| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
I haven't seen much lately in support of so-called "child support" here
lately. Apparently, all the advocates must have meandered over to alt.feminazi or similar site. |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
I think it shows that we are the majority. The problem is, none of the laws
are put up to a vote. There are state CS committies, but they are flooded with the nazies of which you speak, because they don't have to work during the day while most fathers do. Then there is the fact that NCPs (not all) are the laziest bunch of people I have ever met when it comes to fighting for the cause. Bitching is easy, but I mainly see all talk, no show. Imagine what we could do if we left the couch. -Drew "Chris" wrote in message news:e4aKa.79896$%42.8917@fed1read06... I haven't seen much lately in support of so-called "child support" here lately. Apparently, all the advocates must have meandered over to alt.feminazi or similar site. |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
"Father Drew" wrote in message news:sUbKa.169699$eJ2.88345@fed1read07... I think it shows that we are the majority. The problem is, none of the laws are put up to a vote. There are state CS committies, but they are flooded with the nazies of which you speak, because they don't have to work during the day while most fathers do. Then there is the fact that NCPs (not all) are the laziest bunch of people I have ever met when it comes to fighting for the cause. Bitching is easy, but I mainly see all talk, no show. Imagine what we could do if we left the couch. -Drew Have you talked to other men on this subject that are not familiar with the system recently? Talk to them about this subject and see how far you get. You will realize how ignorant most men are in believing the system is fair, is for the children, you must be misinformed or a better lawyer will solve all your problems. The propaganda that most are brainwashed to believe is a major hurdle for fathers to get over which is why public protests are crucial for change to succeed. As far as those that are aware, what the hell are these men so afraid of that they will not come out publicly against the feminazi and these polices? At what point in history did men change that they seek approval from the feminazi rather than stand up for their own rights? Most NCPs I have met agree with the NCP posters here and are just as outraged almost to frenzy when you discuss the subject of lifestyle child support and visitation. But why do men fail to organize and protest? Why is the mention of public protest looked upon by some men as being so foreign or as a sign of weakness? I think the liberal feminist media portrayal of male protesters has alot to do with men believing if they protest it is laughable and they are behaving like women. There is also the propaganda that we are all to believe this is still the same land of freedom as it was 200 years ago. So any protest is somehow subconsciuosly believed to be unpatrioitic or un-American when the reality is the founding fathers would likely be outraged by these policies. I find it ironic that the American NCP fathers are so passive on this subject while the British NCP fathers are taking a public stand against this injustice. "Chris" wrote in message news:e4aKa.79896$%42.8917@fed1read06... I haven't seen much lately in support of so-called "child support" here lately. Apparently, all the advocates must have meandered over to alt.feminazi or similar site. |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
Dave wrote:
snip to But why do men fail to organize and protest? I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many have been raised. Women have traditionally been the organizers in families. They see to it that the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked, the family events are attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their mothes be the organizers and then marry women who continue the pattern. The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising boys to expect this of women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo role as women. Do it by example and in word. I'm doing my share. Mrs Indyguy |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
"Dave" dave@freedoms-door wrote in message ... "Father Drew" wrote in message news:sUbKa.169699$eJ2.88345@fed1read07... I think it shows that we are the majority. The problem is, none of the laws are put up to a vote. There are state CS committies, but they are flooded with the nazies of which you speak, because they don't have to work during the day while most fathers do. Then there is the fact that NCPs (not all) are the laziest bunch of people I have ever met when it comes to fighting for the cause. Bitching is easy, but I mainly see all talk, no show. Imagine what we could do if we left the couch. -Drew Have you talked to other men on this subject that are not familiar with the system recently? Talk to them about this subject and see how far you get. ====== The answer may lie with the corollary of slaves. Many slaves did not support the movement toward freedom because they had been conditioned to believe their role of slaves was their legitimate place in the social fabric. Men have also been conditioned to believe that their role in the family is of provider. They view this as their legitimate place in the social fabric. While there has been much ado about women making the decision to be SAH moms, men very frequently desire the woman to SAH and view it as the proper role for the wife/mother. It is not uncommon for men view a working mother as their failure to provide enough income so that the mother can stay at home to rear the children. === === |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
Subject: Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
From: "Chris" Newsgroups: alt.child-support Chris writes: I haven't seen much lately in support of so-called "child support" here lately. Apparently, all the advocates must have meandered over to alt.feminazi or similar site. Check your calendar, or look out a window. Its SUMMER. They aren't sitting home on the computer, they are out vacationing, and, doing other such things, with YOUR MONEY. http://www.geocities.com/nadacomin/ |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
Yeah, sure....
Dave wrote: snip to But why do men fail to organize and protest? I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many have been raised. Women have traditionally been the organizers in families. They see to it that the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked, the family events are attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their mothes be the organizers and then marry women who continue the pattern. The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising boys to expect this of women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo role as women. Do it by example and in word. I'm doing my share. .... those aren't the family pants, it's just a stylish pants-suit - right? (wink, wink) Mel Gamble Mrs Indyguy |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
"Chris" wrote in message news:4uuKa.82494$%42.14146@fed1read06... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... Indyguy1 wrote: Dave wrote: snip to But why do men fail to organize and protest? I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many have been raised. Women have traditionally been the organizers in families. They see to it that the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked, the family events are attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their mothes be the organizers and then marry women who continue the pattern. The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising boys to expect this of women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo role as women. Do it by example and in word. I'm doing my share. Mrs Indyguy I have some theories too, and they're very different from Mrs. Indyguy's. I think that very few men are willing to come out and openly stand up for the interests of men, in situations where those interests are entirely the opposite of women -- as is the case in most domestic relations matters. Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are subject to the very real threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly possessions just because they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand, at the very worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not much to lose there. Why do you say that? Why would they go to jail or lose their worldly possessions because they protested against the system? Now, if their protest was in the form of refusing to pay child support, then I can see where that might be true. But organizing and picketing, etc--why would that merit jail time? And if women were out there picketing with them, why do you think the women would get different treatment? Do you have any examples of this happening? There are several elements in this reluctance of men to openly oppose women. One is old-fashioned chivalry, which (despite all the changes in society) remains an important factor. Another is that, to put it bluntly, heterosexual men are usually on the lookout for women as sexual partners, and they realize that appearing hostile to the interests of women will not help them in that regard. Still another is that men are more individualistic than women, and have a greater tendency to be self-reliant. In my opinion, the first step to changing the situation is for men to understand that there ARE scenarios where their interests are totally the opposite of women, and where there is a zero-sum game in operation. In short, we must have an end to the situation where, in the battle of the sexes, only one side shows up. Balance will not be restored, and the two sexes will not achieve a fairer equilibrium, without an interim period of men taking back what has been stolen from them by feminism. |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
I agree with the Teach. You don't lose because you stand up, you lose more
if you don't. Sure, the courts would like it if you didn't show, it makes the paperwork easier to process. The fact is, you will always be better off if you show up and fight. Maybe not always, but you improve your odds greatly. I have yet to hear about a father getting jailed because he went to court to stand up for himself. I know things are unfair, but unless you have evidence of this, I wouldn't spout bold mis-information, because the Father's Movement needs to play on a higher level than N.O.W. in order to keep our credibility. -Drew "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:4uuKa.82494$%42.14146@fed1read06... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... Indyguy1 wrote: Dave wrote: snip to But why do men fail to organize and protest? I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many have been raised. Women have traditionally been the organizers in families. They see to it that the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked, the family events are attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their mothes be the organizers and then marry women who continue the pattern. The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising boys to expect this of women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo role as women. Do it by example and in word. I'm doing my share. Mrs Indyguy I have some theories too, and they're very different from Mrs. Indyguy's. I think that very few men are willing to come out and openly stand up for the interests of men, in situations where those interests are entirely the opposite of women -- as is the case in most domestic relations matters. Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are subject to the very real threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly possessions just because they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand, at the very worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not much to lose there. Why do you say that? Why would they go to jail or lose their worldly possessions because they protested against the system? Now, if their protest was in the form of refusing to pay child support, then I can see where that might be true. But organizing and picketing, etc--why would that merit jail time? And if women were out there picketing with them, why do you think the women would get different treatment? Do you have any examples of this happening? There are several elements in this reluctance of men to openly oppose women. One is old-fashioned chivalry, which (despite all the changes in society) remains an important factor. Another is that, to put it bluntly, heterosexual men are usually on the lookout for women as sexual partners, and they realize that appearing hostile to the interests of women will not help them in that regard. Still another is that men are more individualistic than women, and have a greater tendency to be self-reliant. In my opinion, the first step to changing the situation is for men to understand that there ARE scenarios where their interests are totally the opposite of women, and where there is a zero-sum game in operation. In short, we must have an end to the situation where, in the battle of the sexes, only one side shows up. Balance will not be restored, and the two sexes will not achieve a fairer equilibrium, without an interim period of men taking back what has been stolen from them by feminism. |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
"TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:4uuKa.82494$%42.14146@fed1read06... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... Indyguy1 wrote: Dave wrote: snip to But why do men fail to organize and protest? I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many have been raised. Women have traditionally been the organizers in families. They see to it that the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked, the family events are attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their mothes be the organizers and then marry women who continue the pattern. The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising boys to expect this of women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo role as women. Do it by example and in word. I'm doing my share. Mrs Indyguy I have some theories too, and they're very different from Mrs. Indyguy's. I think that very few men are willing to come out and openly stand up for the interests of men, in situations where those interests are entirely the opposite of women -- as is the case in most domestic relations matters. Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are subject to the very real threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly possessions just because they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand, at the very worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not much to lose there. Why do you say that? Why would they go to jail or lose their worldly possessions because they protested against the system? Now, if their protest was in the form of refusing to pay child support, then I can see where that might be true. But organizing and picketing, etc--why would that merit jail time? And if women were out there picketing with them, why do you think the women would get different treatment? Do you have any examples of this happening? I was held in contempt of court and sanctioned for trying to stand up to the system on three occasions. One time I was in contempt for attempting the "re-litigate" an issue. Another time I was in contempt for "dragging my ex-spouse back into court." And finally, I was held in contempt for "failing to inform the court my ex-spouse was having trouble transferring an asset to her name." In everyone of these examples the judge ignored her own order in the decree and held me accountable with sanctions for trying to get the decree implemented as written and signed. |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message thlink.net... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:4uuKa.82494$%42.14146@fed1read06... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... Indyguy1 wrote: Dave wrote: snip to But why do men fail to organize and protest? I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many have been raised. Women have traditionally been the organizers in families. They see to it that the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked, the family events are attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their mothes be the organizers and then marry women who continue the pattern. The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising boys to expect this of women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo role as women. Do it by example and in word. I'm doing my share. Mrs Indyguy I have some theories too, and they're very different from Mrs. Indyguy's. I think that very few men are willing to come out and openly stand up for the interests of men, in situations where those interests are entirely the opposite of women -- as is the case in most domestic relations matters. Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are subject to the very real threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly possessions just because they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand, at the very worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not much to lose there. Why do you say that? Why would they go to jail or lose their worldly possessions because they protested against the system? Now, if their protest was in the form of refusing to pay child support, then I can see where that might be true. But organizing and picketing, etc--why would that merit jail time? And if women were out there picketing with them, why do you think the women would get different treatment? Do you have any examples of this happening? I was held in contempt of court and sanctioned for trying to stand up to the system on three occasions. One time I was in contempt for attempting the "re-litigate" an issue. Another time I was in contempt for "dragging my ex-spouse back into court." And finally, I was held in contempt for "failing to inform the court my ex-spouse was having trouble transferring an asset to her name." In everyone of these examples the judge ignored her own order in the decree and held me accountable with sanctions for trying to get the decree implemented as written and signed. Did you have to spend any time in jail time for contempt or did you just have to pay a fine? |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
"Dave" dave@freedoms-door wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message thlink.net... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:4uuKa.82494$%42.14146@fed1read06... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... Indyguy1 wrote: Dave wrote: snip to But why do men fail to organize and protest? I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many have been raised. Women have traditionally been the organizers in families. They see to it that the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked, the family events are attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their mothes be the organizers and then marry women who continue the pattern. The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising boys to expect this of women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo role as women. Do it by example and in word. I'm doing my share. Mrs Indyguy I have some theories too, and they're very different from Mrs. Indyguy's. I think that very few men are willing to come out and openly stand up for the interests of men, in situations where those interests are entirely the opposite of women -- as is the case in most domestic relations matters. Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are subject to the very real threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly possessions just because they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand, at the very worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not much to lose there. Why do you say that? Why would they go to jail or lose their worldly possessions because they protested against the system? Now, if their protest was in the form of refusing to pay child support, then I can see where that might be true. But organizing and picketing, etc--why would that merit jail time? And if women were out there picketing with them, why do you think the women would get different treatment? Do you have any examples of this happening? I was held in contempt of court and sanctioned for trying to stand up to the system on three occasions. One time I was in contempt for attempting the "re-litigate" an issue. Another time I was in contempt for "dragging my ex-spouse back into court." And finally, I was held in contempt for "failing to inform the court my ex-spouse was having trouble transferring an asset to her name." In everyone of these examples the judge ignored her own order in the decree and held me accountable with sanctions for trying to get the decree implemented as written and signed. Did you have to spend any time in jail time for contempt or did you just have to pay a fine? Neither. The judge ordered me to deliver the proceeds from a retirement account to my ex's attorney within 24 hours and have that attorney contact her by phone, or she would issue a bench warrant for my arrest. By liquidating the retirement account to stay out of jail, I was hit with a $21,500 tax liability for taking a premature retirement distribution. I had signed a written release on the account. My ex's attorney had reported in writing to my attorney the asset transfer had been completed and no further assistance was needed from me, and there would be no need for the attorneys to prepare a QDRO for the court to sign. My perspective is I was penalized for following the decree, accepting her statements that the transfer was completed, and accepting her attorney's input no QDRO would be necessary to complete the transfer. The judge told me it was all my fault. I was threatened with jail. I was not fined directly by the court. But the penalty imposed by the court was converting a gross before taxes amount to a net after taxes amount dollar for dollar. So the penalty was me paying the taxes and premature distribution fees liability for my ex because she told the judge she wouldn't accept an IRA to IRA transfer. In researching the tax laws, with the help of a tax attorney and several communications with IRS legal representatives, I found this happens a lot. When retirement accounts are awarded in property settlements, the recipient can refuse to accept the asset into their own IRA account, and the original owner of the account is forced to pay the taxes when the account is liquidated to comply with state court orders. |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message thlink.net... "Dave" dave@freedoms-door wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message thlink.net... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:4uuKa.82494$%42.14146@fed1read06... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... Indyguy1 wrote: Dave wrote: snip to But why do men fail to organize and protest? I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many have been raised. Women have traditionally been the organizers in families. They see to it that the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked, the family events are attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their mothes be the organizers and then marry women who continue the pattern. The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising boys to expect this of women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo role as women. Do it by example and in word. I'm doing my share. Mrs Indyguy I have some theories too, and they're very different from Mrs. Indyguy's. I think that very few men are willing to come out and openly stand up for the interests of men, in situations where those interests are entirely the opposite of women -- as is the case in most domestic relations matters. Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are subject to the very real threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly possessions just because they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand, at the very worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not much to lose there. Why do you say that? Why would they go to jail or lose their worldly possessions because they protested against the system? Now, if their protest was in the form of refusing to pay child support, then I can see where that might be true. But organizing and picketing, etc--why would that merit jail time? And if women were out there picketing with them, why do you think the women would get different treatment? Do you have any examples of this happening? I was held in contempt of court and sanctioned for trying to stand up to the system on three occasions. One time I was in contempt for attempting the "re-litigate" an issue. Another time I was in contempt for "dragging my ex-spouse back into court." And finally, I was held in contempt for "failing to inform the court my ex-spouse was having trouble transferring an asset to her name." In everyone of these examples the judge ignored her own order in the decree and held me accountable with sanctions for trying to get the decree implemented as written and signed. Did you have to spend any time in jail time for contempt or did you just have to pay a fine? Neither. The judge ordered me to deliver the proceeds from a retirement account to my ex's attorney within 24 hours and have that attorney contact her by phone, or she would issue a bench warrant for my arrest. By liquidating the retirement account to stay out of jail, I was hit with a $21,500 tax liability for taking a premature retirement distribution. I had signed a written release on the account. My ex's attorney had reported in writing to my attorney the asset transfer had been completed and no further assistance was needed from me, and there would be no need for the attorneys to prepare a QDRO for the court to sign. My perspective is I was penalized for following the decree, accepting her statements that the transfer was completed, and accepting her attorney's input no QDRO would be necessary to complete the transfer. The judge told me it was all my fault. I was threatened with jail. I was not fined directly by the court. But the penalty imposed by the court was converting a gross before taxes amount to a net after taxes amount dollar for dollar. So the penalty was me paying the taxes and premature distribution fees liability for my ex because she told the judge she wouldn't accept an IRA to IRA transfer. In researching the tax laws, with the help of a tax attorney and several communications with IRS legal representatives, I found this happens a lot. When retirement accounts are awarded in property settlements, the recipient can refuse to accept the asset into their own IRA account, and the original owner of the account is forced to pay the taxes when the account is liquidated to comply with state court orders. I forgot one thing I wanted to say. This hearing was just another example of how lawyers lie in court all the time. Their whole case was based on the premise I had "hidden" the asset from my ex. I pointed out to the judge my ex's attorney and I had a detailed meeting on this asset, how to transfer it, and my desire to gain some level of compensation for protecting the asset, filing all the required tax returns, etc. to maintain the assets tax deductibilty. My point was I could have not acted and let the IRS seize the asset because of her neglect in getting it transferred inot her name. The attorney lied and told the judge the meeting I cited had never occured after my ex got all huffy because her attorney had not informed her about the meeting and our discussions. I was ordered to pay her attorney fees and we were supposed to have a follow-up hearing to discuss any objections I might have. The problem for the attorney was the 1 1/2 hour meeting she denied ever took place was detailed in her client billing records. My ex was ****ed her attorney dropped the ball in pursuing the attorney fee award. I told my ex her attorney knew I was going to ask for a reversal of the prior ruling based on the attorney's intentional misrepresentation of the facts, for sanctions against her attorney for lying in open court to gain an advantage for her client, and ask for a referral to the state bar for additional censure action. My ex went to her attorney and miraculously the attorney was quick to write-off all the attorney fees. |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
TeacherMama scribbled:
"Chris" wrote in message Why would they go to jail or lose their worldly possessions because they protested against the system? Now, if their protest was in the form of refusing to pay child support, then I can see where that might be true. But organizing and picketing, etc--why would that merit jail time? It doesn't, but they get it anyway. When? When did men get sent to jail for picketing about CS matters? FYI TM...... The term "totalitarian" is frequently used to characterize high-profile feminist campaigns such as "sexual harassment" and "date rape." Much of this is exaggeration. Yet far more serious, and much less scrutinized, is something going on in the United States - the billion-dollar divorce, child custody, and child support industry. In only the last few months, according to one federal public defender, "the number of federal child support prosecutions has skyrocketed." And it usually is the father who is targeted. If children are given in custody to all his financial records. A father will be questioned about how he "feels" about his children, what he does with them, where he takes them, how he kisses them, how he feeds and bathes them, what he buys for them, and what he discusses with them. Family courts regularly tell fathers what worship they may or must take their children to and control their discussions with their children about matters such as religion and politics. Fathers must surrender personal diaries, notebooks, correspondence, financial records, and other documents. In many jurisdictions it is now a crime to criticize family court judges. Following his congressional testimony critical of the family courts in 1992, Jim Wagner was stripped of custody of his two children and jailed by a Georgia judge. In both Britain and Australia, fathers have been jailed for criticizing judges. Children too have been jailed for refusing to testify against their father. Government agents increasingly assume a vast array of intrusive powers over parents whose children they control. "Never before have federal officials had the legal authority and technological ability to . . . keep tabs on Americans accused of nothing," declared the Washington Post. In Britain, the National Association for Child Support Action has published a "Book of the Dead," chronicling 55 cases where it claims the official Court Coroner concluded fathers were driven to suicide because of judgements from family courts. Why is this happening? The English-speaking countries with their Common Law tradition allow enormous power to judges and lawyers. But the problem is increasingly worldwide. In 1997 the German magazine Der Spiegel ran a cover story on "The Fatherless Society." In February 1998 Deputy Pavel Dostal, now Minister of Culture, met with Czech fathers protesting outside Parliament for changes in the family law. Psychologist Eduard Bakalar, who has served as a court expert in custody cases and heads Consultancy for Fathers (Poradna pro otce) in Prague, says while fathers have not been criminalized to the extent they have in the anglophone nations, they do face systematic bias in the courts, which has been the prelude to criminalization. Bakalar also observes "constant anti-father propaganda" in the media, especially noting the impact of American films. "It is a systematic effort to devalue fatherhood," he says. http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/c...f_children.htm Family courts routinely ignore basic civil liberties and international human rights conventions. "Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you're violating as you grant a restraining order," American municipal court judge Richard Russell told a judges' training seminar in 1994. "Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, see ya around. . . . We don't have to worry about the rights." Family law is now criminalizing activity as basic as free speech. In Australia it is a crime for litigants to speak publicly about family law. A Sydney group protesting peacefully in 1998 was told "if any people who had any involvement with family court were identified the media and that person would be prosecuted to the fullest extent" of the law. As in Britain, Australian family courts have closed Internet sites operated by parents' groups. In some American jurisdictions it is likewise a crime to criticise judges. The former husband of singer Wynonna Judd was recently arrested for speaking to reporters about his divorce. A father protesting outside his Los Angeles home on Fathers' Day 1998 that he had not seen his son in more than two years was apprehended by police for a "psychiatric evaluation". Following his congressional testimony critical of family courts, a Georgia father was stripped of custody of his two children, ordered to pay lawyers he had not hired, and jailed. "We believe the court is attempting to punish [him] for exposing the court's misconduct to a congressional committee," said the president of a local fathers' group. http://users.rcn.com/baskerville/nig...mily_court.htm So, TM, tell us again why you *apparently* hold the view that being jailed for protesting against CS laws doesn't happen. # Expecting men to be treated fairly is not a bad lesson to teach your children. The problem today is that too many women want men to be responsible so the woman don't have to be. -- Replace the obvious with paradise to email me. See Found Images at: http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
I didn't say it didn't happen. I asked Chris to document instances where a
group peacefully picketing outside a courthouse about the injustices of today's CS system were prevented from doing so, the MEN were jsiled, and the women just sent on their ways. That is what he claimed. I do understand how unfair today's system is, Max. I'm in the middle of it, too!! "Max Burke" wrote in message ... TeacherMama scribbled: "Chris" wrote in message Why would they go to jail or lose their worldly possessions because they protested against the system? Now, if their protest was in the form of refusing to pay child support, then I can see where that might be true. But organizing and picketing, etc--why would that merit jail time? It doesn't, but they get it anyway. When? When did men get sent to jail for picketing about CS matters? FYI TM...... The term "totalitarian" is frequently used to characterize high-profile feminist campaigns such as "sexual harassment" and "date rape." Much of this is exaggeration. Yet far more serious, and much less scrutinized, is something going on in the United States - the billion-dollar divorce, child custody, and child support industry. In only the last few months, according to one federal public defender, "the number of federal child support prosecutions has skyrocketed." And it usually is the father who is targeted. If children are given in custody to all his financial records. A father will be questioned about how he "feels" about his children, what he does with them, where he takes them, how he kisses them, how he feeds and bathes them, what he buys for them, and what he discusses with them. Family courts regularly tell fathers what worship they may or must take their children to and control their discussions with their children about matters such as religion and politics. Fathers must surrender personal diaries, notebooks, correspondence, financial records, and other documents. In many jurisdictions it is now a crime to criticize family court judges. Following his congressional testimony critical of the family courts in 1992, Jim Wagner was stripped of custody of his two children and jailed by a Georgia judge. In both Britain and Australia, fathers have been jailed for criticizing judges. Children too have been jailed for refusing to testify against their father. Government agents increasingly assume a vast array of intrusive powers over parents whose children they control. "Never before have federal officials had the legal authority and technological ability to . . . keep tabs on Americans accused of nothing," declared the Washington Post. In Britain, the National Association for Child Support Action has published a "Book of the Dead," chronicling 55 cases where it claims the official Court Coroner concluded fathers were driven to suicide because of judgements from family courts. Why is this happening? The English-speaking countries with their Common Law tradition allow enormous power to judges and lawyers. But the problem is increasingly worldwide. In 1997 the German magazine Der Spiegel ran a cover story on "The Fatherless Society." In February 1998 Deputy Pavel Dostal, now Minister of Culture, met with Czech fathers protesting outside Parliament for changes in the family law. Psychologist Eduard Bakalar, who has served as a court expert in custody cases and heads Consultancy for Fathers (Poradna pro otce) in Prague, says while fathers have not been criminalized to the extent they have in the anglophone nations, they do face systematic bias in the courts, which has been the prelude to criminalization. Bakalar also observes "constant anti-father propaganda" in the media, especially noting the impact of American films. "It is a systematic effort to devalue fatherhood," he says. http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/c...f_children.htm Family courts routinely ignore basic civil liberties and international human rights conventions. "Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you're violating as you grant a restraining order," American municipal court judge Richard Russell told a judges' training seminar in 1994. "Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, see ya around. . . . We don't have to worry about the rights." Family law is now criminalizing activity as basic as free speech. In Australia it is a crime for litigants to speak publicly about family law. A Sydney group protesting peacefully in 1998 was told "if any people who had any involvement with family court were identified the media and that person would be prosecuted to the fullest extent" of the law. As in Britain, Australian family courts have closed Internet sites operated by parents' groups. In some American jurisdictions it is likewise a crime to criticise judges. The former husband of singer Wynonna Judd was recently arrested for speaking to reporters about his divorce. A father protesting outside his Los Angeles home on Fathers' Day 1998 that he had not seen his son in more than two years was apprehended by police for a "psychiatric evaluation". Following his congressional testimony critical of family courts, a Georgia father was stripped of custody of his two children, ordered to pay lawyers he had not hired, and jailed. "We believe the court is attempting to punish [him] for exposing the court's misconduct to a congressional committee," said the president of a local fathers' group. http://users.rcn.com/baskerville/nig...mily_court.htm So, TM, tell us again why you *apparently* hold the view that being jailed for protesting against CS laws doesn't happen. # Expecting men to be treated fairly is not a bad lesson to teach your children. The problem today is that too many women want men to be responsible so the woman don't have to be. -- Replace the obvious with paradise to email me. See Found Images at: http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
TeacherMama scribbled:
I didn't say it didn't happen. I asked Chris to document instances where a group peacefully picketing outside a courthouse about the injustices of today's CS system were prevented from doing so, the MEN were jsiled, and the women just sent on their ways. That is what he claimed. Did you even READ what I posted????? The question that needs to be answered is why are YOU asking for proof that it happens when clearly it DOES happen..... I do understand how unfair today's system is, Max. I'm in the middle of it, too!! And yet you question what many of us post about the unfair 'system.' And you also *defend* several aspects of this 'unfair system' as being justified and right. Why is that? # Expecting men to be treated fairly is not a bad lesson to teach your children. The problem today is that too many women want men to be responsible so the woman don't have to be. -- Replace the obvious with paradise to email me. See Found Images at: http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
"Max Burke" wrote in message ... TeacherMama scribbled: I didn't say it didn't happen. I asked Chris to document instances where a group peacefully picketing outside a courthouse about the injustices of today's CS system were prevented from doing so, the MEN were jsiled, and the women just sent on their ways. That is what he claimed. Did you even READ what I posted????? The question that needs to be answered is why are YOU asking for proof that it happens when clearly it DOES happen..... I do understand how unfair today's system is, Max. I'm in the middle of it, too!! And yet you question what many of us post about the unfair 'system.' And you also *defend* several aspects of this 'unfair system' as being justified and right. Why is that? Well, Max, since you asked, my impression is that YOU feel that ANY support paid for children is evil and wrong! I don't feel the same way. I do not feel that men should have the right to walk away from their children just because they want to. I think there needs to be a system that gives men equal rights to women as far as choosing to be fathers. But I do not think that permitting them to father children and walk away any time they choose should be part of the system. And I've said that before. I believe joint custody shoud be the norm. But if a situation crops up where one parent or the other is unable to parent (whether it be abuse--REAL abuse, not the nonsense claims we see too often today--or not wanting to be bothered), OF COURSE the NCP should pay their share of the child's NEEDS! The idea behind the system--that children should be provided for by their parents--is not a bad idea. It's how it is being done today that needs to be changed--starting with 50-50 custody! And dumping a SAH parent back into the job market after years of taking care of home and family and saying "Support 'em your 50% of the time by yourself" isn't right, either. You don't want a fair system, Max. You want "fairness" for men--and screw the kids and women. Besides which, the question was for Chris. He jumps in with these little one-liners, but never backs up what he says with fact. |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
TeacherMama scribbled:
Max Burke wrote: I didn't say it didn't happen. I asked Chris to document instances where a group peacefully picketing outside a courthouse about the injustices of today's CS system were prevented from doing so, the MEN were jsiled, and the women just sent on their ways. That is what he claimed. Did you even READ what I posted????? The question that needs to be answered is why are YOU asking for proof that it happens when clearly it DOES happen..... I do understand how unfair today's system is, Max. I'm in the middle of it, too!! And yet you question what many of us post about the unfair 'system.' And you also *defend* several aspects of this 'unfair system' as being justified and right. Why is that? Well, Max, since you asked, my impression is that YOU feel that ANY support paid for children is evil and wrong! Strawman and BS..... This is *your* wrong impression........ I don't feel the same way. I do not feel that men should have the right to walk away from their children just because they want to. Let men be *real fathers* to their children and they DONT walk away. I think there needs to be a system that gives men equal rights to women as far as choosing to be fathers. But I do not think that permitting them to father children and walk away any time they choose should be part of the system. And I've said that before. IOW men should not have the legal and moral right to decide if they'll be a parent or not, even though women already have that right. I believe joint custody shoud be the norm. But if a situation crops up where one parent or the other is unable to parent (whether it be abuse--REAL abuse, not the nonsense claims we see too often today--or not wanting to be bothered), Real abuse happens in only *SIX PERCENT* of divorces; Seventy percent of divorces happen because the other person is NOT the person the one seeking the divorce wants them to be. Two thirds of all divorces are initiated by *women.* OF COURSE the NCP should pay their share of the child's NEEDS! The idea behind the system--that children should be provided for by their parents--is not a bad idea. It's how it is being done today that needs to be changed--starting with 50-50 custody! And dumping a SAH parent back into the job market after years of taking care of home and family and saying "Support 'em your 50% of the time by yourself" isn't right, either. Then neither is dumping the wage earner into the SAH role. What do YOU say about that TM? what form of compensation do YOU think the SAH should have to pay the wage earner when that happens? Anything at ALL? Me, I believe neither needs to be compensated in any way at all by their ex for their chosen marital roles when the divorce becomes final. You don't want a fair system, Max. You want "fairness" for men--and screw the kids and women. Strawman. Oh and BS as well (especially the bit about the kids)..... I want men to be treated the same way women are currently treated as parents to their own children and as divorcees..... Why you find that idea wrong is something you need to explain, not me...... Besides which, the question was for Chris. He jumps in with these little one-liners, but never backs up what he says with fact. This is a public forum where everyone gets to participate....... # If the abstract rights of men will bear discussion and explanation, then those of women, by a parity of reasoning, will not fail the same test; Although a different opinion prevails in the minds of most women when their rights are put to that test.... -- Replace the obvious with paradise to email me. See Found Images at: http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
