far as I know. |
I didn't know all this and it's very interesting, but I don't see any huge injustice here. Should a teenage boy to be able to get a court order preventing his teenage girlfriend from moving with her family, even if they're willing to help her raise the child and the boy is no help at all?
As to the rest of what you wrote, if you can't "be yourself" without being accused of rape, maybe ... (I'll let others fill in the blanks here). 
And you were born in the right decade because the Internet allows you to spread your vulgarity and misogyny around the world anonymously.
Last edited by red dog on Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:36 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| having subdued their men, western women are now moving on to anyone who still provides a challenge and will dominate them, ie blacks. Fine by me as I'm all for the mixing of the races. |
Where do you get this racist crap? This is another post the mods should do something about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
And you were born in the right decade because the Internet allows you to spread your vulgarity and misogyny around the world anonymously. |
As opposed to whining and complaining about any opinion opposed to your own, anonymously.
| red dog wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
| having subdued their men, western women are now moving on to anyone who still provides a challenge and will dominate them, ie blacks. Fine by me as I'm all for the mixing of the races. |
Where do you get this racist crap? This is another post the mods should do something about. |
(Not to mention not cottoning on when someone employs hyperbole ). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kermo
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: Eating eggs, with a comb, out of a shoe.
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| having subdued their men, western women are now moving on to anyone who still provides a challenge and will dominate them, ie blacks. Fine by me as I'm all for the mixing of the races. |
Totally. The other day, a guy from Ghana came up to me on the bus, and asked if we could be friends. He lobbied hard for my phone number. I said no, but I really meant yes. Obviously he got what he wanted, as did I, but when I asked him if he would give me a mulatto baby, he seemed offended. What gives? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
| Quote: |
| As for child custody laws, married spouses have virtually the same rights to visitation. That means shared custody is automatic, one spouse cannot leave the province in Canada (may be different in the States, but probably very simliar) without the other spouse saying it is ok, if they wish to take the child, and child support is based on incomes, as is alimony, I believe. As for unmarried parents, which is a huge number of couples, unless a common-law relationship was established, the man basically has no rights to custody. A mother can move, and the courts allow it no questions asked, as far as I know. |
I didn't know all this and it's very interesting, but I don't see any huge injustice here. Should a teenage boy to be able to get a court order preventing his teenage girlfriend from moving with her family, even if they're willing to help her raise the child and the boy is no help at all?
As to the rest of what you wrote, if you can't "be yourself" without being accused of rape, maybe ... (I'll let others fill in the blanks here).
And you were born in the right decade because the Internet allows you to spread your vulgarity and misogyny around the world anonymously. |
Are you serious? First, are you saying that most unmarried fathers are teenaged boys? Where do you get your information? And, by extension, should young teenage mothers not be allowed to make decisions about their children? This is the kind of one-way thinking that I'm talking about. As far as vulgarity, are you saying calling someone a wh ore is vulgar? What word would you like to call it? Whatever the name, do you agree or disagree with what is being said? Try to be part of the discussion, instead of getting so easily offended. This is what makes many women in the west appear to be hypocritical, and what confuses men; on the one hand, they want men to be so sensitive to their feminine perspective, but then in reality, they are every bit as out there sexually as men. Make up your minds! As for anonymity, what's wrong with it? Do you want your name on this board? I doubt it. As the saying goes, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm saying that judges in these cases have to consider each situation individually and think carefully about what's best for the child. You've said married parents (including those in common-law marriages) are basically treated the same regardless of gender. The unmarried couples may be in all kinds of different circumstances -- teenagers who made a stupid mistake, rape victims, cases where the father doesn't even know he has a child, etc., etc., etc. If a single father was the child's primary caregiver and had sole custody before the relationship ended, I doubt many judges would hand the kid over to the mother ... would they? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChimpumCallao
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: your mom
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
| having subdued their men, western women are now moving on to anyone who still provides a challenge and will dominate them, ie blacks. Fine by me as I'm all for the mixing of the races. |
Where do you get this racist crap? This is another post the mods should do something about. |
take a lawn chair, park it outside of a wall-mart in say, columbus, OH and you'll get the picture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
| I'm saying that judges in these cases have to consider each situation individually and think carefully about what's best for the child. You've said married parents (including those in common-law marriages) are basically treated the same regardless of gender. The unmarried couples may be in all kinds of different circumstances -- teenagers who made a stupid mistake, rape victims, cases where the father doesn't even know he has a child, etc., etc., etc. If a single father was the child's primary caregiver and had sole custody before the relationship ended, I doubt many judges would hand the kid over to the mother ... would they? |
I'm saying judges ARE NOT ALLOWED to consider this. It is automatic. And can married women not have children from a rape? How could a single father be the primary caregiver BEFORE the relationship ended? Then he WOULDN'T be single. That doesn't make sense. You must be drunk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| red dog wrote: |
| I'm saying that judges in these cases have to consider each situation individually and think carefully about what's best for the child. You've said married parents (including those in common-law marriages) are basically treated the same regardless of gender. The unmarried couples may be in all kinds of different circumstances -- teenagers who made a stupid mistake, rape victims, cases where the father doesn't even know he has a child, etc., etc., etc. If a single father was the child's primary caregiver and had sole custody before the relationship ended, I doubt many judges would hand the kid over to the mother ... would they? |
I'm saying judges ARE NOT ALLOWED to consider this. It is automatic. And can married women not have children from a rape? How could a single father be the primary caregiver BEFORE the relationship ended? Then he WOULDN'T be single. That doesn't make sense. You must be drunk. |
WTF ... I meant in the uncommon situation in which a couple decided to have a child together and decided that the child would live with the father and the mother would visit, not the other way around as is more usual. You're telling me the mother is "automatically" allowed to take off with the kid, after the kid has lived with his/her father for years? I don't think so.
