A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Single Parents
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

I need help tracking down a this deadbeat asshole !



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #181  
Old March 31st 05, 04:14 PM
Cloaked
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I am not convinced that the admission eliminates credibility; however,
it does imply a defininte bias - and that comments and actions must be
closely examined for hidden agendas.

Just from casual observation, there was a time when femminism stood
for equality. Now, it appears that femminists want superiority. How
ironic that they would subscribe to a behaviour in themselves that
they profess to detest in men!

Hmmm.... perhaps they are closer to equality that they thought!

Too bad they could not have used this opporetunity to raise us all up
a notch!

But alas, they are achieving equality by reverting to the lowest
common denominator.

sigh


On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:19:57 GMT, "Phil #3"
wrote:


"V" wrote in message
...

"Cloaked" wrote in message
...
SNIP



So you are accusing him of being a cheater? Rather presumptuous,
wouldn't you say? Sounds like something a femminist lawyer would come
out with.

snip


Hey, hey.....watch it....everyone move out of here.......there is nothing
to see here....psst....hey you...yeah..you mister...with the loin cloth
and knuckles dragging as you gait slowly....yeah...you...
Ahem...you gotta problem with feminist lawyers?
V, who is a feminist and working on being a lawyer



Speaking only for myself, admission of feminism completely eliminates
credibility.
Phil #3



  #182  
Old March 31st 05, 11:05 PM
Werebat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



'Kate wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:56:58 -0500, Werebat the
following was posted in blue crayon:



'Kate wrote:


Why is it that whenever you talk to men about these emotional things,
they use personal experience? It's as if the rest of the world does
not exist.


Boggle

I think *people* tend to go right to personal experience when discussing
emotional things. I mean it's not like women, by comparision, are more
likely to head right for the objective data when discussing emotional
issues. Come on.



There is intelligent life out there! Good! Now... let's get down to
it. :-)


I'm curious -- if you knew from the get-go that there was a flaw in your
statement about "you men", why did you make it? Just to stir things up?


I think almost everyone here will agree that both parents should support
their children financially and emotionally. The Devil is in the details.



I agree with you.


On that point, yes. I also think almost everyone on both sides any
debate about this stuff is going to be able to agree that "the Devil is
in the details".


I don't beleive the OP was actually advocating that both parents should
be thrown in jail.



Nor was I suggesting that women should run their husbands over, or
that all men are cheaters, or all women are murderers.


OK


But you already know that, I think. The logic presented is pretty basic
stuff, and the only way I can see someone misreading it is if they are
being deliberately obfuscatory in an effort to confound other readers.



And here I thought I was presenting a balance. I don't know the
reason why an individual parent doesn't pay. I've seen the same stats
as the poster who stated that the percentage of women who don't pay is
greater than the percentage of men and we don't make a big deal about
saying "deadbeat moms". I believe that the media has a hard time
beating women up in the same way that they feel free to beat men up
but I don't think that adding women on to the deadbeat parent list is
the appropriate response. I think that the appropriate response is
that parents should support their children and then these lists would
be unnecessary. But.. this isn't a perfect world, is it? I also know
that in alt.support.single-parents, the term "deadbeat dad" is
discouraged. It is in the monthly FAQ IIRC.


Good, all of it. Although, again, "the Devil is in the details" :^)


Because being male is the be all end all as far as being top of the
food chain.


That depends entirely on which "food chain" you are talking about. To
use a metaphor, a great white shark is not at the top of the food chain
in the middle of the Gobi desert. He's more of a sitting duck.
Environment plays a very significant factor.


Only if one lives in an environment that is totally unaffected by
every other environment... a glass fishbowl, perhaps. Otherwise, we
see and learn that the advantage tends to go to the men.


I'm sorry, I just don't follow. How does the advantage go to men in the
family court system? Or are you just saying that "overall", men have
the advantage (as in "overall", the great white shark is at the top of
the food chain since 3/4 of the Earth is covered in water)?


In family court, men are most certainly not at "the top of the food
chain". To suggest otherwise is... well... nonsensical because it
flies in the face of so much data indicating the opposite.



