re: Why do Republicans ignore Divorce and Male Reproductive Rights for Men

I support your post in concept but it's pretty naive.


The reason the gop doesn't address these issues is because they would get eaten alive by the media for being sexist. The modern left thinks "men's rights activists" are essentially women haters, racists, and nazis.

quote:

---

The reason the gop doesn't address these issues is because they would get eaten alive by the media for being sexist. The modern left thinks "men's rights activists" are essentially women haters, racists, and nazis.

---

They said the same thing about Trump. It obviously doesn't matter anymore.

(no message)

Trump is one of the only politicians who could even breach the subject with zero backlash.

quote:

---

In matters of child custody, Louisiana has eliminated what was called the “maternal preference” rule and both father and mother have equal rights to child custody

---

this seems to be a trend

quote:

---

I'm sure I could find more, but it is definitely a widespread problem.

---

disgusting that this is allowed

quote:

---

Well let me ask you. What does the GOP mean to you.

---

It used to mean smaller government and individual-oriented solutions to issues rather than government-oriented solutions.

quote:

---

Also. What is the best way to address the aforementioned problems

---

I'll play.

quote:

---

1. If a woman gets pregnant, she has the option of abortion or birth.

However, a man is stuck with whatever decision. He has no say in abortion and if she decides on birth, he has no legal way to get out of child support if he doesn't want kids.

---

The GOP position has generally been anti-abortion. If abortion were illegal except in the case of a mother's life being in danger, it wouldn't matter if men had a say or not in that because neither would the woman.

If abortion were mostly illegal, it would make sense to force fathers to care for their children. There wouldn't be any inequity given that he played a part in the conception of the child. Both parents should care for their children.

Just as I say to women who want abortion for convenience, I say the same thing to men who don't want to raise or at least provide for a child they produced: if you didn't want a child, don't participate in child-making activities. I don't generally support making it easier for people to stop taking responsibility for their actions.

quote:

---

2. Alimony is a dated concept. The fact that a person of either gender can not properly take care of themselves and is owed money from a spouse is a direct violation against Republicanism in general. If put in any other context, its welfare.

---

The point of alimony (traditionally) was to provide additional incentive for husbands to not leave their wives or do something to wreck the marriage (which would hopefully lead to a better family situation and better adjusted children, which would lead to a better society overall), as well as provide a means of support for women who couldn't support themselves. Women didn't usually work outside the home and had no marketable skills or opportunities to make money to provide for themselves and their children if their husbands abandoned them, which is why alimony was helpful.

You could argue that alimony isn't a necessity these days when so many women work and can provide for themselves if they get divorced. I'd be in favor of changing those laws to look at individual family situations where one spouse isn't working or is unable to work to provide for themselves and/or children after the divorce. Alimony should go both ways, but I'm in favor of it when the "innocent" spouse doesn't have the ability to earn enough money right away. It should be a deterrent to divorce, IMO, as divorce is typically a destructive practice for children and overall family values.

BTW, Republicans aren't against "welfare" in general, but government-provided welfare. We are in favor of charitable giving and helping those in need through individual and societal donations. It's a bit of a bait and switch to say that Republicans shouldn't be in favor of this because it would be "welfare" if the government was the one doing it. That differentiation makes all the difference. It's like when leftists say charity and tax-funded "assistance" by the government are the same thing; they are not.

quote:

---

3. Judges should not have the power to annul a legally binding Prenuptial Agreement. Only if the document in question violates another law or was prepared outside legal jurisdiction.

---

I'm not familiar with this scenario. Why would a judge annul a legally binding prenup that doesn't violate another law or was prepared outside legal jurisdiction? What justifications have been given?

quote:

---

I'd suggest more men put some serious thought into who they procreate with, instead of relying on politicians to bail them out of bad choices.

---

Or at least no glove no love.

I agree men get the short end of the stick in family court, but I don't agree with any of your points. The big problem for men is getting custody, even joint custody or having to pay child support despite having joint custody.

quote:

---

That is not remotely on point.

This guy got sued for support, and he ignored the Citation that was served upon him. He claims that he did not receive it, but two different hearings separated by YEARS found otherwise (one a hearing on his original default and a second recent hearing).

Texas judges look SERIOUSLY at proper service before granting default judgments.

If a court had found that he was not served back in the day, the case would start over, the DNA would be admissible, and he would owe no support.

Instead, he got sued, ignored it, had a judgment taken against him and wants a do-over many years down the line.

The lesson here is “Do not ignore the Citation when You Get Sued.”

---

None of this should be relevant if the child isn't his. The fact that DNA would ever not be admissible for custody and child support cases is outrageous.