|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 05, @12:32AM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
This is a Trojan Horse. Read this part of the citation:
"... The goal is to increase child support collections, ..."
You need go no further in the article. This says it all.
Let me be real clear on this matter: the whole point of marriage is to get men paying women for sex on a contract, full-time basis [as opposed to just on a per-incident basis, something that is illegal in 49 states and most of the one remaining (Nevada)]. Should the marriage "fail", the man is left paying for services not rendered (we'll assume he isn't sleeping with his ex-wife anymore) and for the state-sponsored abuse of his rights to be a father to his children. The gov't/legal industry simply stands to make too much money off of marriage (i.e.: divorce, C/S payment cuts, etc.) to stand by and watch as it quite rightfully disappears in the flames of its own malfeasance towards men.
Make no mistake: With a 30% chance [do the math, men: 50% divorce rate, 70-80% of divorces initiated by women, women get the kids 95+% of the time: .5 x .7[/.75/.8] x .95 = .3, or 30%] your wife will leave you and get the kids, for which you will be paying "child support", which is in fact what I call "the ex-wife's candy money," a man would be insane to get married and have kids these days.
Don't buy the gov't's money-grubbing propaganda. Stay single, if you are, and if married, watch your back!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTW, this was not (intended to be) an "anonymous post". I posted it. So there. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand the sentiment but I disagree. Marriage is the basis for a stable environment within which children can be born and raised. As a friend of mine once crassly put it... "Marriage is for having babies".
Marriage was intended to provide the religously binding force that would keep a man and a woman together... becuase this is the OPTIMUM situation for creating children successfully. Without children, neither men or women would choose such a risky path I think. Why legally bind yourself to someone you barely know? It 'shore 'aint for sex!
There's nothing wrong with the idea of marriage, except when the gubberment gets involved. The problem goes back to the idea of rights and responsibilities IMO. The day's fast coming when men will demand the rights to go along with the responsibilities that we have. "I'm paying for the support of this child... well then I get EVERY weekend. You want some weekends?, well then YOU start paying the same amount I'm paying. OH... you don't have a job? Well that TOO DAMN BAD."
If we took away the GREAT advantage women have in divorce (especially the virtually guaranteed custody and income without responsibilities), we'd see a LOT less divorces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marriage was intended to provide the religously binding force that would keep a man and a woman together... becuase this is the OPTIMUM situation for creating children successfully.
So, you're saying that same-sex couples can't raise children effectively? I'm not sure that's true. I think that we have to be careful that in our zeal to protect fathers' rights and to promote the fact that men can be loving and nurturing caregivers that we don't end up limiting the rights of gay men (and women) to have lifelong committed relationships (marriages) and raise children.
I do think that it's important to have both male and female role models in a child's life, so that they are exposed to different modes of gender, but those role models can be outside the partnership (brothers, uncles, friends, etc.).
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think gay and lesbian marriages (or legal bindings) can and do provide great environments for raising children, but I think it requires more consious effort on their part to insure that good male and female role models are provided for their kids. I do believe a heterosexual marriage is optimum (statistically)... but a loving stable family of any type is more important than sexual orientation. JMO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Got it. I appreciate the clarification.
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 06, @01:53PM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
I concur. I support Rebuttal Presumption of Joint Physical Custody, and I'm not talking about weekends. I'm talking real shared 50-50 parenting down the line .... homework at nights, soccer games, school plays, trips to the doctor's office etc., in addition to sharing the financial costs.
If we had that, I agree, there would be fewer divorces because the amount of time and planning involved to pull off true 50-50 you might as well stay married, or live next door to each other at least. Neither parent could move to another city/state/country etc. if it was too far to facilitate 50-50 parenting, unless the two agree to the terms of a non equal split, the default would be strictly 50-50.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with the orginal post. I would add the following. Historically,marriage was intended to operate under the conditions in which the male dominated and controlled the female and obtained economic benefits from the same. The anti-thesis is now the case,as the original poster clearly and effectively argued, with the logical result that marriage in North American society is now a very destructive force both to males and to society in general. I will not address religious arguments with regard to this issue.
C.V. Compton Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 31, @10:48AM EST (#77)
|
|
|
|
|
I find these comments to be ignorant, and encourage each of these respondents to allow wisdom and truth to be your guide.
The ugly truth you need to come to grips with, is that you should not have sex until you have intellect and the maturity of a responsible adult.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 05, @08:48PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't want to pay child support, don't have children.
Marriage is irrelevant to child support. Children deserve the support and care of both parents whether or not the parents are married. Therefore, if you don't want to support children, don't have any.
Also, no one is putting a gun to men's heads forcing them to marry or have children in or out of wedlock. It's entirely optional. Supporting your offspring is not optional.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, that's why I support manditory forced employment for all divorced mothers and fathers (they should be jailed if they fail to comply). Support payments should be equally levied against both parents and the government should decide what level those payments should be at and how best to spend the received money (in the childs best interest of course). All parents who ARE jailed should be force to work in jail until they are reformed into learning how to properly provide for their children (based on what the government feels is "proper", because they know best).
If a woman didn't want to be forced to be away from her children 50-60 hours a week and see much of her take-home pay go to someone else she shouldn't have had children.
I think maybe the government should start an office to oversee licensing and registering "divorced childcare providers". Then they can take the kids and place them with a qualified individual since both parents will have to work long hours to provide properly for their children. Yes... that would be best... because if a person didn't want to pay for their children, they shouldn't have had them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 06, @01:40PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
The child will be supported one way or another. I'd prefer the two people who created the child to pay, instead of spreading the cost out to many others who did not create the child.
But either way, I support taking care of children. If I have to pay more taxes to do that, I will, grudingly, while making sure that we call deadbeat parents who weasel out of their responsibilities for THEIR actions Low-life scum deadbeats to their face. No spin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 06, @01:48PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Ooops That was my post above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Going back to the original statment.....
"If you don't want to pay child support, don't have children."
Can you help me out? What precisely do you mean by "pay child support"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 07, @03:35PM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
Going back to the original statment.....
"If you don't want to pay child support, don't have children."
Can you help me out? What precisely do you mean by "pay child support"?
Well, it's very simple, you evil man you. Once a woman has done you the great honor of having sex with you, that should be enough. Thereafter, she has the right to come after you and demand child support from you.
And even if it isn't your child, she's only doing it for the good of *THE CHILD,* so if you were any kind of a man at all you'd just suck it up and pay it. And you're a mean, heartless, child-hating monster if you demand a genetics test, because fatherhood is more than biology, you XY chromosome turd, and you should feel privileged, no, by Jesus, fucking honored, that she chose you to be the father of this child! And she only uses those other guys for sex, so what does it matter to you?
But that doesn't mean you get to interfere with *HER* life and *HER* choices in the raising of *HER* child. You now have to rearrange your life to be convenient to her, because if you inconvenience her in any way, or aren't at her beck and call damn skippy, well then, you're just not helping out at all, and leaving the whole burden on her. And you have no right to complain because *SHE* carried *YOUR CHILD* in *HER* body for *NINE WHOLE MONTHS* and it's the least you can do for her, you pig.
Which brings up another point, which is that you are now responsible to support her, er, your child (yeah, that's the ticket!) because she has to raise *THE CHILD* without any of your help you hopeless male, because you're too lazy and incompetant to do that. Which means she needs a house, and a car, and has to be able to only work part time or not at all, because motherhood is a thankless and unpaid job that nobody appreciates, and WHY ARE YOU COMPLAINING BECAUSE *SHE* carried *YOUR CHILD* in *HER* body for *NINE WHOLE MONTHS* and *NO MAN* can *EVER* know the *PAIN* of childbirth!!!!! You SCUM!!!!
And..and... (SOB) she's just trying to get on with her life after you abandoned her and..and... t-t-t-the BABY and... and... n-n-n-now she's met another man who m-m-m-m-makes her h-h-h-h-h-happy and he wants that baby to call h-h-him d-d-d-daddy, and you've never been there for her because you're so selfich working two jobs to pay her bills and yours, and it's so painful if you come around, and *SHE* carried *YOUR CHILD* in *HER* body for *NINE WHOLE MONTHS* and all you want to do is control her - but don't skip writing that check. Because you owe it. Because you slept with her, and you're not done paying that who---er, woman for that honor and privilege.
That's why. Gee whiz, haven't you been paying attention to a thing here? Read up man! There will be a quiz!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you very interesting reply.
Although it did slightly miss the mark.
I was questioning:-
"If you don't want to pay child support"
and could understand it if put as
"If you don't want to support your child"
Which to me applies to either parent.
Anyways, it seems your right there is much to learn.
Thanks for the help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But either way, I support taking care of children.
Right on! If zero-tolerance child-support policies and massive shaming don't work, we'll go to Dave's proposal. Let's call it Option B.
Totalitarianism "for the sake of the children" is no vice!
You're scary.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forsaking children is what is scary. Go visit some places in the world where this practice is commonplace and get back to me.
PS. I've been to many of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Lorianne!
Que pasa? I haven't heard from you since our fascinating conversation on AB2240. I was so disappointed we were cut short by, well, you not replying. Have you figured out why anyone would want personal service in paternity cases or is it still beyond your capacity for understanding?
Forsaking children is what is scary. Go visit some places in the world where this practice is commonplace and get back to me.
PS. I've been to many of them.
Ah. I presume these were on the same trips where you observed all the industrious women and layabout men. You advised them to institute RJPJC and the fools wouldn't listen. Am I right?
When you can come up with some kind of rationale why your "observations" in largely ethnocentric, pre-industrial cultures have any bearing AT ALL on a world-centric, post-industrial society, then you can get back to me.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I presume these were on the same trips where you observed all the industrious women and layabout men.
Larry, I know that you are being sarcastic about Lorriane's feminist declarations.