Men were the ones who put other men in this position (male judges). To
blame women for taking advantage of it is like blaming men for taking
advantage of being at the top of the food chain. It exists. There are
reasons why it exists as it does. They are not fair reasons.. not for
either "side."


Male judges and their misplaced chivalry have, I think, a lot to do with
the family court situation, but they are not the only factor. And I
seem to remember hearing a vocal feminist or two in college speaking out
against men abusing their power advantages.

I think I know what you are trying to say, but I have to disagree with
it inasmuch as it is an attitude that can breed a "give it up, way it
is" mentality. OTOH, I also realize that blaming women for abusing
power advantages can lead to hating women rather than correcting the
imbalance of power that resulted in their being able to abuse in the
first place (which is also undesireable).


Take the women who leave their children or are not "given" custody of
their children.... aren't they treated more harshly by society? They
are automatically seen as bad mothers or crazy or drunks or drug
abusers. We immediatly think, "What's wrong with her?" because it is
not the norm.


You're right. Non-Custodial Moms are generally assumed to have done
something "wrong" in order to have "lost" custody. But what does that
say about the reality of the family court system? Is there
statistically anything behind it? What kind of women lose custody
cases? If I were a gambling man, I'd bet that there were would be a
significantly higher percentage who were "bad mothers", "crazy",
"drunks", and "drug abusers" than the equivalent for men who lost
custody disputes. Of course I *could* be wrong, but I don't think so.



If that is so, then they are more likely to not pay the child support
ordered. Those two pieces of the puzzle fit well.


I've considered that point before, and come to the same conclusion. It
does make sense. If the majority of women who lose custody are, to use
the vernacular, "whack-jobs", then it would only follow that a greater
percentage of women who are supposed to pay CS, don't.


That's exactly why
women who do want to be fair and share custody are condemned as nuts,
drunks, drug abusers, and etc.

What backs up the statement that these women are *insert whatever
issue* is that men have had to fight awfully hard to gain custody of
their children. They have been forced to prove their ex's to be
*insert whatever issue* or lose their children. They have had to do
so using money to hire a private investigator or by getting medical
records. Also, women are more likely to seek help for "emotional
problems." Therefore, more women would be judged to be *insert
whatever issue* in a court of law than men. Men have to prove they
are better. Women have automatically won.


Rather like a man who loses a business promotion to a woman being
thought of as "weak" or a "loser".

You certainly sound like you think all of this is wrong.


Take the men who have custody or are widowed. They are
treated like idiots who don't know how to parent their own children.


Eh? I have my son half of the time and I don't recall ever being
treated like an idiot who didn't know how to parent. Are you citing a
study here, or just going on personal experience?



Perhaps not eloquently put but yes, I have qualitative interviews and
can cite some examples of the difference in how widowed men are
treated v. widowed women.


If you say. Perhaps they are scientifically valid.

What you're saying does make a sort of sense. I know people at work who
think I am a "fantastic father" and they have literally seen me with my
son only one or two times. How could they possibly know? And when I am
out alone with him (just the two of us) I seem to get a lot of admiring
looks. It could be that a father only has to be "average" to be
considered a "great parent", "for a man". Sort of like a Black person
in years gone by being thought of as a "prodigy", "for a ******", just
for being able to read. I think that's what you're talking about here.


They are offered far more help than single women.


How?


The silence.

Again, how?


So you are upset that just because you are a single mother, people
assume you are freeloading off the system and feel animosity towards you
because of that. I guess I can see that. I certainly wouldn't like
that attitude directed at me either, if it weren't true of me (and
probably even if it were).



I was explaining that we all have our issues. I'm not "upset" by being
a single mother.


I never said you were. You're upset that people assume you are
freeloading just because you're a single mother.


I am certainly not thrilled with the situation but
stuff happens and we're making the best of it. If I am doing anything
at all, it is trying to explain that there are other sides to this
very complex issue of being a single parent and the difficulties that
single parents face - both mothers and fathers. I am seeking
understanding. I'm willing to give what I get.


