|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As it was reported, in this particular case, I think that we should laud the courts for a good decision.
If this guy really did go back to school only to get out of paying child support, and he was not bothering to pay support in the first place because he simply didn't care, then I think that this was the right decision.
Of course, the danger is that the court's reasoning will be applied in cases in which men are trying to upgrade their education in order to better support themselves and their ex-families. The danger is that some feminist attorney will simply quote "x vs y" to force another father back into a soul-crushing, low-paying job just to keep the money flowing to the ex-wife. It will happen, of course, because those staffing the courts know that pandering to women will never cause trouble, whereas dispensing justice to men is potentially hazardous to their careers.
Just the same, we must be careful not to support men no matter what they do. In this case, we must never forget that there are deadbeat dads out there, even if it's only a fraction of the number claimed by feminist groups. If we support these guys too then we will be seen as partisan and thus irrelevant.
So given the facts as outlined in this article, I think that we should say, "good job" and save our condemnation for the upcoming bad decisions based on this good one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi BusterB, you made some good points. I agree very much with the fact that we need to "be careful not to support men no matter what they do." This is certainly a failure of modern feminism that has caused much harm.
Like you said, in this particular case the father may have been a true "deadbeat dad." But there are some other double standards that exist that I'd like to see eliminated:
- There have been cases where it was argued in court that the NCP pay more support to the CP so that the CP can attend college. It is usually done with the justification that the CP's income will increase, and supposedly lower the NCP's payments (and how often do you think that works as planned?).
- There have been cases where the NCP is forced to pay for the child's college education (in whole or part), and why should we consider this a legal adult's (18-21) right when we don't consider it the NCP's right?
- If the CP is receiving huge sums of money in support, she (!) can stop working and go to college without restriction. She isn't forced to pay extra to the child.
While these factors may not have played a part in this case, I think they need to be addressed in a system that is more fair and consistent.
So note that I'm not arguing with you, but wanted to take this opportunity to bring up these other issues related to the topic.
Thanks,
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with the points you make, Scott.
The courts' treatment of the players in custody cases is enormously inconsistent and harmful, to the non-custodial parent and to society as a whole. They (the courts) justify this by dragging out the tired, "in the child's best interests" argument.
The problem is that the "child's best interests" are rarely the real motivation behind court decisions. If you correlate court decisions with what really would have been better for the children, you find many inconsistencies. If you correlate the decisions instead with what would have been better for the woman, you find almost no inconsistencies. (Shared custody being a perfect example.)
I want to fight for some sort of consistent approach to these difficult family situations without going overboard and always supporting men. The beginning of this, I think, is to expose the sham of "the child's best interests," which is responsible for many of the points you brought up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 02, @06:31PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
BusterB,first off if you're going to call him him a "deadbeat dad" bear in mind that if he is such a deadbeat why are they busting a gut to go after him? after all is a deadbeat worth going after? if you somehow think "Deadbeat Dads" are a problem get a a load of these "Malignant Mom" stats:
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all God`s Children.)
70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)
And get a load of this:
Custodial mothers who receive a support award: 79.6%
Custodial fathers who receive a support award: 29.9%
Non-custodial mothers who totally default on support: 46.9%
Non-custodial fathers who totally default on support: 26.9%
(Data obtained by asking custodial parents)
All the following are for custodial parents-
Single mothers who work less than full time: 66.2%
Single fathers who work less than full time: 10.2%
Single mothers who work more than 44 hours per week: 7.0%
Single fathers who work more than 44 hours per week: 24.5%
Single mothers who receive public assistance: 46.2%
Single fathers who receive public assistance: 20.8%
Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security Policy, Oct. 1991, Authors: Meyer and Garansky -
Much more women than men are deadbeat! and you have a go at him?!do yourself a favour and read The Garbarge Generation and The Case For Father Custody by Daniel Amernus.Use the search engine.Be certain that you read them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everything you say is true, but it doesn't change my point.
The only leg we have to stand on in this debate is that feminists and (up to now) society as a whole cracks down on ex-husbands (fathers) but lets ex-wives get away with anything they want to do (pretty-much). Because of this, we have the moral high ground: we can say that what we're fighting is unfairness; we can say that what we want is gender-blind custody rulings and equitable treatment of the various players.
