Urgent news! Political update!

The Congress has convened under urgency rules in a marathon session to rush through emergency laws to cope with increasing outbreaks of Men’s Human Rights Activism. Here’s a rundown of new legislation which will impact on readers of AVFM –

The Presumption of Future Divorce Act

Marriage law is now changed such that signing the marriage certificate brings forward the wholesale transfer of assets from husband to wife that usually takes place upon the divorce.
The new Presumption of Future Divorce Act states that in order to make any future divorce more efficient, men must transfer all bank accounts, businesses and property into the wife’s name on signing of the marriage certificate. It is hoped that this new legislation will bring down the cost and stress of divorce and allow women full control of her husbands assets immediately, without the extended delays common with the divorce process.
Businesses celebrated the new law by offering all newly-wed women a special pampering weekend for only $10,000 (specially reduced from $10,001) and an unlimited line of credit at fashion stores. They said the take up of the offers has “been phenomenal or perhaps pheremonal, they weren’t sure.
One newly married woman exclaimed: ”I could never have afforded this without this great change in the law. My husband would never spend like this and the financial freedom I now enjoy can only strengthen our marriage.”
When asked, husbands-to-be shrugged and cited that it was not something that bothered them because: “divorce is something that happens to other people, and in any event, my future wife is not like that.”

The DNA Contributors Act

Government today formalized what has always been unofficially practiced and enforced by the family court and stripped all fathers of legally presumed parental rights.
The new law means that all fathers are now officially renamed DNA Contributors and their sole legal right is the responsibility to pay for their child’s upbringing. Women’s groups said that this was a perfectly fair arrangement as “no mother would deny a man access to his child if he was a decent DNA Contributor”, and it would greatly simplify custody hearings because such hearings would simply no longer be necessary.
“Formalizing the arrangement between mothers and sperm donor in this way, makes it much easier for mothers to deal with DNA Contributors who are not behaving as she would like”, said Charlotte Harpy of the campaign group ‘Mother Knows Best’. “And it also makes it easier for the DNA Contributors, because they now know ahead of time that they will fail to see their children if they go to court, rather than kidding themselves over years and years of court appearances, that there might be a chance.
“Everybody wins,” she added.
DNA Contributor groups did not offer a comment as they were too busy designing a logo for their new name: ‘DNA Contributors 4 Justice’.

The Legal Human Castration Act

Hilarious Katherine cuts for pleasure.
From today, it is legally permissible for a wife to castrate her husband or boyfriend if she has suffered abuse from him in the past. The evidence required to prove that she received abusive treatment from the castrated spouse is a sworn statement from the woman that he was indeed abusive and/or made her cry.
The minimum required level of abuse for her to be acquitted, is set at shouting and/or door-slamming. Dame Brenda Hale was also said to offer that: “periods of ignoring her for longer than 60 minutes and the purchase of one or more unwanted gifts for the woman would also count as abuse severe enough to justify castration.”
Further, the man would not be permitted to ask that she actually prove that he was abusive, because the Legal Human Castration Act presumes that in enduring the unpleasant task of severing his testicles, she has suffered enough.

The All Female University Act

All-female universities are to open now that so few men are doing well enough to attend university.
It is thought that bringing proper focus to women – who now make up the vast majority of students – would help bring equality to education by delivering more appropriate tuition to women, who are continually denied this when men occupy the same campus.
University doors and entryways can now officially be painted pink, rather than just metaphorically and university staff have come out fully in favor of the new measures. As Samantha Smeghead, professor of Gender Studies remarked: “Women will finally be able to express themselves more freely with the patriarchal agents removed from the classroom and, anyway, men tend to make the campus look scruffy.”
It is also thought that incidences of campus sexual assault and rape should be much reduced, seeing as the only men on campus will be janitors and gardeners. All such staff will be required to work in pairs and made to wear police monitored electronic tags. Additionally, an armed female supervisor will be close by, ready to respond in case of any attempts of sexual harassment by the men, or even worse, any attempt to enroll.
Women’s groups lauded the proposals and it is expected to pass into law without opposition. Men’s groups could not be reached for comment, as it was a big rugby weekend.

