|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are giving women the idea that husbands and children are disposable products in our society. It's brought in terms of "choice". But her choices limit everyone elses. When, during a divorce trial the mother claims "best interest of the child" and then after getting custody she does whatever she choses as HER best choice it wrong. We should have it so that after she puts up the "best interest of the child" argument than she must act that way. Denying visitation is child abuse, poisoning her child's mind against the father is child abuse, moving away can be too. I hear the wrongs about taking the child away from the mother like this:
"we can't move the child from their environment" or "we have to have stability for the child, that's why we can't remove the child from the mother". Ok, if that is the case then it goes the whole way. Neither can a mother remove the child from the father's influence. Neither can a mother defy a court order for visitation. Neither can a mother yank a child out of school and move away since the "best interests of the child" are at stake. We need to make it so that the "best interests of the child" have some common logic and theme. Not whatever the mother wants to define it as.
And this is on point for this post: leaving a child like garbage to know a substandard of living, emotional agony when the child comes of age to ask 'where is mom-how did I get left?', and acting like a mother's responsibility ends whenever the hell she chooses is NOT NOT NOT in the "best interests of the child". One standard. One set of rules that are irrovocable. No moral relativism or self justification based on selfish wants.
The law was created to serve people, not cater to children in adult bodes who want to forgo their responsibilities at whim but DEMAND culpability from others as the mood strikes.
ONE PHRASE: "BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD"
I posted this from a previous article also, but it applies.
Peace
L. Steven Beene II
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is Davis such a self hating misandric asshole? Unfortunately this is a trait in many men in power positions who could do much good for the men's movement.
"""""""Denying visitation is child abuse, poisoning her child's mind against the father is child abuse, moving away can be too"""""""""""
Also, not spending every penny of the extorted child support only on the child. No using it to support mommy's beer and cigarette habit. This is child abuse of the worst sort and should be punishable by imprisonment. But if there was a verifiable system of accountability this would not be a problem and would take away the incentive to get rid of dad and get a tax free check every month just like clockwork thus lowering the divorce and illegitimacy rate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Luek points out something I glossed over. About 5 years ago there was (maybe still is, correct me if I am wrong) a show called "COCHORAN and GRACE". It was on Court-TV and was a point-counter point show - commentary show on legal issues. At one point the "dead beat dads" issue came up. On the show was a women's advocate and a man who was representing fathers. An interesting part of the debate came up. The Men's advocate mentioned how there was NO accountability in the "child support" issue. The woman's advocate jumped on him (as did the female host - a former prosecuter) and asked him if every time a woman went to McDonalds should she be forced to "write a check for a happy meal" to which he had a simple but really good reply: (pardon the paraphrasing) "well, Grace, YOU have an expense account don't you? So, let's give moms 10% as a slush fund, but make the REST accountable in receipts ... for accountability". Man o Man did THAT set off the two women. Now the WHACKED part was that Johnny Cochoron (the male host) for ONCE had NOTHING to say (smart Johnny). But the "fair and impartial" host Grace and the "women's advocate" ate him up. Not on specifics, just attacked him. I think it said a lot. I mean, his idea was, IMHO, fair, and they had no LOGICAL response, but attacked him for SAYING it. It was a remarkable glimpse into certain areas that divorced moms are afraid to have light put upon.
The money given FOR children should be a)based on verifiable need b) accounted for c) given back if not used ON the children d) put into an UNTOUCHABLE trust if not given back nor spent on the child and e) when fraud is found the same punishments exacted on OTHER CRIMINALS should be applied to the custodial parents who misuse the funds.
Good point in catching what I missed Luek
Oh, and in that show I mentioned: the father (he was a rich dude) was paying $10,000 a MONTH in *cough* child support *cough* (read mom's spending account/extra alimony). The men's advocate asked (and got attacked for asking) "gee, that must be a hell of a nice BIKE you buy your son ... EVERY month."
Again, this is a subject that gets shouted down and IGNORED by Gender Feminist writers/activists ...
Geeeee, wonder why?
