|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:34 PM May 1st, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Many women feel this way because they take it for granted that women gain custody. However, if the numbers were reversed, or even if men and women got custody at the proportion, you would not hear women calling for these stronger measures. As for April, I wish she lost custody of her children and had to go through the same wringer. It would suit her just fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:04 PM May 1st, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
"What if the lawbreaker was made to work for the city, or government, and during their jail sentence, child support was being taken out?"
A man gets sick or hurt and can't do his job, but often he has to pay the same amount of child support even after trying to get it reduced. Given the less than minimum wage pay that government's would pay to an incarcerated Father, under such a program as proposed by April, the incarcerated Father would never be able to catch up, let alone get ahead. He would literally be sentenced to slave labor for the rest of his life. I guess it wouldn't be that different from what exists now.
Ray
April should buy and wear this T-shirt instead of writing articles that are nothing more than a part of government's war on Father's and Men.
(Click) April Would Look Good In This!
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked item(s). All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The scary thing is that such ridiculous proposals cannot really be dismissed as nonsense dreampt up by some high school girl who knows that it will never be applied to her. Indeed, if current child support regulations are any indication of the level of intellectualism that will be employed in the formulation of future laws, we might as well surmise that the more ludicrously draconian a propoal, the more likely it is to make it into law.
I wonder how many women read that OP and thought "wow, what a great idea!" I probably don't want to know.
-hobbes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:33 PM May 1st, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/i071.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:40 PM May 1st, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
"INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE & PEONAGE - a condition of compulsory service or labor performed by one person, against his will, for the benefit of another person due to force, threats, intimidation or other similar means of coercion and compulsion directed against him."
It's good to know that if someone sails into Santa Monica Bay and shanghi's me to work on a fishing vessel that this law can be used against them.
I tend to doubt that any man would get such protection if an ex-wife employs "government as daddy" to shanghi the Father of her child for back child support, when he becomes unemployed or disabled. Debtors prison for Fathers is already the reality in states like Michagan. It is not too far fetched to see "slave labor" as the next logical step for government to take. Trampling men's constitutional rights has never been a problem, when in comes to the furtherance of the radical/gender feminist agenda. Domestic violence law is a whole other area of government fraud commited against Father's and men that further documents government's bias in favor of anything the radical/gender feminists want to do.
What difference does it make what the law says, when the law proves time and time again, that for Fathers and men it has no integrity.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:43 AM May 3rd, 2004 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
"It's good to know that if someone sails into Santa Monica Bay and shanghi's me to work on a fishing vessel that this law can be used against them."
I live in Santa Monica myself; I guess I'll have to keep an eye out.
"What difference does it make what the law says.."
You're right; parchment barriers are worthless; when do we march?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Right women (who's children receive welfare) are being forced to work. And I think that's good.
It is estimated that 80% of welfare costs go for supporting children. Therefore 50% of that sum is paid in default by the mother and 50% is paid in default of the father supporting their child (whether or not parents are "able" to support their kids, thats the truth). Therefore, if they are going to make the mother work, they should also make the father work .... if their child(ren) are receiving government assistance.
For people who's children are not on government assistance, it is still the responsibility of each parent to provide support (and IMO care/raising) of their child.
Whether or not a parent is able to support their child is a separate issue. If they are not able, the government can pay the share of the parent that is not able to pay. That is what welfare should be for ... to help people who cannot support themselves or their children for one reason or another. If the issue is that a parent can't find a job, then I would support the government providing work, education and/or job training so that a parent can meet their obligations to their children.
We should insist that mothers and fathers support their kids. If a parent truly can't work for some reason, then that is what welfare is really for. But unless that is the case, I have no problem with demanding that people take care of their own obligations, particularly to children they created.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:51 PM May 1st, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
"Therefore, if they are going to make the mother work, they should also make the father work .... if their child(ren) are receiving government assistance."
It is the person who is applying for the welfare who should work for it. If Father's have child support obligations and receive welfare they have to pay their obligations, and work under the rules of welfare the same as a Mother who applies for welfare. Why under your proposal for a welfare system should a man have to work for welfare he receives, and welfare the Mother receives, while the Mother only has to work for the welfare she receives?
