I don't think so

You think it's worth it. But it's not about what you think, it's about making others think that too

Exactly

So ask someone who's paying what they think

Literally ask them

We can do surveys and polls for this sort of thing

But honestly, in my view, it won't go away until we can get overwhelming proof that the vast majority of women will be fine without forced financial support from men

And that won't be easy to do without some kind of strike

That would be a good way to gauge how many you can get to do it, but you might be disappointed... That would be the first step though, to ask how many are willing to. Then after that you can contact the people who you think might fund it

What do you mean saying they will be fine without forced financial support from men? That's obvious, there's day care and minimum wage jobs. After a child starts elementary school the mother can work during school hours. And she should receive some form of child support if she has the child the majority of the time, it's the amount that is always way too high

Being British I see any gap between what the father can afford and what he can't to be covered by the government

Now by 'see' I don't mean that's always what happens, I mean that's how I view it should be

Whether she should even get to have the child the majority of the time at all is another discussion

But forcing men to pay women who likely have similar work credentials as the men who left them is ridiculous

Yes, it is another discussion, but not relevant here since we are talking about this circumstance

Again, this is 2018

Most women are getting college degrees and making $30000+ a year, usually a lot more than that

Also, once alimony and child support are abolished, women will be a lot more careful about having children

Well that depends really. If the woman is spending more time with the child rather than working outside of day care hours then child support applies to that. If she pays for day care the father should share the cost of that

Many will likely get abortions

The only reason so many women choose to keep children they can't pay for is because they know the father WILL

I think you need to make it clear that you are only talking about non-couples/not married people because you haven't so far

This is 100% about non-couples and non-married people

You think that alimony and child support happen to men in comfortable, stable relationships with the mother?

Because they don't. That comes when things go south and the man no longer wants to pay

People separate, lives don't go as planned, and then yes things like that happen

And at that point, men should not be legally obligated to support people who can largely support themselves

I agree in regards to alimony, not to child support. They aren't both as bad as each other when you lump them together like that

Okay, I kind of get your point

So here's what I think needs to happen to child support

Now, children born to women who aren't in a relationship with the man and who has always said he doesn't want children with her shouldn't have to pay child support at all because he's had no say in the matter. But committed relationships and marriage are different

1. Judgements need to be based on the actual amount the parties are making, not imagined values based on experience that may or may not actually matter

2. There needs to be a hard cap on the amount of child support that can be paid out every year, adjusted for inflation

Some women are out there making 6 figures off that shit if they got with a wealthy man

3. If the woman is making enough to provide for herself and the child in a modest, comfortable lifestyle, an amount worked out by economists, the men should pay nothing

4. Before the child is born, within the window where an abortion can legally happen, the father should be allowed to legally opt out of both visitation rights and child support. If the woman decides to get an abortion at that point, the man can be held responsible for some of the cost, but nothing else

That's what needs to happen to child support

And alimony and spousal support need to be 100% abolished

What do you think of that, @InsaneCaterpilla?

I agree besides number 3. If he's committed to providing for that child (had agreed to its existance) then he should be paying *something* that he is able to if he is not the primary caregiver

Okay, then have the court award a laughably small amount. Like $100 a month unless the father agrees to pay more

No. Whatever the cost of raising a child is judged to be per month, split by the amount of time looking after the child.

Then I guess we'll just agree to disagree on that. I personally don't think it's right for men to have to support people who can support themselves just fine

He's not supporting people who can support themselves, he's supporting his child.

Well we can get into visitation another time, but most men don't get much out of their visitation rights tbh

We've established he consented to their existance, so he should pay a fair and reasonable amount in regards to his take home pay for them. Obviously not meaning if he gets more he pays more, meaning that he pays what he can afford if he is on a low salery, even if it's below the amount the child is judged to cost

And since men mostly don't get much, a laughably small amount seems legally adequate

Also, I'm kind of worried about changing it to actual salaries

Like if women make nothing for many years because they're a housewife, how do we keep men from getting screwed over?

? I don't see how my scenario changes if she's a housewife.

