If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
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". |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
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 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? |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
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 news99La.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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
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 news99La.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 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
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 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? |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
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$%42.15946@fed1read06... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news99La.83450$%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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
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$%42.15946@fed1read06... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news99La.83450$%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. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Parent Stress Index another idiotic indicator list | Greg Hanson | General | 11 | March 22nd 04 12:40 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | December 15th 03 09:42 AM |
| Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed | Kane | Spanking | 11 | September 16th 03 11:59 AM |