View Single Post
  #21  
Old June 29th 03, 05:24 PM
TeacherMama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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!