"Max Burke" wrote in message ... TeacherMama scribbled: Max Burke wrote: I didn't say it didn't happen. I asked Chris to document instances where a group peacefully picketing outside a courthouse about the injustices of today's CS system were prevented from doing so, the MEN were jsiled, and the women just sent on their ways. That is what he claimed. Did you even READ what I posted????? The question that needs to be answered is why are YOU asking for proof that it happens when clearly it DOES happen..... I do understand how unfair today's system is, Max. I'm in the middle of it, too!! And yet you question what many of us post about the unfair 'system.' And you also *defend* several aspects of this 'unfair system' as being justified and right. Why is that? Well, Max, since you asked, my impression is that YOU feel that ANY support paid for children is evil and wrong! Strawman and BS..... This is *your* wrong impression........ I don't feel the same way. I do not feel that men should have the right to walk away from their children just because they want to. Let men be *real fathers* to their children and they DONT walk away. I think there needs to be a system that gives men equal rights to women as far as choosing to be fathers. But I do not think that permitting them to father children and walk away any time they choose should be part of the system. And I've said that before. IOW men should not have the legal and moral right to decide if they'll be a parent or not, even though women already have that right. I believe joint custody shoud be the norm. But if a situation crops up where one parent or the other is unable to parent (whether it be abuse--REAL abuse, not the nonsense claims we see too often today--or not wanting to be bothered), Real abuse happens in only *SIX PERCENT* of divorces; Seventy percent of divorces happen because the other person is NOT the person the one seeking the divorce wants them to be. Two thirds of all divorces are initiated by *women.* OF COURSE the NCP should pay their share of the child's NEEDS! The idea behind the system--that children should be provided for by their parents--is not a bad idea. It's how it is being done today that needs to be changed--starting with 50-50 custody! And dumping a SAH parent back into the job market after years of taking care of home and family and saying "Support 'em your 50% of the time by yourself" isn't right, either. Then neither is dumping the wage earner into the SAH role. What do YOU say about that TM? what form of compensation do YOU think the SAH should have to pay the wage earner when that happens? Anything at ALL? Me, I believe neither needs to be compensated in any way at all by their ex for their chosen marital roles when the divorce becomes final. You don't want a fair system, Max. You want "fairness" for men--and screw the kids and women. Strawman. Oh and BS as well (especially the bit about the kids)..... I want men to be treated the same way women are currently treated as parents to their own children and as divorcees..... Why you find that idea wrong is something you need to explain, not me...... Besides which, the question was for Chris. He jumps in with these little one-liners, but never backs up what he says with fact. This is a public forum where everyone gets to participate....... And anyone who participates can be asked to clarify their statements. (Chris just doesn't tend to do that.) So, Max, in order that I can fully understand your position on these issues, tell me what you think the system should be like. Start from scratch--don't patch up today's system by giving men "as many rights" as women, because we know darn well that will not work. Telling men "If you don't want the kid, just say you don't wanna be a dad." and telling women "you didn't create the kid alone, you have a right to help from the dad." is only going to create a battle of "rights"--it won't solve the problem. So, you found a lamp on the beach, rubbed it, and out came a genie, who says "Tell me how to fix the family court system." What would you say, Max? |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
TeacherMama scribbled:
"Max Burke" wrote in message I didn't say it didn't happen. I asked Chris to document instances where a group peacefully picketing outside a courthouse about the injustices of today's CS system were prevented from doing so, the MEN were jsiled, and the women just sent on their ways. That is what he claimed. Did you even READ what I posted????? The question that needs to be answered is why are YOU asking for proof that it happens when clearly it DOES happen..... I do understand how unfair today's system is, Max. I'm in the middle of it, too!! And yet you question what many of us post about the unfair 'system.' And you also *defend* several aspects of this 'unfair system' as being justified and right. Why is that? Well, Max, since you asked, my impression is that YOU feel that ANY support paid for children is evil and wrong! Strawman and BS..... This is *your* wrong impression........ I don't feel the same way. I do not feel that men should have the right to walk away from their children just because they want to. Let men be *real fathers* to their children and they DONT walk away. I think there needs to be a system that gives men equal rights to women as far as choosing to be fathers. But I do not think that permitting them to father children and walk away any time they choose should be part of the system. And I've said that before. IOW men should not have the legal and moral right to decide if they'll be a parent or not, even though women already have that right. I believe joint custody shoud be the norm. But if a situation crops up where one parent or the other is unable to parent (whether it be abuse--REAL abuse, not the nonsense claims we see too often today--or not wanting to be bothered), Real abuse happens in only *SIX PERCENT* of divorces; Seventy percent of divorces happen because the other person is NOT the person the one seeking the divorce wants them to be. Two thirds of all divorces are initiated by *women.* OF COURSE the NCP should pay their share of the child's NEEDS! The idea behind the system--that children should be provided for by their parents--is not a bad idea. It's how it is being done today that needs to be changed--starting with 50-50 custody! And dumping a SAH parent back into the job market after years of taking care of home and family and saying "Support 'em your 50% of the time by yourself" isn't right, either. Then neither is dumping the wage earner into the SAH role. What do YOU say about that TM? what form of compensation do YOU think the SAH should have to pay the wage earner when that happens? Anything at ALL? Me, I believe neither needs to be compensated in any way at all by their ex for their chosen marital roles when the divorce becomes final. You don't want a fair system, Max. You want "fairness" for men--and screw the kids and women. Strawman. Oh and BS as well (especially the bit about the kids)..... I want men to be treated the same way women are currently treated as parents to their own children and as divorcees..... Why you find that idea wrong is something you need to explain, not me...... Besides which, the question was for Chris. He jumps in with these little one-liners, but never backs up what he says with fact. This is a public forum where everyone gets to participate....... And anyone who participates can be asked to clarify their statements. (Chris just doesn't tend to do that.) I'm STILL waiting for you clarify several statements of yours. But you conveniently ignore them.... I'll try again with this one: When YOU believe that: .....dumping a SAH parent back into the job market after years of taking care of home and family and saying "Support 'em your 50% of the time by yourself" isn't right, either. I responded By asking: ......is dumping the wage earner into the SAH role right after years of working? What do YOU say about that TM? what form of compensation do YOU think the SAH should have to pay the wage earner when that happens? Anything at ALL? So, Max, in order that I can fully understand your position on these issues, tell me what you think the system should be like. That's simple. Make the system as legally and morally right to men and their parental choices as it is for women. Start from scratch--don't patch up today's system by giving men "as many rights" as women, because we know darn well that will not work. There you go again, saying that giving men the same legal and moral rights women already have will not work....... Why wont it work? It works for women TM. It works damned well when they have to decide if they will or will not be a parent. Tell me why having that choice wont work for men? This is why I believe your claimed stance of supporting men is so hypocritical; You refuse to accept that men having the same legal and moral rights as women already have to choose to be a parent or not wont work if and when men have those rights. Telling men "If you don't want the kid, just say you don't wanna be a dad." and telling women "you didn't create the kid alone, you have a right to help from the dad." is only going to create a battle of "rights"--it won't solve the problem. So, you found a lamp on the beach, rubbed it, and out came a genie, who says "Tell me how to fix the family court system." What would you say, Max? See above and below. # If it's wrong to force women to become mothers of their unwanted children (and it is), then it's just as wrong to force men to become fathers of their unwanted children..... If it's wrong to deny women the right to become mothers to their wanted children (and it is), then it's just as wrong to deny men the right to become fathers of their wanted children..... -- Replace the obvious with paradise to email me. See Found Images at: http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
"Max Burke" wrote in message ... TeacherMama scribbled: snip I'm STILL waiting for you clarify several statements of yours. But you conveniently ignore them.... I'll try again with this one: When YOU believe that: ....dumping a SAH parent back into the job market after years of taking care of home and family and saying "Support 'em your 50% of the time by yourself" isn't right, either. I responded By asking: .....is dumping the wage earner into the SAH role right after years of working? What do YOU say about that TM? what form of compensation do YOU think the SAH should have to pay the wage earner when that happens? Anything at ALL? The wage-earner can survive on fast food, and will not die from a dirty house. The SAH will have a very difficult time finding work at a survival level after a dozen years out of the job market, let alone providing for her children 50% of the time. So, Max, in order that I can fully understand your position on these issues, tell me what you think the system should be like. That's simple. Make the system as legally and morally right to men and their parental choices as it is for women. Start from scratch--don't patch up today's system by giving men "as many rights" as women, because we know darn well that will not work. There you go again, saying that giving men the same legal and moral rights women already have will not work....... Why wont it work? It works for women TM. It works damned well when they have to decide if they will or will not be a parent. Tell me why having that choice wont work for men? This is why I believe your claimed stance of supporting men is so hypocritical; You refuse to accept that men having the same legal and moral rights as women already have to choose to be a parent or not wont work if and when men have those rights. I think by just awarding more and more "rights" to try to balance things out is making a bigger and bigger mess than we have now. At the points where men and women's rights clash, we need to get back to ground Zero and rewrite it! Because there are places where you can't give balancing rights--such as the man wanting the woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy. Should the woman be forced to carry the child because dad wants it? The child belongs to both--should a judge be able to intervene in a case like this? Or are the only "men's rights" we are talking about the ones that keep a man from paying CS? Telling men "If you don't want the kid, just say you don't wanna be a dad." and telling women "you didn't create the kid alone, you have a right to help from the dad." is only going to create a battle of "rights"--it won't solve the problem. So, you found a lamp on the beach, rubbed it, and out came a genie, who says "Tell me how to fix the family court system." What would you say, Max? See above and below. You didn't say a thing, Max. Not a thing. Just the same ofl "The girls got more cookies than I did...NO FAIR!!" stuff you always say. What, specifically, do you want for men? No "As much as the girls got!" Specifically! |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
TeacherMama scribbled:
Max Burke wrote: snip I'm STILL waiting for you clarify several statements of yours. But you conveniently ignore them.... I'll try again with this one: When YOU believe that: ....dumping a SAH parent back into the job market after years of taking care of home and family and saying "Support 'em your 50% of the time by yourself" isn't right, either. I responded By asking: .....is dumping the wage earner into the SAH role right after years of working? What do YOU say about that TM? what form of compensation do YOU think the SAH should have to pay the wage earner when that happens? Anything at ALL? The wage-earner can survive on fast food, and will not die from a dirty house. ROTFLOL What about when they have the kids 50% of the time? Are you REALLY suggesting that the kids survive on fast food while in the wage earners custody, but when in the SAH's custody the wage earner pay the SAH just so the kids DONT have to survive on fast food in a dirty house???? What you're really saying here is that the wage earner deserves nothing for their chosen sacrifices made during the marriage. As I said your hypocrisy is clearly evident when you claim to support men and the way they are treated by the 'system' you claim to be opposed to... At the very least you probably haven't even thought about this 'situation' or more likely dont consider it a 'situation' at all so there is no need for the wage earner to be considered at all..... The SAH will have a very difficult time finding work at a survival level after a dozen years out of the job market, let alone providing for her children 50% of the time. That's the result of THEIR CHOICE to be an SAH and their failure to keep up their job skills while still married. And before you start whining and bitching that both made that decision, both also made the decision about who would be the wage earner, therefore if there is a need for compensation for the consequences of those *mutual choices* then it should apply to both parties..... FYI (try reading it this time) Men on the edge SATURDAY , 31 MAY 2003 http://www.stuff.co.nz/inl/print/0,1...3a1861,00.html It's the men's club no-one wants to join, but it claims as many as a third of the country's men in its ranks. Geoff Collett reports on New Zealand's army of blokes with little cash and few hopes. In a tidy, modest, rented house in a tidy, modest, Christchurch suburban street, 47-year-old Richard is spelling out some of the mundane realities of life as a marginal man. He rarely goes out, except to work. He sold the motor mower because he couldn't afford the petrol. He won't use electricity for heating, and he relies on his teenage son's op-shopping skills for clothes. Such are the facts of life on $300 a week. Richard (his name has been changed for this article) clearly displays many of the traits associated with masculinity in this day and age he is proud, capable, fit-looking, resourceful. He is also better off than many might be, working in a bar for $12 an hour, 30 hours a week. But no matter that he can bake his own bread, grow his own veges, and look after himself around the house. Richard like tens of thousands of other Kiwi blokes is falling far short in a crucial measure of being a man the ability to earn a decent whack. And the vast presence of these marginal men in the population statistics is emerging as a troubling trend, calling into question the ability of a large chunk of this country's men to contribute to society in the way traditionally expected. Membership of this least exclusive of men's clubs comes from earning below $25,000 a year, or $12 an hour roughly two-thirds of the average wage and a point not too far above where poverty starts to scratch at the door. Besides being poor, many of their number are isolated and alienated. At the last Census, a third of New Zealand men in the prime of their lives aged 25 to 44 qualified. Of those nearing retirement, those aged 55 to 64 , the proportion was 42 per cent. In Canterbury, a third of men aged 25 to 64 40,000 in all declared their annual income at Census time to be below $25,000. While it is tempting to dismiss their plight as paling alongside the lot of other minorities sole mothers, for example, or the profound disadvantages stacked against Maori and while many more women than men occupy low-paying jobs, these marginal men have problems all their own. Many are single, or separated and embittered by child-custody proceedings, their meagre incomes further reduced by child-support obligations. Their financial circumstances mean their prospects for starting a new family are slim indeed. An Australian researcher has linked their prevalence in his country to declining fertility rates. These men have little hope of owning their own home if they don't already. And at least some social workers are convinced there is a connection between the numbers of marginal men and the fact that in 2000, men aged 25 to 55 accounted for almost half of New Zealand's suicides. Being poor, isolated, and alienated cuts manhood to the quick. Even in a generation where most women have more than proved their ability to look after themselves financially, a man's ability to earn remains a core expectation "that society has of its men and men have of themselves", says Rex McCann, the director of Auckland-based Essentially Men. "The ability to earn is very deeply connected to our identity," he says, likening it to the birthing and nurturing role in women. And women look for a partner who can offer them financial security. That, McCann says, is instinctive, too. Simon Jones, a counsellor and social worker with Catholic Social Services in Christchurch, sees familiar signs in the struggling single men he works with. They suffer low self-esteem, have poor communication skills, "often feel they don't know how to approach women ... they think basically they haven't got anything to offer". And to rub their nose in it, a relationship is often all they really yearn for. They feel that if they found a woman, got married, and had children, that would be the answer to all their dreams, Jones says. Another counsellor, Don Rowlands of the Home and Family organisation, and co-ordinator of the Caring Fathers' Group, sees men who are excluded not just from the dating game, but from any social activity that requires money. They cannot afford a night out, or live in such seedy accommodation they are embarrassed to bring guests home. A round at the pub, a sports club membership, a car to go on outings are all beyond them. Karen Whittaker, the manager of the Salvation Army's Hope Centre in Christchurch, tells of the men she and her staff see, the sort "who just manages I wouldn't say he has quality but manages, to go to work, he has his cigs, and that's probably about all". "And every fortnight, he'll have the kids for the weekend, and there's not enough money to feed the kids," she says. That is when the Sallies will see him when he swallows his pride and shows up at the food bank. Or when it's kids' birthdays, and he is scouring the op-shop for presents. "A dad on his own would say he could go without a lot of things," Whittaker says. "He's not worried about heating and that sort of thing. "But he would rather come to us than lose face with his kids." Whittaker worries about what she is seeing: the legacy of men who have lost their place in life. "Society and culture has stripped so many of the things from them that are instinctively theirs to do. "There has to be some breaking out of that." One of her staff, Hope Centre advocate Rance Stuart, knows all about the peculiar hardships of being a man trapped in a low-income existence. He works with some pretty dire cases. His own income squeaks in above the $25,000 level, and while he doesn't think that is too bad, he knows about struggling to get by. He shares custody of two daughters with his former partner. He doesn't run a car. That is an obstacle to social activities he would like to join a tramping club, but doesn't want to be in a situation where he would always be hitching rides. He doesn't go out much and has chosen to concentrate his money on things such as food, so the family can eat properly, and on activities his daughters want to pursue. But, as he laments, "there are little hidden traps in being poor". Like not being able to afford insurance he recalls buying on hire purchase a mountain bike for one of his girls who wants to ride competitively, only for the bike to be stolen with just three payments to go. His dream is to own his own home. He could afford the mortgage payments, he says, but scraping up a deposit seems a distant hope. "I'm frustrated, very frustrated, because for a lot of my life I wasn't concerned about owning a home, but since I've had a family, particularly since I've had them in my care, I've wanted to." Stuart is philosophical about his own struggles, especially compared to men who don't share even his modest lot, nor his determined optimism. The men who have said to him that they have achieved nothing with their lives. The men, single, alone, and poor, who count up the positive aspects of their existence and settle on suicide. It's ironic, Stuart reflects. Women who struggle alone, raise children, and defy the odds simply by getting by are typically praised for their fortitude. A man in such circumstances is called a loser. One of the few attempts to raise the profile of New Zealand's struggling men came earlier this month from a New Plymouth-based employment researcher, Vivian Hutchinson. He used his website publication, The Jobs Letter (www.jobsletter.org.nz), to report on their prevalence, highlighting research by Professor Bob Birrell, who heads the centre for population and urban research at Melbourne's Monash University. Birrell sees a link between Australia's high proportion of single men (40 per cent of Aussie guys aged 30 to 34) and the high proportion of low-income men there (42 per cent of men aged 25 to 44). It is not a direct correlation, but Birrell is convinced the connection is there and, as he wrote in Melbourne's Age newspaper, he considered the low rate of partnering was less to do with men "enjoying their manly freedom" than with simple if bleak economic realities. Another Australian academic, Professor Bob Gregory of the Australian National University's department of economics, believes unskilled men have been left behind during Australia's past two decades of economic growth. Their low earning power was now affecting "the main child-bearing, career-making, income-generating years of a man's life", he told the Australian Financial Review. "It is becoming a much more permanent thing," Gregory warned. "It is stuck there as a mucking-up-people's-lives phenomenon, and all the policy changes haven't been effective in getting to this group." Wellington economist and researcher Paul Callister has studied the issue in this country, and while his work is now a few years old, he reached similar conclusions. He thinks many low-income men will eventually escape their straitened circumstances, but about a fifth of all New Zealand men are in a "fairly difficult long-term position" as far as job and earning prospects go. And, like the Australian researchers, Callister believes that throws up doubts about their preparedness to enter the family way. The numbers may seem huge, but economists and social researchers working in the area can readily point to the reasons why. Prominent among these are the waves of redundancies and corporate restructurings of the 1990s which left thousands of men stranded with out-of-date skills. Divorce and the high costs to some men of custody disputes is another popular theory. Less obvious causes include the number of men hampered by physical injuries, especially from their youth, and former convicts trying to get back into society. Poor education, illness, dumb decisions and simple hard luck are other factors blamed for holding men down in the sub-$25,000 income bracket. And, of course, there is unemployment, and the general loss of union power in the employment market. Council of Trade Unions economist Peter Conway says: "Essentially, we had an economy for 10 years or more run on the basis of getting the cheapest