I will add that I've traveled a great deal around the world, including to third world countries. The claims that men in these countries are lazy and that women do almost all of the work are as true as the claims that men commit almost 100% of domestic violence in the US. The claims are standard, bald-faced, feminist lies. From what I've seen, men do the majority of the work in these countries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Que pasa? I haven't heard from you since our fascinating conversation on AB2240. I was so disappointed we were cut short by, well, you not replying.
I've always tried to reply Larry. Sorry if I missed one. My mother has been ill and I've been busy lately trying to juggle work and family pressures. I wish I had more time to converse like this online, I've enjoyed many of our discussions.
Have you figured out why anyone would want personal service in paternity cases or is it still beyond your capacity for understanding?
I'm not sure what you mean by "personal service" I lost track of that discussion and that term. I'd be happy to discuss it again sometime I might have to backtrack on where we were.
Ah. I presume these were on the same trips where you observed all the industrious women and layabout men. You advised them to institute RJPJC and the fools wouldn't listen. Am I right?
Again, I'm not sure what you are referring to but I don't think I made those comments about "layabout men". Anyway, I've seen a lot more homeless children, beggars, obviosly destitute and ill chidren in plain view in countries with no social safety net and where marriages are not easily exited.
The premise put forth was that these problems don't exist and welfare is not needed in a fault-divorce context. People marry and stay married and society is more stable with fewer social problems. I do not concur with this from my personal observation of these cultures.
In cultures where divorce is much rarer than in ours I've seen a lot more homeless kids, hungry, ill taken care of, handicapped, relying on begging and stealing for daily survival etc. than in other countries where there is no-fault divorce and there are also social safety nets to take care of kids if a parent can't or won't.
It doesn't necessarily mean desertion. Sometimes a parent dies or is so ill or disabled they can't work. The the other parent, particularly if it's the woman, has much difficulty taking care of the kids because of lack of education, jobs, social standing for women, etc. Children of widowed women are often in the direst circumstances and fully or semi abandoned. Without a social framework that supports people in dire circumstances, I've seen a lot of children suffering (and others too of course). So I don't see evidence supporting instituting hard-to-exit marriage as the panacea for social ills where welfare wouldn't be needed. This is wishful 'utopian' thinking, not critical analysis.
Historically, marriage has been an overall a stabilizing influence on society, but it has by no means ever created a utopia where people and children did not fall through the cracks. The simple facts of OOW procreation, parental death and disability, etc. would negate that premise right off the bat. It just doesn't add up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorriane states here:
I'm not sure what you are referring to but I don't think I made those comments about "layabout men".
Lorriane stated in the thread to which Larry linked:
I've observed the same in Africa in Egypt, Sudan and Uganda. I very rarely saw men "working" there doing farming, construction etc (other than army patrols) at any time of of the day. I saw lots of men sitting about chatting, drinking tea or walking leisurely about. Maybe there were men farmers somewhere but they did a good job of hiding them if there were.
Most of the people working small farms (I'd call them more large gardens) were women and older children, mostly girls. Women were also selling the produce in markets. Older women watch the young children while younger women worked. I saw many pregnant women working outdoors. Even nuns in a convent worked dawn to dusk in the gardens.
In nomadic areas it was the women and young children who I observed tending the animals being shepherds. Young girls also sold melons and nuts in the markets. After about age 12 I didn't see boys working but rather walking around in groups socializing. There didn't seem to be much "working" (in our sense of the word) going on that I observed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've enjoyed many of our discussions.
I haven't.
For me, they have mainly been an experiment to see if Lorianne has even the slightest capacity to see anyone's viewpoint other than her own. I've concluded that she doesn't.
Years ago, in another forum, I met another person with such an impregnable assurance of their own opinions and such blithe contempt for others that they don't even seem to hear.
She would jump into a thread with "Well, I think that..." and state her firm view, often with only a vague idea of the subject and no grasp of the details. Others would engage her, pointing out difficulties or objections. You know.. having a productive conversation. She would reply by basically ignoring whatever points they raised and re-stating her position in slightly different words than the first time, throwing in whatever new opinions the subject made her think of.
Since she paid almost as little attention to what she was actually saying as she paid to others, when someone would point out a particular absurdity of her thought, she was often reduced to replying "I didn't say that" or "I don't recall saying that."
Eventually everyone figured out that she was just there to spout her opinion, that she never gave the slightest thought to what anyone said back to her and that a conversation with her was a waste of time and effort. Eventually everyone ignored her and she wandered away.
I would say "Let's ignore Lorianne," but she does spout sexist bull that is hard to let go unchallenged. I will probably still do that, but I won't bother addressing her. She isn't listening.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Larry, she did come up with the expression "sperm cartel," at least on this forum. Can I join?
In general, though, she isn't listening in any honest sense. She is blinded by her contempt for men. Sad and sickening. And oh, so common.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, well this is not saying men are layabouts this was relating what I saw. I lived there and I was in mostly in the rural areas and small villages. This was what I observed.
There was not a lot going in the first place. Very little capital improments, building, road improvements etc. This is my observation of these areas and from what I saw there was a "subsistence" level of existence and of that I saw mostly women and young children in the manual activities of small farming, small commerce, chores about the house etc. There wasn't much else going on in the villages in the way of work.
In the cities, I didn't see women too much they were out of view except in the marketplaces. The men were very much in view and during the day, I'd say 90% were not engaged in what we would call "work". Unless they were working out of view somewhere. Even in banks and stores etc, most people were sitting around in small groups socializing.
In nomadic areas it was exclusively women and young children caring for the animals and herding them. This is what I saw.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't have contempt for men. I have contempt for inaccuracy and dishonesty.
On this thread we've heard both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your point was clearly that women were working and men were lazing about. You now claim that you said the opposite of what you in fact said. I hope for your sake that you know you are lying. I'd hate to think of how scrambled your brains are if you think you're being consistent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorrianne states I very rarely saw men "working" there doing farming, construction etc (other than army patrols) at any time of of the day. I saw lots of men sitting about chatting, drinking tea or walking leisurely about. She goes on to say, After about age 12 I didn't see boys working but rather walking around in groups socializing.
She also states Most of the people working small farms (I'd call them more large gardens) were women and older children, mostly girls. Women were also selling the produce in markets. Older women watch the young children while younger women worked. I saw many pregnant women working outdoors. Even nuns in a convent worked dawn to dusk in the gardens... In nomadic areas it was the women and young children who I observed tending the animals being shepherds. Young girls also sold melons and nuts in the markets.
Now she claims this is not saying men are layabouts
There is no doubt about it, you truly are a pathological liar. No wonder you are a feminist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK. So maybe now I'm done with this feminist for the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm still here. So it goes.
Something just struck me about the way Lorrianne clearly states something and then, when challenged on it, declares that she never said any such thing. This board recently had a discussion of hate literature (OK, "literature" is a stretch) written by a feminist on a Web site. That feminist would say something, and when challenged on it, would claim that she never said it, even though the record was right there for all to see.
I'll bet they learn this in their women's studies classes, where their lies go unchallenged and always rewarded. Unfortunately for the feminists, when they get out into the real world, there are honest people with whom they have to contend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't want to pay child support, don't have children.
It's not always that easy. There are cases in which a man and woman get pregnant, and while neither wish to abort the pregnancy, the father wishes to put the child up for adoption, while the mother wants to keep the child. Currently, the mother can force the father to pay child support for that child, because she can choose to keep the child.
Thus, while no one wishes to force a woman to carry a child for nine months, we can force a man to financially support that child for eighteen years. That seems to be a problem.
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 06, @01:47PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
The adoption situation you pose is a good one for discussion. I contend there are fair ways to resolve this problem. One is that either parent has the right of veto on adoption. Before adoption can occur, both parents must legally sign off. If not, the one desenting takes custody of the child and the other pays child support.
Or they can decide both to be equal parental partners to the child whether or not they get married.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 06, @10:09AM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, what a simplistic solution you have provided!
The circumstances that lead to childbirth vary. One such case would be an unintentional pregnancy. In this case, it is ONLY THE WOMAN who has any choice. There is no choice for men, only the choice to pay what amounts to alimony for the rest of his life. And yes the government does essentially put a 'gun' to a mans head as men are thrown into jail for non-support for a child they never intended to have.
So, in essence what you are asking of men in your posting is - to not have sex, not - not to 'have' children. The decision to have sex was mutual; the decision to have a child belongs only to the woman.
In my opinion, If a man decides he doesn't want a child and isn't married, the woman can exercise her "freedom of choice' and raise the child on her own at this point, and be accountable for her actions without implicating a man if he does not have a choice in the matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 06, @01:44PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, since I don't advocate abortion or leaving children "fatherless" you're solution doesn't work for me.
Your solution leaves men with ulitmately ZERO responsibility for their sexual behavior.
By the way, men can have vasectomies if they don't want children and don't want to pay child support but still want to have sex. Its a matter of setting your priorities. A man must decide how serious he is about being child-free. If he's serious about it, he'll do something pro-active to make that happen. If not, I contend he wasn't all that serious about being child-free. In which case, the child shouldn't be made to pay for his wishy-washiness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 06, @04:28PM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Then you provide a solution that leaves women accountable for their stewardship of my children. As the situation stands now I would be accountable to a woman for child support and she is accountable to me for jack and shit.
Are we talking about the best interests of the children? Both parents involved? If we are, then men get a vote, and a vote that counts, on where children are educated, their curricula, what extra-curricula programs they participate in, discipline, and free access to them, as in picking them up after school, taking them overnight and being responsible to get them to school, and so on and so forth. If females didn't initiate 70% of the divorces or better in this country there wouldn't be a problem with fathers not being in the home; and if females weren't given knee-jerk custody of the children in over 90% of all cases that would be even less of a problem, so, IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN, what measures to you advocate to as to hold irresponsible women who wish to have their children fatherless (because it's to "inconvenient" or "upsetting" to deal with Dad) but still want that check accountable for insuring that their children aren't fatherless.
