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 » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The incentive effects



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 24th 03, 03:14 PM
Kenneth S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 24th 03, 04:38 PM
Tiffany
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 24th 03, 04:38 PM
Tiffany
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 24th 03, 04:43 PM
Tiffany
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 24th 03, 04:43 PM
Tiffany
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 24th 03, 10:21 PM
The DaveŠ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 24th 03, 10:21 PM
The DaveŠ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 25th 03, 06:15 AM
Dave
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 25th 03, 06:15 AM
Dave
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 25th 03, 12:51 PM
Me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

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
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 10:41 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Š2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.