possible labour, making it as flexible as possible." The award system was abolished, removing minimum pay rates and conditions (Conway is keen to point out that both men and women suffered). There was a dire lack of investment in retraining and improving workers' skills. "The extent of poverty is a lot more embedded from the last 15 years than many people realise," Conway argues. The CTU may see the current Government as generally moving to address the shortcomings of the 1990s, but "we don't bounce back from that in a couple of years". Back in that tidy, modest rented house, Richard makes clear his dismay with the way New Zealand has gone. For much of his life he did well for himself. But circumstances such as an expensive custody dispute after his divorce, and a serious accident while working overseas after the dispute have conspired against him. He returned to New Zealand with his savings gone, to discover a place which had no room for a man down on his luck. He is embittered about the divorce and child custody laws, about demands on hard-up men to pay child support when the female partner may be better off financially. He is angered by a social welfare system that treats its users as the enemy. And he is frustrated at being part of a low-wage economy. Richard struggled for a year to find a job. He still has a folder stuffed with job advertisements and rejection letters. He is loath to complain about the one he now has, his $12-an-hour, 30-hours-a-week behind a bar. But he can't help himself, saying wearily: "It's tough coming home and being in a slave market." A man expects more. So, Max, in order that I can fully understand your position on these issues, tell me what you think the system should be like. That's simple. Make the system as legally and morally right to men and their parental choices as it is for women. Start from scratch--don't patch up today's system by giving men "as many rights" as women, because we know darn well that will not work. There you go again, saying that giving men the same legal and moral rights women already have will not work....... Why wont it work? It works for women TM. It works damned well when they have to decide if they will or will not be a parent. Tell me why having that choice wont work for men? This is why I believe your claimed stance of supporting men is so hypocritical; You refuse to accept that men having the same legal and moral rights as women already have to choose to be a parent or not wont work if and when men have those rights. I think by just awarding more and more "rights" to try to balance things out is making a bigger and bigger mess than we have now. IOW Society has handed out enough rights WRT being a parent; Too bad that men missed out on those rights, they'll just have to live without them.... You haven't even thought about this at all have you; You're making it all up as you go along to justify your knee-jerk reactions....... At the points where men and women's rights clash, we need to get back to ground Zero and rewrite it! No we DONT! We dont need to take away women's rights to avoid men having those same rights. After all we didn't have to take away men's rights when giving women those same rights. I have to wonder why you think this way, and wonder how you'd really feel when YOUR rights get taken away just so men dont get the same rights. Because there are places where you can't give balancing rights--such as the man wanting the woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy. In cases like this men need to find and make a commitment to a woman who wants a child as much as he does. There is no need for men to have the right to force women to continue an unwanted pregnancy at all. But to make it equal, when women want to give birth to the child when she knows the man doesn't want the child, she likewise should have no right to force him to be a father to that unwanted child. She needs to find a man who wants that child as much as she does and be prepared to make the long term commitment that is required. Should the woman be forced to carry the child because dad wants it? Not at all. But then neither should men be required to be an 'unwilling father' when they dont want the child and women do...... The child belongs to both--should a judge be able to intervene in a case like this? Men should have the legal, social, and moral right to decide if they'll be a parent or not. Women already have this legal, social, and moral right to decide, so should men. Or are the only "men's rights" we are talking about the ones that keep a man from paying CS? No. See above. Telling men "If you don't want the kid, just say you don't wanna be a dad." and telling women "you didn't create the kid alone, you have a right to help from the dad." is only going to create a battle of "rights"--it won't solve the problem. So, you found a lamp on the beach, rubbed it, and out came a genie, who says "Tell me how to fix the family court system." What would you say, Max? See above and below. You didn't say a thing, Max. Not a thing. Just the same ofl "The girls got more cookies than I did...NO FAIR!!" stuff you always say. ROTFLOL And your whining and bitching about the SAH not getting the same number of 'cookies' and the wage earner after the divorce is NOTHING like that is it...... If you REALLY want equality TM, then you'll need to realise that it will require you to change your attitude and realise that equality means being EQUAL, including men having the same rights that women already have. What, specifically, do you want for men? No "As much as the girls got!" Specifically! The SAME RIGHTS women already have. Why is that so hard for you to understand TM? I mean what EXACTLY is it that you find so difficult about understanding men having the same legal, social, and moral rights as women? You appear to be so totally against men having the right to decide if they'll be a parent or not, you're quite willing to have that very right taken away from women (including yourself apparently) just so men dont get that right. So I take it when you 'rewrite' these rights, start from scratch, you'll say women cant abort the pregnancy they dont want, or cant keep the [potential] child they cant possibly look after without needing welfare or CS..... That you'll tell women that when they choose to have sex and conceive as a result tough that was YOUR CHOICE, you now have to live with the consequences of that choice, and women DONT get to decide what the outcome of that conception will be, it's all down to the law, judges, and child care authorities that tell women what sort of parent they will be and what their parental 'responsibilities' are...... # If the abstract rights of men will bear discussion and explanation, then those of women, by a parity of reasoning, will not fail the same test; Although a different opinion prevails in the minds of most women when their rights are put to that test.... -- Replace the obvious with paradise to email me. See Found Images at: http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
Selfish and self centered, Max. Only "fairness to men" is important. Women
"have been supported" by the poor, long-suffering victims called men for so long that all women deserve is to be screwed blue by the system--just as the poor, long-suffering men-victims have for all these years. BECAUSE the system has been so unjust to men, ALL women deserve to be screwed. Because THAT will fix the whole system in Max's eyes. WOMEN suffering as MEN have suffered will make it all better. I do note that you have not presented YOUR plan for fixing the system, except for your notion that WOMEN deserve to suffer. Wow! Let's get you into politics! "Max Burke" wrote in message ... TeacherMama scribbled: Max Burke wrote: snip I'm STILL waiting for you clarify several statements of yours. But you conveniently ignore them.... I'll try again with this one: When YOU believe that: ....dumping a SAH parent back into the job market after years of taking care of home and family and saying "Support 'em your 50% of the time by yourself" isn't right, either. I responded By asking: .....is dumping the wage earner into the SAH role right after years of working? What do YOU say about that TM? what form of compensation do YOU think the SAH should have to pay the wage earner when that happens? Anything at ALL? The wage-earner can survive on fast food, and will not die from a dirty house. ROTFLOL What about when they have the kids 50% of the time? Are you REALLY suggesting that the kids survive on fast food while in the wage earners custody, but when in the SAH's custody the wage earner pay the SAH just so the kids DONT have to survive on fast food in a dirty house???? What you're really saying here is that the wage earner deserves nothing for their chosen sacrifices made during the marriage. As I said your hypocrisy is clearly evident when you claim to support men and the way they are treated by the 'system' you claim to be opposed to... At the very least you probably haven't even thought about this 'situation' or more likely dont consider it a 'situation' at all so there is no need for the wage earner to be considered at all..... The SAH will have a very difficult time finding work at a survival level after a dozen years out of the job market, let alone providing for her children 50% of the time. That's the result of THEIR CHOICE to be an SAH and their failure to keep up their job skills while still married. And before you start whining and bitching that both made that decision, both also made the decision about who would be the wage earner, therefore if there is a need for compensation for the consequences of those *mutual choices* then it should apply to both parties..... FYI (try reading it this time) Men on the edge SATURDAY , 31 MAY 2003 http://www.stuff.co.nz/inl/print/0,1...3a1861,00.html It's the men's club no-one wants to join, but it claims as many as a third of the country's men in its ranks. Geoff Collett reports on New Zealand's army of blokes with little cash and few hopes. In a tidy, modest, rented house in a tidy, modest, Christchurch suburban street, 47-year-old Richard is spelling out some of the mundane realities of life as a marginal man. He rarely goes out, except to work. He sold the motor mower because he couldn't afford the petrol. He won't use electricity for heating, and he relies on his teenage son's op-shopping skills for clothes. Such are the facts of life on $300 a week. Richard (his name has been changed for this article) clearly displays many of the traits associated with masculinity in this day and age he is proud, capable, fit-looking, resourceful. He is also better off than many might be, working in a bar for $12 an hour, 30 hours a week. But no matter that he can bake his own bread, grow his own veges, and look after himself around the house. Richard like tens of thousands of other Kiwi blokes is falling far short in a crucial measure of being a man the ability to earn a decent whack. And the vast presence of these marginal men in the population statistics is emerging as a troubling trend, calling into question the ability of a large chunk of this country's men to contribute to society in the way traditionally expected. Membership of this least exclusive of men's clubs comes from earning below $25,000 a year, or $12 an hour roughly two-thirds of the average wage and a point not too far above where poverty starts to scratch at the door. Besides being poor, many of their number are isolated and alienated. At the last Census, a third of New Zealand men in the prime of their lives aged 25 to 44 qualified. Of those nearing retirement, those aged 55 to 64 , the proportion was 42 per cent. In Canterbury, a third of men aged 25 to 64 40,000 in all declared their annual income at Census time to be below $25,000. While it is tempting to dismiss their plight as paling alongside the lot of other minorities sole mothers, for example, or the profound disadvantages stacked against Maori and while many more women than men occupy low-paying jobs, these marginal men have problems all their own. Many are single, or separated and embittered by child-custody proceedings, their meagre incomes further reduced by child-support obligations. Their financial circumstances mean their prospects for starting a new family are slim indeed. An Australian researcher has linked their prevalence in his country to declining fertility rates. These men have little hope of owning their own home if they don't already. And at least some social workers are convinced there is a connection between the numbers of marginal men and the fact that in 2000, men aged 25 to 55 accounted for almost half of New Zealand's suicides. Being poor, isolated, and alienated cuts manhood to the quick. Even in a generation where most women have more than proved their ability to look after themselves financially, a man's ability to earn remains a core expectation "that society has of its men and men have of themselves", says Rex McCann, the director of Auckland-based Essentially Men. "The ability to earn is very deeply connected to our identity," he says, likening it to the birthing and nurturing role in women. And women look for a partner who can offer them financial security. That, McCann says, is instinctive, too. Simon Jones, a counsellor and social worker with Catholic Social Services in Christchurch, sees familiar signs in the struggling single men he works with. They suffer low self-esteem, have poor communication skills, "often feel they don't know how to approach women ... they think basically they haven't got anything to offer". And to rub their nose in it, a relationship is often all they really yearn for. They feel that if they found a woman, got married, and had children, that would be the answer to all their dreams, Jones says. Another counsellor, Don Rowlands of the Home and Family organisation, and co-ordinator of the Caring Fathers' Group, sees men who are excluded not just from the dating game, but from any social activity that requires money. They cannot afford a night out, or live in such seedy accommodation they are embarrassed to bring guests home. A round at the pub, a sports club membership, a car to go on outings are all beyond them. Karen Whittaker, the manager of the Salvation Army's Hope Centre in Christchurch, tells of the men she and her staff see, the sort "who just manages I wouldn't say he has quality but manages, to go to work, he has his cigs, and that's probably about all". "And every fortnight, he'll have the kids for the weekend, and there's not enough money to feed the kids," she says. That is when the Sallies will see him when he swallows his pride and shows up at the food bank. Or when it's kids' birthdays, and he is scouring the op-shop for presents. "A dad on his own would say he could go without a lot of things," Whittaker says. "He's not worried about heating and that sort of thing. "But he would rather come to us than lose face with his kids." Whittaker worries about what she is seeing: the legacy of men who have lost their place in life. "Society and culture has stripped so many of the things from them that are instinctively theirs to do. "There has to be some breaking out of that." One of her staff, Hope Centre advocate Rance Stuart, knows all about the peculiar hardships of being a man trapped in a low-income existence. He works with some pretty dire cases. His own income squeaks in above the $25,000 level, and while he doesn't think that is too bad, he knows about struggling to get by. He shares custody of two daughters with his former partner. He doesn't run a car. That is an obstacle to social activities he would like to join a tramping club, but doesn't want to be in a situation where he would always be hitching rides. He doesn't go out much and has chosen to concentrate his money on things such as food, so the family can eat properly, and on activities his daughters want to pursue. But, as he laments, "there are little hidden traps in being poor". Like not being able to afford insurance he recalls buying on hire purchase a mountain bike for one of his girls who wants to ride competitively, only for the bike to be stolen with just three payments to go. His dream is to own his own home. He could afford the mortgage payments, he says, but scraping up a deposit seems a distant hope. "I'm frustrated, very frustrated, because for a lot of my life I wasn't concerned about owning a home, but since I've had a family, particularly since I've had them in my care, I've wanted to." Stuart is philosophical about his own struggles, especially compared to men who don't share even his modest lot, nor his determined optimism. The men who have said to him that they have achieved nothing with their lives. The men, single, alone, and poor, who count up the positive aspects of their existence and settle on suicide. It's ironic, Stuart reflects. Women who struggle alone, raise children, and defy the odds simply by getting by are typically praised for their fortitude. A man in such circumstances is called a loser. One of the few attempts to raise the profile of New Zealand's struggling men came earlier this month from a New Plymouth-based employment researcher, Vivian Hutchinson. He used his website publication, The Jobs Letter (www.jobsletter.org.nz), to report on their prevalence, highlighting research by Professor Bob Birrell, who heads the centre for population and urban research at Melbourne's Monash University. Birrell sees a link between Australia's high proportion of single men (40 per cent of Aussie guys aged 30 to 34) and the high proportion of low-income men there (42 per cent of men aged 25 to 44). It is not a direct correlation, but Birrell is convinced the connection is there and, as he wrote in Melbourne's Age newspaper, he considered the low rate of partnering was less to do with men "enjoying their manly freedom" than with simple if bleak economic realities. Another Australian academic, Professor Bob Gregory of the Australian National University's department of economics, believes unskilled men have been left behind during Australia's past two decades of economic growth. Their low earning power was now affecting "the main child-bearing, career-making, income-generating years of a man's life", he told the Australian Financial Review. "It is becoming a much more permanent thing," Gregory warned. "It is stuck there as a mucking-up-people's-lives phenomenon, and all the policy changes haven't been effective in getting to this group." Wellington economist and researcher Paul Callister has studied the issue in this country, and while his work is now a few years old, he reached similar conclusions. He thinks many low-income men will eventually escape their straitened circumstances, but about a fifth of all New Zealand men are in a "fairly difficult long-term position" as far as job and earning prospects go. And, like the Australian researchers, Callister believes that throws up doubts about their preparedness to enter the family way. The numbers may seem huge, but economists and social researchers working in the area can readily point to the reasons why. Prominent among these are the waves of redundancies and corporate restructurings of the 1990s which left thousands of men stranded with out-of-date skills. Divorce and the high costs to some men of custody disputes is another popular theory. Less obvious causes include the number of men hampered by physical injuries, especially from their youth, and former convicts trying to get back into society. Poor education, illness, dumb decisions and simple hard luck are other factors blamed for holding men down in the sub-$25,000 income bracket. And, of course, there is unemployment, and the general loss of union power in the employment market. Council of Trade Unions economist Peter Conway says: "Essentially, we had an economy for 10 years or more run on the basis of getting the cheapest possible labour, making it as flexible as possible." The award system was abolished, removing minimum pay rates and conditions (Conway is keen to point out that both men and women suffered). There was a dire lack of investment in retraining and improving workers' skills. "The extent of poverty is a lot more embedded from the last 15 years than many people realise," Conway argues. The CTU may see the current Government as generally moving to address the shortcomings of the 1990s, but "we don't bounce back from that in a couple of years". Back in that tidy, modest rented house, Richard makes clear his dismay with the way New Zealand has gone. For much of his life he did well for himself. But circumstances such as an expensive custody dispute after his divorce, and a serious accident while working overseas after the dispute have conspired against him. He returned to New Zealand with his savings gone, to discover a place which had no room for a man down on his luck. He is embittered about the divorce and child custody laws, about demands on hard-up men to pay child support when the female partner may be better off financially. He is angered by a social welfare system that treats its users as the enemy. And he is frustrated at being part of a low-wage economy. Richard struggled for a year to find a job. He still has a folder stuffed with job advertisements and rejection letters. He is loath to complain about the one he now has, his $12-an-hour, 30-hours-a-week behind a bar. But he can't help himself, saying wearily: "It's tough coming home and being in a slave market." A man expects more. So, Max, in order that I can fully understand your position on these issues, tell me what you think the system should be like. That's simple. Make the system as legally and morally right to men and their parental choices as it is for women. Start from scratch--don't patch up today's system by giving men "as many rights" as women, because we know darn well that will not work. There you go again, saying that giving men the same legal and moral rights women already have will not work....... Why wont it work? It works for women TM. It works damned well when they have to decide if they will or will not be a parent. Tell me why having that choice wont work for men? This is why I believe your claimed stance of supporting men is so hypocritical; You refuse to accept that men having the same legal and moral rights as women already have to choose to be a parent or not wont work if and when men have those rights. I think by just awarding more and more "rights" to try to balance things out is making a bigger and bigger mess than we have now. IOW Society has handed out enough rights WRT being a parent; Too bad that men missed out on those rights, they'll just have to live without them.... You haven't even thought about this at all have you; You're making it all up as you go along to justify your knee-jerk reactions....... At the points where men and women's rights clash, we need to get back to ground Zero and rewrite it! No we DONT! We dont need to take away women's rights to avoid men having those same rights. After all we didn't have to take away men's rights when giving women those same rights. I have to wonder why you think this way, and wonder how you'd really feel when YOUR rights get taken away just so men dont get the same rights. Because there are places where you can't give balancing rights--such as the man wanting the woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy. In cases like this men need to find and make a commitment to a woman who wants a child as much as he does. There is no need for men to have the right to force women to continue an unwanted pregnancy at all. But to make it equal, when women want to give birth to the child when she knows the man doesn't want the child, she likewise should have no right to force him to be a father to that unwanted child. She needs to find a man who wants that child as much as she does and be prepared to make the long term commitment that is required. Should the woman be forced to carry the child because dad wants it? Not at all. But then neither should men be required to be an 'unwilling father' when they dont want the child and women do...... The child belongs to both--should a judge be able to intervene in a case like this? Men should have the legal, social, and moral right to decide if they'll be a parent or not. Women already have this legal, social, and moral right to decide, so should men. Or are the only "men's rights" we are talking about the ones that keep a man from paying CS? No. See above. Telling men "If you don't want the kid, just say you don't wanna be a dad." and telling women "you didn't create the kid alone, you have a right to help from the dad." is only going to create a battle of "rights"--it won't solve the problem. So, you found a lamp on the beach, rubbed it, and out came a genie, who says "Tell me how to fix the family court system." What would you say, Max? See above and below. You didn't say a thing, Max. Not a thing. Just the same ofl "The girls got more cookies than I did...NO FAIR!!" stuff you always say. ROTFLOL And your whining and bitching about the SAH not getting the same number of 'cookies' and the wage earner after the divorce is NOTHING like that is it...... If you REALLY want equality TM, then you'll need to realise that it will require you to change your attitude and realise that equality means being EQUAL, including men having the same rights that women already have. What, specifically, do you want for men? No "As much as the girls got!" Specifically! The SAME RIGHTS women already have. Why is that so hard for you to understand TM? I mean what EXACTLY is it that you find so difficult about understanding men having the same legal, social, and moral rights as women? You appear to be so totally against men having the right to decide if they'll be a parent or not, you're quite willing to have that very right taken away from women (including yourself apparently) just so men dont get that right. So I take it when you 'rewrite' these rights, start from scratch, you'll say women cant abort the pregnancy they dont want, or cant keep the [potential] child they cant possibly look after without needing welfare or CS..... That you'll tell women that when they choose to have sex and conceive as a result tough that was YOUR CHOICE, you now have to live with the consequences of that choice, and women DONT get to decide what the outcome of that conception will be, it's all down to the law, judges, and child care authorities that tell women what sort of parent they will be and what their parental 'responsibilities' are...... # If the abstract rights of men will bear discussion and explanation, then those of women, by a parity of reasoning, will not fail the same test; Although a different opinion prevails in the minds of most women when their rights are put to that test.... -- Replace the obvious with paradise to email me. See Found Images at: http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
