Children who spend time with their fathers have a higher IQ

[Deleted]

That is a completely different subject.

Who is teaching women this? Bringing up children is hard work why would anyone want less help doing this? It is nonsense.

Are you not familiar with free housing for women? It reinforces the lie that they don't need men. Job quotas, government checks etc etc.

But I can already see I am wasting my time with you.

You will simply adapt your argument constantly.

Good luck Goblinpaladin!

[Pann]

Are you not familiar with free housing for women? It reinforces the lie that they don't need men. Job quotas, government checks etc etc.

But I can already see I am wasting my time with you.

You will simply adapt your argument constantly.

Good luck Goblinpaladin!

What free housing for women? Why would this reinforce that women don't need men? You do realise that women have been allowed to earn their own money for quite some time now? If this free housing existed wouldn't it more likely reinforce that they do not need jobs rather than men?

Ok, buh-bye, then.

I am sorry that you feel adapting my argument to a completely different, irrelevant and untrue point that you introduced into the conversation is something I should not do.

[Deleted]

What free housing for women? Why would this reinforce that women don't need men? You do realise that women have been allowed to earn their own money for quite some time now? If this free housing existed wouldn't it more likely reinforce that they do not need jobs rather than men?

Ok, buh-bye, then.

I am sorry that you feel adapting my argument to a completely different, irrelevant and untrue point that you introduced into the conversation is something I should not do.

Oh ok, I will stay then. Thanks for the invitation.

The state has replaced most men.

Most men are redundant.

What's your response?

Keep in mind that you, and people like you, are a tiny minority. You don't seem to realize it. But then, you never did.

[Pann]

Oh ok, I will stay then. Thanks for the invitation.

The state has replaced most men.

Most men are redundant.

What's your response?

Keep in mind that you, and people like you, are a tiny minority. You don't seem to realize it. But then, you never did.

Uhm? OK?

How? What have they replaced them with? Do they abduct them when no-one is looking? Or something?

Again, how?

Erm, confusion and bewilderment at what you're saying to be honest.

I am? I really have no idea what you're trying to say.

[Deleted]

It does not have any impact on today when a completely different, more suitable system is in place.

Is it? - current statistics disagree.

Yup, and you are either mistaken or lying.

The pervasive influence of the tender years doctrine continues to this day, and shapes our current biased family courts in the entire western world.
That the family courts are biased is something most feminist wont even contend -

They are the basis on which the current human rights are formed, the law is an ever evolving system.

No they are not - You really need to learn the difference between a civil liberty and a human right - they are NOT the same.

What are you talking about?
http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/childrens-human-rights which inlcudes the right "The right to live in a family environment or alternative care and to have contact with both parents if possible."

The child's right to his or her parents are not the same thing as a parents right to their child.
Also, You are aware that the mother can unilaterally give a child up for adoption?
No state anywhere has a law saying the mother must contact the father.

It has everything to do with what you said, the custody laws, along with many others, at the time discriminated against women. It is not because the laws were correct or proper but because women were treated as second class citizens with little to no rights.

They were treated differently - they were not agents like men, but then they were not agents like men.
This is, and was not, discrimination.

How? Granting custody to the parent that spends the most time looking after the child is not discrimination but an attempt to do what is best for the child.

Automatically granting custody to one gender by definition discriminates against the other.

Because women had little to no rights at the time.

This is simply not true.
They had Different rights and responsibilities than men.

I have no problem with it, it simply does not back up your claim.

In what way? - Please read it again, and quote whatever bit you think disagreed with my explanation that welfare drove men to leave their families.

Right? That has not stopped you placing the blame on feminism.

What the actual fuck?
- Okay for the last fucking time - I DO NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM BLAME FEMINISM FOR THAT ONE.
Is that clear?

No, he wasn't. She got nothing from him after he successfully argued in court that her income was his.

Because once again, males were financially responsible for their female kin - they were by law required to pay their taxes and debts.

Are you suggesting that she somehow conned Parliament and not that they believed her campaign to have merit?

What? Conned? - I didnt say a fucking thing about it having or not having merit - I said feminists pushed for and created the act - I never said the matriarchal dictatorship installed it.

Men did have the vote, you are once again spouting bullshit.

No property owners had voting rights - That included women btw - not 'men' - Once again, its clear you know nothing about history.
I'm fucking done with you.
8/8.

[Pann]

Is it? - current statistics disagree.

What current statistics?

The pervasive influence of the tender years doctrine continues to this day, and shapes our current biased family courts in the entire western world.
That the family courts are biased is something most feminist wont even contend -

So you've gone from saying that it is still used in 19 states to it has an influence on family courts across the western world. Despite the fact the only state you've managed to name does not use it and joint custody being the standard in EU member states.

You're making things up, again!

The child's right to his or her parents are not the same thing as a parents right to their child.
Also, You are aware that the mother can unilaterally give a child up for adoption?
No state anywhere has a law saying the mother must contact the father.

A parent has the right to access to their child.

That is a completely different argument which is totally unrelated.

They were treated differently - they were not agents like men, but then they were not agents like men.
This is, and was not, discrimination.

What? That makes no sense. Do you think using words like agent makes your argument any less nonsensical?

Yeah, a system which classes the woman's income as the property of her husband or that does not allow her to vote is totally fair?!?

Automatically granting custody to one gender by definition discriminates against the other.

Child custody is not a game. The system was about causing the child the least amount disruption to its life whilst it was not ideal worked at the time when mothers traditionally stayed at home. It is no longer suitable which is why it is not used any more.

In what way? - Please read it again, and quote whatever bit you think disagreed with my explanation that welfare drove men to leave their families.

Why don't you, as you made the claim, reread it and quote what you think agrees with your explanation?

What the actual fuck?
- Okay for the last fucking time - I DO NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM BLAME FEMINISM FOR THAT ONE.
Is that clear?

Really?

The Bigzoman wrote "Oh for fucks sake. Theres tons of reasons why things are the way that they are. Feminism isn't absolved of all sin, but it's at the bottom of the barrell. "

to which you replied;

well feminists pushed for welfare in most of the western world.
Which resulted in many fathers leaving their families since they wouldn't get money if he was there (but blaming feminism for that one is probably not fair)

Quite clearly you are blaming feminist despite claiming not to.

Because once again, males were financially responsible for their female kin - they were by law required to pay their taxes and debts.

Women were in essence treated as the property of their husbands he took her income and left her with nothing. It is truly bizarre, although not unsurprising, that you do not see a problem with this.

What? Conned? - I didnt say a fucking thing about it having or not having merit - I said feminists pushed for and created the act - I never said the matriarchal dictatorship installed it.

Right, so we're agreed that the Act was passed as her campaign had legitimate merit the fact that she was a feminist is neither here nor there.

No property owners had voting rights - That included women btw - not 'men' - Once again, its clear you know nothing about history.
I'm fucking done with you.
8/8.

Men did have the right to vote. That is incorrect being a property owner was a requirement to vote (although I accept that this is most likely a typo made in your haste to misrepresent the facts) however one of the other requirements was being a male of 21 years of age. Women could not vote full stop.

[Deleted]

Hey Goblinpaladin, you can't reason with people like this. They will just lie and lie and lie, mainly to impress women.

Welcome to my world.

Sadly, many women fall for these lies, then they become feminists and hate all men.

Have a drink. It's on me.

This argument that boys should be "raised by the village" especially amuses me. Fatherless boys are much more likely to become criminals. Where is this "village" that's meant to raise them?

It's another lie.

You will probably realize this as well eventually.

[Deleted]

Hey Goblinpaladin, you can't reason with people like this.

Yeah - just completely done with Pann.