CS and women's greed strikes again..

"Bob" wrote in message
...
Don wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message
...

Don wrote:

This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice
perpetrated
against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting
with
no child support changing hands.

Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our
children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before
feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every
measurable criteria. Fathers do know best.



Shared parenting meaning both parents. What you are advocating is
completely removing moms from the picture. That is a whole other list
of
consequences of doing such just like when fathers are removed the
picture
like they are now.

For most of human history children belonged to their fathers. That
system works better than any other, and MUCH better than the totally
failed radical feminazi social experiments of the feminist century.

The mother ought to bring children to their father for support, after
being socially required to marry before bearing children. If she wants
to leave, she leaves, but doesn't take the children. Father knows best,
and always has.

Children raised by fathers do better in every measurable way. The
presence or absence of mothers has almost no effect on any measurable
outcome.

Ok, Bob, you knew someone was going to ask, so I'm asking. Where are the
studies showing this? And I do mean studies, not opinions.

"Bob" wrote in message
...
Don wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message
...

Don wrote:

This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice
perpetrated
against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting
with
no child support changing hands.

Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our
children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before
feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every
measurable criteria. Fathers do know best.



Shared parenting meaning both parents. What you are advocating is
completely removing moms from the picture. That is a whole other list
of
consequences of doing such just like when fathers are removed the
picture
like they are now.

For most of human history children belonged to their fathers. That
system works better than any other, and MUCH better than the totally
failed radical feminazi social experiments of the feminist century.

The mother ought to bring children to their father for support, after
being socially required to marry before bearing children. If she wants
to leave, she leaves, but doesn't take the children. Father knows best,
and always has.

Children raised by fathers do better in every measurable way. The
presence or absence of mothers has almost no effect on any measurable
outcome.

Ok, Bob, you knew someone was going to ask, so I'm asking. Where are the
studies showing this? And I do mean studies, not opinions.

"Bob" wrote in message
...
Don wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message
...

Don wrote:

This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice
perpetrated
against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting
with
no child support changing hands.

Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our
children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before
feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every
measurable criteria. Fathers do know best.



Shared parenting meaning both parents. What you are advocating is
completely removing moms from the picture. That is a whole other list
of
consequences of doing such just like when fathers are removed the
picture
like they are now.

For most of human history children belonged to their fathers. That
system works better than any other, and MUCH better than the totally
failed radical feminazi social experiments of the feminist century.

The mother ought to bring children to their father for support, after
being socially required to marry before bearing children. If she wants
to leave, she leaves, but doesn't take the children. Father knows best,
and always has.

Children raised by fathers do better in every measurable way. The
presence or absence of mothers has almost no effect on any measurable
outcome.

Ok, Bob, you knew someone was going to ask, so I'm asking. Where are the
studies showing this? And I do mean studies, not opinions.

Don wrote:
I agree with what you are saying but my point was only in extreme cases.


1. If mom can't support her child she had no damn business getting
pregnant. She ought to be punished socially for hurting her children
like that.


Too late, the baby is already born. Father will not take custody, will not
shared parent and maybe even dissappears. Working mother with child turns
to the state for help since can't make ends meet. The masses will in turn
insist the government do something about it rather than pick up the tab.

Boo Hoo. Cry me a river.

The bitch ****ed herself up. Forcing taxpayers to pick up her bills
only encourages her and a million of her sisters to do it again.


This is the only case where I believe at least some form of basic necessity
support rather than let the taxpayers pick up the tab. But only if the
father has the means to do so. If both do not have the means then ok
taxpayers may need to pick up the tab. Although I do believe more can be
done with national charities with government oversight and promotion.

ONLY she had "a woman's right to choose." The father had no rights and
no choice whether to become a father. He has no option to abandon the
child, nor to put it up for adoption.

In many of these cases abortion ought not be a choice. There is far too
much pansy ass whining and catering to ****ed up bitches.


Bottomline support only where the working father does not want the child and
the working mother cannot support herself.

Nope, all so-called "child support" is robbing the man's MONEY to give
to a slut whore who couldn't or wouldn't take responsibility for her
womb, it's not supporting the child.


Also if you cannot afford to
care for the child you give up custody to the parent that can care for the
child. If the other parent is unwilling then the taxpayers should not have
to pick up the tab and hence basic support.