Will you support, for instance, a requirement for women to work to insure that they support the kids too?
Will you speak out for mandatory access laws which would make failure to allow visitation as heinous a crime as failure to pay child support?
Will you support criminalization of fraud when women misidentify fathers so as to recieve a higher support check (Father shopping)?
Will you back anti-paternity fraud legistlation?
Are you for or against reversing fraudulently obtained CS judgements?
Will you participate campaigns to bring under scrutiny those courts which show a pattern of gender bias by awarding primary custody disproportionately, and removal of those judges from the bench?
Will you support legislation that will allow a man to recover damages if a frivolous restraining order is placed on him to recieve an advantage in divorce or child custody, and to have that mandated as a black mark in the "against" column when it comes to deciding primary custody?
Will you support presumed joint custody?
Will you support the ciminalization of false abuse charges, whether sexual or physical?
Or are you just wishing a more efficient method of continuing with what amounts to being taxation without representaion against men? IOW, just write the check and shut up, silly male?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I support REAL** shared parenting whether the parents are married or not. In all cases. I support the legal default being joint physical custody in divorce proceedings and also in never-married situations, contingous with support orders (which should also be shared).
** None of this getting the kids on the weekend stuff. And none of this playtime with kids equals homework, laundry, feeding, bathing, daily interaction, doctor's appointments, school involvement, etc. In other words, full hands on involvment.
If having two parents is deemed by our goverment to be in the best interst of children, we can assume that means full involvment by both parents. If that is the case, let's ge on with it already. I just don't see what "marriage" has to do with it. There are married people where both parents aren't involved with the kids. So marriage is no gaurantee. The government programs, instead of pushing marriage, should be pushing parental involvement in children's lives. Marriage just happens to make that more convenient to execute, but is really a side issue to what is claimed is best for children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
None of this getting the kids on the weekend stuff. And none of this playtime with kids equals homework, laundry, feeding, bathing, daily interaction, doctor's appointments, school involvement, etc. In other words, full hands on involvment.
Well, doesn't this just say it all?! What feminists really resent, what they absolutely hate the idea of with a passion that could level mountains, is the idea that children may love their fathers - hence the need to list all these functional activities which women, with their practical, literal mode of thinking, imagine to be equivalent to love. Specifically, they think this list of things that they do obligates the child to love them more than the father. Fact is, Lorianne, to a child those things you dismissively call 'playtime' are as important, or more so, than the list of things that mommy supposedly does. Your view is a mommy's eye view, not a child's eye view - and I thought we were supposed to be centering things around the child, not mothers who resent the love their children may feel for their fathers.
A father's relationship with his children should not be dependent on the mundanities you refer to as 'full hands-on involvement', or on how much of his money if forcibly transferred to the mother. Lists of childcare activities as seen through the eyes of resentful women should not be placed ahead of children's perceptions of their relationships with their parents. It's a sign of just how bad things have got that anyone needs to point these things out. Oh, but of course, if men don't want children they should get vasectomies or not have sex with a woman. That legitimises any and every abuse of his rights that we may want to perpetrate in the name of swelling the state coffers and pandering to the resentments of women. He must pay for what he's done. That's what it really all comes down to: men must pay.
Few men appreciate just how intensely feminists hate them because few men have ever felt that level of hatred themselves. To a feminist, the idea of 'men's rights' doesn't actually make any sense. It's a contradiction in terms. You'd get further trying to explain the workings of the internal combustion engine to a pig than you would trying to explain a men's rights issue to someone suffering from the mental illness that is feminism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, the return of Lorianne, our pheminist shill. And as usual, posting anonymously so she can later do the ol' Bart Simpson "Wasn't me! I didn't do it! Nobody saw me do it! You can't prove anything!" routine. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Let me tell you a story, Uber, so you can see how ingrained it is in the pheminine psyche about men and children.
Many years ago, when my eldest son was still a wee bairn in diapers, my ex-wife and I were planning to go grocery shopping after dinner. She changed the lil' tyke, and went upstairs to put on her face.
The baby began to cry, whereupon my exwife, from two floors away, hollered for me to "Check the baby, he probably needs changed, that's his *I'm wet* cry..."
Yeah, I need to be told that a baby ten feet from me is crying, because I'm a helpless man.
I'm no dummy, and I watched my grandfather get the contents of a afull diaper ruin down his arm one time, so I checked the diaper. Nothing. Still dry. Still empty. I picked up the juice bottle - he pushed it away. Hm, not wet, dirty, or hungry....I picked him up....
*BWAAAAAAAAA-RAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUURRRRRRRP!* and quiet baby. Okay. If I had to burp like that, I guess I'd cry too.
A few minutes later, ex-wife comes down, chatterinmg away about did I "...change him? It's just like this kid to wet his diaper after I change a poopy one....Oh, would you look at that? That's not right! I swear, *YOU MEN* just can't do anything! Really, you're so helpless around children..."
Speaking, of course, about the diaper that she had changed, not 15 or twenty minutes past. I smiled, and I waited until she went to throw the diaper away, because I had emptied the diaper pail after the last change. She looked in, and asked, "Where's the diaper you changed?"
Ah, the rage in her face when I informed her that I had never changed a diaper that evening, that the boy just had to burp.
This is the pheminist mentality; you as a male are always wrong. That's rule one. Rule two, is that when you are right, you refer to rule one. The diaper wasn't wrong for a reason, the diaper was wrong because it had been touched by male hands, and *every schoolgirl knows* that *MEN!* (Flounce of hair) are just so *HELPLESS!*(Exasperated sigh) around BABIES!
Hmmm....homework, laundry, feeding, bathing, daily interaction, doctor's appointments, school involvement. And of course *MEN!* (tm) never do that. Never. Never ever. Um-hmm. Yeah, sure, ya betcha. Never? Sure about that? Oh, so it's not never? So men do do that? So...what's your issue. Ah, but there's not one, it's one of those indefinite perjoratives where it can be IMPLIED that "men never" is the case, but denied if someone calls them on it. Almost clever. Nice try, Lorianne. I've been the primary caregiver for three children. I've done yeoman work on massive school projects, mountains of laundry, prepared and served meal upon meal, bathed, played, homeschooled, kneeled by a hospital bed for hours upon end praying for God to spare my daughter's life and take me instead, and participated in the PTO even in the face of such sexist questions as "What are you doing here? Where's your wife?" So you go right ahead and tell me, Lorianne, that men *NEVER* do these things, and tell me where the FUCK mommy was?
Hmmm?
Never mind, I didn't think so. Oh, and keep track, Lorianne, lest you have your anonymous alter ego claim that the AU "Isn't me." You slipped last time.
Toodles!
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not at all. Raising kids takes love yes. But it also take money and that most important resource of all TIME. I support full on 50-50 joint custody. What is called "joint custody" today is not.
Under RPJPC the default will be 50-50 even split on money, time put into raising kids. If the parents want to arrange a different split, they can, but if a dispute arises and they wind up in court to resolve it, the default kids in.
There is no way to regulate or evaluate love. The courts needn't be involved with the emotional requirments to raise kids, only in the practicle matters, which are two-fold, money and hands-on care (time). This is were 99% of disputes arise. What could be fairer than a 50-50 default?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, the return of Lorianne, our pheminist shill. And as usual, posting anonymously so she can later do the ol' Bart Simpson "Wasn't me! I didn't do it! Nobody saw me do it! You can't prove anything!" routine. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Posting anonymously is not usual for me. I simply made a mistake and did not enter my password. It was an honest mistake, I always (unless I slip up) post with my name. I might add that that is quite unlike the majority of the other posts here which are anonymous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Money and time aren't separate things. Earning money takes time - unless you're on the feminist gravy-train, in which case it takes a shrill voice. It angers me when people talk about men being afraid of parting with their money, as if they just picked it off a tree and didn't have to spend most of their waking hours earning it. And as far as 'child support' goes, money isn't just time, it's stress, anxiety and fear. Mommy won't be thrown in jail, have her driving license taken away and be labelled a deadbeat because she didn't help junior with his long-division. If mommy denies daddy access to the kids the penalty is precisely fuck all, but if daddy misses a cheque he's Public Enemy Number One.
The 50-50 split of time and money is based on what, exactly? How is the time related to the money? However it's sliced, I think that as long as the current brand of manhating Marxist feminism prevails it'll always come down to daddy pays. Nobody's going to check up on whether or not mommy is doing this great long list of things, or whether she's actually sitting junior in a corner and putting her feet up in front of Oprah. Money, however, is represented by numbers in people's bank accounts; it has a known value and can be transferred from one place to another. You can't legislate about what you can't evaluate, so 'child support' is always going to be about how much money we transfer from daddy to mommy, not whether mommy is doing work of equivalent worth, whatever the hell that would mean.
No fair-minded person would say that fathers should be able to abandon their children, but fathers aren't doing that. It's mothers who initiate most divorces, not dads, but it's dads who seem to get most of the blame and who are then expected to 'pay for what they've done'. I don't believe there is any real political will - especially from feminist groups and their supporters - for fathers to have children half the time. All they want from dad is the money part of the equation, so if mommy is giving 100% of the time, daddy has to give 100% of the money, that way it averages out as 50-50. Yeah, right. That's like that joke about the three statisticians out duck hunting. A duck breaks cover. One statistician shoots, and his shot passes a foot above the duck. The second shoots, and his passes a foot below the duck. The third statistician whoops "We got it!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 08, @09:29AM EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
Not at all. Raising kids takes love yes. But it also take money and that most important resource of all TIME. I support full on 50-50 joint custody. What is called "joint custody" today is not.
50-50. High sounding words, but no details. What are the specifics on what you support? Details, please.