I think your case -- being a widow -- makes you something unexpected in
the alt.child.support newsgroup. No doubt there are myriad problems
associated with this, but they aren't what most of us here are going to
be thinking of when we enter a discussion. We're thinking of what we've
been burned by personally -- a tyrannical and biased system of family
courts, government agencies, and assorted "legal pickpockets" all lined
up for the next scam that will strip us of a little more money, dignity,
and time with our kids.


But where do you think the prejudice comes from?



I think that it's gender bias just the same as women who have multiple
sex partners being perceived as sluts while men are perceived as
studs.


So you admit that the family courts are gender biased. I thought as much.

The old "slut/stud" thing, eh? That's a funny little one. My personal
theory is that at least some of it comes from women who have
normal/low/reserved sexual drives launching bad publicity at women who
are more openly sexual (for making them look bad). At least in the high
schools I have worked at, the most vocal and virulently hateful of the
"sluts" are other girls and female teachers. Of course men have their
curious reasons too (they don't want a partner who will bear children
with another man), publicly scorning the "sluts" while also wanting to
sleep with them. It's a weird thing.


Ah, we all have our pet peeves don't we?


Sure do. And to be fair, is it really reasonable to expect anyone to
have as much of a conniption about a societal prejudice that hasn't and
isn't ever going to affect *them*, personally?



How does any of us know that for sure? Life does not come with a
guarantee. I may never marry again but I know that there is a chance
that my children may be effected by divorce and custody laws whether
or not he or she initiates divorce, caused the divorce, or files first
(to cover bases.)


Even a woman who is abusing the family court system would be interested
in reforming it if she had a son and was sufficiently far-sighted. I
don't think many people are, though.

For my part, I think it's too late for me to see any reforms that will
help me personally -- but I have one son already, and another on the
way, and this is why I have an interest in reform. Twenty years is
enough time to make a better situation for them.



I agree that the immediate reaction is often revolutionary and, over
time, the pendulum swings until a liveable agreement is reached.


Well we're certainly not there at the moment.



I know. But given a choice, I would rather work on keeping couples
together than on the issue of how to divide assets and share custody.


That's admirable. On the other hand, "Just say no" only goes so far in
the real world.


I
don't agree that anyone is going to be happy about the result. If
they were, we wouldn't need divorce and custody law.


No matter the system, some people are going to be unhappy about the
results. But there's a difference between "unhappy" and "abused".
Black slaves in the deep Southern USA were undoubtedly "unhappy" about
their situation, and I don't think an explanation of "Well, no matter
how we work things out, SOMEONE will be unhappy..." could ever have
smoothed over their grievances. I'll tell you, as a victim of this
system, that kind of palliative talk only infuriates me.



I may have written that wrong. What I meant to say was that in a good
agreement *both* sides will not be happy. It's pretty standard that if
one side does all the giving, then the other will be happy but if both
sides give enough, then no one will be happy. That's a difficult
concept for me to convey so if I still haven't... oh well. I did try.


I see what you are saying. To be honest, my own situation with my ex is
one where neither one of us is totally happy, and I think it is pretty
"fair" overall (or it will be once I finish paying off this student loan
debt of hers). However, what bothers me is that the whole deal was set
up contingent on HER approval, and we all know that if she decides to go
crazy-go-nuts at any point in the future and demand full custody (or, if
she is smart, just 90% of the standard CS award while I have our son 50%
of the time), she'll win. That I don't like. It's a "push comes to
shove" thing, where we both know what would happen if we decided to get
nasty, and that strongly affects both our social bargaining and my own
feeling of security and mental health. The nasty things she could do to
me are almost all legal, while the only ones left to me are purely
illegal. Not that either of us wants to go there, but hopefully you can
see my point.

- Ron ^*^

  #183  
Old March 31st 05, 11:08 PM
Werebat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Kent wrote:

Why the FK is this crossposted to alt.support.childfree? We don't have a dog
in this fight, and never will.


