If feminists are about social justice, why are they turning men into slaves BY THE DEFINITION OF US LAW?

Question

http://antipeonage.0catch.com/

Not many people know a statute which makes it illegal to enforce slavery exists in US legislation has been trampled on by feminists.

This statute is the Antipeonage Act of 1867. It currently exists as 42 U.S.C. §1994, which is the civil provision, and 18 U.S.C. §1581, which is the criminal provision. Just to keep you from thinking that I am talking about a myth, you may look these statutes up in the United States Code.

The Antipeonage Act is appropriate legislation Congress passed to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude except as a punishment for a crime.

Peonage is defined as LEGALLY REQUIRED LABOR TO PAY A DEBT OR OBLIGATION.

Men are REQUIRED by feminist instated law to pay their OBLIGATION to pay for a child in the event of a divorce.

This has become a $40 Billion dollar a year industry where many men have no say in their obligation.

Have feminists violated the anti-peonage act?

This is in effect despite the vast majority of cases where:

#1 The woman initiated the divorce (75% of cases).

#2 Instead of requiring a reason for the divorce, no reason need be given and a "no fault" divorce filed unilaterally.

#3 Instead of implementing an equitable shared custody arrangement, 85% of the time the woman is given custody.

#4 The divorce rate is 50% of the marriage rate.

#5 Men have unequal rights to women in reproductive issues, a woman can lie about being on the pill, refuse to have an abortion and the man is still liable for child support.

More information at:

http://antipeonage.0catch.com

Have feminists not only fought for the crime of "peonage" to be committed on men, but have fought for it to be committed
on a significant enough number of men to obtain $40 billion per year?

So far people have forgotten to read #3 in my list of things this violation of the law is in spite of the most.

wendy_g please get some knowledge of the issues in the slightest before answering. I'm counting four provably blatant lies in your answer:

#1 - No such site. Check for it.

#2 - "In "no fault" divorces, the parties BOTH agree"

Lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_fault_divorce

"Either party may request, and receive, the dissolution of the marriage, despite the objections of the other party."

#3 - "In CONTESTED divorces, the rate is about equal."

Lie.

That makes the rate of no fault divorces 85%. It is high but not that high, try again. And try citing some sources that actually exist.

#4 - So it happens A LOT doesn't it?

#5 - "Men who find themselves in this situation CAN take it to court and"

Lie.

There is now legal precedent to reject these claims (thankyou feminist lobbyists):

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060309/LIFESTYLE/603090385/1005
http://www.newswithviews.com/Usher/david17.htm

Last but not least:

"if the woman cannot manage on her 75 cents to the man's dollar"

Huge Lie.

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/blog/2005/07/wage-gap-myth-is-hazardous-to-mens.htm

A study in the May issue of American Economic Review (2003) had found that the wage gap between men and women was the result of lifestyle choices, and not discrimination.

2. Furchtgott-Roth, Diana and Stolba, Christine (1999) - Women's Figures: An Illustrated Guide to the Economic Progress of Women in America, American Enterprise Institute
3. Belkin, Lisa (2003) - "http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/26/magazi...
4. Allen, Charlotte (2003, 3 May) - Independent Women's Forum - http://www.iwf.org/articles/article_deta...
5. Washington Post, October 1998 - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/pol...
6. Fathers for life - http://www.fathersforlife.org/ussuic.htm
7. Wendy McElroy in Fox News - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,44183,00.html

66%, 75%, "about 80%", 2/3 my case is made that women initiate divorces significantly more often either way.

You cited a family law firm there. Would they have any agenda in getting men to contest cases more? It states how costly it is later. Funny thing is it also states this:

"My theory is that generally fathers fight for custody in cases where they have a decent chance at obtaining custody."

Authoritative sources state that the fathers want the mother to have custody only 29% of the time.

http://www.divorcepeers.com/stats18.htm

http://fathersforlife.org/millar/custody.htm#contested_custody_claims

According to a report by the Canadian Department of Justice (1) less than 4% of divorces are finalized by a contested hearing in Canada. In contested cases (where there is a counter-petition or trial), 75% result in sole maternal custody and only 8% in sole paternal custody.

Re: Your new claims about no fault, start giving proof, now that you've lied so many times.

The answers that I am getting here from feminists indicate a strong support for responsibilities for men and rights for women but no rights for men and no responsibilities for women, even to the point of subjecting a man to something legally defined as slavery, with no responsibility on the woman to ensure that the situation does not come about.

Feminists SPIT on equality.