Under RPJPC the default will be 50-50 even split on money, time put into raising kids. If the parents want to arrange a different split, they can, but if a dispute arises and they wind up in court to resolve it, the default kids in.
So will there be no support paid? Will both pay equally into a common fund that each of them have to account for with receipts? Or will the male continue to pay the female - excuse me, the PC term is his children but we all know how it really is - and she will have full discretion and no accountability?
There is no way to regulate or evaluate love. The courts needn't be involved with the emotional requirments to raise kids, only in the practicle matters, which are two-fold, money and hands-on care (time). This is were 99% of disputes arise. What could be fairer than a 50-50 default?
You tell us. As of right now, a lion's share of men in such situations work one job to pay support and another to pay their own bills, leaving little time for any "time." And that assumes their ex's don't get wind of the second job and demand a cut of that, too.
You're very big on talking the talk of a child needing both parents. Point blank question, yes or no answer is possible: Do you think a woman who denies a father access to his children, and thus children access to their father, is guilty of child abuse? Yes or no? There's no abuse, no other circumstances, dad and mom are just no longer a couple. Answer the question, if you dare.
Yes, or no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Money and time aren't separate things.
You are absolutely right. Everthing boils down to an investment of TIME as concerns children. It takes time to work to support them and it takes time to care for their physical/emotional/spiritual needs.
However, the Marriage Initiative ostensibly says that two parents are better than one, not only because of financial reasons, but because children are better off with dual parental involvement. I think they premise is sound, however, they are attacking it in a secondary way by saying if the parents are married, kids have a greater chance of having dual parental involvement. This isn't necessarily true whether or not the parents are married.
If dad is off at the salt mines working 10-12 hour days (or work/commute that uses that amount of time) then he's not going to have the face time to invest in his children ... one-on-one. This is the dilemma which the Marriage Initiative doesn't address, except causually by saying that if people are married kids "might" get more interaction with both parents. Its a faulty assumption on many levels.
What I think Bush et.al. should be spending our money on instead of promoting marriage (which is fine but doesn't necessarily promote what it is saying it is promoting) is to spend the money on promoting the idea of how crucially important having two-parents actually REALLY involved in their kids' lives. Not enforement, but PR. They can't force marriage, they can only "promote" it. Likewise, they can't force parents to be involved with their kids lives, but they can PROMOTE it with the money they have appropriated from us for this campaign.
The 50-50 split of time and money is based on what, exactly?
My conception of RPJPC is that it is a default. The parents can actually set up whatever division of financial support and hand-on care they want (just as in marriage). It is only when the parents cannot agree or abide by their own agreements ... then the default 50-50 split would kick in. This gives the parents (both of them) incentive to work out their own aggrements and abide by them and stay out of the courts!
Examples: If we had one parent who had a time-demanding career that he/she loved and didn't want to compromise that by being home 50% of the time doing hands-on care, then he/she would be very motivated to work with the other parent to maintain that arrangement. Likewise, if one parent really wanted to do the majority of hands-on care he/she would be very motivated to work out that arrangement with the other parent and not to have a court tell him/her to get a paying job instead. Since it is highly unlikely that anyone wants a very strick inflexible arrangement with court oversight into how they arrange their lives, BOTH parents would be highly motivated to work out a more flexible workable arrangement themselves and keep the courts out of it. I call it mutual deterrance (deterrance against unreasonable disagreement since either parent has the "club" of going to court and setting off the strict inflexible 50-50 default arrangement).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I described my conception of RPJPC above in another post. Let me know what you think.
Point blank question, yes or no answer is possible: Do you think a woman who denies a father access to his children, and thus children access to their father, is guilty of child abuse?
Easy question. Yes.
I believe kids need both parents both present and actively involved in their lives. Period. I also believe parents who abandon/ignore their kids are guilty of child abuse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 08, @02:11PM EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
Point blank question, yes or no answer is possible: Do you think a woman who denies a father access to his children, and thus children access to their father, is guilty of child abuse?
Easy question. Yes.
Excellent. Then it is no great stretch or leap to say that such women are child abusers, since they are guilty of child abuse..
Next question then: If someone is guilty of child abuse, is it or is it not prima facie evidence that they are an unfit parent; and at the very least should be presumed to be unfit for primary custody?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Next question then: If someone is guilty of child abuse, is it or is it not prima facie evidence that they are an unfit parent; and at the very least should be presumed to be unfit for primary custody?
Quite possibly and this is where our court system is in failure because they don't recognize the harm to a child when parents use them to get back at the other parent. There are all kinds of ways parents do this and, personally I do consider it child abuse. Getting to the bottom of who did what is the crucial issue and that would be very difficult unless you have a court appointed referee in each fueding parent household.
That is why I think the RPJPC proposal would go a long way to strong-arm parents into more reasonable behaviour toward each other with regard to the children. It would pre-emptively combat this problem before it happens in most cases.
Look, let's take the premise that having two parents is the optimum situation for a child (I know this is not true in every case, but let's assume this is the goal). Now logically, all parents aren't always going to get along and divorce will still be a reality. But we still don't have to throw out our initial premise that two parents actively involved in a child's life is the optimum situation. If we start from that premise, then the next task is to devise ways to promote dual parent involvement.
From the child's perspective (and that's what we'er talking about here) he doesn't care WHY his parents are squabbling, who said what to who, who is pissed off about a,b,c .... those are just not relevant from his perspective. He just needs both parents on his side working in his best interst (remember our premise). Therefore, yanking the kid from one parent to another based on who is claimed to have jerked who around ..... is against the premise we've set up for ourselves.
Under RPJPC, the presumption is 50-50 shared. Period. The more you jerk around with the other partner, the more the State gets involved and enforces a very rigid inflexible situation on both parents. My theory is that people are going to try like the dickens to keep that from happening. As long as they know, in advance that the courts will not put up with such BS, they'll behave even if they hate each other's guts.
The plan isn't fully worked out, but if there is evidence of the parents' abusing the kids by turning them against the other parent and other psychological torture, then presto, you've got a social worker coming to visit you every week and evaluating the child for emotional abuse. Doesn't look too good to the neighbors and other family members if you're on probabation for child abuse, even the emotional kind.
The key to me is mutual deterrance. It has to be weighted so that immature parents have nothing to gain and a LOT to lose (including stiff penalties and contempt-of-court imprisonment if it goes too far) by using the kid as a hostage in a vendetta war.
Basically, my idea is to use the courts as the big stick. If people want the government out their lives they'll find a way to get along and care for their kids. Their choice. If not, I'm not opposed to heavy government intervention for immature parents until it gets drilled into parents skulls that the we are really serious about the kids.
Right now all the emphasis is on "parental rights" instead of parental OBLIGATIONS toward their kids. We keep yaking aobut kid's best interests. We keep lip syncing: Kids are better off having two actively involved parents. Maybe one day if we say it enough we'll convince ourselves.
This is getting long, but to tie it back into the topic, I don't think Bush's et. al. Marriage Initiative is properly focussed. Marriage is great and all that but what we're really talking about is a fundemental change in the way we think about parental obligations toward kids, whether their parents are married or not. Until this happens, getting more people married is not going to help kids much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then you provide a solution that leaves women accountable for their stewardship of my children. As the situation stands now I would be accountable to a woman for child support and she is accountable to me for jack and shit
Well, this is why I disagree with the Marriage Initiative because it doesn't emphasize that the accountability to children by their parents is to the CHILD, not to the other parent.
My proposal would be to change the emphasis from marriage to accountability to the child by BOTH parents. In other words, whether married or not, parents owe obligations to the child no matter what. If we made the emphasis on the child, then niether parent owes the other anything. The only obligation of both parents is to the best interests of the child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, If a man decides he doesn't want a child and isn't married, the woman can exercise her "freedom of choice' and raise the child on her own at this point, and be accountable for her actions without implicating a man if he does not have a choice in the matter.
The topic here is the Marriage Initiative as it relates to improving the lives of children. The entire thing is frameworked on the premise that children are better off with TWO parents actively involved in supporting and raising them. What you are proposing is exactly opposite, that the child doesn't need a father, that he is optional.
Either having a father is good for children or it isn't. Pick one. From the child's perspective (and that's what this Marriage Initiative is about) whether his existence was "intentional" or not is irrelevant to him. He needs two parents (remember, that's the working premise behind the Marriage Initiative).
If you're saying the child doesn't need a father and if other men agree with you, then that should be set up as a discussion in counterpoint to the assumptions included in the Marriage Initiative that the Bush administration is proposing. To be in counterpoint, you'd have to set out your rationale that other things are more important than children having two parents actively involved in raising them.
In that case, you and other men who feel as you do can your case that the Marriage Initiative is bunk because the premise that children need a father actively involved in his/her life is bunk pending other matters of greater importance.
Again, look at the premise of the proposal and make your case that the underlying premise vis a vis children is incorrect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 06, @03:37PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
You know what?
Phuck off and die you sanctimonious twit. Penalty flag! Assuming facts not in evidence! 15 yards and loss of down!
Someone pointing out that child support collections will become even more draconian and absent of due process is NOT the same thing as someone wanting no obligations to their children.
I don't want another faceless agency deciding if a man is in arrears even if there is evidence contrary to the fact. I don't want more money going to help ambush non-biological dads into being the ATM for some slut who decides to get a judgement by entering a phoney address, then waiting until after the statute of limitations on that judgement is passed before she moves to enforce it.
And so on and on and on and on and on.....
You, you pheminazi fuckhead, are worse than useless, and a total waste of breathable oxygen. Here's my suggestion that you pull your head out of your ass and read a fucking message - use a gpoddamn dictionary to look up the words over two syllables if you have to - before you commit diarrhea of the keyboard.
Or just go to hell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is indeed unfortunate if we need draconian laws to compel people to take responsibility for their own offspring which THEY created.
