If a bill were to come about that aimed to put an end to all of the hatred, demonization and ridicule men in the US face, what should be in it?

[SolitarySolace]

if a bill were to come about that aimed to put an end to all of the hatred, demonization and ridicule men in the US face, what would you hope to see within such a bill?

Updates

+1 y

Something to protect men in marriage and divorce court? Something to give men some reproductive rights?…

[CheeseMonster]

I suppose that harassing or assaulting a man because he is a man could be considered a hate crime, the same way as harassing or assaulting a woman because she's a woman. That would mean an enhanced sentence if convicted. I'm not sure what else could really be done with a bill though.

I think the best way to de-villify a group of people is just good old-fashioned exposure therapy. People getting to know real members of the group in real life, or at least seeing them represented in media like film and books (decent accurate representation, not harmful stereotypes). That's not something you can legislate though. It kind of has to happen naturally. Most people definitely meet men, but they may not get to know them very well if they assume negative things about them from the start.

[JacobJordan]

The hate, demonization and ridicule are all protected acts via the first amendment. That being said the best way to get rid of it is proper parenting. Now the marriage laws, paternity laws, divorce laws, custody, alimony, child support laws all could use a serious revamp as in removed and completely rewritten

[SolitarySolace]

How would you have them all revamped and rewritten?

[JacobJordan]

Simple approach if there is a divorce initiator leaves with only what they came in with plus their clothes, jewelry. They don't get any extra money, they don't get the car, the house nothing you want out you are out with precisely what you came in with and nothing more. This should prove sufficient deterrent for THOSE kinds of divorces. Second part would be during divorce proceedings evidence can be heard if their is factual evidence of wrongdoing it is weighed equally. If the man was abusive and the woman was abusive no change. If both cheated no change. If the man was abusive there is a fine that is 1 time and paid to the woman. If the man was abused there is a fine that is 1 time and paid to the man. Again super simple. Paternity test would be mandatory no child support no nothing until that man is proven to be the father. Should the man be proven not to be he can get an immediate divorce right then and there in which case she has 24 hours to move out of the home. Child support would be both parties you both brought it into the world you both get to pay for it no more dumping that on some poor bloke who is working 70 hours a week. In addition all money is deposited into an account and purchases can only be for things for the child. 1 flagged purchase and it ends. I believe that covers all but custody. Custody goes to whoever is either 1 the more stable parent or 2 the parent the child wants to be with however routine check ups would be carried out to ensure the child's safety and for passing the child between parents. The entire purpose of this is to remove all the incentives from breaking up families. So if 2 people want a divorce they would know going in they are getting absolutely nothing unless they could prove with absolute clarity that some violation happened. This will prevent false claims since you would be required to document visually the violation the 1 time fee would be fair it would not be an amazing "win" a divorce is rarely ever a win.

[msc545]

Excellent thoughts here - thanks!

[JacobJordan]

@msc545 of course. I figure it doesn't have to be over the top and more what is needed is something that helps a family strive to stay together rather than breaking up first sign of a rough patch. Right now it is just to incentivized for things to be stable but if something like that or similar cause I don't have the best answers those are just my personal thoughts given what I have seen thus far were to be implemented we might see a dramatic shift back to the family unit which could (and I think would) be a really good thing for children, society. Think the only people it may not be great for is businesses right now they have the benefit of double the workforce by having both adults working even after the child is born. Which I think is actually a separate issue that also be addressed

[laly520]

laws won't change mentalities

gov can create laws against X or Y or with X or Y but it won't change whats deeply carved in minds

[msc545]

That is not the intent. The intent is to make divorce financially neutral for both parties.

[laly520]

@msc545 won't happen anytime soon

[msc545]

true. Marriage won't happen anytime soon either.

[laly520]

well depends on individual

[laly520]

regardless of everything
people still get married

[msc545]

To the profound detriment of the men involved in most cases.

[NathanDavis]

" someone give a pacifier to the whiny boy already "

[SolitarySolace]

This is why we need a bill like the one I’m suggesting

[NathanDavis]

you said it yourself... " I will whine all I want online, it's my life and my right "

[Vegasrunner]

I would say having a simple law that allowed marriage licenses to be renewed like drivers licenses would fix everything.

[Dongie]

Remove gender of the persecuted. Let's see, what's that word... oh yeah, equality.

[OtterMan68]

how would that be constitutional?

[SolitarySolace]

The same way it is for women

[OtterMan68]

you can ridicule women

[SolitarySolace]

And if you do you’re met with aggravated backlash from both men and women. Those who ridicule men are free to do so

[OtterMan68]

but it's legal

[SolitarySolace]

Says who

[OtterMan68]

The First Amendment

[SolitarySolace]

Free speech? Haven’t the democrats been attacking free speech for a while now?

[OtterMan68]

how many people have been jailed for their speech?

[SolitarySolace]

“how many people have been jailed for their speech?”

460

[OtterMan68]

rioting is not speech