Laws of the Near Future
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 more usually takes place upon the future 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 their husband’s 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 $4999 (specially reduced from $5000) and an unlimited line of credit at fashion stores. They said the take up of the offers has been phenomenal. 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.”
The Legal Human Castration Act
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 justmetaphorically and university staff have come out fully in favour 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 enrol.
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 Superbowl 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 Taskforce 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.
The Presumption of Abuse Act
Murder of a husband or boyfriend 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-defence 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 parliament 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 Rape Allegation Act
The burden of proof in rape cases has been officially moved onto the accused man 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. 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 British economy and women’s rights.
When asked, men said that this “didn’t seem right, somehow”, but then again, “itwouldn’t happen” to them and there were more important things in life, such as “the NBA 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 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 the 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 ‘Reddit – should men have rights?’ (also known by the misnomer, ‘Reddit men’s rights’) 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.”
.
