[Post Toasties]

The status quo advocates all try to mislead people by not mentioning that most of these cases are brought on by the woman divorcing the man and breaking up the family in the first place. In that scenario, the man damned well ought to be allowed to determine patrimony and to stop paying child support for children he didn't father. That's only applying the absolute minimum standard of fairness to 99% of these situations, considering the hugely damaging gross deception and great stupidity the wife is guilty of.

The women's rights advocates are also apparently too greedy, incompetent or imbecilic to see that they are wrecking their own agenda of going after deadbeat dads if they don't also pursue the men who fathered children in other mens' families.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>The women's rights advocates are also apparently too greedy, incompetent or imbecilic to see that they are wrecking their own agenda of going after deadbeat dads if they don't also pursue the men who fathered children in other mens' families.<<<


By and large, such women's rights advocates are interested in ONE thing above all else: FUNDRAISING. If their agenda suddenly evolves to jeopardize potential donors' or potential poster women's promiscuous pleasures, then that can adversely affect their bottom line.

[BuddhaBoy]

You are right, the backfire has already begun. I have many friends, all successful, great guys. NONE of them have any intention of getting married EVER.

The feminists are responsible for destroying opportunities for many of today's women.