Answer 1

They are bossy boots that wish they were men i think
they want to control
they have made it hard for women now
because most women have to work
even if they have kids
because they helped to cause the price of everything to go up demanding the same pay as a man for less work

Answer 2

Feminists are indeed against the social injustice that has been perpetuated against them for years. Until the early 1900's, in many parts of this country, women couldn't even be landowners unless their husbands or fathers agreed to let them. Men, simply by virture of being men, make what? Twice as much as women for the same type of job? If you would start out as female-bodied, as I did, and had a sex change, you'd see the picture a lot more clearly. Just by virtue of my sex, as in suddenly being male, I commanded more respect and a higher wage. So believe me when I say that women still are, for the most part, relegated to slave status when they are compared to men. So please, don't give me the sad story that men are now being persecuted by women. I will admit that the ads on TV that make all men seem dumb are stupid, but that's the only real change in our society. Look at the numbers of women in government and high authority compared to the numbers of men. Come on...even you can see that men are still in control. And incidentally, why shouldn't men pay for the children they conceive? Couldn't you have used a condom? Or is that beyond your conception of reality?

Answer 3

My ex boyfriend wouldn't even do his own washing up and never once did anything around the house or took me anywhere. He also had no job. He was hardly my slave. Not saying all men are like this but you do get people who will do what they want regardless of how anyone else feels or what they say. You also get people who know right from wrong and have respect for themselves and others and can see past a crazy extremist.

Answer 4

Most feminists are decent human beings who believe in equality but there are some who firmly believe that They must be far more radical than any one else so as to prove their commitment to the Feminist movement. Nowadays even other women are starting to back away from these activists. Misandry is a crime yet it is performed by women every day without any apparent outcry, and virtually no media coverage. Isn't it time the right thinking women of the world started doing something for everybody instead of just for Themselves?

Answer 5

Paying aliments for your own child is not a slavery. Both parents are responsible for the child. In most cases, the mother is the one who stays with a child, taking care of him/her, invest her time in it and it costs some money. So if the father is absent, he still had an obligation to support this child financially. This is not a slavery, this is a part of the equal responsibility. Otherwise, taking care about a child with no aliments would be a slavery.

Who is initiating a divorce is completely irrelevant. No person is obliged to suffer in a bad marriage.

Answer 6

Paying child support isn't peonage. Peonage refers to forced labor to pay creditors, not your ex-wife's or ex-girlfriend's child support claim. Link-http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/peonage;_ylt=Ar3HJJsrNrmjuh8a6F6kh0kZvskF. If you don't like having to work to support your children get a vasectomy and save the Government time and money from prosecuting men such as your self. Slavery is typically defined as forced labor without pay or profit. No man is forced to pay child support he can't afford. Its calculated based on the cost of living and usually lower than you'd expect. My brother's dad pays $500 a month in child support and makes about $3,500 a month. If you can't survive on $3,000 a month then something is wrong with you.

Answer 7

You said: Men are REQUIRED by feminist instated law to pay their OBLIGATION to pay for a child in the event of a divorce.

A child is the blessing (or burden) of both parents. Both should take an equal part in the child's well being. This is not slavery, it is mandating equal responsibility in caretaking

Answer 8

Yeup.

It's tough, but we have to recognize that by having a personal relationship with someone that includes sex, we are at the mercy of our own biological and social bodies.

Answer 9

Do you really think men should go around getting women pregnant and not ALSO be responsible for the consequences of their actions?

Answer 10

I'll address your numbered items first.
1: 66% percent of divorce is initiated by women (see marrige.rutgers. org)
2: In "no fault" divorces, the parties BOTH agree that a "no fault" divorce should be entered, (it is not unilateral, but mutual choice) and child custody has been agreed upon by the parties outside of court. Meaning that if the Mother recieves custody, (and child support) the Father has agreed before it even enters court. Hardly "slavery" and a moot issue for the purposes of your argument.
3: Harkens back to #2. Those "agreed upon," no fault cases are part of this statistic. In CONTESTED divorces, the rate is about equal. Most men don't SEEK custody of their children, for various reasons (work shcedules, etc.) not because they don't love their children just as much, but society views this as "acceptable" whereas for women, it is not. Thus, the higher rate of mothers with physical custody...most men don't SEEK custody.
4: Right...and?
5: "Reproductive rights" for men and women are equal. You have the right have children, or not (to an extent, it would be very difficult for any government to "guaruntee" someone's "right" to have children). Men who find themselves in this situation CAN take it to court and, if they prove the woman was lying and intentionally "trapped" him, he can waive parental rights. This has to be done before the child is born.
So, now for your argument. It's a little incoherent, so let me try to state it more succinctly. You are arguing that men should not have to share equal responsibility for their children, and to enforce this is "slavery?" And you argue that this is so because of "no fault" divorce, and women being granted custody at higher rates than men? Since "no fault" divorce is agreed upon by the man and woman, and custody (and, therefore, child support) is agreed upon by the man and women in those cases, you are thus arguing that that this is often "consentual" slavery (which is not SLAVERY at all). As for the rest of your argument, I guess, logically, you are suggesting that men should not have to contribute finacially to the upbringing of their children in the event of divorce (unless voluntary). Meaning that, quite often, the state will have to pick up the tab, if the woman cannot manage on her 75 cents to the man's dollar, all because a man shouldn't be "obligated" to own up to his responsibilities. So, conversely, I suppose you think that women who abandon their families, leaving the man with the children, should be able to just "walk away," as well? And you can blame "feminists" all you want, but it's the state who will continue to enforce these laws because they (and thus the tax payers) will have to pay for men's "freedom" from their obligations. "Enforced" obligation to pay for your children can be compared to your obligation to pay taxes. So, in other words, according to your logic, it is the taxpayer, (thats you, too) who will be "obliged" to pay for other's "obligations." Did you really think this through?