The Women’s Prison Closure Act

Women’s prisons are to formally close their doors to women with immediate effect. Existing female prisons will be converted to men’s prisons after being renovated to make them less comfortable.
The government has fully adopted the proposals put forward by the Women’s Justice Task force in 2011 and has decided that prison is not the right punishment for female criminals. Women will now not face the arduousness of trials for their crimes and will instead face a three-woman panel to decide what level of community service she will need to serve, dependent on the severity her crime.
Murder will carry a maximum sentence of 3 years service, which might consist of working most weekends at shelters for battered women or similar severe punishment. She will also be required to write an essay, explaining why what she did was wrong.

This article awarded!
This article awarded!

The Presumption of Abuse Act

Murder of a husband or boyfriend, however, will carry much less severe sentences than other murders under the new Presumption of Abuse Act, which affords women the legal presumption of acting in self-defense whenever she kills an intimate male partner. This will save the court’s time and tax payer’s money, by fast-tracking women who kill their male partners and sparing them the trauma of a long investigation or trial, or having to demonstrate a syndrome.
Men’s groups sent several emails in protest, saying that this made them “second-class citizens”. The Prime Minister responded in a recent interview saying that men needed to: “stop whining and man-up! Women would not go back in the box and if you are unlucky enough to be killed or castrated by your spouse, then you undoubtedly deserved it.”

The Extended Abortion Act

Women can now no longer be prosecuted for killing their children, provided that the child is younger then 3 years old.
The new Late Abortion Act allows women to extend her existing license to kill a child, from the current maximum 24 weeks, to up to the new maximum of 3 years after birth, providing she can find a women’s advocate to testify that she is afflicted by one of the 216 distinct syndromes that are proven to only affect women.
It is expected that most women will still use the favorite Munchhausen Syndrome by Proxy when they murder their babies. However, others are expected to try out the newer Abdication of Responsibility Syndrome and Temporary Loss of Adulthood Syndrome.
Still others, might go for the brand new Comprehensive Female Multi-Spectrum Generic Temporary Loss of Any and All Responsibility Disorder Syndrome (by Proxy), which is a cutting-edge catch-all syndrome, to help women who cannot be adequately protected from punishment by using one of the other 215 syndromes.
“With this newly invented safety syndrome”, says its inventor Beverley Simpleton (known in academia affectionately, as BS), “It is hoped that no woman who is unfortunate enough to have killed her children, might suffer the indignity of being punished for it.”
A parliamentary committee erupted into laughter at the idea that men’s psychology should be investigated to find out if men might have equivalent syndromes to explain their murders of children or spouses, saying that it was: “a sickening attempt to subvert justice by hiding behind faux psychology.”
“It is misogynistic attitudes like that”, added one MP, “that are holding women back and preventing real equality.”

The Rape Allegation Act

The burden of proof in rape cases has been officially moved onto the accused man in rape cases and now, any women who claims to have suffered rape, has only to identify the rapist to secure prosecution.
Investigations to establish prima facie guilt are no longer required and nor is any forensic evidence. Following the lead of Swedish law on being charged with rape, it is now wholly up to the man to prove he did not commit the crime.
Women’s groups heralded this decision as a victory for common sense, citing the well established fact that a woman “would never lie about rape” and that this saved the tax payer money at a time when we can ill afford to spend it “defending men from crimes they undoubtedly must have committed”.
Men who find themselves unable to prove that a rape did not occur, will now receive a mandatory 20 year prison term without need for an expensive trial. A win-win for the national economy and women’s rights.
When asked, men said that this “didn’t seem right, somehow”, but then again, “it wouldn’t happen” to them and there were more important things in life, such as “the ruby finals and breasts.”

