It’s good that they got rid of this. However: let me ask a few questions….
Why, was “male torture art” – placed in a the lobbies of multiple government buildings?
Who, decided to place “male torture art” in the lobbies of multiple a government buildings?
Who, ordered and procured “male torture art” for display in the lobbies of multiple government buildings?
How, was “male torture art” ever conceivably considered to be appropriate?
Follow up question…. Would a piece of “female torture art” depicting a tortured woman – ever be permitted to be displayed in the lobby of any government building?
This “art piece” depicting a tortured man was envisioned: meaning some unknown person or persons decided that a depiction of a tortured man is what they desired to display in the lobbies of a child support offices.
This “art piece” depicting a tortured man was selected, by some person or persons, in particular, from among various possible choices…. for display in the lobbies of child support offices.
This “art piece” depicting a tortured man was then ordered, in bulk, with tax power money, by some unknown person or persons for display in the lobbies of child support offices.
This “art piece” depicting a tortured man was then shipped, en mass for display, by some unknown person or persons, in the lobbies of child support offices.
This “art piece” depicting a tortured man was then received, unwrapped and placed on display by some unknown person or persons in lobbies of child support offices.
Which means: only an executive officer – could have possibly given the order to procure, purchase, ship, receive and display this “art piece” depicting a tortured man. Paid for with tax payer dollars and exhibited in the lobbies of child support offices.
The “art piece” itself, depicting a man who’s had both his arms cleft from his body, then set upon a table in front of him, and clasped together as if pleading. Pleading either for death or perhaps to see his children: it was on display in the child support offices after all.
The author of this article states the following: “I’m quite pleased that the county is sensitive to the need for government to maintain a neutral, unbiased and objective position on family matters.”
When the victims of said persecution are mocked by being greeted with “art” depicting the torture of men. We can see exactly how “neutral” and “unbiased” the law is.
Why don’t you just inscribe the doorway in Latin: “Abandon hope, all ye whom enter here.”
Oh yes, please tell me some more about my “male privilege” when I can be greeted in government offices by “artistic” depictions of men being tortured?
The entire chain of government employees, who decided to display such a monstrosity: Should be summarily dismissed and bared from serving in any government employment again, ever.
The entire chain of government employees, who functioned as the selection committee to decide which particular depiction was chosen: Should be summarily dismissed and bared from serving in any government employment again, ever.
The entire chain of government employees, who were in charge of using tax payer money to procure in bulk these monstrosities: Should be summarily dismissed and bared from serving in any government employment again, ever.
The entire chain of government employees, who received, unpacked, and displayed these monstrosities: Should be summarily dismissed and bared from serving in any government employment again, ever.
Why? Simple, If it were “female torture art”, depicting a tortured woman, which had been purchased with tax payer money and displayed in any agency’s government buildings – everyone connected to them would be summarily dismissed and bared from serving in any government employment again, ever.
This is what it means to be male in this society. We can be persecuted with unjust laws, jailed for failure to comply, and mocked inside government buildings. Sure, with enough complaints they rid of the “art”, but they didn’t hold anyone accountable.
By the way: lest you forget – there’s a fantastic number of men who’ve been made victims of child support, in circumstances no reasonable or rational person would exclaim they should be paying child support.
Such as, male rape victims.
Nick Olivas: raped by 20-year-old at age of 14, ordered to pay $15,000 in child support.
Nathaniel J., raped by a 34-year-old at age of 15, makes $800 a month at Burger King, expected to pay $200 a month child support.
Shane Seyer, raped by a 17-year-old at age of 13, sued for child support, plus an additional $7,000.”
Or men who never consented to having children, and in fact the female partner went behind their back to intentionally get pregnant.
This woman saved the “contents” of oral sex, got herself pregnant with said contents – took the man to court for child support and won.”
This woman used a discarded condom: proof positive the man did NOT consent to having children – used the contents of the condom to get pregnant, gave birth to twins and sued for child support regardless of her actions – and yes: she won.
Or perhaps, the millions of men being extorted out of money for children whom are not theirs? Referred to as “Paternity Fraud”
“Today, 30% of DNA paternity tests, nearly one in three, prove that the man involved is not the father of the child in question. Currently more than 300,000 such tests are done each year. Since it is unlikely that these paternity tests were done without an underlying reason, almost certainly involving payment of child support, there are thus over 90,000 men who have been falsely accused of paternity each year.
Maybe if we didn’t encourage such behavior by enslaving men to pay for it we wouldn’t have so much of it? But courts are notorious for continuing child support even when it has been proven the man named is not the biological father. With few exceptions we can assume that a minimum of 90,000 men a year are being indentured for onerous payments for a period of at least 18 years in the United States. That would suggest that, at a minimum, 1.6 million men are enslaved today by the courts to pay for other men’s children (90,000 men per year for 18 years).
“There are signs of substantial fraud or mistakes in identifying fathers in child support disputes. The American Association of Blood Banks says the 300,626 paternity tests it conducted on men in 2000 ruled out nearly 30% as the father.
The legal doctrines raising barriers to DNA testing on paternity questions are formidable. In 30 states, married men face a 500-year-old legal presumption that any child born during a marriage is the husband’s. The concept, based in English law, is aimed at preventing children from being branded illegitimate. Nebraska’s Supreme Court ruled last week that an ex-husband who is not a child’s father cannot sue the mother to recover child support payments.”
This is what it means to be “male” in this society. We can be persecuted with gender biased laws. Violated and then extorted by those who rape us. Defrauded by lies which are then enforced by the courts. Then, when we think we’ve been denied every possible right, and dehumanized on every possible level. Just when the thought occurs…. “we are not animals,we deserve to be treated like a human beings.”
Then, we are mocked, *by* the very people who are enabling us to be reduced to second class citizens. By being greeted in the lobbies of government offices by depictions of men who have been torn limb from limb and are pleading for mercy.
This is what it means to male in this society. You say I’m privileged? Would you want to be me?