The goal should be a society where such laws are not even needed because it would never occur to anyone not abandon their own offspring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 06, @10:32PM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Phuck off Lorianne. Prior to 'no fault' laws, men DID take care of their children. So take your "compel people to take responsibility" accusations and stick them where they fit!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then as now the majority of men (and women) did take care of their offspring. It was never all. It still isnt'.
Plus I've traveled in countries where "fault" divoce is in place and there are plenty of abandoned kids.
Your absolutism crushes your own points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 09, @11:50AM EST (#50)
|
|
|
|
|
It's one thing in nature to live in a hardscrabble world, scavenging and preying on what you can. If living as an animal is good enough for somepeople - well, I do not know what to say. In the animal world, the female of the species is often promiscuous, having offspring by many males, and as a consequence is left to her own devices in the raising of offspring. In species that prectice monagamy, the male is usually present helping to provide food and shelter for his own biological offspring.
Mankind loses a lot of his instinct, but gains intellect. While the urge for monagamy is there, as well as an aversion on the part of the male for supporting non-biological offspring, this can be ovecome by the ego. This isn't a slam dunk. Marriage and family is a social construct whioch fulfills the intellectual need to justify animal instincts, and induces the male to support and care for the female and offspring. Without marriage and family, there can be no rational justification for such support and care.
Sex becomes recreation. Children become prizes, dress up dolls, and tokens in a war over money. Income becomes a result of holding the magic token (the child), or something the government does for you, rather than as a result of work. There's a reason trailer park white trash, welfare mommas, and crack ho's get such scorn. It's deserved. They've flouted a social contract, and a social construct designed to protect them, and are paying the logical consequences, they and their children living in squalor, ignorance, crime - but hey. Their lives are fuller, more enriched, fewer onerous burdens, and much greater opportunities because that nasty ol' male is out of their life.
Nope. They've made the choice to subject their children to a base animal existance.
Let's look at our slums, our inner cities, and other places where fatherhood is epidemic. Gangs. Murder. Drugs. Drive-by shootings. My my. How progressive.
Throw more money at it. More cops. More schools. More laws. Throw more men in jail. We've had forty years of thumbing our nose in scorn at the "Beaver Cleaver" family, dumped trillions down the toilet, and what have we got? It keeps getting worse. Social archiutects cite statistics and do studies, but empiric obsevation shows that all their expertise is so much wind. It's making it worse, not better.
Where don't we find these high rates of crime? In the two parent family, where such behaviours occur over 60% less. Less unwed pregnancy. Less dropouts. Less delinquency, and in those instances where it does occur it is lesser offenses, and has a lower recidivism rate. Two people keep tabs on the kids. And boys have good male role models. And girls too - they aren't taught that males are aliens that show up, make kids, and aren't good for much beyond fucking. Despite how obvious it is, it's flippantly dismissed as "Ozzie and Harriet" thinking.
A son sees his dad working, he sees the value of a job. Dad comes home, he sees the rewards. If they don't, then they hear mom dissing males, and retreat - off to the street corner with the other boys, smoking, drinking, joining gangs, stealing, doing drugs. Gangs provide the defense for them that a father would - if the father wasn't ostracized and alienated from his family.
And arguing that males aren't pushed away is fantasy thinking. Welfare comes - if dad is gone. Put a man in your life, lose that safety net. And men are stupid, can't shop, can't do laundry, can't eat right - jeez what woman wants a grown kid,. We know this. Sitcoms and commercials tell us so. Anmd being a single mom is easy. Watch "The Practice." Watch "Murphy Brown." What a horde of other artificial families scripted on TV that have an easy ride with the single mom. It's called propaganda.
From the National Longitudinal Study of Youth we find that, (With things such as income being the same, as well as other demographic variables) children in mother only families were twice as likely to be in jail as were those in two-parent families. And stepdads don't factor in, either. Nor do bigger welfare checks.
Want to be poor? Drop out. Have children out of wedlock. Have children before the age of 20. Your chances of being poverty stricken for life is a few fractions of a percentage point less than 80%. Do the opposite and it's 8%. One Tenth. Conservative propaganda, you say? The source is Bill Galston. An Arch-Liberal advisor to Ultra-Liberals Slick Willie and Hillary! Clinton.
Two parent families aren't the answer, and you women will hate it. Children from Lesbian homes had similarly abyssmal scores, and yet children from male homsexual households or single father households were nearly as completely at the other end. That's right. It's the prescense of Dad, the biological Dad, which is the answer to many of these sociological ills. Ity's not a panacea, but it's ten times more likely that children will grow up well adjusted, and out of jail, if Dad is around on a daily basis.
Yes, the whining will begin on "Not all! Not all!" - and no, not all. Just ten times more likely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It takes two people, one of each sex, to create a child. I reject your premise that it is only the woman's responsibility to refrain from doing so.
It is this attitude that got us were we are today with unchecked abortion ever increasing levels of fatherlessness.
Go ahead and give your own sex a responsibility pass. I'll throw it up in your Conservative face every time you spout those hypocritical words "personal responsibility". I am a conservative and I'm sick of Conservative exempting men from personal responsibility. They are lying hypocrites without an ounce of integrity. Cowardly intergrity-free weasels is what they are.
The only way we'll ever crawl out of the morass of social decay is when everyone is expected to act responsibly and everyone is held accountable for the consequences of his/her own personal actions. Everyone. No exceptions given.
And by the way, "mother only families" can also be called "father absent families". Depends how you spin it and we all know how your type likes to spin it.
From the child's perspective a parent is either:
1. Present
2. Absent
The premise of the Marriage Initiative is that the child is better off with TWO parents actively involved in his life. But either parent can only provide half that requirement. So, the presence of the present parent, if nothing else, keeps the household from being a No Parent household which if two parents are better than one (the assumption of the Marriage Initiative), we can logically deduce that one parent is better than none. At least I haven't heard anything yet coming from the Bush camp yet to claim that one parent worse than none.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's the prescense of Dad, the biological Dad, which is the answer to many of these sociological ills.Ity's not a panacea, but it's ten times more likely that children will grow up well adjusted, and out of jail, if Dad is around on a daily basis.
I agree. Now, where the hell is he? Why such a fuss over women all the time if its the Dad's who are important. Why are all the programs aimed at women? Why not spend the millions convincing Dads to be present for their kids? How can we convince Dad's to be there on a daily basis?
From the child's perspective a parent is either present or absent or semi-present/semi-absent. I we take your premise to be correct (and I agree that it is) then we know who to pitch the idea to... To men. To fathers. Why aren't we doing it?
Look, if the premise is correct, then why aren't fathers currently encouraged to spend MORE time with their kids? From the child's perspective, if he's not there, he's simply not there. Whether he's working long hours, or away for long stretches (maybe in the military), he's simply not present. (Remember or premise is that his presence is vitally important to the child).
Why then if biological dad's presence is so vitally important to the child, don't we make that a super duper top priority? Why do you have so many men, including many on this website, who advocate the exact opposite, that father's presence and participation is optional based on whether he feels inclined to be involved? Isn't this in exact opposition to yours (and mine and the Bush administration's) beliefs?
Seems like to me, from what I've seen here and other places, there has to be a sea change in men's attitude toward the children they co-create. I'm wondering who is working on this change?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More Pheminist Doublespeak. Honestly, you never tire of the bullshit, do you?
I agree. Now, where the hell is he? Why such a fuss over women all the time if its the Dad's who are important. Why are all the programs aimed at women? Why not spend the millions convincing Dads to be present for their kids? How can we convince Dad's to be there on a daily basis?
Ask mom where the fuck he is. Mom who is intercepting mail, emails, and presents. Who won't let dad talk to the kids. Who comes up with one lame excuse after another why dad can't have the kids on his weekend. Who won't notify him of school functions. Who doesn't do a damn thing but throw obstacle after obstacle in his way.
Where is Dad? Ask Mom. Ask the courts why if dad misses a month of child support it's "Send out the posse" but if Mom won't grant access - in fulfilment of a court order - it's "Get a court order" from the sheriff, and "Have the sheriff enforce this" from the courts, and "Get a court order" from the sheriff, and "Have the sheriff enforce this" from the courts, and "Get a court order" from the sheriff, and "Have the sheriff enforce this" from the courts, and round and round and round.
There's where dad is, and if you'd shut the hell up and listen to men instead of doing the gynocentric "We must correct everyone because we're always right" dance 24-7 you might see.
From the child's perspective a parent is either present or absent or semi-present/semi-absent. I we take your premise to be correct (and I agree that it is) then we know who to pitch the idea to... To men. To fathers. Why aren't we doing it?
Preaching to the choir. Men want to be there. We're already there - we're picketing outsidre of courthouses fucking BEGGING to be allowed in our children's lives. I spent 15 fucking years and spent a almost quarter of a million dollars trying to get court orders enforced to let me see my goddamn kids. This would be one thing, but WE ARE LEGION. I live in a small city. We have a support group here that I helped organize that has almost 50 members. And that doesn't even count the ones we don't reach.
We'd love to persuade women to let us in, but the vast majority of you are so goddamn caught up in your own bitterness that it goes in one ear and out the othjer. So now we want to MAKE you.
Whatta shock.
Look, if the premise is correct, then why aren't fathers currently encouraged to spend MORE time with their kids?
Why indeed? It's politically incorrect to say so, that's why. Scan the stories, and you'll find pheminazi after pheminazi after pheminazi with some softball degree in social work pissing and moaning that men shouldn't - that we get too much, we're brutes, and oppressors...
*GAG*
From the child's perspective, if he's not there, he's simply not there. Whether he's working long hours, or away for long stretches (maybe in the military), he's simply not present. (Remember or premise is that his presence is vitally important to the child).
And since he's being KEPT away? I seem to recall a post from a day or so ago - maybe even this AM where you said this was child abuse, hmm?
