View Single Post
  #20  
Old June 29th 03, 08:52 AM
Max Burke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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