If SHE can't or won't get off her fat lazy ass and get a job to support
her child she can bring her child to it's father for support as women
have been doing for millions of years.


I agree with your points in most cases except where the father wants nothing
to do with the child and the working mother cannot support herself.

She ought to have had an agreement with the father before she got
herself pregnant, before she exercised "a woman's right to choose" and
carried the child, before she chose not to give the child for adoption.

Unfortunately your views are extreme in our feminist society and therefore
unlikely any politician will take on your cause.

Yes, feminized politicians, like Kerry for example, are pansy ass
femroids who cater to every damn thing feminists want and screw men and
children with the full weight of the government. No MAN ought to vote
for any of them.


Shared parenting is at
least some where in the middle. But who knows maybe what is needed is for
all fathers to take your view on other end of the pendulum to bring things
back to somewhere in the middle.

If the female files for divorce she ought to get the clothes on her
back, and that's all. If any judge cares at all for "the best interest
of the child" she would not break up the family, nor reward the bitch
who does so. The parent who files the divorce (90% female) gets no
kids, no custody, no house, and none of the family's assets.



--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

Don wrote:
I agree with what you are saying but my point was only in extreme cases.


1. If mom can't support her child she had no damn business getting
pregnant. She ought to be punished socially for hurting her children
like that.


Too late, the baby is already born. Father will not take custody, will not
shared parent and maybe even dissappears. Working mother with child turns
to the state for help since can't make ends meet. The masses will in turn
insist the government do something about it rather than pick up the tab.

Boo Hoo. Cry me a river.

The bitch ****ed herself up. Forcing taxpayers to pick up her bills
only encourages her and a million of her sisters to do it again.


This is the only case where I believe at least some form of basic necessity
support rather than let the taxpayers pick up the tab. But only if the
father has the means to do so. If both do not have the means then ok
taxpayers may need to pick up the tab. Although I do believe more can be
done with national charities with government oversight and promotion.

ONLY she had "a woman's right to choose." The father had no rights and
no choice whether to become a father. He has no option to abandon the
child, nor to put it up for adoption.

In many of these cases abortion ought not be a choice. There is far too
much pansy ass whining and catering to ****ed up bitches.


Bottomline support only where the working father does not want the child and
the working mother cannot support herself.

Nope, all so-called "child support" is robbing the man's MONEY to give
to a slut whore who couldn't or wouldn't take responsibility for her
womb, it's not supporting the child.


Also if you cannot afford to
care for the child you give up custody to the parent that can care for the
child. If the other parent is unwilling then the taxpayers should not have
to pick up the tab and hence basic support.

If SHE can't or won't get off her fat lazy ass and get a job to support
her child she can bring her child to it's father for support as women
have been doing for millions of years.


I agree with your points in most cases except where the father wants nothing
to do with the child and the working mother cannot support herself.

She ought to have had an agreement with the father before she got
herself pregnant, before she exercised "a woman's right to choose" and
carried the child, before she chose not to give the child for adoption.

Unfortunately your views are extreme in our feminist society and therefore
unlikely any politician will take on your cause.

Yes, feminized politicians, like Kerry for example, are pansy ass
femroids who cater to every damn thing feminists want and screw men and
children with the full weight of the government. No MAN ought to vote
for any of them.


Shared parenting is at
least some where in the middle. But who knows maybe what is needed is for
all fathers to take your view on other end of the pendulum to bring things
back to somewhere in the middle.

If the female files for divorce she ought to get the clothes on her
back, and that's all. If any judge cares at all for "the best interest
of the child" she would not break up the family, nor reward the bitch
who does so. The parent who files the divorce (90% female) gets no
kids, no custody, no house, and none of the family's assets.



--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

Don wrote:
I agree with what you are saying but my point was only in extreme cases.


1. If mom can't support her child she had no damn business getting
pregnant. She ought to be punished socially for hurting her children
like that.


Too late, the baby is already born. Father will not take custody, will not
shared parent and maybe even dissappears. Working mother with child turns
to the state for help since can't make ends meet. The masses will in turn
insist the government do something about it rather than pick up the tab.

Boo Hoo. Cry me a river.

