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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The incentive effects
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/ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The incentive effects
Kenneth S. wrote in message ... 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: I know you personally don't believe all that is on that website so this isn't directed at you Ken. That site is the most scary thing I have ever read. I never in my life saw such a one sided objective as the writer of that site put together. As I see it, that site is about making money. Some dude trying to sell a book and help support mail order bride companies. I have no problem with men looking for wives elsewhere..... who can blame them. BUT what they don't see is the reason those women are so freaking nice to them is because they want a green card. Duh. I just thought it was to general and way to negative. But I have never looked at the website for the feminists so maybe that site would be just as scary. What makes people of any gender stop seeing any good in others? Shame. T |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The incentive effects
Kenneth S. wrote in message ... 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: I know you personally don't believe all that is on that website so this isn't directed at you Ken. That site is the most scary thing I have ever read. I never in my life saw such a one sided objective as the writer of that site put together. As I see it, that site is about making money. Some dude trying to sell a book and help support mail order bride companies. I have no problem with men looking for wives elsewhere..... who can blame them. BUT what they don't see is the reason those women are so freaking nice to them is because they want a green card. Duh. I just thought it was to general and way to negative. But I have never looked at the website for the feminists so maybe that site would be just as scary. What makes people of any gender stop seeing any good in others? Shame. T |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The incentive effects
Kenneth S. wrote in message ... 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:// To answer your last question though.... the long-term effects as I see it would be a decrease in marriages and very long term, births. There will be more 'living together' arrangements but the government will step in and start treating those situations as marriages too. Or don't they do that already? lol With the decrease in marriages, the next generations will not view relationships as sacred and will screw around more and more.... hopefully with protection or the lesson was not learned. I don't see it as any good coming from it. I like to wish that women would start progressing towards a positive end and stop milking their partners, no matter what the reason for the divorce is. That women will start thinking ahead and being able to support themselves. That women would not rely on men. But then as that wonderful website views it, we are not wife material then, are we? T |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The incentive effects
Kenneth S. wrote in message ... 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:// To answer your last question though.... the long-term effects as I see it would be a decrease in marriages and very long term, births. There will be more 'living together' arrangements but the government will step in and start treating those situations as marriages too. Or don't they do that already? lol With the decrease in marriages, the next generations will not view relationships as sacred and will screw around more and more.... hopefully with protection or the lesson was not learned. I don't see it as any good coming from it. I like to wish that women would start progressing towards a positive end and stop milking their partners, no matter what the reason for the divorce is. That women will start thinking ahead and being able to support themselves. That women would not rely on men. But then as that wonderful website views it, we are not wife material then, are we? T |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The incentive effects
Kenneth S. wrote:
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. Do you really think they care that much about mothers and women, or has this just proven to be one of the most effective methods for enhancing their own interests? Part of me thinks the vehicle is irrelevant, it's the prize of their own power and ego that drives them. If men suddenly became politically powerful, women would be dropped in a heartbeat. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The incentive effects
Kenneth S. wrote:
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. Do you really think they care that much about mothers and women, or has this just proven to be one of the most effective methods for enhancing their own interests? Part of me thinks the vehicle is irrelevant, it's the prize of their own power and ego that drives them. If men suddenly became politically powerful, women would be dropped in a heartbeat. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The incentive effects
It is the reason why the governments efforts with pro-marriage programs will
fail. A marriage can only work if both are equal in the relationship. With life style child support laws the woman always has a certain amount of power over the man in the relationship and a financial incentive for her to leave at any time. Men that recognize this will continue to reject marriage chosing freedom over enslavement. "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... 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/ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The incentive effects
It is the reason why the governments efforts with pro-marriage programs will
fail. A marriage can only work if both are equal in the relationship. With life style child support laws the woman always has a certain amount of power over the man in the relationship and a financial incentive for her to leave at any time. Men that recognize this will continue to reject marriage chosing freedom over enslavement. "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... 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/ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The incentive effects
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?" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 1/4 | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 3 | June 28th 04 07:41 PM |
New Research: Negative effects of spanking | Chris | General | 14 | June 8th 04 07:01 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 2/4 | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | December 15th 03 09:41 AM |
Are neuroleptics helpful to anyone? | Linda | Kids Health | 0 | October 5th 03 09:14 PM |
My awful side effects from Strattera for ADHD | andrea baker | General | 2 | July 28th 03 02:17 PM |