The Sexual Harassment Protection Act

Sexual harassment law received a boost today when a tribunal ruled that a woman could be sexually harassed by an unborn baby boy.
The woman, who remains nameless for legal reasons, claimed that she felt and somehow just knew that the unborn baby boy, in only his second trimester, was: “looking at me through his mothers belly and seemed to be undressing me with his eyes”.
The distraught complainant has received undisclosed damages, and the unborn boy has been pre-expelled from school and placed on the national sex offenders registry.
In another case, a woman has won 5 million dollars from McCrapalds restaurants by claiming that she was sexually harassed by a customer more than six years ago, when he ordered a burger and said: “Hey, you have really nice eyes”.
The unnamed victim has been under medical supervision ever since the traumatic incident and cannot sleep due to having recurrent nightmares.
McCrapalds has stated that they would be taking all necessary steps to save women from compliments and all unwanted attention from men by building special screens in all restaurants, so that no one could see anyone else and also installing audio equipment that would automatically screen out all words that did not involve ordering burgers, nuggets or fries.
Male customers will have to email their orders from the front of the store and robot arms will hand the food to them through hatches to avoid any possibility of female workers experiencing unwanted physical contact with male customers.
Female customers, however, would enter through a different restaurant entrance and order direct with staff as usual.
Women’s groups claimed that this was an important victory for the rights of women in the workplace, who should be able to work “without fear of being spoken to or looked at by men in any way at all.”
Men’s groups, headed by contributors at the Boobzilla Mangina Project agreed that the rights of women should be paramount no matter what small inconveniences befell men.
“To disagree with such an arrangement might cast the men’s movement in a bad light”, opined the folks at Reddit. “We are not here to upset women or stand in the way of women’s rights no matter what they demand. We stand in support of men’s rights as long as they come behind women’s, children’s, animals and plants rights. We know our place.”
Women’s groups seemed quite surprised at this and only added: “They took the words right out of our mouths.”

The Women’s Health Act

The government today agreed that health spending for women, currently eight times that of men, and up to 100 times that of men in some areas, was not sufficiently addressing the health needs of women.
The Minister for Women and Girls stated that: “it is the priority of any modern society to invest in the well-being of women. It is abominable that women are not receiving adequate funding towards this aim, while men continue to receive funds that could be better spent on women.” To this end, the government announced today, that all spending on male health will cease with immediate effect, with all funding re-allocated to female health.
Spending on female health would receive a further boost with the diversion of funding currently used to reduce workplace deaths, suicides and homelessness. Women’s groups celebrated this, stating that: “as women are barely affected by these other issues, it is only right that the money should instead go into female health where it would save women’s lives.”

The Pension Reform Act

Women sure have it rough.
Women’ groups were delighted today as the government reversed their decision to bring women’s retirement age into line with the age for men: “This shows that government is finally listening to the needs of women who suffer discrimination at every turn.”
Instead of equalizing the retirement age at 67 for both sexes, men, who have worked until 65 years of age, will now be required to work until age 75 to make up the shortfall in taxation for funding women’s health, whilst women stay at their current retirement age of 60. With men’s life expectancy currently being 76 years, women’s groups were quick to point out that men retiring at age 75 still afforded the average man “the luxury of a full year of retirement to enjoy with their families.
What more could a man want?”
A spokeswoman for women’s advocate group ‘Women have it Rough: Always Have and Always Will’ said: “Whilst it’s true that men have for the last 70 years, worked until age 65 whilst women have retired at age 60; and whilst it’s true that disproportionate spending on women’s health means that women live longer and therefore have a long retirement, whereas men die soon after retirement; and whilst it’s also true that it is mainly men who contribute the bulk of money to pay for retirement benefits that only women live to enjoy, the fact remains that women should be getting a better deal.”
The women’s group ‘Women, Women and Only Women’ added:“The fact that women are female must be of overriding significance to any civilized society. Women deserve more.”
Men’s groups said that they would much prefer that men didn’t have to work right up to the average age of male death in order to fund women’s retirement. However, they accepted that it’s a man’s duty to do whatever he can for women, particularly because “women have it so bad in our society.”
In a rare show of solidarity with men, women’s groups fully agreed.
I’ll keep you posted on further developments.

Recommended Content

Skip to toolbar