TeacherMama scribbled:
Selfish and self centered, Max. Naaa that would be YOU...... Only "fairness to men" is important. No TM. Fairness to *everyone,* even shock, horror, MEN. Tell me again why YOU dont want that..... Women "have been supported" by the poor, long-suffering victims called men for so long that all women deserve is to be screwed blue by the system--just as the poor, long-suffering men-victims have for all these years. You sound just like a feminist, but that's not surprising since you apparently hold so many feminist beliefs........ ROTFLOL BECAUSE the system has been so unjust to men, ALL women deserve to be screwed. BS. Strawman. Try again. Because THAT will fix the whole system in Max's eyes. What I suggest is a DAMNED sight better than what you say needs to be done. You want WOMEN to lose their rights just so we dont have to give the same rights to men. How STUPID is that TM? WOMEN suffering as MEN have suffered will make it all better. BS. Strawman. Try again. I do note that you have not presented YOUR plan for fixing the system, Yes I have but I doubt you have even bothered to read it at all. You're just the usual feminist hypocrite aren't you...... except for your notion that WOMEN deserve to suffer. BS. Strawman. Try again. Oh and for once in your life why not try and post a *reasonable* response and stop whining and bitch about your hypocritical beliefs in being all for men..... Be honest and tell us all what you REALLY think....... Not that I'll hold my breath waiting for that to happen. At least I have the satisfaction of showing ACS that yet another 'woman' claiming to be 'for men' is nothing but a hypocrite when it comes down to what you really believe about being 'for men'..... The wage-earner can survive on fast food, and will not die from a dirty house. ROTFLOL What about when they have the kids 50% of the time? Are you REALLY suggesting that the kids survive on fast food while in the wage earners custody, but when in the SAH's custody the wage earner pay the SAH just so the kids DONT have to survive on fast food in a dirty house???? What you're really saying here is that the wage earner deserves nothing for their chosen sacrifices made during the marriage. As I said your hypocrisy is clearly evident when you claim to support men and the way they are treated by the 'system' you claim to be opposed to... At the very least you probably haven't even thought about this 'situation' or more likely dont consider it a 'situation' at all so there is no need for the wage earner to be considered at all..... The SAH will have a very difficult time finding work at a survival level after a dozen years out of the job market, let alone providing for her children 50% of the time. That's the result of THEIR CHOICE to be an SAH and their failure to keep up their job skills while still married. And before you start whining and bitching that both made that decision, both also made the decision about who would be the wage earner, therefore if there is a need for compensation for the consequences of those *mutual choices* then it should apply to both parties..... So, Max, in order that I can fully understand your position on these issues, tell me what you think the system should be like. That's simple. Make the system as legally and morally right to men and their parental choices as it is for women. Start from scratch--don't patch up today's system by giving men "as many rights" as women, because we know darn well that will not work. There you go again, saying that giving men the same legal and moral rights women already have will not work....... Why wont it work? It works for women TM. It works damned well when they have to decide if they will or will not be a parent. Tell me why having that choice wont work for men? This is why I believe your claimed stance of supporting men is so hypocritical; You refuse to accept that men having the same legal and moral rights as women already have to choose to be a parent or not wont work if and when men have those rights. I think by just awarding more and more "rights" to try to balance things out is making a bigger and bigger mess than we have now. IOW Society has handed out enough rights WRT being a parent; Too bad that men missed out on those rights, they'll just have to live without them.... You haven't even thought about this at all have you; You're making it all up as you go along to justify your knee-jerk reactions....... At the points where men and women's rights clash, we need to get back to ground Zero and rewrite it! No we DONT! We dont need to take away women's rights to avoid men having those same rights. After all we didn't have to take away men's rights when giving women those same rights. I have to wonder why you think this way, and wonder how you'd really feel when YOUR rights get taken away just so men dont get the same rights. Because there are places where you can't give balancing rights--such as the man wanting the woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy. In cases like this men need to find and make a commitment to a woman who wants a child as much as he does. There is no need for men to have the right to force women to continue an unwanted pregnancy at all. But to make it equal, when women want to give birth to the child when she knows the man doesn't want the child, she likewise should have no right to force him to be a father to that unwanted child. She needs to find a man who wants that child as much as she does and be prepared to make the long term commitment that is required. Should the woman be forced to carry the child because dad wants it? Not at all. But then neither should men be required to be an 'unwilling father' when they dont want the child and women do...... The child belongs to both--should a judge be able to intervene in a case like this? Men should have the legal, social, and moral right to decide if they'll be a parent or not. Women already have this legal, social, and moral right to decide, so should men. Or are the only "men's rights" we are talking about the ones that keep a man from paying CS? No. See above. Telling men "If you don't want the kid, just say you don't wanna be a dad." and telling women "you didn't create the kid alone, you have a right to help from the dad." is only going to create a battle of "rights"--it won't solve the problem. So, you found a lamp on the beach, rubbed it, and out came a genie, who says "Tell me how to fix the family court system." What would you say, Max? See above and below. You didn't say a thing, Max. Not a thing. Just the same ofl "The girls got more cookies than I did...NO FAIR!!" stuff you always say. ROTFLOL And your whining and bitching about the SAH not getting the same number of 'cookies' and the wage earner after the divorce is NOTHING like that is it...... If you REALLY want equality TM, then you'll need to realise that it will require you to change your attitude and realise that equality means being EQUAL, including men having the same rights that women already have. What, specifically, do you want for men? No "As much as the girls got!" Specifically! The SAME RIGHTS women already have. Why is that so hard for you to understand TM? I mean what EXACTLY is it that you find so difficult about understanding men having the same legal, social, and moral rights as women? You appear to be so totally against men having the right to decide if they'll be a parent or not, you're quite willing to have that very right taken away from women (including yourself apparently) just so men dont get that right. So I take it when you 'rewrite' these rights, start from scratch, you'll say women cant abort the pregnancy they dont want, or cant keep the [potential] child they cant possibly look after without needing welfare or CS..... That you'll tell women that when they choose to have sex and conceive as a result tough that was YOUR CHOICE, you now have to live with the consequences of that choice, and women DONT get to decide what the outcome of that conception will be, it's all down to the law, judges, and child care authorities that tell women what sort of parent they will be and what their parental 'responsibilities' are...... # If the abstract rights of men will bear discussion and explanation, then those of women, by a parity of reasoning, will not fail the same test; Although a different opinion prevails in the minds of most women when their rights are put to that test.... -- Replace the obvious with paradise to email me. See Found Images at: http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
"TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:o99La.83450$%42.58215@fed1read06... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:4uuKa.82494$%42.14146@fed1read06... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... Indyguy1 wrote: Dave wrote: snip to But why do men fail to organize and protest? I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many have been raised. Women have traditionally been the organizers in families. They see to it that the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked, the family events are attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their mothes be the organizers and then marry women who continue the pattern. The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising boys to expect this of women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo role as women. Do it by example and in word. I'm doing my share. Mrs Indyguy I have some theories too, and they're very different from Mrs. Indyguy's. I think that very few men are willing to come out and openly stand up for the interests of men, in situations where those interests are entirely the opposite of women -- as is the case in most domestic relations matters. Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are subject to the very real threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly possessions just because they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand, at the very worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not much to lose there. Why do you say that? It's called BIGGER GUNS.... ever hear of it? Why would they go to jail or lose their worldly possessions because they protested against the system? Now, if their protest was in the form of refusing to pay child support, then I can see where that might be true. But organizing and picketing, etc--why would that merit jail time? It doesn't, but they get it anyway. When? When did men get sent to jail for picketing about CS matters? I said NOTHING about picketing. I referred to men fighting the system; and yes MANY of them go to jail for doing so. And if women were out there picketing with them, why do you think the women would get different treatment? They DO when it's a "WOMAN'S" issue. So there was some particular time when a group of men and women were picketing, protesting the unfair CS system, and the men were sent to jail, and the women weren't? When? Great strawman. Do you have any examples of this happening? Go to ANY feminazi website, and there you will have your answer. But you made the assertion, so you must have a specific time you are speaking of. Precisely WHAT is my assertion? There are several elements in this reluctance of men to openly oppose women. One is old-fashioned chivalry, which (despite all the changes in society) remains an important factor. Another is that, to put it bluntly, heterosexual men are usually on the lookout for women as sexual partners, and they realize that appearing hostile to the interests of women will not help them in that regard. Still another is that men are more individualistic than women, and have a greater tendency to be self-reliant. In my opinion, the first step to changing the situation is for men to understand that there ARE scenarios where their interests are totally the opposite of women, and where there is a zero-sum game in operation. In short, we must have an end to the situation where, in the battle of the sexes, only one side shows up. Balance will not be restored, and the two sexes will not achieve a fairer equilibrium, without an interim period of men taking back what has been stolen from them by feminism. |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
"TeacherMama" wrote in message ... I didn't say it didn't happen. I asked Chris to document instances where a group peacefully picketing outside a courthouse about the injustices of today's CS system were prevented from doing so, the MEN were jsiled, and the women just sent on their ways. That is what he claimed. Untrue. I do understand how unfair today's system is, Max. I'm in the middle of it, too!! "Max Burke" wrote in message ... TeacherMama scribbled: "Chris" wrote in message Why would they go to jail or lose their worldly possessions because they protested against the system? Now, if their protest was in the form of refusing to pay child support, then I can see where that might be true. But organizing and picketing, etc--why would that merit jail time? It doesn't, but they get it anyway. When? When did men get sent to jail for picketing about CS matters? FYI TM...... The term "totalitarian" is frequently used to characterize high-profile feminist campaigns such as "sexual harassment" and "date rape." Much of this is exaggeration. Yet far more serious, and much less scrutinized, is something going on in the United States - the billion-dollar divorce, child custody, and child support industry. In only the last few months, according to one federal public defender, "the number of federal child support prosecutions has skyrocketed." And it usually is the father who is targeted. If children are given in custody to all his financial records. A father will be questioned about how he "feels" about his children, what he does with them, where he takes them, how he kisses them, how he feeds and bathes them, what he buys for them, and what he discusses with them. Family courts regularly tell fathers what worship they may or must take their children to and control their discussions with their children about matters such as religion and politics. Fathers must surrender personal diaries, notebooks, correspondence, financial records, and other documents. In many jurisdictions it is now a crime to criticize family court judges. Following his congressional testimony critical of the family courts in 1992, Jim Wagner was stripped of custody of his two children and jailed by a Georgia judge. In both Britain and Australia, fathers have been jailed for criticizing judges. Children too have been jailed for refusing to testify against their father. Government agents increasingly assume a vast array of intrusive powers over parents whose children they control. "Never before have federal officials had the legal authority and technological ability to . . . keep tabs on Americans accused of nothing," declared the Washington Post. In Britain, the National Association for Child Support Action has published a "Book of the Dead," chronicling 55 cases where it claims the official Court Coroner concluded fathers were driven to suicide because of judgements from family courts. Why is this happening? The English-speaking countries with their Common Law tradition allow enormous power to judges and lawyers. But the problem is increasingly worldwide. In 1997 the German magazine Der Spiegel ran a cover story on "The Fatherless Society." In February 1998 Deputy Pavel Dostal, now Minister of Culture, met with Czech fathers protesting outside Parliament for changes in the family law. Psychologist Eduard Bakalar, who has served as a court expert in custody cases and heads Consultancy for Fathers (Poradna pro otce) in Prague, says while fathers have not been criminalized to the extent they have in the anglophone nations, they do face systematic bias in the courts, which has been the prelude to criminalization. Bakalar also observes "constant anti-father propaganda" in the media, especially noting the impact of American films. "It is a systematic effort to devalue fatherhood," he says. http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/c...f_children.htm Family courts routinely ignore basic civil liberties and international human rights conventions. "Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you're violating as you grant a restraining order," American municipal court judge Richard Russell told a judges' training seminar in 1994. "Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, see ya around. . . . We don't have to worry about the rights." Family law is now criminalizing activity as basic as free speech. In Australia it is a crime for litigants to speak publicly about family law. A Sydney group protesting peacefully in 1998 was told "if any people who had any involvement with family court were identified the media and that person would be prosecuted to the fullest extent" of the law. As in Britain, Australian family courts have closed Internet sites operated by parents' groups. In some American jurisdictions it is likewise a crime to criticise judges. The former husband of singer Wynonna Judd was recently arrested for speaking to reporters about his divorce. A father protesting outside his Los Angeles home on Fathers' Day 1998 that he had not seen his son in more than two years was apprehended by police for a "psychiatric evaluation". Following his congressional testimony critical of family courts, a Georgia father was stripped of custody of his two children, ordered to pay lawyers he had not hired, and jailed. "We believe the court is attempting to punish [him] for exposing the court's misconduct to a congressional committee," said the president of a local fathers' group. http://users.rcn.com/baskerville/nig...mily_court.htm So, TM, tell us again why you *apparently* hold the view that being jailed for protesting against CS laws doesn't happen. # Expecting men to be treated fairly is not a bad lesson to teach your children. The problem today is that too many women want men to be responsible so the woman don't have to be. -- Replace the obvious with paradise to email me. See Found Images at: http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
"TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "Max Burke" wrote in message ... TeacherMama scribbled: I didn't say it didn't happen. I asked Chris to document instances where a group peacefully picketing outside a courthouse about the injustices of today's CS system were prevented from doing so, the MEN were jsiled, and the women just sent on their ways. That is what he claimed. Did you even READ what I posted????? The question that needs to be answered is why are YOU asking for proof that it happens when clearly it DOES happen..... I do understand how unfair today's system is, Max. I'm in the middle of it, too!! And yet you question what many of us post about the unfair 'system.' And you also *defend* several aspects of this 'unfair system' as being justified and right. Why is that? Well, Max, since you asked, my impression is that YOU feel that ANY support paid for children is evil and wrong! I don't feel the same way. I do not feel that men should have the right to walk away from their children just because they want to. I think there needs to be a system that gives men equal rights to women as far as choosing to be fathers. But I do not think that permitting them to father children and walk away any time they choose should be part of the system. And I've said that before. I believe joint custody shoud be the norm. But if a situation crops up where one parent or the other is unable to parent (whether it be abuse--REAL abuse, not the nonsense claims we see too often today--or not wanting to be bothered), OF COURSE the NCP should pay their share of the child's NEEDS! The idea behind the system--that children should be provided for by their parents--is not a bad idea. It's how it is being done today that needs to be changed--starting with 50-50 custody! And dumping a SAH parent back into the job market after years of taking care of home and family and saying "Support 'em your 50% of the time by yourself" isn't right, either. You don't want a fair system, Max. You want "fairness" for men--and screw the kids and women. Besides which, the question was for Chris. He jumps in with these little one-liners, but never backs up what he says with fact. Such as? |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