Perhaps because someone is trolling. Enjoy! :^)

Seriously -- who ever said you needed to actually father a child in
order to be forced to pay child support?

- Ron ^*^

  #184  
Old April 1st 05, 01:19 AM
V
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"'Kate" wrote in message
...

All this because I agreed that being called a deadbeat dad was a
problem and that the media created the problem by perpetuating the
stereotype. Evidently, he feels that I'm responsible for the term.
That wasn't rational. If I had received a rational argument in
response (more than the one time), it might have been an interesting
thread. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. It degenerated at a rapid
pace.

'Kate


He is just looking for a reason to **** and moan.
Bleh.
Fooey on him.
Let's get back to better things ......
V


  #185  
Old April 1st 05, 02:35 AM
YooperBoyka
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"'Kate" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:48:22 GMT, "V" the
following was posted in blue crayon:


I have a new name..."V the feminist lawyer want to be"
BAH.
I can not wait to tell my wittle fwends at the prescwool....I met a meanie
on usenet who dislike feminists lawyer wanna bes......
lol
V


Be careful or he'll taunt you. Whoooo.



Your mother was a hamster,...and your father smelled
of elderberries!

(sigh,...yeah, I know,...stolen)
(sorry)


  #186  
Old April 1st 05, 02:53 AM
YooperBoyka
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"'Kate" wrote in message
...

.... For some reason, seeing a man father his
children is.... well, hot. g




THUD!

BTW,...thanks for an interesting sub-thread.


  #187  
Old April 1st 05, 03:07 AM
rj
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:12:52 GMT, 'Kate wrote:

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:42:41 GMT, "V" the
following was posted in blue crayon:


"Rambler" wrote in message
...
snip

It's because I'm a man, isn't it, one of those horrible wretches who put
you in your current positon. I can take it .., I'm used to getting picked
on.

Rambler

snip

Kate lost her husband to death.
We do not think men are bad people. Actually we love men who have
accountability.
Your childhood and being picked on has nothing to do with this group. Why
are you used to being picked on? You should seek therapy for being so darn
angry!
V


All this because I agreed that being called a deadbeat dad was a
problem and that the media created the problem by perpetuating the
stereotype. Evidently, he feels that I'm responsible for the term.
That wasn't rational. If I had received a rational argument in
response (more than the one time), it might have been an interesting
thread. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. It degenerated at a rapid
pace.

'Kate


LOL...

You and Rambler both share at least one little character flaw...
You've *both* gotta have the last word... even if it's elsewhere.

rj
  #188  
Old April 1st 05, 05:03 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In
ups.com
posted on 30 Mar 2005 23:02:07 -0800, "rj"
, wrote:


'Kate wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:18:34 +0800, Rambler
the following was posted in blue
crayon:

Go ahead, you can have the last word. I know that is important to

you.

What an angry man.

'Kate



sigh...

And what an angry woman.

I was finding this exchange to be both intelligent (a rarity on usenet)
and stimulating. Then somewhere along the way it degenerated into
finger-pointing and name-calling. A pity...


Follow alt.support.childfree for a few months, and you will
see lots of this.

Regards,
"Nilkids"
[American in Australia posting from alt.support.childfree,
contactable on said group.]



rj


  #189  
Old April 1st 05, 06:27 AM
xkatx
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"'Kate" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 07:37:07 +0530, rj the
following was posted in blue crayon:

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:12:52 GMT, 'Kate wrote:

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:42:41 GMT, "V" the
following was posted in blue crayon:


"Rambler" wrote in message
...
snip

It's because I'm a man, isn't it, one of those horrible wretches who put
you in your current positon. I can take it .., I'm used to getting picked
on.

Rambler
snip

Kate lost her husband to death.
We do not think men are bad people. Actually we love men who have
accountability.
Your childhood and being picked on has nothing to do with this group. Why
are you used to being picked on? You should seek therapy for being so darn
angry!
V

All this because I agreed that being called a deadbeat dad was a
problem and that the media created the problem by perpetuating the
stereotype. Evidently, he feels that I'm responsible for the term.
That wasn't rational. If I had received a rational argument in
response (more than the one time), it might have been an interesting
thread. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. It degenerated at a rapid
pace.