I'm not much of an expert on welfare. I've always had the good fortune of having a job that met my needs.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The parent who applies for welfare on behalf of the children is already required to work. I'm suggesting that BOTH parents of children receiving welfare benefits should be required to work. Both parents should also be eligible for education and job training programs ... so that they can get jobs to support themselves and their kids.
The vast majority of welfare benefits go to children (80% or more). This is because either one or both parents are not meeting the needs of the child (food, shelter, medical, clothing). If the parents WERE meeting the needs of their children, there would be very little need for welfare to exist. We would only need welfare for mentally and physically disabled people and elderly poor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:36 AM May 2nd, 2004 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
"If Father's have child support obligations and receive welfare they have to pay their obligations, and work under the rules of welfare..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Right women (who's children receive welfare) are being forced to work. And I think that's good.
Unfortunately, they are NOT FORCED to work. So your message starts off faulty already.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is my reply: (let me know what y'all think)
Dear Editor,
I am writing in response to April Caley's Letter to the Editor:
"Make prisoners owing child support work to pay it off"
This article is simplistic and gender biased. Most men do not initiate divorce. And despite what the radical feminists want people to believe, most are not due to any violence. Most divorces are "no-fault" divorces, and are often initiated by women. If a woman wants out of a relationship that is all well and good. But she is almost guaranteed to get the house, much of the money, and, OF COURSE, the children. Nice deal for the person who bailed on a marriage for a reason like "irreconcilable differences".
Then the man is made to pay child support. Most child support laws were written after a long ago debunked "study" came out and found that women did poorly, financially, after divorce. The "study" was shown to be a fraud, but the guidelines are based on that study.
If it takes 2 people to make it "paycheck to paycheck" (and maintain a "lifestyle) during the marriage, then why does anyone in their right mind assume that the father can now support his former spouse and kids in their former lifestyle AND live like a king. It's nonsense.
Most states receive matching funds for child support collected, and don't want to lose the revenue. The states have a financial incentive to have artificially high "child support". And the laws for men who fall behind are draconian. In Michigan if the man falls behind by 1 year and over $2000, he is most likely sent to jail. While in jail he continues to fall further behind AND accrue interest.
But if mom blocks the visitation then dad, who is already paying "mommy support" must hire a lawyer and fight it out in a family court system that is heavily influenced by the feminist agenda.
And let's not forget what April simplistically forgets:
1) Child support is often based in "imputed income". That is where the judge bases on what the father is "supposed to be able to make", rather than what he DOES make.
2) In our more fluid economy people get laid off. People change jobs. They take pay cuts. People get sick. These things happen. But to the Child Support agencies these fathers are now just human wallets who need punishment.
And many times the FEDERAL guidelines make it so the man loses his driver's license and his professional license if he falls behind. How is he supposed to go to work THEN? Again, it was the feminist lobbyists who helped to write these laws.
And April's simplistic and callous words towards fathers are probably tempered by the fact that a law that will almost NEVER be applied to her WILL be applied to men. If April were talking about men of color, or women, there would be an outcry against her insulting and childish writing.
April needs to learn a bit about child support, the law, the family courts, child support collection agencies, and a whole wide range of LIFE before she spouts off more nonsense.
Most fathers, the VAST MAJORITY, pay their child support. Maybe April needs to do some RESEARCH before she suggests more foolishness. She could have written a letter about mothers who don't allow visitation. Maybe one about mothers who fill their children's hearts with contempt or hatred for the father, and how if he contradicts her teaching hate he may not be allowed to visit the children. Or mothers who move away and don't let the fathers see their kids (oh, and April, notice those moms left THEIR jobs with no fear of PRISON)?
I think it's a shame that you published April's letter without doing some fact checking, asking her to be a bit more balanced, or asking her to contact EVEN ONE father's rights groups to see what issues men and fathers face.
In case April, mistakenly, thinks this is "all about the money", let me clue her in. In the U.K. there is a group called Father's 4 Justice. They have almost the brought the country to a standstill because they are blocked visitation of their children by the mothers. Yes, the "child support" is an issue, but these men are risking jail (and many have GONE to jail) for the simple reason, often overlooked by feminists and, apparently, by April, that fathers love their children too.
Also, maybe April should do some research on a few facts:
1) There is NO guideline on how the "child support" is spent. NONE. Not one dime is accounted for.
