|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Dave K on 02:34 PM October 29th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Well it's perfectly logical. The government has replaced the role of men in the lives of many American families, so they have to rationalize that replacement.
Rationalizing follows two concurrent paths, the first is to establish that the social role men play in their childrens lives is not important. Thus you see advocacy research (often government funded) that 'proves' men are not needed in the family. And that... as they say... takes care of that little problem.
The one thing that men provide that the government can't poorly research away is funds. SO, the other path they must follow to tie it up neatly is the extrication of funds from men into their control so they can fulfill the only role they believe men need to perform. Obviously daddy government doesn't make enough money to pay for his millions of families, so he needs to get it from somewhere else... and when it comes right down to it, it really doesn't matter WHERE.
The singleminded pursuit of needed funds will insure that any action the government takes with regards to child support will be directed at increasing collections... all else is unimportant.
NOW, this brings up an interesting avenue of protest should our movement grow to include a significant portion of the child support paying population. The debtors prison that our government is setting up is different from the classical type in one critical area... it's ENORMOUSLY expensive. If even a small fraction of men protested themselves into debtors prison, the government would quickly be losing far more money than they could EVER take in with their draconian pursuit of funds. It would be fascinating to see their response to such an underhanded attack as nonviolent refusal to comply.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:58 AM October 30th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm curious, since I'm only 29 years old how have I been sowing for centuries?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:26 AM October 30th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Near as I can ascertain, according to the superior "womyn', it in a boiled downed simple sense, is because of the gol'durned "Patriarchy".
It dosen't matter how well you argue perfectly valid points to the likes of feminists such as that troll; they simply don't want to see reason, or sheer common sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 11:55 AM October 31st, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Oh do shut up.
Maybe we need to start a room where troll and flamebait can get together and abuse each other. They seem made for each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:57 AM October 30th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, this site is going the way of the old Shethinks.org message board.
Too bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:13 PM October 30th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:14 PM October 30th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