'Kate


LOL...

You and Rambler both share at least one little character flaw...
You've *both* gotta have the last word... even if it's elsewhere.

rj


LOL.. only 'cause gestures don't come across on usenet.



That's alright...

Kate, you have, officially...

_____________________________..########___________ _##________##_________
____________________________###########__________. .##_______##________##
___________________________####_____####__________ _#______.#_______####_
________________________.########_____##########__ ___#___.#____####______
________________________.########______..######### _____#_.#__####_________
____________________..###############_________#### #####____#_____________
________________########################______#### ###__#_____####..______
______________############################________ ___#___#_______####..__
___________##################################_____ ___.#____#________.##__
_________######66##########66##########66######___ ___#______#___________
________######66##########66##########66########__ ___.#_______##.________
_______######66##########66##########66##########_ ___##_______.##._______
______######66##########66##########66############ ___.#._________________
_____.######66##########66##########66############ #._____________________
_____######66666666####66666666####66666666####### ####____________________
_____######666666666###666666666###666666666####|# #####____________________
_____####|##66666666####66666666####66666666###### #####____________________
_____########66666#######66666#######66666######## ###____________________
_____.############################################ #.____________________
_____..########################################### #_____________________
______.,########################################## ______________________
_______..########################################_ ______________________
________..######################################.. _______________________
___________.##################################.___ ______________________
_____________.##############################._____ ______________________
________________#########################.._______ ______________________


DROPPED DA BOMB!!


--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?
  #190  
Old April 1st 05, 02:52 PM
Phil #3
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Cloaked" wrote in message
...
I am not convinced that the admission eliminates credibility; however,
it does imply a defininte bias - and that comments and actions must be
closely examined for hidden agendas.

Just from casual observation, there was a time when femminism stood
for equality. Now, it appears that femminists want superiority. How
ironic that they would subscribe to a behaviour in themselves that
they profess to detest in men!

Hmmm.... perhaps they are closer to equality that they thought!

Too bad they could not have used this opporetunity to raise us all up
a notch!

But alas, they are achieving equality by reverting to the lowest
common denominator.

sigh


Your last sentence sounds a bit sexist to me but perhaps I am being overly
sensitive.
Modern feminism is only interested in special rights for women without
responsibility while claiming these special rights are somehow equitable.
For instance, they demanded the right to vote but strenuously avoid the
responsibility to defend it with liability for selective service or when a
pregnancy occurs, by law the father has no choices while the mother has at
least four, which to feminists represents equality.
Personally, I do not choose to believe one who supports a system of belief
that has been proven to be less than honest about their goals.
Phil #3


On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:19:57 GMT, "Phil #3"
wrote:


"V" wrote in message
...

"Cloaked" wrote in message
...
SNIP



So you are accusing him of being a cheater? Rather presumptuous,
wouldn't you say? Sounds like something a femminist lawyer would come
out with.

snip

Hey, hey.....watch it....everyone move out of here.......there is
nothing
to see here....psst....hey you...yeah..you mister...with the loin cloth
and knuckles dragging as you gait slowly....yeah...you...
Ahem...you gotta problem with feminist lawyers?
V, who is a feminist and working on being a lawyer



Speaking only for myself, admission of feminism completely eliminates
credibility.
Phil #3





 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
State warns county about deadbeat parent ads/10-2 Dave Briggman Child Support 0 October 2nd 04 01:19 AM
In Defense of 'Deadbeat Dads Don Child Support 8 August 12th 04 07:17 AM
Deadbeat Fathers are a growing problem throughout the region Fighting for kids Child Support 5 November 12th 03 03:33 AM
Deadbeat Parent Finder Service infopro Child Support 21 October 6th 03 04:38 PM
Boksa, birth insults and schizophrenia (also: Gastaldo 'you ignorant asshole' --Allen D. Radant, MD) Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 1 July 14th 03 11:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.