"TeacherMama" wrote in message ... I have NEVER read anything from you that states what you want done with the exception of your unwavering belief that all men everywhere should be able to walk away from the children they fathered without looking back. That if they don't want to be fathers, the children can starve in the gutters for all they care, because it is not their responsibility. They do not need to use ANY form of birth control, because they can't get pregnant. WOMEN are the ONLY ones responsible for birth control. MEN--real men--deserve SEX with no responsibility for attempting to prevent another unwanted child. And these rights for men should be written into the law, put on golden tablets, and displayed throughout the land. Oh, yeah, one other thing: marriage is simply 2 people living together WITH a piece of paper. Any decisions made by the couple are really just 2 individuals making the same deision together. Marriage isn't real. But I don't see how that fixes the CS system we have today. How does giving men the right to father endless bastareds with no consequence fix the system? Our taxes will go up to pay more welfare, but how does it fix the system? And how does it fix the high CS awards that are paid by so many formerly married men? Or are you saying that formerly married men can walk away from their children, too? And you didn't answer my question about what your system would do if the man wanted the child and the woman did not. Could he force her to continue the pregnancy? Impossible to force anyone to "continue" a pregnancy. That's like forcing one to breathe. You can force abortion of a pregnancy, but not the "continuation" of a pregnancy since that's automatic. "Max Burke" wrote in message ... TeacherMama scribbled: Selfish and self centered, Max. Naaa that would be YOU...... Only "fairness to men" is important. No TM. Fairness to *everyone,* even shock, horror, MEN. Tell me again why YOU dont want that..... Women "have been supported" by the poor, long-suffering victims called men for so long that all women deserve is to be screwed blue by the system--just as the poor, long-suffering men-victims have for all these years. You sound just like a feminist, but that's not surprising since you apparently hold so many feminist beliefs........ ROTFLOL BECAUSE the system has been so unjust to men, ALL women deserve to be screwed. BS. Strawman. Try again. Because THAT will fix the whole system in Max's eyes. What I suggest is a DAMNED sight better than what you say needs to be done. You want WOMEN to lose their rights just so we dont have to give the same rights to men. How STUPID is that TM? WOMEN suffering as MEN have suffered will make it all better. BS. Strawman. Try again. I do note that you have not presented YOUR plan for fixing the system, Yes I have but I doubt you have even bothered to read it at all. You're just the usual feminist hypocrite aren't you...... except for your notion that WOMEN deserve to suffer. BS. Strawman. Try again. Oh and for once in your life why not try and post a *reasonable* response and stop whining and bitch about your hypocritical beliefs in being all for men..... Be honest and tell us all what you REALLY think....... Not that I'll hold my breath waiting for that to happen. At least I have the satisfaction of showing ACS that yet another 'woman' claiming to be 'for men' is nothing but a hypocrite when it comes down to what you really believe about being 'for men'..... The wage-earner can survive on fast food, and will not die from a dirty house. ROTFLOL What about when they have the kids 50% of the time? Are you REALLY suggesting that the kids survive on fast food while in the wage earners custody, but when in the SAH's custody the wage earner pay the SAH just so the kids DONT have to survive on fast food in a dirty house???? What you're really saying here is that the wage earner deserves nothing for their chosen sacrifices made during the marriage. As I said your hypocrisy is clearly evident when you claim to support men and the way they are treated by the 'system' you claim to be opposed to... At the very least you probably haven't even thought about this 'situation' or more likely dont consider it a 'situation' at all so there is no need for the wage earner to be considered at all..... The SAH will have a very difficult time finding work at a survival level after a dozen years out of the job market, let alone providing for her children 50% of the time. That's the result of THEIR CHOICE to be an SAH and their failure to keep up their job skills while still married. And before you start whining and bitching that both made that decision, both also made the decision about who would be the wage earner, therefore if there is a need for compensation for the consequences of those *mutual choices* then it should apply to both parties..... So, Max, in order that I can fully understand your position on these issues, tell me what you think the system should be like. That's simple. Make the system as legally and morally right to men and their parental choices as it is for women. Start from scratch--don't patch up today's system by giving men "as many rights" as women, because we know darn well that will not work. There you go again, saying that giving men the same legal and moral rights women already have will not work....... Why wont it work? It works for women TM. It works damned well when they have to decide if they will or will not be a parent. Tell me why having that choice wont work for men? This is why I believe your claimed stance of supporting men is so hypocritical; You refuse to accept that men having the same legal and moral rights as women already have to choose to be a parent or not wont work if and when men have those rights. I think by just awarding more and more "rights" to try to balance things out is making a bigger and bigger mess than we have now. IOW Society has handed out enough rights WRT being a parent; Too bad that men missed out on those rights, they'll just have to live without them.... You haven't even thought about this at all have you; You're making it all up as you go along to justify your knee-jerk reactions....... At the points where men and women's rights clash, we need to get back to ground Zero and rewrite it! No we DONT! We dont need to take away women's rights to avoid men having those same rights. After all we didn't have to take away men's rights when giving women those same rights. I have to wonder why you think this way, and wonder how you'd really feel when YOUR rights get taken away just so men dont get the same rights. Because there are places where you can't give balancing rights--such as the man wanting the woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy. In cases like this men need to find and make a commitment to a woman who wants a child as much as he does. There is no need for men to have the right to force women to continue an unwanted pregnancy at all. But to make it equal, when women want to give birth to the child when she knows the man doesn't want the child, she likewise should have no right to force him to be a father to that unwanted child. She needs to find a man who wants that child as much as she does and be prepared to make the long term commitment that is required. Should the woman be forced to carry the child because dad wants it? Not at all. But then neither should men be required to be an 'unwilling father' when they dont want the child and women do...... The child belongs to both--should a judge be able to intervene in a case like this? Men should have the legal, social, and moral right to decide if they'll be a parent or not. Women already have this legal, social, and moral right to decide, so should men. Or are the only "men's rights" we are talking about the ones that keep a man from paying CS? No. See above. Telling men "If you don't want the kid, just say you don't wanna be a dad." and telling women "you didn't create the kid alone, you have a right to help from the dad." is only going to create a battle of "rights"--it won't solve the problem. So, you found a lamp on the beach, rubbed it, and out came a genie, who says "Tell me how to fix the family court system." What would you say, Max? See above and below. You didn't say a thing, Max. Not a thing. Just the same ofl "The girls got more cookies than I did...NO FAIR!!" stuff you always say. ROTFLOL And your whining and bitching about the SAH not getting the same number of 'cookies' and the wage earner after the divorce is NOTHING like that is it...... If you REALLY want equality TM, then you'll need to realise that it will require you to change your attitude and realise that equality means being EQUAL, including men having the same rights that women already have. What, specifically, do you want for men? No "As much as the girls got!" Specifically! The SAME RIGHTS women already have. Why is that so hard for you to understand TM? I mean what EXACTLY is it that you find so difficult about understanding men having the same legal, social, and moral rights as women? You appear to be so totally against men having the right to decide if they'll be a parent or not, you're quite willing to have that very right taken away from women (including yourself apparently) just so men dont get that right. So I take it when you 'rewrite' these rights, start from scratch, you'll say women cant abort the pregnancy they dont want, or cant keep the [potential] child they cant possibly look after without needing welfare or CS..... That you'll tell women that when they choose to have sex and conceive as a result tough that was YOUR CHOICE, you now have to live with the consequences of that choice, and women DONT get to decide what the outcome of that conception will be, it's all down to the law, judges, and child care authorities that tell women what sort of parent they will be and what their parental 'responsibilities' are...... # If the abstract rights of men will bear discussion and explanation, then those of women, by a parity of reasoning, will not fail the same test; Although a different opinion prevails in the minds of most women when their rights are put to that test.... -- Replace the obvious with paradise to email me. See Found Images at: http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
Such as, Chris, something to back up your statement that men picketing
against the CS system can lose their worldly belongings and end up in jail. But, apparently, women will not. "Chris" wrote in message news:cr_La.85370$%42.79699@fed1read06... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "Max Burke" wrote in message ... TeacherMama scribbled: I didn't say it didn't happen. I asked Chris to document instances where a group peacefully picketing outside a courthouse about the injustices of today's CS system were prevented from doing so, the MEN were jsiled, and the women just sent on their ways. That is what he claimed. Did you even READ what I posted????? The question that needs to be answered is why are YOU asking for proof that it happens when clearly it DOES happen..... I do understand how unfair today's system is, Max. I'm in the middle of it, too!! And yet you question what many of us post about the unfair 'system.' And you also *defend* several aspects of this 'unfair system' as being justified and right. Why is that? Well, Max, since you asked, my impression is that YOU feel that ANY support paid for children is evil and wrong! I don't feel the same way. I do not feel that men should have the right to walk away from their children just because they want to. I think there needs to be a system that gives men equal rights to women as far as choosing to be fathers. But I do not think that permitting them to father children and walk away any time they choose should be part of the system. And I've said that before. I believe joint custody shoud be the norm. But if a situation crops up where one parent or the other is unable to parent (whether it be abuse--REAL abuse, not the nonsense claims we see too often today--or not wanting to be bothered), OF COURSE the NCP should pay their share of the child's NEEDS! The idea behind the system--that children should be provided for by their parents--is not a bad idea. It's how it is being done today that needs to be changed--starting with 50-50 custody! And dumping a SAH parent back into the job market after years of taking care of home and family and saying "Support 'em your 50% of the time by yourself" isn't right, either. You don't want a fair system, Max. You want "fairness" for men--and screw the kids and women. Besides which, the question was for Chris. He jumps in with these little one-liners, but never backs up what he says with fact. Such as? |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
"Chris" wrote in message news:Ln_La.85368$%42.15946@fed1read06... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:o99La.83450$%42.58215@fed1read06... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:4uuKa.82494$%42.14146@fed1read06... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... Indyguy1 wrote: Dave wrote: snip to But why do men fail to organize and protest? I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many have been raised. Women have traditionally been the organizers in families. They see to it that the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked, the family events are attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their mothes be the organizers and then marry women who continue the pattern. The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising boys to expect this of women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo role as women. Do it by example and in word. I'm doing my share. Mrs Indyguy I have some theories too, and they're very different from Mrs. Indyguy's. I think that very few men are willing to come out and openly stand up for the interests of men, in situations where those interests are entirely the opposite of women -- as is the case in most domestic relations matters. Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are subject to the very real threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly possessions just because they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand, at the very worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not much to lose there. Why do you say that? It's called BIGGER GUNS.... ever hear of it? Why would they go to jail or lose their worldly possessions because they protested against the system? Now, if their protest was in the form of refusing to pay child support, then I can see where that might be true. But organizing and picketing, etc--why would that merit jail time? It doesn't, but they get it anyway. When? When did men get sent to jail for picketing about CS matters? I said NOTHING about picketing. I referred to men fighting the system; and yes MANY of them go to jail for doing so. And if women were out there picketing with them, why do you think the women would get different treatment? They DO when it's a "WOMAN'S" issue. So there was some particular time when a group of men and women were picketing, protesting the unfair CS system, and the men were sent to jail, and the women weren't? When? Great strawman. Do you have any examples of this happening? Go to ANY feminazi website, and there you will have your answer. But you made the assertion, so you must have a specific time you are speaking of. Precisely WHAT is my assertion? ____________________________________________ Check this out, Chris. It is the thread that you responded to. It was about men organizing and protesting the system: ********* But why do men fail to organize and protest?********* I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many have been raised. Women have traditionally been the organizers in families. They see to it that the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked, the family events are attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their mothes be the organizers and then marry women who continue the pattern. The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising boys to expect this of women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo role as women. Do it by example and in word. I'm doing my share. Mrs Indyguy I have some theories too, and they're very different from Mrs. Indyguy's. ******I think that very few men are willing to come out and openly stand up for the interests of men, in situations where those interests are entirely the opposite of women -- as is the case in most domestic relations matters.********* Chris speaks he "Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are subject to the very real threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly possessions just because they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand, at the very worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not much to lose there." We are discussing picketing and/or having protests. This is the statement you made. I asked you to show me where picketing/protesting resulted in men losing property/jail time. But not women. It was a serious question. |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
TeacherMama scribbled:
I have NEVER read anything from you that states what you want done with the exception of your unwavering belief that all men everywhere should be able to walk away from the children they fathered without looking back. Then you obviously haven't read *ANYTHING* I have posted and just make up all of the above and claim it IS what I have posted on this subject. Lie IOW..... That if they don't want to be fathers, the children can starve in the gutters for all they care, because it is not their responsibility. BS. Strawman Try again. They do not need to use ANY form of birth control, because they can't get pregnant. BS. Strawman Try again. WOMEN are the ONLY ones responsible for birth control. BS. Strawman Try again. MEN--real men--deserve SEX with no responsibility for attempting to prevent another unwanted child. BS. Strawman Try again. And these rights for men should be written into the law, put on golden tablets, and displayed throughout the land. BS. Strawman Try again. Oh, yeah, one other thing: marriage is simply 2 people living together WITH a piece of paper. Any decisions made by the couple are really just 2 individuals making the same deision together. Marriage isn't real. BS. Strawman Try again. But I don't see how that fixes the CS system we have today. Neither do I. But then as *I* have NEVER anything remotely like the above I dont need to explain how it does fix the CS system. OTOH as YOU need to explain why you're blatantly lying about what *I* post to this forum. Oh and how about getting back to the discussion and STOP throwing up ALL these lies to avoid doing so. It's just making you look STUPID and feminist...... How does giving men the right to father endless bastareds with no consequence fix the system? Men CANT father endless *******s OWN THEIR OWN. It REQUIRES a WOMAN to: A) Get PREGNANT B) CHOOSE to REMAIN PREGNANT C) CLAIM WELFARE to support that child, because THE WOMAN cant support it herself. The men such women have sex with just HAVE SEX. They play NO OTHER PART at ALL! See how it has to be SPELLED out to YOU! Now tell me once again how men father endless *******s with no consequence..... Your solution is to DENY women the right to abort or choose to have such children just so we dont have to legalise that choice for men. You would rather we take away women's rights rather than give men the same rights that women already have. What a F****ING STUPID IDEA!!!! Our taxes will go up to pay more welfare, but how does it fix the system? ROTFLOL Since when has welfare EVER been designed to fix the system. Clue TM it has NEVER been designed as a fix. It's part OF the system that says women should NOT have their basic human right to bear children curtailed in any way at all, by laws that prevent them getting rid of unwanted pregnancies to avoid becoming a parent, or by financial or social inability to care for their wanted children; Society (that includes you and me) has 'deemed' that women should have the 'freedom' to have children whenever they like and however they like. Society (that includes you and me) has decide that when *WOMEN* are incapable of caring for their children then society (that's yours and my tax dollars) will pay whatever is required to WOMEN who cannot care for their own children. Now, where are the *FATHERS* of all these children TM? They DONT COUNT. The fathers of these millions of children are an IRRELEVANCY. Their ONLY importance is their 'ability' to reduce that tax burden of welfare to society that's all. They're not seen as fathers by the government, the CSA, the legal system, and MOST OF ALL they're NOT seen as fathers by society, especially by the ones who blame them for the 'mess' as you do above. All they did was HAVE SEX with a willing woman TM. That's ALL! And how does it fix the high CS awards that are paid by so many formerly married men? Are you saying they shouldn't get CS? Or are you saying that formerly married men can walk away from their children, too? BS. Strawman. Try again. And you didn't answer my question about what your system would do if the man wanted the child and the woman did not. Could he force her to continue the pregnancy? Yes *I* DID! Here it is AGAIN! Try actually READING IT this time! ================= [From my previous post] No we DONT! We dont need to take away women's rights to avoid men having those same rights. After all we didn't have to take away men's rights when giving women those same rights. I have to wonder why you think this way, and wonder how you'd really feel when YOUR rights get taken away just so men dont get the same rights. Because there are places where you can't give balancing rights--such as the man wanting the woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy. In cases like this men need to find and make a commitment to a woman who wants a child as much as he does. There is no need for men to have the right to force women to continue an unwanted pregnancy at all. But to make it equal, when women want to give birth to the child when she knows the man doesn't want the child, she likewise should have no right to force him to be a father to that unwanted child. She needs to find a man who wants that child as much as she does and be prepared to make the long term commitment that is required. Should the woman be forced to carry the child because dad wants it? Not at all. But then neither should men be required to be an 'unwilling father' when they dont want the child and women do...... The child belongs to both--should a judge be able to intervene in a case like this? Men should have the legal, social, and moral right to decide if they'll be a parent or not. Women already have this legal, social, and moral right to decide, so should men. I think by just awarding more and more "rights" to try to balance things out is making a bigger and bigger mess than we have now. IOW Society has handed out enough rights WRT being a parent; Too bad that men missed out on those rights, they'll just have to live without them.... You haven't even thought about this at all have you; You're making it all up as you go along to justify your knee-jerk reactions....... What, specifically, do you want for men? No "As much as the girls got!" Specifically! The SAME RIGHTS women already have. Why is that so hard for you to understand TM? I mean what EXACTLY is it that you find so difficult about understanding men having the same legal, social, and moral rights as women? You appear to be so totally against men having the right to decide if they'll be a parent or not, you're quite willing to have that very right taken away from women (including yourself apparently) just so men dont get that right. So I take it when you 'rewrite' these rights, start from scratch, you'll say women cant abort the pregnancy they dont want, or cant keep the [potential] child they cant possibly look after without needing welfare or CS..... That you'll tell women that when they choose to have sex and conceive as a result tough that was YOUR CHOICE, you now have to live with the consequences of that choice, and women DONT get to decide what the outcome of that conception will be, it's all down to the law, judges, and child care authorities that tell women what sort of parent they will be and what their parental 'responsibilities' are...... Just like we treat men NOW in fact...... ================ # If the abstract rights of men will bear discussion and explanation, then those of women, by a parity of reasoning, will not fail the same test; Although a different opinion prevails in the minds of most women when their rights are put to that test.... -- Replace the obvious with paradise to email me. See Found Images at: http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
