On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:14:01 -0500, "Kenneth S."
wrote:

As long-time participants in this news group will know, one of the
things that I have consistently stressed is the complete failure to look
at the pattern of incentives in regard to "child support," as well as
other big-picture aspects of current domestic relations law in the U.S.

An important element in this is the way that current levels of "child
support," plus a virtual guarantee to mothers that they will get custody
of the children of a marriage, have created a powerful incentive for the
breakup of two-parent families and the creation of fatherless families.

In my view, the real -- but never-admitted -- objective of "child
support" laws in the U.S. is to empower mothers. The money makes it
much easier for mothers to end their marriages, or to become
never-married single mothers, if that is what they want. The
empowerment of women, like many other actions of government, is subject
to the iron law of unintended consequences. If you want to see some of
the unintended consequences for women in the U.S., take a look at the
web site below.

Let me say that I don't agree with much of what is said in this web
site. However, it raises issues that, in my epxerience, are NEVER
considered in the debate over domestic relations laws in the U.S. In
particular, it implicitly asks the question: if you tip the balance
within marriage in the U.S. to the point where it offers very little
that men see as positive for them, what will be the long-term effects on
men's behavior?

http://www.nomarriage.com/

Well I have to admit that this web site puts it out there exactly the
way I see it. I don't know if women from other countries are any
different but I know that he has Western women pegged. They are greedy
and self-centered and the major question in their life seems to be
"What have you done for me lately?"