We can press our case for more custody for men, where sole custody seems the best option. We can press our case for shared custody as the norm. We can press our case for more reasonable treatment of men who are non-custodial parents and who aren't paying for valid reasons. We can fight against the current foaming-at-the-mouth get-dads-at-any-cost attitude amongst feminists and the courts.
However, if we don't "have a go at" the men who really are trying to duck out on their families (and I don't know for sure that this guy is; I'm just going on what's in the article) then we blow away any claim we have to the higher ground. If we simply go around saying, "Men are always right—no matter what," then we become just a bunch more screaming one-interest malcontents in a world full of them. In effect, we join Betty Friedan, Susan French, Catherine MacKinnon, and Andrea Dworkin... same tactics and philosophy, different point of view.
My primary complaint with women—not just feminists any more—is that they take the tack that men's issues can have some attention and resources when every single last women's issue is resolved (oh, and they're making more every day). If we don't criticize men who really are doing bad things, then we become no better than this. We would be written off as flakes, and we would deserve it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 02, @08:45PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
No you are missing the point,the last thing we need is self flagellation! you should be helping those men not shaming them,the worst thing you could do is shame them since you'll be seen as no better those you fight.
If you critizise those deadbeat dads (of which only one in ten fits that stereotype)you're reaffirming stereotypes and doing feminists work for them,I'd go on but I'm out of energy, some other time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without all of the facts of the case, isn't it premature to "have a go" at the individual in the story?
Perhaps there are other constructive alternatives to "having a go at others" that we could pursue, until the law is on our side. This is assuming that I am mistaken that "having a go" at others is not the most constructive thing we can be doing.
We should continue to educate men about the financial and legal risks of starting a family, whether intentionally or not, given the current legal and political state of affairs.
We could also establish a fund for men who would like to go to college but who have been unfairly treated by the child support racket. Assuming that the family courts would not order that this money be funneled into child support, we might think of this as an opportunity to put our money where our mouths are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This has set off some really interesting discussion - thanks to everyone who wrote comments.
It is true that our goals are to help break down negative stereotypes of men, such as the "deadbeat dad" image that the media has latched on to. We should recognize the subtle and not so subtle ways that we can shame ourselves and other men by portraying men as inherently violent or selfish. Likewise, to be reasonable we can't outright deny the existence of *any* violent men, and because the men's movement is just starting to move beyond a grassroots effort, we need to ensure that we are seen by others as sensible people fighting for a just cause.
It's a difficult balance, and I know many people in this cause will use different approaches. I just hope we will always be able to unite in our common goals and push forward as a group, because we need all the effort we can muster together.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the only parent who deserves to be called "dead beat" would be one who initially wanted the child and then changes their mind after the kid is born for some reason, and tries to unilaterally shift the duty of care and responsiblity they signed up for, wholly to the other parent.
I suspect this describes few men either because they were forced into parenthood, or because having become a parent with the reasonable expectation of an equitable relationship, they have had a very different relationship dictated to them by the mother and a court of law. In neither case would they be shirking the responsibilities they had agreed to originally.
If the interests of the child counted for anything the couple wouldn't be allowed to divorce or there would be a stiff penalty for the one who asked for a divorce. When feminists push for divorce and single parenthood there is no interest in what is best for the children. Feminists use children as moral cover. The interests of the child is a shame tactic. Its really about money, not children. But money doesn't act as moral cover.
Is there any other area of law where a judge will completely ignore a contract between two consenting adults and dictate an entirely new contract? Is there any other area where a new law will be applied retroactively to old contracts which were signed long before the new law came into being? The interests of the child is a mantra to justify ignoring basic legal rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, yes, yes! This is exactly where I think we need to apply pressure. The "best interests of the child" is a sham, a cover used by women to get what they want.
If we can expose that sham, then we can bring some sanity back to the "family courts" (they're really family-dismantling courts). However, if we lose perspective and champion all men at any cost, we will be ignored.
Feminism has become the monster that it is by extending a loving hug to any women who ask for their help, even the conniving, self-interested, nasty bitches putting the knee to unsuspecting, innocent men. If we do the same: if we stand behind all men who ask us to, even the scumbags, then we deserve our own "backlash". Yes, we have no idea if the man in this story is walking out on his responsibilities or was roped into something he never wanted. If it's the latter then he deserves our support; if it's the former then he deserves our condemnation.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
