"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
news 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?