(thanks for the idea Luek)
Peace
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is another reason why I will not be recycling my DNA into the machine. I cannot stand the idea of being played like this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Also, not spending every penny of the extorted child support only on the child. No using it to support mommy's beer and cigarette habit. This is child abuse of the worst sort and should be punishable by imprisonment. But if there was a >verifiable system of accountability this would >not be a problem and would take away the >incentive to get rid of dad and get a tax free >check every month just like clockwork thus >lowering the divorce and illegitimacy rate.
Here I'll just throw in a comment from my boyfriend:
A woman can at any time up to and after birth decide to give up a child. A man cannot. A man who is not seeing or helping raise his child should not be obliged to pay for it - a parent is expected to raise a child, not an ATM with legs.
Yi, we all think men who start raising a kid and then back out for whatever reason are bad. Yup, wrong and bad. was probably an domestically abused male, though, come to think about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good points LSBeene,
The antimale crowd has so abused and perverted the phrase “best interest of the child” that huge blocks of our population (including most judges) use it as a euphemism for “whatever a mother wants”. Many just don’t believe there’s a difference.
It’s the perfect feminist issue – it allows a woman permission to practice total self-absorption while treating others like dirt, and still feel sanctimonious about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let me get this straight. What Glenn wants is the right of divorced spouses to control the career plans of the other? So does this mean if I have custody of a child, and I get a job in another state, that my ex-wife can prevent me from taking that job and moving?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep. The kids have a right to both parents. You cannot cut the other parent out of the kid's lives because it is convenient to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IO would submit that you might (perhaps should) have the choice to give up custody, but otherwise, it's your KIDS that are dictating your career plans, since you decided to become a father prior to changing jobs, NOT your ex-wife.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 29, @04:50PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
What Glenn advocates would not mean your ex wife can prevent you from moving. It would mean she can prevent you from moving *and* taking the kids with you unless *you* first show that it would not harm the kids to do so. Existing law in CA says the opposite. The Burgess case and this new California law allow the non-custodial parent to move away with the kids without having to show anything, and the burden is on the non-custodial parent to show that moving the kids away would harm them. By the time that happens it's often too late even that can show that it's harmful - the custodial parent has moved and the courts are reluctant at that point to find harm or change the situation. Instead there should be a rebuttable presumption that moving the kids away from the other parent is, *per se*, harmful to the kids and that in order to do so one must first show the court that it won't harm the kids - and a custodial parent who moves the kids away without a court order should automatically lose custody because they've proven that they discourage frequent contact with both parents. This would discourage the rampant move-aways that are often done only to distance the child from the non-custodial parent - in most cases distancing kids from their fathers. Glenn is right on.
Men in California need to STOP MARRYING, or at least get a solid prenup with both sides represented. That's the bottom line.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TLE,
I have to agree with the above posters. If we men are REALLY saying that the best interests of the child are being ignored by the current thinking in the courts and by women, then we MUST lead the way in our own actions. If you get a job offer that is 1000 miles away for double your pay and YOU are the custodial dad parent then you have to make some choices. In my opinion if the financial rewards are so great that it allows you more choices and opportunities for yourself and your family then the child should be allowed to stay with the parent who is NOT uprooting the child. We men must guard against doing the same thing we villainize mothers from doing when they move away from dads and still demand payment. A child in your custody is a life long journey and a ton of commitment. I think I will get counter views to my post : Ok, I welcome them and will look with an open mind.
To All:
Peace
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 29, @08:41PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
As a result of having the privilege of hearing Warren Farrell speak on several occasions recently, I recall something he said, "Kids do best when both parents are actively in their lives, and where there is no bad mouthing of either parent against the other."
Kids don't come with instructions, and they are a responsibility that requires sacrifice on the part of both parents. If the parents decide to separate from each other, Oh well, but the best interest of the kids really does require the participation of both parents in their upbringing.
I don't have any kids, but I have had pets and can appreciate how much more difficult the responsibility of having children must be for parents.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, often we men concentrate on one or the other due to our feeling of denial of fairness, but Ray hits the nail on the head with his post.
Peace
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
