|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could it be that the Post is trying to make amends (considering what has been printed in recent weeks)?
You need your beets -- you recycle, recycle!
Don't eat your beets -- recycle, recycle!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could it be that the Post is trying to make amends (considering what has been printed in recent weeks)?
It's possible. The story of Judy Mann made it into the Mens News Daily web site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's time we focus on the men as well as the women.
This says it in a nutshell. A major media outlet would have been far less likely to make such a statement even just five years ago. It should now be clear to all that the egalitarian movement is having an impact. Despite the continuing efforts of gender feminists, the future looks brighter by the day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I must say that starting with a "We must help men so that men may help women" article such as this is in itself a start. When we see the first "We must help men becasue that is the only moral thing to do" article we will really start the long and slow process of changing society into one which is fair to all.
Greg
the Volksgaren Project: Intelligent Abuse Recovery, http://clix.to/support/, jaxom@amtelecom.net, 519-773-9644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, it should be we should help all needy people so that they can help themselves and their children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's what I thought the article was saying. I didn't get the impression it said, "Let's get these guys jobs so they can hand over all their money to their girlfriends."
The only part that could even remotely be interpreted this way is this passage:
"While the determinants of marriage are poorly understood by researchers, it is hard to believe young women are going to settle down with unemployed men who have no prospects."
That sounds nasty, but you know what? At this point, I relate to it. I'm currently the sole breadwinner in our household, supporting my partner and myself. Eventually he's going to have to find a job, not because I'm being a bitch but because I will not be able to keep paying the bills on my salary alone indefinitely. If we're still depending on my salary six months from now, we're going to end up in foreclosure. I don't even know how the hell I'm going to pay the mortgage this month.
I don't know who in the world all these people are who live large on one income. I really don't. I don't know anyone, not even ONE couple, where the husband works and the wife jerks off all day. Everyone I know works, usually lots of hours at a job some of them hate so much part of them hopes they'll drop dead just so they'll never have to go back to that awful place again.
Being as only 10% of the population earns at least $75,000/yearly, anyone who takes on an unemployed partner, not someone who is out of work temporarily but someone who just wants to sit at home and drink/jerk off/watch TV all day, has got to be a sadist. Perhaps other people don't mind living hand-to-mouth, paycheck to paycheck, never able even to pay the utilities on time. I hate living this way, my partner hates living this way, and the only way we'll ever get out of it is if both of us work full-time.
Most of the men spoken of in this article have got to hate living this way too. Providing them not with welfare but with the tools to achieve self-sufficiency isn't just benefitting their girlfriends or kids, if they have kids. It's benefitting the men themselves more than anyone. Instead of living in a one-room shack with bullet holes in the walls and eating Ramen noodles every night for dinner, decent jobs mean they can live in clean apartments in decent neighborhoods, and actually have enough to buy food and pay the bills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I also agree that it's unreasonable to expect a guy making $200/week to pay $100/week or more in child support. Furthermore child support arrears should qualify for liquidation in bankruptcy proceedings. If someone only earns $15,000/year, they'll never catch up with arrears of $10,000.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I sympathize Claire. Both my wife and I are starting businesses as we speak, (I a charity and her a daycare). Money is beyond tight...
However, the problem of seeing a moral issue as a moral issue must still be central to this debate. Few, if any, see fairness towards males as anything other than an excuse to pass money to females. Remember the only reason we dads-with-custody got any child support at all is because a few of us had daughters... It is unfortunate, but the reality is the public do not see males as "real" humans and therefore cannot see the question as one of morality.
Until we can move into a place where morality is SEEN -in regard to males- we cannot start the very long process of dealing with any form of discrimination at its root: And that means getting to the roots for all people.
Greg
the Volksgaren Project: Intelligent Abuse Recovery, http://clix.to/support/, jaxom@amtelecom.net, 519-773-9644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Claire4Liberty,
You deserve a huge amount of credit for the responsibility that you are taking on in your family, as well for being at the same time an outstanding contributor on mensactivism.org I hope that finances work out for you and your partner. Money isn't everything, but I know that being poor is no fun.
But you should recognize that high-earning men in the past have frequently married women who are unemployed or have low earning potential. I think that's a good thing, because it helps to equalize living standards and reduce poverty. The point is not that people should be stupid or imprudent by marrying themselves into a bad financial situtation. The point is that family policy should encourage rich persons to marry poor persons. Instead, trends in alimony and marital property law go the other way, and encourage the rich to minimize risk by marrying within the rich.
We should also recognize that men are much more likely to be judged on their ability to earn money than women. This is demeaning to men and inconsistent with the growth in women's opportunities to earn money. High-income women should not ignore a man just because he can't earn a lot of money. Maybe he has much more important things to offer.
Like his appreciation for his value and dignity as a male human being, which means that he won't act like a donkey, a monkey, or a stone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a great article. The author makes some compelling suggestions that I think should be heeded, especially in the area of education and job skills development. Part of the problem in education has been IMO a focus on non-skilled academic expectations of all students... to enter college. Clearly this is not the path for everyone and this emphasis is bound to turn some kids off to education and staying in school.
One thing that I think the article fails to mention that is a crucial point in my mind. Welfare to kids is a subsidy to both parents, not just the CP. We should make this clear in our policy that welfare has NOT been going to just women when it is targeted for children. It goes to the kids to offset any deficits of financial support provided by both parents. I'd like this distinction to be clearly made in print.
That said, I think woman have gotten the lion's share of job training, education, health care etc welfare (beyond direct child support/food/rent subsidies). Some of that makes sense if they are actually the CP. You can't take care of your kids if you yourself are uneducated, lacking job skills, or in poor health. However, it has been IMO a sort of backward, self-fullfilling prophecy to fail to provide the same services for fathers. In order to be a supporting father one needs basic education, job skills and health care. We have neglected this area for too long.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