The numbers of restraining orders (Mostly Bogus) and men wanting access are out there. Who's keeping them away? Chrissake, you could at least blame courts and pheminut social workers, even if they are only the enablers if it makes you feel better.
Why then if biological dad's presence is so vitally important to the child, don't we make that a super duper top priority?
I'm there. Plain and simple, if you say people aren't, you just haven't been listening.
Why do you have so many men, including many on this website, who advocate the exact opposite, that father's presence and participation is optional based on whether he feels inclined to be involved?
Because the deck is stacked, and the game is rigged, and when it comes to a kid, all we are seen as is being a fucking auxilary bank account for the mother. We won't get to be a part of their life anyway.
But no, we have to write the goddamn check to the bitch who won't let us see or talk to the kid, and go through that heartbreak every week, and die another inch every week. And we're fucking sick of it. If we can't be dad, if it's "taxation without representation" then just for pity's sake let them off the hook so they can forget it, or supress it, and maybe move on.
Isn't this in exact opposition to yours (and mine and the Bush administration's) beliefs?
But not the beliefs of the powers that be. Write the check, and shut the fuck up, male.
Seems like to me, from what I've seen here and other places, there has to be a sea change in men's attitude toward the children they co-create. I'm wondering who is working on this change?
Seems like to me, from what I've seen here and other places, there has to be a sea change in wommen's attitude toward the children they co-create, and the men they co-create them with. I'm wondering who is working on this change?
It sure isn't women.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've already agreed countless times that there needs to be a massive overhaul of the family court system. So far the best proposal that I've seen and elaborated on is RPJPC. I'm sure there are other ideas out there.
Yes, some men (a lot) are being prevented from seeing their kids after a divorce or a breakup. That needs to change a.s.a.p. And yes, I did call that child abuse.
And the other mentality needs to change too. Some men don't want anything to do with their kids and even advocate that they have ZERO obligation of any kind to their living breathing kid. Not money, not anything. Zip, nada. Not even a birthday card. How is this compatible with the notion that kids need two parents? It's not.
Let's review. The hypothesis is that chidren are better off with two parents and society is better off in the long run when children have two parents actively involved in their lives and upbringing. That's the starting hypothesis! Now, we either check out the hypothesis objectively, or throw it out without another thought.
Assume we decide to check it out. Then what do we do? What programs do we institute to bring out two parent involvement in children's lives?
I have a lot of ideas on this subject but none of them coincide with the Whither Dad writer's opinion that children born of unwed procreation deserve whatever they get and that fathers don't owe their offspring a damn thing.
I'd like to see the Marriage Initiatie turned into the Present and Involved Parent Initiative and more focus and research put into how to promote parental involvement (of both parents) so that everyone gets the same message ... having two parents actively involved (whether married or not) is vital to the child's and subsequently society's well being.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What programs indeed... here's a good start IMO:
1) Pregnancy - Women will notify a father within a SHORT time of learning of their pregnancy (2 weeks I would say) or they forfeit any right to child support. The reason for this is so the father can participate in all this wonderful "choice" that prospective mothers have before birth.
2) Abortion - Choice regarding abortion is EQUALLY SHARED. If a woman decides unilaterally to keep or abort the child - she's on her own. If there's a conflict (woman wants to keep, man wants to abort), she can choose to go forward on her own.
Of course, all this conflict wouldn't exist if abortion weren't legal... but that's a whole other can o'worms. As long as women have all the rights... women should have all the responsibilities. The two steps above would resolve 80% of my problem with the current system.
3) So lets say both partners choose to have the child... what then. How about default shared custody, how about laws that are as good at protecting visitation as they are at extracting cash. How about a legal environment that values BOTH partners equally in making decisions regarding the children... but even more... how about a legal environment that encourages partners to resolve issues WITHOUT burdening our judicial system. (I use the term partners because to choose to have a child and raise it is embarking on a long term partnership. If either party looks at this as a conflict, it's going to be a long 20+ years)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1) Pregnancy - Women will notify a father within a SHORT time of learning of their pregnancy (2 weeks I would say) or they forfeit any right to child support.
Although, I agree with the idea of quick notification, I can't sign on to the premise embedded in your statement. The child support is for the child, not the mother. So you are doing nothing more than promoting that children pay for their parents' mistakes and forfeit a parent. I can't agree with this premise, it is the very premise that lead to abortion. Also, as we discussed upthread, the father's obligations toward the child extend beyond $$$$. It is my position that no matter what the parents do, the child's rights remain intact and superceed the parent's rights not to be obligated.
2) Abortion - Choice regarding abortion is EQUALLY SHARED. If a woman decides unilaterally to keep or abort the child - she's on her own. If there's a conflict (woman wants to keep, man wants to abort), she can choose to go forward on her own.
Well I don't agree that abortion should be compelled by either party. However, I do support abortion veto for men. I realize this is not where we are now, but I cannot justify further victimization of children ... basically for being born, based on the fact that the father can't presently choose to terminate him. This puts the child in double jeapardy, lose-lose sitution, whether born or not born, which I can't condone.
Again, the fundemental question that must be resolved first is: What are the rights of the child? Does everyone's rights superceed his? Even after his is born? We simply must address this question before moving forward.
Of course, all this conflict wouldn't exist if abortion weren't legal... but that's a whole other can o'worms.
No, it did exist before abortion. Many children were victimized for being born before abortion was common or legal. In fact they were legally stratified and categorized based on their parents legal standing at the time of their birth.
As long as women have all the rights... women should have all the responsibilities.
Red herring. Women had the ultimate responsibility before abortion was common or legal. At no time in history did women who co-procreated outside of marriage not have the ultimate responsibility, relative to men who co-procreated outside of marriage. That is how we got into the abortion quagmire to begin with.
The two steps above would resolve 80% of my problem with the current system.
They may resolve YOUR problems but they do nothing for child. Which I think was the point of the thread vis a vis the objectives of the Marriage Initiative.
3) So lets say both partners choose to have the child... what then. How about default shared custody, how about laws that are as good at protecting visitation as they are at extracting cash. How about a legal environment that values BOTH partners equally in making decisions regarding the children... but even more... how about a legal environment that encourages partners to resolve issues WITHOUT burdening our judicial system. (I use the term partners because to choose to have a child and raise it is embarking on a long term partnership. If either party looks at this as a conflict, it's going to be a long 20+ years)
All that sounds good to me. I'd like to see it implemented. I think RPJPC would be a good start.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 10, @05:05PM EST (#68)
|
|
|
|
|
You're all over men's responsibilities to women, under the guise of "responsibilities to the children." Your stand there is obvious.
Have any stands on what, if any, responsibilities a woman has to a father vis-a-vis the child? Or is spreading her legs once for conception and a second time for birth about it?
It's be nice, too, to see some detail in it, and a bit of indepth analysis, somewhere along the amount of time and consideration you take in trying to re-educate us poor benighted fools of men.
And as a bonus, if you manage a list somewhat comprehensive, with some speculative sanctions on women for violating such rules that are on parity with the current sanctions on men (Loss of access, licenses, seizing of assets, jail time, and so on) Maybe it might build a little credibility for your arguments. Or conversely, you could propose some concrete reduction in the draconian sanctions placed on men.
Or you could dismiss this, and watch as dozens of guys in front of computer screens coast to coast and across borders shake their heads and mutter, "Well there's a suprise."
Your call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Although, I agree with the idea of quick notification, I can't sign on to the premise embedded in your statement. The child support is for the child, not the mother. So you are doing nothing more than promoting that children pay for their parents' mistakes and forfeit a parent. I can't agree with this premise, it is the very premise that lead to abortion. Also, as we discussed upthread, the father's obligations toward the child extend beyond $$$$. It is my position that no matter what the parents do, the child's rights remain intact and superceed the parent's rights not to be obligated. "
This sounds reasonable, but it establishes a double standard. It has been legally established that the mothers rights DO supercede those of the child... before it's born at least. Given that this is the way it is, it's illogical to hold men to one standard (your child unborn or born comes first) and women to another (you come first until your child is born).
"Well I don't agree that abortion should be compelled by either party. However, I do support abortion veto for men. I realize this is not where we are now, but I cannot justify further victimization of children ... basically for being born, based on the fact that the father can't presently choose to terminate him. This puts the child in double jeapardy, lose-lose sitution, whether born or not born, which I can't condone. "
I did not say or imply that abortion should be compelled... in fact I provided the specific example of man-wanting the abortion and women-not to say that she could go forward with the child ALONE.
Abortion veto would be nice but it's a pipe dream... my comments are based on the way the world IS, not how I wish it was. The only option a man SHOULD have IMO is opt-out. (virtual abortion or whatever you want to call it).
Frankly I admire you child focus... but in todays environment the unborn child has no rights, so I cannot support holding men to a high standard while women can choose to destroy that life at will. SO your focus has the effect of maintaining the unrepresented responsibility of men in this situation without ANY forced responsibility on the part of the woman (she can end her responsibility at will). This is the inequity that I cannot accept, which brings me to :
"Of course, all this conflict wouldn't exist if abortion weren't legal"
The conflict I'm speaking of is the right/responsibility conflict... women have all the choice when it comes to an unborn child, if abortion weren't legal than BOTH men and women would be on a level playing field and this issue would not exist (they've both have to take responsibility... no choice to be made).
"Red herring. Women had the ultimate responsibility before abortion was common or legal. At no time in history did women who co-procreated outside of marriage not have the ultimate responsibility, relative to men who co-procreated outside of marriage. That is how we got into the abortion quagmire to begin with."
This is not a red herring... it was in reference to the fact that women have choice when it comes to an unborn child, and men have none (responsibilities without rights). Given that this is how things are right now, I'd say that my sentence pretty much sums up the problem.
Your response also makes a erroneous presumption that men feel no responsibility toward a child. For some this may be true but men I know DO take responsibility for children they sire. Many women don't take responsibility for their children either, but I would certainly not say that women feel no responsibility based on this.