Well, what'll happen is that the man will make his current salary and the woman will make $0

He'll be absolutely screwed over

Even if the woman has a PhD and could clearly be making more

Do we factor in housework and the like to her salary according to standard industry rates?

That seems like the best option

I don't see why, because the way I am judging it is that *every child has a set amount that economists judge they need to live a happy, healthy, life, and both parents share that cost based on how often they are with the child*

How much you make doesn't matter unless you can't afford to pay it, at which point government assistance should come in

No, I get that

But it's like a slippery slope at that point

Maybe taking care of a child means paying for rent

Or for other things that tangentially help

How far do we hold men responsible?

Only the cost that I mention should be applicable. As if no child existed, rent is your own responsibility

Okay, that makes sense. But in cases where the mother is overwhemingly unable to take care of a child, like can't pay rent at all, then the father should get custody

Like I guess a lot of those types of issues can be dealt with that way

Not providing a suitable living environment should be grounds for having the child taken away by CPS anyway

Sure. I still disagree with you about what should happen if the woman can afford to take care of both her and the child, but aside from that it's been a very good and productive discussion

Thanks for working with me to shape some policy :)

Oh, np

Soooooooo I was over at /r/divorce_men, and directed here for my issue. I filed for divorce, cannot afford a lawyer, but will go fundraising if I need to, and life has been unnecessarily hell, even for a divorce. I need help. I get support, but I need to better arm and prepare myself for the hearings and legal battles ahead.

Where are you based? @Dan da Dad

Just country and jurisdiction as there may be groups in your area

Lee County GA

So far, the minimum retainer I've found is 3k, but I don't feel the hunger. Whether true or not, I feel at a disadvtage simply by being a man in this scenario.

you will probably be, but call the judge out if they are being sexist! they will review their decision if they are a good judge

Operation Canadian BaCon to complain to the CRTC about the CBC's biased coverage before the broadcasting license renewal next year: https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/a6wlgk/happening_operation_canadian_bacon_ii_gamergate/

@Jonathan You should make a version for our own sub

@goodmod @Men Are Human @asparkofpyrokravte @Abbysol @blueorange22 I've been thinking about something today, largely about how activism is conducted.

There are places we can write to or call, contact in some way which do things we don't like (eg. A place that performs infant circumcision) to impress upon them why we think what they are doing with good, logical arguments.

But with that comes those users who, when we call for such activism, will write and call them with angry furvour, insulting and putting people off rather than trying to persuade people, this painting the MRM in a bad light and potentially alienating those from supporting our values.

How do we get around this in our activism efforts?

well whenever we post something here or on reddit, make sure we have a note saying this. like i imagine if we launch a specific effort to call an organization we'd make a reddit post about it, make sure that is highlighted.

I don't think we can post things like that on the Reddit, the admins would hear about it if it became an issue and they'd shut the sub down

really? i think they'd be ok with that, @goodmod is an mod there. they seem pretty open minded

do you mean something like calling representatives or organizations when theres a relevant news story?

No, in the example it was the actual place performing the male genital mutilation, I guess it's unique to some other issues in that there are direct places to contact other than legislators and representatives

i see. yeah, we definitely cant be seen as doing anything that can construed as harassment or trolling. and people have leigitmate cause to be upset, but it has to be controlled

I've thought about writing campaigns.

Another similar example would be say there's a daytime tv show that says some pretty horrendous things about men and you call that tv shows office

Did I tell you guys we got an article taken down?

From menarehuman.com or from Reddit?

@InsaneCaterpilla that's a good idea bte

Men are human did a response article, and I think it caused a brigade on the thing we targeted

Article i was responding to is gone

And it was an old article that they'd likely forgoten about

It was the one about DV shelters

I can't say for sure it was us, but it likely got someone to email them

The article we did got a few shares

Who knows! Maybe we made an impact. XD

wiat, what???? how did it get removed? who removed it????

ohh

i see

https://menarehuman.com/2018/08/19/the-shameful-hypocrisy-of-feminists-who-attack-shelters-for-male-victims-of-domestic-violence/amp/