That's optimism, not objectivity.
You made a twat out of yourself the moment you said "meninists" I'm sorry to say. That shit was created as a satire on feminism yet ironically it's mostly feminists that don't realise it's not an actual thing. That admirable density.
You do realize that my intention of using that was out of sarcasm. I don't think it's an actual thing, it is not even a word.
For the record, I'm well aware there's some hypocritical views (like in any other thing) in some strands of "feminism," but like anything you don't have to place so much worth in valuing the term. Feminism is either pretty precise in describing you or not. What people who call themselves the term decide to do, is not always representative of the idea nor are they always like minded to others who do. Feminism to me is that women and men are equally deserving of opportunity and recognition. Maybe the term "feminism" confuses some people, but that's really all it is. And on that basis, I don't see how that's something so repulsive.
"For unmarried parents, if a parent is currently receiving child support or custody, but DNA proves that the man is not the father later on, the support automatically stops; however, in many states, this testing must be performed during a narrow window of time if a voluntary acknowledgement of parentage form has already been signed by the putative father; otherwise, the results of the test may be disregarded by law, and in many cases, a man may be required to pay child support, even though the child is biologically unrelated."
Also I never once said this was the rule, I said multiple times that it was an anomalous example.
I'm sure this would apply to mothers as well so that makes this kind of irrelevant, even though that would be way less common. More importantly, however, researching this every state's paternity laws are different. The vast majority, however, are moving towards less strict rules than the ones you posted. And with this the main issue in some states is denouncing fatherhood if you were married to your partner and "assumed the role of the father" but it can be done if that's the main reason for a divorce (unfaithfulness).
Looking at statistics alone about 62% of custodial mothers do not receive child support. Therefore, this does not represent most cases, and the reason why I stated most women aren't trying to deceit men into having children was from your comment about, "if we assume that most women are happy to get pregnant by a man entirely due to the fact that she'll have him paying for the next 18 years you're a horrible sexist." By that it seemed like you were making a generalization.
Also, I think your overall argument about the court system favoring women is biased and forgetting the most important part in the equation. In retrospect, the child is who gets the priority and is received the benefit of the doubt in these kinds of situations. The only thing current laws care about is that the children receives proper financial support.
By you calling that money the mother's "meal ticket" is pretty ridiculous. That's not "do whatever the mother wants money."