What is the judge not allowed to consider? A single father's petition for custody? Why not?
No, of course I'm not saying married women can't be raped. But if you had it your way, presumably any guy who forced himself on an acquaintance and got her pregnant would be entitled to sue for custody. Is this what you want? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| red dog wrote: |
| I'm saying that judges in these cases have to consider each situation individually and think carefully about what's best for the child. You've said married parents (including those in common-law marriages) are basically treated the same regardless of gender. The unmarried couples may be in all kinds of different circumstances -- teenagers who made a stupid mistake, rape victims, cases where the father doesn't even know he has a child, etc., etc., etc. If a single father was the child's primary caregiver and had sole custody before the relationship ended, I doubt many judges would hand the kid over to the mother ... would they? |
I'm saying judges ARE NOT ALLOWED to consider this. It is automatic. And can married women not have children from a rape? How could a single father be the primary caregiver BEFORE the relationship ended? Then he WOULDN'T be single. That doesn't make sense. You must be drunk. |
WTF ... I meant in the uncommon situation in which a couple decided to have a child together and decided that the child would live with the father and the mother would visit, not the other way around as is more usual. You're telling me the mother is "automatically" allowed to take off with the kid, after the kid has lived with his/her father for years? I don't think so.
What is the judge not allowed to consider? A single father's petition for custody? Why not?
No, of course I'm not saying married women can't be raped. But if you had it your way, presumably any guy who forced himself on an acquaintance and got her pregnant would be entitled to sue for custody. Is this what you want? |
1. uncommon situation? don't you mean one in a million situation?
2. yes, mother's can "automatically" take off with a kid, since they have sole custody. Men can have visitation, have the child over, but sole custody means leaving is perfectly acceptable for the mother.
3. Because a single father, if a common-law relationship was not established, has no custody rights. The woman can move, and the man cannot stop it.
4. When did I talk about rape? You brought it up. You used a teenager getting raped as an excuse to not give men cutody rights who never were married or common-law. It was an extreme example, but you used it instead of addressing normal, common situations. Where do you get that I want that? I ask you again, Red Dog, are you drunk?
5. You never addressed the "vulgar and misogynistic" quipe you threw at me earlier. Explain yourself. How is "*beep*" being vulgar and misogynistic, and what word better describes it? I would say the term refers to women (or men ie. man-*beep*) who sell themselves based on sex. So, address what I have said, and stop picking the most obscure, ridiculous, examples you can think of, and try to be constructive. Your method of debate is feeble and small-minded. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1. No, I mean uncommon. In that situation, I really doubt the mother could leave town with the kid, "automatically."
2. "... since they have sole custody." So a father with sole custody would have the same rights, wouldn't he? This isn't gender discrimination.
3. I was referring to a single father with custody, and you changed the example. If the child has never lived with his or her father, I don't see why the mother should necessarily have her rights restricted. However, it goes both ways -- a non-custodial mother can't prevent her child's father from moving with the child either. Where is the gender discrimination?
4. No, in my original example it was a teenager who made a stupid mistake and could either move with her family or stay behind to be near her teenage boyfriend ... should she be forced to stay, regardless of whether the boy can support his new family and is mature enough to be a responsible parent? Should she be forced to go on welfare if she doesn't have to or want to?
5. Your demeanour on these boards has been vulgar, abusive, hostile and misogynistic from the get-go. Don't sit there and act innocent.
Last edited by red dog on Tue Sep 26, 2006 11:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The word is risque, or revealing. Desribing this style of dress as "slutty" or like a "whore" is misogynistic, judgemental, and old school. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