The bitch ****ed herself up. Forcing taxpayers to pick up her bills
only encourages her and a million of her sisters to do it again.


This is the only case where I believe at least some form of basic necessity
support rather than let the taxpayers pick up the tab. But only if the
father has the means to do so. If both do not have the means then ok
taxpayers may need to pick up the tab. Although I do believe more can be
done with national charities with government oversight and promotion.

ONLY she had "a woman's right to choose." The father had no rights and
no choice whether to become a father. He has no option to abandon the
child, nor to put it up for adoption.

In many of these cases abortion ought not be a choice. There is far too
much pansy ass whining and catering to ****ed up bitches.


Bottomline support only where the working father does not want the child and
the working mother cannot support herself.

Nope, all so-called "child support" is robbing the man's MONEY to give
to a slut whore who couldn't or wouldn't take responsibility for her
womb, it's not supporting the child.


Also if you cannot afford to
care for the child you give up custody to the parent that can care for the
child. If the other parent is unwilling then the taxpayers should not have
to pick up the tab and hence basic support.

If SHE can't or won't get off her fat lazy ass and get a job to support
her child she can bring her child to it's father for support as women
have been doing for millions of years.


I agree with your points in most cases except where the father wants nothing
to do with the child and the working mother cannot support herself.

She ought to have had an agreement with the father before she got
herself pregnant, before she exercised "a woman's right to choose" and
carried the child, before she chose not to give the child for adoption.

Unfortunately your views are extreme in our feminist society and therefore
unlikely any politician will take on your cause.

Yes, feminized politicians, like Kerry for example, are pansy ass
femroids who cater to every damn thing feminists want and screw men and
children with the full weight of the government. No MAN ought to vote
for any of them.


Shared parenting is at
least some where in the middle. But who knows maybe what is needed is for
all fathers to take your view on other end of the pendulum to bring things
back to somewhere in the middle.

If the female files for divorce she ought to get the clothes on her
back, and that's all. If any judge cares at all for "the best interest
of the child" she would not break up the family, nor reward the bitch
who does so. The parent who files the divorce (90% female) gets no
kids, no custody, no house, and none of the family's assets.



--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

Don wrote:
I agree with what you are saying but my point was only in extreme cases.


1. If mom can't support her child she had no damn business getting
pregnant. She ought to be punished socially for hurting her children
like that.


Too late, the baby is already born. Father will not take custody, will not
shared parent and maybe even dissappears. Working mother with child turns
to the state for help since can't make ends meet. The masses will in turn
insist the government do something about it rather than pick up the tab.

Boo Hoo. Cry me a river.

The bitch ****ed herself up. Forcing taxpayers to pick up her bills
only encourages her and a million of her sisters to do it again.


This is the only case where I believe at least some form of basic necessity
support rather than let the taxpayers pick up the tab. But only if the
father has the means to do so. If both do not have the means then ok
taxpayers may need to pick up the tab. Although I do believe more can be
done with national charities with government oversight and promotion.

ONLY she had "a woman's right to choose." The father had no rights and
no choice whether to become a father. He has no option to abandon the
child, nor to put it up for adoption.

In many of these cases abortion ought not be a choice. There is far too
much pansy ass whining and catering to ****ed up bitches.


Bottomline support only where the working father does not want the child and
the working mother cannot support herself.

Nope, all so-called "child support" is robbing the man's MONEY to give
to a slut whore who couldn't or wouldn't take responsibility for her
womb, it's not supporting the child.


Also if you cannot afford to
care for the child you give up custody to the parent that can care for the
child. If the other parent is unwilling then the taxpayers should not have
to pick up the tab and hence basic support.

If SHE can't or won't get off her fat lazy ass and get a job to support
her child she can bring her child to it's father for support as women
have been doing for millions of years.


I agree with your points in most cases except where the father wants nothing
to do with the child and the working mother cannot support herself.

She ought to have had an agreement with the father before she got
herself pregnant, before she exercised "a woman's right to choose" and
carried the child, before she chose not to give the child for adoption.

Unfortunately your views are extreme in our feminist society and therefore
unlikely any politician will take on your cause.

Yes, feminized politicians, like Kerry for example, are pansy ass
femroids who cater to every damn thing feminists want and screw men and
children with the full weight of the government. No MAN ought to vote
for any of them.