"Max Burke" wrote in message ... Men CANT father endless *******s OWN THEIR OWN. It REQUIRES a WOMAN to: A) Get PREGNANT B) CHOOSE to REMAIN PREGNANT C) CLAIM WELFARE to support that child, because THE WOMAN cant support it herself. The men such women have sex with just HAVE SEX. They play NO OTHER PART at ALL! Oh, good. Now we are getting somewhere. MEN just have sex. Women bear all further responsibility beyond that point. Right? See how it has to be SPELLED out to YOU! Now tell me once again how men father endless *******s with no consequence..... Men don't father the *******s? By having sex? Huh? How does it work then? My step-nephew has fathered at least 5--maybe 6. IOW, he provided the sperm necessary for conception...... Your solution is to DENY women the right to abort or choose to have such children just so we dont have to legalise that choice for men. You would rather we take away women's rights rather than give men the same rights that women already have. What a F****ING STUPID IDEA!!!! Actually, Max, what I favor is a system where both partners make the decision together as to what happens to the child. The father is NOT locked out at the point of conception. Not take away rights--take away *unilateral* rights, and bring both partners into the equation. Equal rights--from the beginning. Our taxes will go up to pay more welfare, but how does it fix the system? ROTFLOL Since when has welfare EVER been designed to fix the system. Clue TM it has NEVER been designed as a fix. It's part OF the system that says women should NOT have their basic human right to bear children curtailed in any way at all, by laws that prevent them getting rid of unwanted pregnancies to avoid becoming a parent, or by financial or social inability to care for their wanted children; Society (that includes you and me) has 'deemed' that women should have the 'freedom' to have children whenever they like and however they like. Society (that includes you and me) has decide that when *WOMEN* are incapable of caring for their children then society (that's yours and my tax dollars) will pay whatever is required to WOMEN who cannot care for their own children. That's right, Max!! **BING** The light goes on!! Society (that's you and me) has given *WOMEN* unilateral rights in this area!! The unilateral decision making part is, however, not tempered with unilateral responsibility. Therein lies the problem. This will not be solved by giving men unilateral rights of their own, and removing all responsibility from them, too. That would solve NOTHING! Welfare would pay what is now being squeezed out of unwilling fathers. Equal rights and responsibilities should belong to both parties from conception--and if neither is ready, willing, or able to be a parent to the child on their own dime--then NEITHER gets the child. Rights and responsibilities should be inseparable! Now, where are the *FATHERS* of all these children TM? They DONT COUNT. The fathers of these millions of children are an IRRELEVANCY. Their ONLY importance is their 'ability' to reduce that tax burden of welfare to society that's all. And that is the heart of the problem, Max!! Right there. They are only seen as wallets, and have no RIGHTS! I'm not saying, and never have been saying, that these men should be forced into the crappy definition of "fatherhood by wallet" that you describe above. I am saying that BOTH parents should be in on ALL decision making from conception. And if either one wants-but-cannot-support the child, too bad. Find a way, find a cosigner who will guarantee the child's support. But don't force parenthood on another just to assist your finances. And don't expect my tax dollars to endlessly support you! But don't just give men permission to walk away from wallethood! Put them in a position where they are expected to make decisions--not just walk away. And make the moms take RESPONSIBILITY for their choices, too--don't just add a little extra slop to the public trough! They're not seen as fathers by the government, the CSA, the legal system, and MOST OF ALL they're NOT seen as fathers by society, especially by the ones who blame them for the 'mess' as you do above. All they did was HAVE SEX with a willing woman TM. That's ALL! But that's NOT all, Max! Men know damn well that pregnancy can result from sex. That does not mean I'm saying that they should pay for that moment of sex for the next 21 years. But, dadgummit, maybe all the woman wanted was sex, too. Now the 2 of them should have a decision to make about the sexual-encounter-become-a-pregnancy. And how does it fix the high CS awards that are paid by so many formerly married men? Are you saying they shouldn't get CS? Not me. I'm saying that this is another part of the system that needs repair. The whole custody/CS thing needs to be repaired. Or are you saying that formerly married men can walk away from their children, too? BS. Strawman. Try again. And you didn't answer my question about what your system would do if the man wanted the child and the woman did not. Could he force her to continue the pregnancy? Yes *I* DID! Here it is AGAIN! Try actually READING IT this time! ================= [From my previous post] No we DONT! We dont need to take away women's rights to avoid men having those same rights. After all we didn't have to take away men's rights when giving women those same rights. I have to wonder why you think this way, and wonder how you'd really feel when YOUR rights get taken away just so men dont get the same rights. Not take away rights, Max--take away *unilateral* rights! And LINK the rights and responsibilities! If the woman says "I want this child" and the man says "I give up my rights to this child." then the woman knowingly accepts all further responsibility. BUT the thing I disgree with is men just walking away. Maybe so many men wouldn't want to run if they knew that they had equal rights to the child--that they weren't just going to be mommy's little wallet. And I agree with everything you say about men and women finding partners they can commit to who want children as much as they do. Unfortunately, there is no way to legislate that. It has to be done by example, and the system we have today provides far too few examples of the kind of commitment you are describing. At least in folks caught up endlessly in the CS system. (And I am NOT saying that everyone in the system is a poor example, because that is NOT true.) The SAME RIGHTS women already have. Why is that so hard for you to understand TM? I mean what EXACTLY is it that you find so difficult about understanding men having the same legal, social, and moral rights as women? What do I want? I want to take the *unilateral* out of it. I want men and women to each have choices--and I want those choices tied directly to the responsibilities that those rights engender. INCLUDING supporting the child! I don't want men like my stepnephew to father 50 kids, because there is absolutley NO consequence for his actions! I don't want the fool women that he has sex with to continue to bear his children at society's expense! And what I would like to know from you, Max, is how this part of the problem should be solved! Do you condone my stepnephew's behavior? Does he have a right to continue to help populate the slum in which he lives because he is not the one who gets pregnant? Does he have any responsibility for his own sexual behavior? And how would you solve the problem of the women who continue to bring into this world children that they know they can't support, because they know that the money will always be there for them? That's my big problem with "rights" unattached to "responsibilities". |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
"TeacherMama" wrote in message ... Such as, Chris, something to back up your statement that men picketing against the CS system can lose their worldly belongings and end up in jail. But, apparently, women will not. I'm sorry, but I just don't recall making such claim. Perhaps you might refresh my memory. "Chris" wrote in message news:cr_La.85370$%42.79699@fed1read06... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "Max Burke" wrote in message ... TeacherMama scribbled: I didn't say it didn't happen. I asked Chris to document instances where a group peacefully picketing outside a courthouse about the injustices of today's CS system were prevented from doing so, the MEN were jsiled, and the women just sent on their ways. That is what he claimed. Did you even READ what I posted????? The question that needs to be answered is why are YOU asking for proof that it happens when clearly it DOES happen..... I do understand how unfair today's system is, Max. I'm in the middle of it, too!! And yet you question what many of us post about the unfair 'system.' And you also *defend* several aspects of this 'unfair system' as being justified and right. Why is that? Well, Max, since you asked, my impression is that YOU feel that ANY support paid for children is evil and wrong! I don't feel the same way. I do not feel that men should have the right to walk away from their children just because they want to. I think there needs to be a system that gives men equal rights to women as far as choosing to be fathers. But I do not think that permitting them to father children and walk away any time they choose should be part of the system. And I've said that before. I believe joint custody shoud be the norm. But if a situation crops up where one parent or the other is unable to parent (whether it be abuse--REAL abuse, not the nonsense claims we see too often today--or not wanting to be bothered), OF COURSE the NCP should pay their share of the child's NEEDS! The idea behind the system--that children should be provided for by their parents--is not a bad idea. It's how it is being done today that needs to be changed--starting with 50-50 custody! And dumping a SAH parent back into the job market after years of taking care of home and family and saying "Support 'em your 50% of the time by yourself" isn't right, either. You don't want a fair system, Max. You want "fairness" for men--and screw the kids and women. Besides which, the question was for Chris. He jumps in with these little one-liners, but never backs up what he says with fact. Such as? |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
"TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:Ln_La.85368$%42.15946@fed1read06... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:o99La.83450$%42.58215@fed1read06... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:4uuKa.82494$%42.14146@fed1read06... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... Indyguy1 wrote: Dave wrote: snip to But why do men fail to organize and protest? I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many have been raised. Women have traditionally been the organizers in families. They see to it that the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked, the family events are attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their mothes be the organizers and then marry women who continue the pattern. The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising boys to expect this of women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo role as women. Do it by example and in word. I'm doing my share. Mrs Indyguy I have some theories too, and they're very different from Mrs. Indyguy's. I think that very few men are willing to come out and openly stand up for the interests of men, in situations where those interests are entirely the opposite of women -- as is the case in most domestic relations matters. Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are subject to the very real threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly possessions just because they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand, at the very worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not much to lose there. Why do you say that? It's called BIGGER GUNS.... ever hear of it? Why would they go to jail or lose their worldly possessions because they protested against the system? Now, if their protest was in the form of refusing to pay child support, then I can see where that might be true. But organizing and picketing, etc--why would that merit jail time? It doesn't, but they get it anyway. When? When did men get sent to jail for picketing about CS matters? I said NOTHING about picketing. I referred to men fighting the system; and yes MANY of them go to jail for doing so. And if women were out there picketing with them, why do you think the women would get different treatment? They DO when it's a "WOMAN'S" issue. So there was some particular time when a group of men and women were picketing, protesting the unfair CS system, and the men were sent to jail, and the women weren't? When? Great strawman. Do you have any examples of this happening? Go to ANY feminazi website, and there you will have your answer. But you made the assertion, so you must have a specific time you are speaking of. Precisely WHAT is my assertion? ____________________________________________ Check this out, Chris. It is the thread that you responded to. It was about men organizing and protesting the system: ********* But why do men fail to organize and protest?********* I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many have been raised. Women have traditionally been the organizers in families. They see to it that the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked, the family events are attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their mothes be the organizers and then marry women who continue the pattern. The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising boys to expect this of women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo role as women. Do it by example and in word. I'm doing my share. Mrs Indyguy I have some theories too, and they're very different from Mrs. Indyguy's. ******I think that very few men are willing to come out and openly stand up for the interests of men, in situations where those interests are entirely the opposite of women -- as is the case in most domestic relations matters.********* Chris speaks he "Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are subject to the very real threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly possessions just because they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand, at the very worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not much to lose there." We are discussing picketing and/or having protests. This is the statement you made. I asked you to show me where picketing/protesting resulted in men losing property/jail time. But not women. It was a serious question. I responded ONLY to the post and paragraph above. There was NO mention of picketing. |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
"Chris" wrote in message news:TM9Ma.85627$%42.52044@fed1read06... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:Ln_La.85368$%42.15946@fed1read06... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:o99La.83450$%42.58215@fed1read06... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:4uuKa.82494$%42.14146@fed1read06... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... Indyguy1 wrote: Dave wrote: snip to But why do men fail to organize and protest? I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many have been raised. Women have traditionally been the organizers in families. They see to it that the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked, the family events are attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their mothes be the organizers and then marry women who continue the pattern. The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising boys to expect this of women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo role as women. Do it by example and in word. I'm doing my share. Mrs Indyguy I have some theories too, and they're very different from Mrs. Indyguy's. I think that very few men are willing to come out and openly stand up for the interests of men, in situations where those interests are entirely the opposite of women -- as is the case in most domestic relations matters. Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are subject to the very real threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly possessions just because they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand, at the very worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not much to lose there. Why do you say that? It's called BIGGER GUNS.... ever hear of it? Why would they go to jail or lose their worldly possessions because they protested against the system? Now, if their protest was in the form of refusing to pay child support, then I can see where that might be true. But organizing and picketing, etc--why would that merit jail time? It doesn't, but they get it anyway. When? When did men get sent to jail for picketing about CS matters? I said NOTHING about picketing. I referred to men fighting the system; and yes MANY of them go to jail for doing so. And if women were out there picketing with them, why do you think the women would get different treatment? They DO when it's a "WOMAN'S" issue. So there was some particular time when a group of men and women were picketing, protesting the unfair CS system, and the men were sent to jail, and the women weren't? When? Great strawman. Do you have any examples of this happening? Go to ANY feminazi website, and there you will have your answer. But you made the assertion, so you must have a specific time you are speaking of. Precisely WHAT is my assertion? ____________________________________________ Check this out, Chris. It is the thread that you responded to. It was about men organizing and protesting the system: ********* But why do men fail to organize and protest?********* I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many have been raised. Women have traditionally been the organizers in families. They see to it that the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked, the family events are attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their mothes be the organizers and then marry women who continue the pattern. The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising boys to expect this of women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo role as women. Do it by example and in word. I'm doing my share. Mrs Indyguy I have some theories too, and they're very different from Mrs. Indyguy's. ******I think that very few men are willing to come out and openly stand up for the interests of men, in situations where those interests are entirely the opposite of women -- as is the case in most domestic relations matters.********* Chris speaks he "Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are subject to the very real threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly possessions just because they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand, at the very worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not much to lose there." We are discussing picketing and/or having protests. This is the statement you made. I asked you to show me where picketing/protesting resulted in men losing property/jail time. But not women. It was a serious question. I responded ONLY to the post and paragraph above. There was NO mention of picketing. But the whole thread was on picketing and protests, and men coming together as a group to protest the system. Which was why I questioned your response. And, yes, I do agree that men are far more likely to find themselves in legal difficulties in today's family court system. But I had never seen any stats on men being jsiled for picketing and protesting |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
"Chris" wrote in message
news:L29Ma.85614$%42.70680@fed1read06... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... Such as, Chris, something to back up your statement that men picketing against the CS system can lose their worldly belongings and end up in jail. But, apparently, women will not. I'm sorry, but I just don't recall making such claim. Perhaps you might refresh my memory. Perhaps this will help: "Chris" wrote in message news:4uuKa.82494$%42.14146@fed1read06... Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are subject to the very real threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly possessions just because they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand, at the very worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not much to lose there. "Chris" wrote in message news:cr_La.85370$%42.79699@fed1read06... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "Max Burke" wrote in message ... TeacherMama scribbled: I didn't say it didn't happen. I asked Chris to document instances where a group peacefully picketing outside a courthouse about the injustices of today's CS system were prevented from doing so, the MEN were jsiled, and the women just sent on their ways. That is what he claimed. Did you even READ what I posted????? The question that needs to be answered is why are YOU asking for proof that it happens when clearly it DOES happen..... I do understand how unfair today's system is, Max. I'm in the middle of it, too!! And yet you question what many of us post about the unfair 'system.' And you also *defend* several aspects of this 'unfair system' as being justified and right. Why is that? Well, Max, since you asked, my impression is that YOU feel that ANY support paid for children is evil and wrong! I don't feel the same way. I do not feel that men should have the right to walk away from their children just because they want to. I think there needs to be a system that gives men equal rights to women as far as choosing to be fathers. But I do not think that permitting them to father children and walk away any time they choose should be part of the system. And I've said that before. I believe joint custody shoud be the norm. But if a situation crops up where one parent or the other is unable to parent (whether it be abuse--REAL abuse, not the nonsense claims we see too often today--or not wanting to be bothered), OF COURSE the NCP should pay their share of the child's NEEDS! The idea behind the system--that children should be provided for by their parents--is not a bad idea. It's how it is being done today that needs to be changed--starting with 50-50 custody! And dumping a SAH parent back into the job market after years of taking care of home and family and saying "Support 'em your 50% of the time by yourself" isn't right, either. You don't want a fair system, Max. You want "fairness" for men--and screw the kids and women. Besides which, the question was for Chris. He jumps in with these little one-liners, but never backs up what he says with fact. Such as? |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
There is a tiny snippet below of something that I posted some time