2) In 1999 the ABB (American Blood Bank)
issued a report that showed that 29.7% of men tested for paternity were NOT the fathers. But many states not only don't prevent Paternity Fraud, but also have had feminist groups help write legislation to PROTECT the person who commits the fraud.
3) Single family homes (headed by mothers) where the father is not present, or not allowed to be present, have the highest rates of teen suicide drug use, teen pregnancy, and drop out rates. Maybe April could channel her writing on some of that.
Men who WILLFULLY do not pay child support are disgracing the vast majority of men who ARE paying. But maybe April should wake up and smell the political realities that bashing dads is sport for feminists who often hand out false data.
Fathers are not initiating the divorces, are often denied SEEING their children, and are not human wallets with no rights.
April's "suggestion" should be looked at in the light that making men into state sponsored slaves is not a very fair proposition coming from a gender who will likely never face it. And one wonders who she thinks will FUND this effort? As the men will be paid by the state, it comes from taxes. So, now the father has a destroyed resume, can't get out of the perpetual debt of this system, and yet somehow must earn his FREEDOM. But people like April most likely don't have to face this. It must be nice. There is a time honored word for a situation where one group makes the laws that will almost never be applied to them, but which are applied to another group: It's called Tyranny.
L Steven Beene II
P.S. If April would like to reply to my letter that would be happily accepted.
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great letter Steven, but how much of the letter do you think will actually be published? There are some rags that ask you to keep it between 50-100 words. You know, a bumper sticker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this case, I don't care. I was mostly hoping that I was trying to show the paper what THEY didn't publish by saying it to April. On the bottom of the page I left the site addresses for Men's Activsm, Hisside, iFeminists, and NCFM to let them know I am a member of all of them (I am joining NCFM this month - full disclosure)
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Men who WILLFULLY do not pay child support are disgracing the vast majority of men who ARE paying. "
By no means, they are heroes, citing Amneus:
This is a war partly fought and lost on the battlefield of fahter`s own mind: he imagined himself to be doing a good thing in paying for the wrecking of his family, much as Indian wives once regarded suttee as meritorious: it was an honor to immolate themselves on the funeral pyres of their dead husbands. The custom ended when the wives woke up to the silliness of what they were doing. When will the fatherīs of America wake up and put a stop to the silliness of paying their ex-wives to drag their children into the female kinship system?
Half of all children born in the past decade will spend some portion of their childhood in a single-parent household. Child support--the financial contribution required by law from the parent who does not live with the children--is the key to their financial security.26
It's a poor key. "The parent who does not live with the children" is de-motivated to be a provider for them once they are taken from him. How obvious. Less obvious is the truth that the parent who does not live with the children ought not to be a provider for them. His consenting to be is a primary reason for the ongoing destruction of the family and the return to matriarchy.
Amen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:25 AM May 2nd, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
This is indeed involuntary servitude. And right now there's a bill in CA that would take this further and allow a judge to order a parent to go to a "vocational evaluator" to determine how much that parent *can* earn, and then the judge can (which they already can do) "impute" income on that parent. They do it all the time anyway, almost always to fathers. But this new law will make it far worse. We are going to oppose it, but of course the feminists are behind it. It is totally outrageous. Though it's probably been tried, we'll look into the possibility of a constitutional challenge.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm fine with the proposal, but fair is fair. Any woman who lies about a child's paternity should also be forced to work it off. Personally, I'm content with the government forcing her to sell a kidney to pay off the money she stole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:18 PM May 2nd, 2004 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Hope about giving men the right to have a "legal abortion" for child support obligations? It's gross that men can be forced into involuntary servitude just because he had sex, and she didn't choose choose choose choose.... It's amazing how far the criminalization of male sexuality is going. I think there's a strong case for the Surgeon General's decision to teach about masturbation. At least it's a better alternative for men that gov't imposed slavery for having sex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with child support is that not enough women are obligated to pay it. Since women are so condescending of those men who don't or can't pay I say they would be much better at it than most men. One of the objectives of the Men's Movement should be parity in child support and custody. There is no real reason for having the absurd ratio of women getting child support and custody 90+ per cent of the time! It is asinine to say that 90+ per cent of fathers are incapable of raising their children on their on. And it is equally moronic to believe that 90+ per cent of women are capable of raising children.
If at least 50% of divorced women with children paid child support to the custodial parent, the father then there would be no child support problem.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