Shared parenting is at
least some where in the middle. But who knows maybe what is needed is for
all fathers to take your view on other end of the pendulum to bring things
back to somewhere in the middle.

If the female files for divorce she ought to get the clothes on her
back, and that's all. If any judge cares at all for "the best interest
of the child" she would not break up the family, nor reward the bitch
who does so. The parent who files the divorce (90% female) gets no
kids, no custody, no house, and none of the family's assets.



--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

teachrmama wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message
...

Don wrote:

"Bob" wrote in message
...


Don wrote:


This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice
perpetrated
against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting

with

no child support changing hands.

Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our
children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before
feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every
measurable criteria. Fathers do know best.



Shared parenting meaning both parents. What you are advocating is
completely removing moms from the picture. That is a whole other list

of

consequences of doing such just like when fathers are removed the

picture

like they are now.

For most of human history children belonged to their fathers. That
system works better than any other, and MUCH better than the totally
failed radical feminazi social experiments of the feminist century.

The mother ought to bring children to their father for support, after
being socially required to marry before bearing children. If she wants
to leave, she leaves, but doesn't take the children. Father knows best,
and always has.

Children raised by fathers do better in every measurable way. The
presence or absence of mothers has almost no effect on any measurable
outcome.


Ok, Bob, you knew someone was going to ask, so I'm asking. Where are the
studies showing this? And I do mean studies, not opinions.

There is a growing mountain of evidence in academia, mostly in scholarly
journals. Some of it is available on the web. From time to time links
get published on soc.men and elsewhere. Bob does not, as a matter of
policy, save lists of links to generally known and/or widely published
information.

Bob


--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

teachrmama wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message
...

Don wrote:

"Bob" wrote in message
...


Don wrote:


This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice
perpetrated
against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting

with

no child support changing hands.

Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our
children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before
feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every
measurable criteria. Fathers do know best.



Shared parenting meaning both parents. What you are advocating is
completely removing moms from the picture. That is a whole other list

of

consequences of doing such just like when fathers are removed the

picture

like they are now.

For most of human history children belonged to their fathers. That
system works better than any other, and MUCH better than the totally
failed radical feminazi social experiments of the feminist century.

The mother ought to bring children to their father for support, after
being socially required to marry before bearing children. If she wants
to leave, she leaves, but doesn't take the children. Father knows best,
and always has.

Children raised by fathers do better in every measurable way. The
presence or absence of mothers has almost no effect on any measurable
outcome.


Ok, Bob, you knew someone was going to ask, so I'm asking. Where are the
studies showing this? And I do mean studies, not opinions.

There is a growing mountain of evidence in academia, mostly in scholarly
journals. Some of it is available on the web. From time to time links
get published on soc.men and elsewhere. Bob does not, as a matter of
policy, save lists of links to generally known and/or widely published
information.

Bob


--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

teachrmama wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message
...

Don wrote:

"Bob" wrote in message
...


Don wrote:


This case is no different from any other miscarriage of justice
perpetrated
against fathers. Parents should automatically have shared parenting

with

no child support changing hands.

Close but no cigar. Dads should automatically have authority over our
children, as fathers have had for the past 100,000 years before
feminazism. Children raised by mothers turn out worse by every
measurable criteria. Fathers do know best.



Shared parenting meaning both parents. What you are advocating is
completely removing moms from the picture. That is a whole other list

of

consequences of doing such just like when fathers are removed the

picture

like they are now.

For most of human history children belonged to their fathers. That
system works better than any other, and MUCH better than the totally
failed radical feminazi social experiments of the feminist century.

The mother ought to bring children to their father for support, after
being socially required to marry before bearing children. If she wants
to leave, she leaves, but doesn't take the children. Father knows best,
and always has.

Children raised by fathers do better in every measurable way. The
presence or absence of mothers has almost no effect on any measurable
outcome.


Ok, Bob, you knew someone was going to ask, so I'm asking. Where are the
studies showing this? And I do mean studies, not opinions.

There is a growing mountain of evidence in academia, mostly in scholarly
journals. Some of it is available on the web. From time to time links
get published on soc.men and elsewhere. Bob does not, as a matter of
policy, save lists of links to generally known and/or widely published
information.

Bob


--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/