"They may resolve YOUR problems but they do nothing for child. Which I think was the point of the thread vis a vis the objectives of the Marriage Initiative. "
As has been well established in this and other western countries... the unborn child has no rights. I don't care what men should/would do in an abortion free world (a world I'd dearly love to see), I care about how men are being manipulated into forced support of a WOMANS decision about having or not having a child. The child certainly isn't making that decision, and the man doesn't get input either... so your viewing all from a childs point of view is essentially saying "man is subordinate to child". But the law adds: "child is subordinate to woman". This ends up putting man on the bottom of a pile and woman in the drivers seat. This is unacceptable, this must change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've elaborated on all this at length here on this site, including in recent days on other threads still up.
The only responsibility either parent has to the other parent is to cooperate in raising the child and in ensuring the best interest of the child. They have no further obligations to each other beyond what is required to meet their mutual obligations to the child.
Since much of that is intangible, I've advocated for a pre-emptive system which would give both parties equal incentive to cooperate. This is Rebuttal Presumption of Joint Physical Custody, which I would like to see imposed as the legal standard whether the parents are married, divorced, or never married.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's be nice, too, to see some detail in it, and a bit of indepth analysis, somewhere along the amount of time and consideration you take in trying to re-educate us poor benighted fools of men.
That's what I'm asking for. She can't and won't give it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This response does nothing to address the fundamental issue raised in my post... nor have I seen you address it in any other thread (and I've read many).
Unless the rules on Abortion change (unlikely) women have 100% of the "right to choose". Do you believe that men should be forced to pay for a child that they would have chosen to abort, or conversely watch a child die that they would have chosen to keep? Do you think it's acceptable for the woman to determine how a man is going to spend the next 20 years without ANY input from that man? \
RPoJPC is a positive idea, but it does nothing to address the inequity BEFORE the child is born (at least in none of the incarnations I've read about)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if you'd shut the hell up and listen to men instead of doing the gynocentric "We must correct everyone because we're always right" dance 24-7 you might see.
This lies at the foundation of her pathology, TGK. She doesn't listen. She reads some words and decides what the writer meant based on her agenda.
Feminist just don't get it, because feminists don't listen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I listen and comprehend just fine. I heard a man just demonize women for procreating out of wedlock but offer absolutely no censure whatsoever to the man co-procreater, party to the same act, whatsoever.
I can hear fatuous blowhard integrity-free hypocrites just fine. And I know where to find their inevitable friends .... in Nigeria and Afghanistan, stoning women for the same exact act as a man who goes free.
I say let such individuals go live in that society if that's the kind of system they want to live under. But no, they're weasels and cowards. They'll never leave their saftey net where they don't have to live under the same tyranny they advocate. That's just how spineless they are. If they had one ounce of integrity to their words they'd move to one of these places and participate fully in the system of unilateral injustice.
I listen just fine Thomas. The problem for people like Mr. Whither Dad is that they can't get away without being called on their own cowardly, weasely words anymore. And that makes them terribly anxious. So be it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aw, c'mon Lorrianne. Let us know how you really feel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I listen and comprehend just fine. I heard a man just demonize women for procreating out of wedlock but offer absolutely no censure whatsoever to the man co-procreater, party to the same act, whatsoever.
No, you don't listen, Lorrianne. You just tell men that they are wrong. You devote yourself to putting men in what you feel is their place.
You claim to be egalitarian of some sort, to support some sort of equity. Here's a question for you.
What are the links to discussions that you've had with women, who demonize men for not accepting responsibility for their children, where you've put great energy into criticizing the women for having abortions and for supporting access to abortions? I'm not asking where you've paid lip service to opposing abortion. I'm asking where you have argued at length with women who support a "woman's right to abortion", and told those women why abortion is a terrible act and that they need to accept responsibility for their actions?
Come on, great equity type feminist, what are the links?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I listen and comprehend just fine. I heard a man just demonize women for procreating out of wedlock but offer absolutely no censure whatsoever to the man co-procreater, party to the same act, whatsoever.
No you didn't. I've read the "Whither Dad" piece. It's a fine piece. And it applies equally to married then divorced dads as well as never married ones.
Mr WD also does a heck of a job at chastising society, the politically correct, and da gubbmint, as well as the family courts. You only *CHOSE* to see the slams on women - slams, I may add, which are richly deserved.
I can hear fatuous blowhard integrity-free hypocrites just fine. And I know where to find their inevitable friends .... in Nigeria and Afghanistan, stoning women for the same exact act as a man who goes free.
There ya have it, folks, it ain't about justice - it's about payback!
I say let such individuals go live in that society if that's the kind of system they want to live under. But no, they're weasels and cowards. They'll never leave their saftey net where they don't have to live under the same tyranny they advocate. That's just how spineless they are. If they had one ounce of integrity to their words they'd move to one of these places and participate fully in the system of unilateral injustice.
How fortunate for you that you don't have to move to participate in the "system of unilateral injustice" that gets your rocks off.
I listen just fine Thomas. The problem for people like Mr. Whither Dad is that they can't get away without being called on their own cowardly, weasely words anymore. And that makes them terribly anxious. So be it.
Dear Ms. Pot: Yes, Mr. Kettle Might be Black.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can hear fatuous blowhard integrity-free hypocrites just fine. And I know where to find their inevitable friends .... in Nigeria and Afghanistan, stoning women for the same exact act as a man who goes free.
There ya have it, folks, it ain't about justice - it's about payback!
What payback? What are you talking about.
Procreating while unmarried is not a crime (yet) in this country. Abandonind said child is. If you or Mr. Whither Dad want to punish women and not men for procreating out of wedlock and/or in any other adverse situation (due to poverty, undereducation, etc) then why don't you work toward laws like they have in fundementalist Islamic countries? Or move there! It seems he'd be much happier in a place like that.
And your Mr. Wither Dad wasn't too complimentary about men either. He advocated instructing young girls that men not to be trusted and were not good for anything "except fucking". Funny, if a feminist advocated instructing young girls that men are just lowlifes not to be trusted ... you'd be all over them. But you let your own misandrist off the hook without a comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 10, @02:49PM EST (#64)
|
|
|
|
|
You're misquoting me to make a point, and it's cheap and poor debate.
You just said:
And your Mr. Wither Dad wasn't too complimentary about men either. He advocated instructing young girls that men not to be trusted and were not good for anything "except fucking". Funny, if a feminist advocated instructing young girls that men are just lowlifes not to be trusted ... you'd be all over them. But you let your own misandrist off the hook without a comment.
I said:
Where don't we find these high rates of crime? In the two parent family, where such behaviours occur over 60% less. Less unwed pregnancy. Less dropouts. Less delinquency, and in those instances where it does occur it is lesser offenses, and has a lower recidivism rate. Two people keep tabs on the kids. And boys have good male role models. And girls too - they aren't taught that males are aliens that show up, make kids, and aren't good for much beyond fucking. Despite how obvious it is, it's flippantly dismissed as "Ozzie and Harriet" thinking.
It's far cry cry from what you claimed I said, and it's called twisting words and taking things out of context to suit your own ends. It's wrong. And I guess it goes to show how dirty you will argue to attempt to `win' some point.
Shame on you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I misinterpreted your sentence. I apologize.
However, I still don't agree with your one sided pronouncements againt females when there are clearly two parties, one male and one female, involved in every conception.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 10, @04:53PM EST (#67)
|
|
|
|
|
Allright, Lorianne, you seem to insist somehow that applying any female accountability is punishing women, let's look at what female accountability is today.
We have a couple, Adam and Babs. Babs discovers she is pregnant.
Babs doesn't want to be a mother. What are her options?
Abortion, adoption, or giving the baby to someone - and not necessarily Adam. If Adam wants to be a father, tough. He has no say, unless he goes to court; and in the case of abortion he doesn't have that option either.
Lets say Adam doesn't want to be a father. What are his options?
Whatever Babs will give him.
Babs has the baby, and what happens? Well, if she goes down to the welfare office, the checks start rolling in. She gets grants for school, AFDC, WIC, Food Stamps, subsidized housing, Programs for paying utilities, Medicare, Medicaid.
Does she have to work? No. In fact, if she chooses to stay unemployed - to be a full time mom - she gets even more money. Though if Adam moves in to help out, she loses. It. ALL. Hmmm.
Where's her motivation to work?
Where is her motivation to have Adam involved?
Again, hmmm. Where is Adam at? Well, Adam has been in the military for two hitches until he got a medical discharge, and was making a pittance, while Babs was in college, and had a fairly decent job after she left. Adam just started working part time while he goes to college. In the meantime Babs has voluntarily quit. So what happens?
Well, Adam has an "imputed income" based on his military service, and is considered "voluntarily unemployed or underemployed." It is Babs' right and privilege though to not work, even though she has a degree and marketable skills, and even made twice Adam's income in the past year. Her "contribution" is calculated at minimum wage. Adam's is based on previous income, even though he cannot return to that work. Adam is told to get a job. Which means he has to quit school, because you can only get aid if you attend full time.
Babs takes her grant money, and the child support and begins to work on a Master's degree. And she's exempted from the full time rule, because she has children of "tender age." Hey, Bonus! She now also gets a childcare allowance!
Babs won't marry Adam because she'll lose her free money; Adam sees that the relationship is nowhere, and gets a girlfriend. Babs is enraged. She cuts off access to the child. Adam attempts to enforce this. So what happens?
Does Babs claim to be "frightened" of him and get a restraining order? Does the sheriff read the court order and enforce it? Does Adam go before a judge many times and get handed meaningless pieces of paper with instructions to have the sheriff enforce it? Or does the judge say to Babs, "Young lady, it is vitally important that a child have the prescense and support of both parents, and what you are doing constitutes child abuse, so not only am I granting the petition, I'm changing the decree such that Adam now has custody." Any bets? If you chose the last, pay up. You lose.