EDIT--You're right. It's http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/pubtoptenmyths.htm
In another question, YOU quoted a source and stated that women initiate 2/3 of the time-66%, or am I lying about that, too? See your question "Can those who think feminism is about equality" where you state that the rate is 80% (it's 75%, now?) and then quote your source as saying, "The National Center for Health Statistics reports...wives file for divorce approximately 2/3 of the cases each year." So..whose lying now?
Okay, I stand corrected, one person can enter without the other's consent, but for a "no-fault" divorce to go forward, child custody MUST be determined and agreed upon by BOTH parties (noncontested) i.e., settled out of court, or else, it automatically becomes CONTESTED. And THAT is more pertinent to the argument, anyway. Child custody is still agreed upon in these cases.
#3-The rate is about equal in contested divorces for CHILD CUSTODY, not who initiates. I was obviously talking about child custody. YOUR (mis) interpretation makes no sense.
See http://www.gitlinlawfirm.com/qa/custody.htm#q_statistics
--"In those cases that were contested, fathers won custody in approximately 60% of the cases."
#4": Yeah, 50% is a lot-what's your point?
#5: "Those cases are routinely thrown out"--okay, I would like to see some statistics, but the article itself makes a valid point by stating that these cases "presume pregnancy prevention is the sole responsibility of the mother..." Yes, I can see how it would be hard to win based on that presmption. If men don't want children, THEY should practice birth control (condoms). Otherwise, they are putting it in the hands of someone else, and forfeiting their abilities to "decide" for themselves, regardless of whether "she" lied or not.
(sigh) The wage gap is real.(see http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20050914
BTW, none of your "sources" could be "found" except "mens news" and the "Fox" link. I'm not even going to look at the first, biased. The "Fox" link is about male suicide...a sad story, to be sure, but it has no relavance to what you were using it for.

And you're not going to get anwhere by calling me a liar. "Ad hominen"-remember?
And none of this REALLY has anything to do with the real question at hand...which is why you think men should not be responsible for their parental obligations in the same way women are. Both benefit from the "genetic advantage" of having one's genes continued to the next generation, but, for some reason, you seem to believe only women should have to "pay" for that advantage. Again, if men don't want that advantage, or want to choose when it happens, thy should take the matter into their own hands and wear a condom, rather than "trust" that the woman is doing what she says she is doing. Otherwise, the man is being negligent, and is culpable for that negligence. THAT is the real argument here, yet you insist on obfuscating the real issue with sidebars...maybe because you know your core argument is weak?

EDIT-The "case" is made that you intentionally (and consistently) lie and exaggerate statistics to back up your claims.
My "claims" about "no-fault" are self evident.
"No" responsibilities for women? The very biology of pregnancy dictates that women will be responsible, one way or another, (are you REALLY trying to argue otherwise?). You are going on the bigoted premise that women are solely responsible for birth control, and that men should be able to walk away, even though they acted negligently and irresponsibly during the act in the first place. And you continue to ignore the fact that TRUE responsibility for men who don't want children would be to take protective measures (condoms) BEFORE the fact...why should they be negligent and not pay for that negligence? (As women CERTAINLY would) Legally, negligence implies culpability. Are you actually arguing that men should be able to have unprotected sex, pawn the birth control responsibility off entirely on the woman, and deny any responsibility at all when the outcome is less than desirable (and nothing more than what one would expect in such a case of negligence)?Your stance is that the woman bears ALL the responsibility for birth control, and the consequences thereof. The man bears no personal responsibility whatsoever. Men can, (by the nature of their biology, I presume) walk away from their negligence because they should have the "right" to expect someone else to be responsible for their (the man's) own actions, and not bothered with the consequences?
"Feminists spit on equality"? You don't even seem to know what equality means, or else you would understand the concept of equal responsibility. Responsibility lies with each individual. Again, if you don't want the headache of children and child support, take responsible measures to prevent it. How on earth can you argue that "so many" children are pawned off on men that aren't really the fathers, or never wanted children in the first place, yet deny that the BEST way to prevent this is for MEN to take responsibility with preventative measures? Your logic is flawed, bigoted...and laughable.