back, on the subject of why men don't organize adequately to fight back against a system that is so grotesquely distorted against them. In the interim, this thread has turned into a big argument between Max and TeacherMama. I feel like someone who has failed to extinguish his camp fire properly, and then seen it develop into a huge forest fire! On the issue of fathers being penalized for speaking out, I have no statistics, unfortunately. However, I have some experience of seeing what happens to activist fathers. I'll cite two example that I know of in recent years. I recognize, of course, that I heard only one side of the story here, but I still think these episodes indicate what typically happens. What it amounts to is that mothers' lawyers get hold of this information, and -- in effect -- get the judges all riled up, because they tell them that the father is leveling strong criticisms at them outside the court. One case was a father who was a deacon in a Baptist church and in every respect an upright citizen. His wife left him, taking their child. In the course of subsequent proceedings the father tried to expose what he saw as improper intervention on his wife's behalf by a local female police officer who was a member of the church and friendly with his wife. He told me that he began to encounter serious problems with getting his visitation rights honored as soon as he started to draw attention to the police officer's activities on his wife's behalf. We are talking about a small town, where people in the law enforcement business all know each other. The other is a father who, as a result of his treatment in the family court system, wrote a book on the subject of what fathers should do. In court, his wife's attorney then began drawing attention to the father's book, and his other activities on behalf of fathers, with the obvious intention of stirring up prejudice against him in the mind of the judge. I doubt whether there are many cases in the U.S. where fathers are jailed for protesting against the system. However, what frequently happens, I think, is that fathers who do so are branded as troublemakers. Judges have all kinds of discretion in these matters, and they have all kinds of ways of punishing fathers who stand up for their rights. For several years, I had a leading role in a local fathers' groups. One reason why I was told I should take this on was that my children were grown, and there was no longer any way that the legal system could punish me for speaking out publicly. TeacherMama wrote: "Chris" wrote in message news:TM9Ma.85627$%42.52044@fed1read06... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:Ln_La.85368$%42.15946@fed1read06... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:o99La.83450$%42.58215@fed1read06... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:4uuKa.82494$%42.14146@fed1read06... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... Indyguy1 wrote: Dave wrote: snip to But why do men fail to organize and protest? I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many have been raised. Women have traditionally been the organizers in families. They see to it that the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked, the family events are attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their mothes be the organizers and then marry women who continue the pattern. The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising boys to expect this of women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo role as women. Do it by example and in word. I'm doing my share. Mrs Indyguy I have some theories too, and they're very different from Mrs. Indyguy's. I think that very few men are willing to come out and openly stand up for the interests of men, in situations where those interests are entirely the opposite of women -- as is the case in most domestic relations matters. Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are subject to the very real threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly possessions just because they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand, at the very worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not much to lose there. Why do you say that? It's called BIGGER GUNS.... ever hear of it? Why would they go to jail or lose their worldly possessions because they protested against the system? Now, if their protest was in the form of refusing to pay child support, then I can see where that might be true. But organizing and picketing, etc--why would that merit jail time? It doesn't, but they get it anyway. When? When did men get sent to jail for picketing about CS matters? I said NOTHING about picketing. I referred to men fighting the system; and yes MANY of them go to jail for doing so. And if women were out there picketing with them, why do you think the women would get different treatment? They DO when it's a "WOMAN'S" issue. So there was some particular time when a group of men and women were picketing, protesting the unfair CS system, and the men were sent to jail, and the women weren't? When? Great strawman. Do you have any examples of this happening? Go to ANY feminazi website, and there you will have your answer. But you made the assertion, so you must have a specific time you are speaking of. Precisely WHAT is my assertion? ____________________________________________ Check this out, Chris. It is the thread that you responded to. It was about men organizing and protesting the system: ********* But why do men fail to organize and protest?********* I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many have been raised. Women have traditionally been the organizers in families. They see to it that the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked, the family events are attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their mothes be the organizers and then marry women who continue the pattern. The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising boys to expect this of women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo role as women. Do it by example and in word. I'm doing my share. Mrs Indyguy I have some theories too, and they're very different from Mrs. Indyguy's. ******I think that very few men are willing to come out and openly stand up for the interests of men, in situations where those interests are entirely the opposite of women -- as is the case in most domestic relations matters.********* Chris speaks he "Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are subject to the very real threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly possessions just because they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand, at the very worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not much to lose there." We are discussing picketing and/or having protests. This is the statement you made. I asked you to show me where picketing/protesting resulted in men losing property/jail time. But not women. It was a serious question. I responded ONLY to the post and paragraph above. There was NO mention of picketing. But the whole thread was on picketing and protests, and men coming together as a group to protest the system. Which was why I questioned your response. And, yes, I do agree that men are far more likely to find themselves in legal difficulties in today's family court system. But I had never seen any stats on men being jsiled for picketing and protesting |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message rthlink.net... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message thlink.net... "Dave" dave@freedoms-door wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message thlink.net... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:4uuKa.82494$%42.14146@fed1read06... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... Indyguy1 wrote: Dave wrote: snip to But why do men fail to organize and protest? I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many have been raised. Women have traditionally been the organizers in families. They see to it that the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked, the family events are attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their mothes be the organizers and then marry women who continue the pattern. The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising boys to expect this of women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo role as women. Do it by example and in word. I'm doing my share. Mrs Indyguy I have some theories too, and they're very different from Mrs. Indyguy's. I think that very few men are willing to come out and openly stand up for the interests of men, in situations where those interests are entirely the opposite of women -- as is the case in most domestic relations matters. Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are subject to the very real threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly possessions just because they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand, at the very worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not much to lose there. Why do you say that? Why would they go to jail or lose their worldly possessions because they protested against the system? Now, if their protest was in the form of refusing to pay child support, then I can see where that might be true. But organizing and picketing, etc--why would that merit jail time? And if women were out there picketing with them, why do you think the women would get different treatment? Do you have any examples of this happening? I was held in contempt of court and sanctioned for trying to stand up to the system on three occasions. One time I was in contempt for attempting the "re-litigate" an issue. Another time I was in contempt for "dragging my ex-spouse back into court." And finally, I was held in contempt for "failing to inform the court my ex-spouse was having trouble transferring an asset to her name." In everyone of these examples the judge ignored her own order in the decree and held me accountable with sanctions for trying to get the decree implemented as written and signed. Did you have to spend any time in jail time for contempt or did you just have to pay a fine? Neither. The judge ordered me to deliver the proceeds from a retirement account to my ex's attorney within 24 hours and have that attorney contact her by phone, or she would issue a bench warrant for my arrest. By liquidating the retirement account to stay out of jail, I was hit with a $21,500 tax liability for taking a premature retirement distribution. I had signed a written release on the account. My ex's attorney had reported in writing to my attorney the asset transfer had been completed and no further assistance was needed from me, and there would be no need for the attorneys to prepare a QDRO for the court to sign. My perspective is I was penalized for following the decree, accepting her statements that the transfer was completed, and accepting her attorney's input no QDRO would be necessary to complete the transfer. The judge told me it was all my fault. I was threatened with jail. I was not fined directly by the court. But the penalty imposed by the court was converting a gross before taxes amount to a net after taxes amount dollar for dollar. So the penalty was me paying the taxes and premature distribution fees liability for my ex because she told the judge she wouldn't accept an IRA to IRA transfer. In researching the tax laws, with the help of a tax attorney and several communications with IRS legal representatives, I found this happens a lot. When retirement accounts are awarded in property settlements, the recipient can refuse to accept the asset into their own IRA account, and the original owner of the account is forced to pay the taxes when the account is liquidated to comply with state court orders. I forgot one thing I wanted to say. This hearing was just another example of how lawyers lie in court all the time. Their whole case was based on the premise I had "hidden" the asset from my ex. I pointed out to the judge my ex's attorney and I had a detailed meeting on this asset, how to transfer it, and my desire to gain some level of compensation for protecting the asset, filing all the required tax returns, etc. to maintain the assets tax deductibilty. My point was I could have not acted and let the IRS seize the asset because of her neglect in getting it transferred inot her name. The attorney lied and told the judge the meeting I cited had never occured after my ex got all huffy because her attorney had not informed her about the meeting and our discussions. I was ordered to pay her attorney fees and we were supposed to have a follow-up hearing to discuss any objections I might have. The problem for the attorney was the 1 1/2 hour meeting she denied ever took place was detailed in her client billing records. My ex was ****ed her attorney dropped the ball in pursuing the attorney fee award. I told my ex her attorney knew I was going to ask for a reversal of the prior ruling based on the attorney's intentional misrepresentation of the facts, for sanctions against her attorney for lying in open court to gain an advantage for her client, and ask for a referral to the state bar for additional censure action. My ex went to her attorney and miraculously the attorney was quick to write-off all the attorney fees. If I am getting ****ed off as I read your story I could only imagine the anger and frustration you must have felt. I can believe it as I went through some similar outrageous stuff from my ex's lawyer in the meetings. Luckily all this happened and was worked out at the meetings and not in court, since what they were asking was so completely outrageous including making claims on money never existed. All this from a 8 month marriage from a woman that came into it with nothing. It was just so outrageous I could not contain myself and let my ex's lawyer have it during the meeting. If it would have happened in court with the Judge going along with it I would have certainly ended up in jail for contempt. But I made it pretty clear to them that I would disappear, become a fugitive or end up in jail if they persist taking it into court. Either way I made it clear they were not going to get away with screwing me. My lawyer told me that this is normal, that my ex wife will be encouraged by her lawyer to make false allegations and claims because that usually seals the financial, child support and custody issues. Always go for more above and beyond since the Judge will meet some where in the middle. I have been to a number of lawyers since then and they all told me this is the way it goes. That lawyers will encourage their clients to make up false allegations and financial claims, etc so they will have the upper hand in court Back then I was pretty naive and ignorant just like many in this country about what the system encourages women to do. When I confronted my ex-wife about the false allegations and claims privately she said that is what she had to do to win custody and that is what her lawyer recommended despite all of it being false. (too bad I did not have it on tape). She was like come on didn't your lawyer tell you it would be like this and what women do to win in divorce proceedings. She said even her parents told her to make stuff up so she would get the upper hand. (said like I am some fool not to believe this is all quite normal and I should not let it bother me). Up to that point in my life, I had lived a life right out of Leave it to Beaver and stuff like this only happened on TV or on Jerry Springer. So this all was pretty devastating. I think this is why they are allowed to get away with it since most people that have not been through it or have had a loved one who has been through do not believe it. It just seems too outrageous to happen in real life and in America. So I think when people do hear about how NCPs are treated they believe it is rare and not an every day occurrence. It is bad enough being separated from your children, losing your wife, losing your income, assetts but false allegations on top of that. It was absolutely devastating and I will never forgive our government for creating laws that encourage it. Some day I hope to join with others and through legal means of our Constitution make all those mother ****ers in our government pay for what they do to fathers in this country. |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
"TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:TM9Ma.85627$%42.52044@fed1read06... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:Ln_La.85368$%42.15946@fed1read06... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:o99La.83450$%42.58215@fed1read06... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:4uuKa.82494$%42.14146@fed1read06... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... Indyguy1 wrote: Dave wrote: snip to But why do men fail to organize and protest? I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many have been raised. Women have traditionally been the organizers in families. They see to it that the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked, the family events are attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their mothes be the organizers and then marry women who continue the pattern. The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising boys to expect this of women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo role as women. Do it by example and in word. I'm doing my share. Mrs Indyguy I have some theories too, and they're very different from Mrs. Indyguy's. I think that very few men are willing to come out and openly stand up for the interests of men, in situations where those interests are entirely the opposite of women -- as is the case in most domestic relations matters. Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are subject to the very real threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly possessions just because they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand, at the very worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not much to lose there. Why do you say that? It's called BIGGER GUNS.... ever hear of it? Why would they go to jail or lose their worldly possessions because they protested against the system? Now, if their protest was in the form of refusing to pay child support, then I can see where that might be true. But organizing and picketing, etc--why would that merit jail time? It doesn't, but they get it anyway. When? When did men get sent to jail for picketing about CS matters? I said NOTHING about picketing. I referred to men fighting the system; and yes MANY of them go to jail for doing so. And if women were out there picketing with them, why do you think the women would get different treatment? They DO when it's a "WOMAN'S" issue. So there was some particular time when a group of men and women were picketing, protesting the unfair CS system, and the men were sent to jail, and the women weren't? When? Great strawman. Do you have any examples of this happening? Go to ANY feminazi website, and there you will have your answer. But you made the assertion, so you must have a specific time you are speaking of. Precisely WHAT is my assertion? ____________________________________________ Check this out, Chris. It is the thread that you responded to. It was about men organizing and protesting the system: ********* But why do men fail to organize and protest?********* I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many have been raised. Women have traditionally been the organizers in families. They see to it that the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked, the family events are attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their mothes be the organizers and then marry women who continue the pattern. The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising boys to expect this of women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo role as women. Do it by example and in word. I'm doing my share. Mrs Indyguy I have some theories too, and they're very different from Mrs. Indyguy's. ******I think that very few men are willing to come out and openly stand up for the interests of men, in situations where those interests are entirely the opposite of women -- as is the case in most domestic relations matters.********* Chris speaks he "Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are subject to the very real threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly possessions just because they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand, at the very worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not much to lose there." We are discussing picketing and/or having protests. This is the statement you made. I asked you to show me where picketing/protesting resulted in men losing property/jail time. But not women. It was a serious question. I responded ONLY to the post and paragraph above. There was NO mention of picketing. But the whole thread was on picketing and protests, and men coming together as a group to protest the system. Which was why I questioned your response. And, yes, I do agree that men are far more likely to find themselves in legal difficulties in today's family court system. But I had never seen any stats on men being jsiled for picketing and protesting I doubt such statistics will or have ever been taken since this knowledge would jeopardize politically the system in its current state. btw - this thread is getting to be a good example why men never are able to organize a good protest. |
Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?
"Kenneth S." wrote in message ... There is a tiny snippet below of something that I posted some time back, on the subject of why men don't organize adequately to fight back against a system that is so grotesquely distorted against them. In the interim, this thread has turned into a big argument between Max and TeacherMama. I feel like someone who has failed to extinguish his camp fire properly, and then seen it develop into a huge forest fire! On the issue of fathers being penalized for speaking out, I have no statistics, unfortunately. However, I have some experience of seeing what happens to activist fathers. I'll cite two example that I know of in recent years. I recognize, of course, that I heard only one side of the story here, but I still think these episodes indicate what typically happens. What it amounts to is that mothers' lawyers get hold of this information, and -- in effect -- get the judges all riled up, because they tell them that the father is leveling strong criticisms at them outside the court. One case was a father who was a deacon in a Baptist church and in every respect an upright citizen. His wife left him, taking their child. In the course of subsequent proceedings the father tried to expose what he saw as improper intervention on his wife's behalf by a local female police officer who was a member of the church and friendly with his wife. He told me that he began to encounter serious problems with getting his visitation rights honored as soon as he started to draw attention to the police officer's activities on his wife's behalf. We are talking about a small town, where people in the law enforcement business all know each other. The other is a father who, as a result of his treatment in the family court system, wrote a book on the subject of what fathers should do. In court, his wife's attorney then began drawing attention to the father's book, and his other activities on behalf of fathers, with the obvious intention of stirring up prejudice against him in the mind of the judge. I doubt whether there are many cases in the U.S. where fathers are jailed for protesting against the system. However, what frequently happens, I think, is that fathers who do so are branded as troublemakers. Judges have all kinds of discretion in these matters, and they have all kinds of ways of punishing fathers who stand up for their rights. For several years, I had a leading role in a local fathers' groups. One reason why I was told I should take this on was that my children were grown, and there was no longer any way that the legal system could punish me for speaking out publicly. Kenneth's examples show how judges are easily influenced into prejudicial thinking against fathers. One time I asked my attorney why I lost on every issue. He told me "The judge doesn't like you for some reason." I asked what we possibility could have said or done to have the judge turn against me and favor my ex on every issue. His response was judges form opinions about the parties and rule against the party they don't like. His point was it didn't really matter about the facts or testimony. It was more a judge picking a winner/loser and using that premise for decision making. Unfortunately this is not a one time process. Every time I went back before the same judge as the case and the parties were being introduced she would say, "I remember you." That was a clear sign the screwing was going to continue. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:08 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ParentingBanter.com