The years go by. Adam has resigned himself to an unskilled labor job, and Babs has remarried a professional, let's say an accountant. Hey, their income has changed. Adam files for a modification of support. Guess what? Babs' Husband's income doesn't count. But wait - what if Adam has remarried? Well, his new wife's income does count. And what if they have children themselves? It's not an issue. In fact, though, if Babs has more children, her "contribution" will be lessened, though.
Adam isn't allowed to come to birthday parties? What's his recourse? None. Adam decides on his next rare visitation to take the child for pony rides - well, that's vetoed.
Adam wants to keep up on grades and school? Well, he has to prove he doesn't have a restraining order (You heard correctly, he has to prove a negative.) And then is met with all manner of resistance.
Babs wants to move. The statute says he can object - but if she doesn't tell him, then his objection will not be in a "timely" manner.
New Hubby spanks the child, over Adam's objections. Does it matter? No. Even if there is abuse, will Babs be told "Hubby or Child?" Nope - it would interfere with her right to choose.
Meanwhile, the new wife of Adam, because she raised her voice at junior, has to stay at her sister's while Adam has an overnight visit with his child. Restraining order.
Let's say that Adam finds out, when his tyke has an accident, that he could not possibly be the father after he gets tested for donating blood. Oops. It's been too long - and chances are, now that he knows the truth, he'll be enjoined from any and all contact with the child, but will still be paying. And it will somehow be his fault. Of course, this truth must be kept from the child, but when Babs tells the child "Daddy doesn't come around because he doesn't love you anymore" what will happen to Babs?
Nothing.
Or lets say Babs didn't get married. Lets say she got fat and became the good ol' gal, the Princess of the Trailer Park! Next thing ya'll know, she got picked up at the Hoot'n'nanny Bar and Go-Go Grill. Seems she offered Undercover Officer Smith a little oral sex for $20 so she could get another drink or two, and had a vial of crack on her. Whooo doggies! Combined with her past DUI, and two arrests for Drunk and Disorderly, she's going to go to jail. Well, actually, this time she hit the cop, so the prosecution has no choice but to push for jail time.
Where does the kid go? Well Babs wants the kid to go to her momma's or to her sisters - and that's where the kid will be, and Adam has to file papers to get custody of his own child while momma is in jail. And even if he wins custody he has an uphill battle.
Adam finds this to be strange. Seems Babs has had social workers in there because the kids were dirty, had lice, an d were making ketchup and peanuit butter sandwiches while she was passed out. But a successful "intervention" was done, the magic clipboard was waved, and the family unit was "preserved." Curious. Adam's brother had his child seized from him because he left her in a car seat 20 feet away while he answered a page at a pay phone in plain, unobstructed view. And he had to leave the house for two months while CSS "investigated."
But of course, there's no double standard, is there? Or if it is, it's all weighted for the male? Right? Is that or is that not your consistant position? Guys, am I misrepresenting Lorrianne's statements over the months?
How come it's noble and sacrificing of a woman to give up a child she bore so it will have a better life because she's not ready to be a mother, but a man can't step aside because he's not ready to be a father? How come she's a heroine and he's a cad?
How come telling a woman, "Yes it's damn inconvenient to have that guy around, but you do it for the child's sake or lose the child" is punishing women?
How come telling a woman "If you fail to tell a man he's the father of a child, and you deprive that child of a father, you're an unfit mother" is punishing a woman?
How come telling a woman, "You'll get a job, or you'll lose custody and go to jail - just like he does if he doesn't keep a job" is punishing the woman?
How come applying the same standards, and sanctions for breaking those standards, to a woman as to a man is "punishing the woman?"
How come it is if a woman misidentifies the father, (And make no mistake, the only way it could be an "oops" if if she's wildly promiscuous. Other wise it's a LIE.) HE is the son-of-a-bitch if he doesn't want to write a check for something he didn't do?
But it's just "different for women" huh? I'm a mere man, and I'd never understand.
Of course.
Before you go talking about someone else's hypocrisy, examine your own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allright, Lorianne, you seem to insist somehow that applying any female accountability is punishing women ....
Absolutely wrong. I insist that both parties to procreation have equal obligations to the child they co-created. Nothing more, nothing less.
There is no "punishment" involved. Children are a net asset, not a liability. Some people just don't choose to see them that way. In that case, they are "punishing" themselves by their outlook, but I'm not.
As to your elaborate hypothetical situation, well its just that. I've certainly never claimed we don't have problems in our social/legal systems. But as I see it, the root cause of all of them can be traced back to failure of adults to accept responsibility for the consequences of their personal actions. As well as the failure of all of us to insist that this be the norm.
All of this didn't spring up overnight. We've had social problems surrounding poverty and irresponsible procreation for eons. As a very brilliant MAN once said: "The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them."___ Albert Einstein
If you don't insist on personal accountability for everyone, you're aiding and abetting the very problems you kvetch about later on down the line. It might be fun as entertainment, but it's not rational.
let's look at what female accountability is today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As to your elaborate hypothetical situation, well its just that. I've certainly never claimed we don't have problems in our social/legal systems. But as I see it, the root cause of all of them can be traced back to failure of adults to accept responsibility for the consequences of their personal actions. As well as the failure of all of us to insist that this be the norm.
Haw Haw!
This "elaborate hypothetical" ISN'T Hypothetical, Lorriane! It's hypothetical only in the fact that it lumps everything that goes on each and every day onto one poor sad sack named Adam, but there isn't a divorced man with children that alive today that can't point at some section or sections and nod his head up and down while saying, "Oh yeah. Amen! Been there. Ain't it da troot?"
Never claimed we don't have problems? You're the biggest advocate for the status quo walking around this board.
You want to solve something? How's this:
If you use your child for a weapon or a bargaining chip, they will be taken from you.
If you deprive your child of anything to lash at your ex-partner, you will have your ability to do so taken from you.
You will be given a chance to come to the bargaining table and negotiate in good faith. If you do not, negotiations will be done in your name, and you will be bound by them and forfeit any right to modify or appeal.
You nor your child will move from a fifty mile area of the jurisdiction of the court, without the prior consent and filing of a parenting agreement approved by this court, or you will forfeit the right to overnight access except as is convenient for the other parent.
If you do not have a job, you will provide housekeeping services for your child's place of living, including the fixing of meals, laundry, transportation to appointments, and so forth. This is your obligation, not something you will be thanked for.
If your child primarily resides with you, it is very much the other parent of your ward's business what goes on in that house. It will be presumed that if you are secretive, then you have something to hide. If you are uncomfortable with this, then the other parent wiill maintain a place of primary residence, and then their doings will be your business.
All schools shall keep both parents apprised of the progress of a child. Failure to do so will be considered an abrogation of duty with criminal sanctions, including a mandatory and permanant loss of a teaching license.
If you are shown to file false charges of abuse on yourself or on behalf of the child involved, you will be prosecuted, and the sentence will be no less than the loss of parental rights,. but not parental obligations.
If you kidnap your child, you will be imprisoned until your child's twenty fifth birthday, and will not be allowed to send or recieve mail from them If your child is grown, you will be imprisoned for the rest of your natural life, incommunicado from that child or their offspring.
If CSS comes and has to remove your child, they will be taken with all due haste to the other parent's house. If any member of your family or your friends interferes with this, they will be prosecuted.
If you commit perjury or fraud as concerns your child, you will lose your parental rights, you will keep your obligations, and you will be prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law. Where applicable you will be liable for full restitution and treble idemnity in a civil court as punitive damages.
If you flee to avoid your parental obligations, you will keep them and lose your rights, and will be prosecuted for abandonment. Likewise if you prevent, by word, deed, or omission; someone from being a proper parent you will be deemed as guilty.
If you refuse to be a part of your child's life, you will keep your obligations to them and lose your rights, and may be prosecuted for abandonment.
Any monies you recieve from any source for support of a child if you claim to be indigant you will account for to the penny. Where possible, no cash will go through your hands.
There. No mention of sex. Places all the burden on a sexless parent, and focuses on the obligations to children.
But I'm sure you will find that it "punishes" women, because it prevents them from using their children as pawns and weapons.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not going over your post point by point. Too long. I will say I would agree with 90% of your suggestions. My RPJPC proposals have most of the same points included in them. I've advocated RPJPC for a logn time, often in the past on this site.
In other words, we agree. If the hypothesis is that two parents are best for a child (and I agree this is true) then we need to:
a. Convince a significant number of others that this is a valid goal.
b. Implement programs and legal changes that will bring this about.
Logically, I can't see that b) is going to happen without a) happening first. Therefore, the first order of business is to get a majority of people on board who believe that it is in the best interest of children (and society as a whole) for kids to have BOTH parents active and participating in their lives raising and supporting them.
From that standpoint, the Bush initiative is a sort of okay start. I'm not thrilled with the emphasis on marriage vs an emphasis on shared involved parenting but at least it's started a national debate about what is good for kids. I'm trying to be optimistic.
And I think some Men's Rights and Fathers Rights activists are making great strides in this direction as well, bringing into public focus the importance of fathers and advocating changes to family law. I think they have momentum and there will be positive change.
All these efforts by the way are being HELPED by radical feminists taking extreme positions which are undermining their own extreme goals and turning even normally sympathetic people against them. They are losing the PR battle on a number of fronts. You should actually be thanking radical feminists for shooting themselves in the foot on many of these issues (paternity fraud, child custody, etc) where their positions are not resonating well with the general public IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You should actually be thanking radical feminists for shooting themselves in the foot on many of these issues (paternity fraud, child custody, etc) where their positions are not resonating well with the general public IMO.
Thanks radical feminists for shooting themselves in the foot? I think I would rather reload for them.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
