Child support is a woman's issue, NOW says

On Mar 15, 9:11�pm, "Chris" wrote:
"Kenneth S." wrote in message

news:6s1Kh.2430$8u4.1737@trnddc08...





* * I agree with much of what you say below. *There is an odd alliance
between conservatives such as Dobson and extremist feminists. *As far as I
can see, this alliance is based on the notion that major social problems,
such as family breakdown, are exclusively the responsibility of those
wicked
men, and that government policies--such as making every effort to make
sure
that men pay "child support" to women--have no incentive effect on the
rate
of breakup of families.

* * I don't think anything will change until men find some way of making
Dobson and many others understand that in the present-day U.S. women --
not
men -- are responsible for the overwhelming majority of fatherless
families,
whether created by divorce or by illegitimate births. *That's not an easy
thing to do. It involves men being willing to acknowledge that they are
not
all-powerful, and that they are being bested by the women with whom they
have been associated. "The strength of women is the pretense of weakness
and
the weakness of men is the pretense of strength."

This is not a gender war at all, rather it is a war between good and evil.
Short of murder, women are powerless to deny their children fathers without
the force of government. And who is ultimately in charge of government? MEN!
Women do their dirty deeds ONLY because the wicked men in power
allow/promote it. Without these yahoos enforcing their evil agendas, by
threat of death or imprisonment, the "child support"/anti-father industry
would NOT exist. True, the evil mother has to initiate action to get the
ball rolling; but NOTHING happens until the government people step in. Until
people understand this, they will continue to attack the foolish women who
invite the government people in to enforce their agenda rather than the men
at the top who are ultimately responsible.







"John Meyer" wrote in message
...
Kenneth S. wrote:
* * The following is a press release from the Virginia National
Organization for Women.

* * Note these elements:

(1) NOW's open acknowledgment of the virtually one-way flow of
so-called
child support, from men to women. *And while this press release says
"88%
of custodial parents in Virginia are women," the more interesting
percentage to

In this statement, they are simultaneously right and wrong in the same
time. *I guess you could put it down as, "out of the mouth's of babes,
wisdom." *Eighty-eight percent of custodial parents are women: did
somebody at NOW not sit down before that was released and say, "That's a
lot of women having to depend on men for survival. *Aren't we promoting
liberation here?" *And what's more, if 88 percent of the custodial
parents
are women, does that mean that the majority of fathers are unfit
parents?
Really doesn't say that much for women that they are choosing that many
losers.
But NOW is wrong in that it is not just a "woman's issue." It's an issue
for men, women, and taxpayers. * While Virginia NOW points out that 88
percent of custodial parents are women, it seems to ignore the obvious
counter point: that 88 percent of non custodial parents (and "checkbook
dads") are men. *Shouldn't the voice of the payer at least have EQUAL
input as to that of the receiver? *It's a radical thought, but consider
it
for a moment.
But NOW is not our major issue, and they have never been major in any
sense of the word. *Slamming the National Organization for Women, while
a
fun hobby, merely reinforces negative stereotypes of fathers' rights
activists as paranoid and anti-women. *"There they go, talking about
another NOW funded conspiracy." I can hear the rolling of eyes as I
type.
If we really want to talk about people that are harmful to the
improvement
of fathers' rights, let's talk about people like Dobson and others who
reinforce the image of a woman's place being in the home and that shared
parenting is "disruptive" to the lives of children. *Or we can talk
about
the Republican Congress which, when they came to power, enacted all
sorts
of legislation that changed welfare mothers waiting for the welfare
check
to "stay at home" mothers waiting for the child support check. *This is
the very same Congress that let minimum wages stagnate for 10 years and
did not do a thing to help. *By the way, this is also the same ship of
fools that did not do a "thing" to stop their pay raises from going into
effect. *Not working seems to be a common trend with Congress, though.
We need to keep our eyes on the prize and focus in on the legislatures
that pass draconian child support laws and the courts that seem to get
giddy enforcing them while they sleep when a visitation violation is
brought before them.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nice try..
move along..nothing to see here..

Relayer wrote:

Actually, what needs to happen is the Equal Rights Admendment needs to
be revived and passed. Equal Rights pertains to everyone, not just
women. THAT is the way out of this custody/support quagmire for me.

Ah, but the feminists would no longer be interested in the EQUAL Rights
Amendment... No, today's modern feminist would be looking to put into
place the EQUITABLE Rights Amendment, which is a whole 'nother beast,
isn't it? Equality has this annoying quirk of applying its benefits to
everyone, not just women. It's simply outmoded -- unsound! I'm sure
you can see the many benefits that EQUITABILITY offers women that
EQUALITY never could.

- Ron ^*^

On Mar 18, 3:11�am, Werebat wrote:
Relayer wrote:
Actually, what needs to happen is the Equal Rights Admendment needs to
be revived and passed. Equal Rights pertains to everyone, not just
women. THAT is the way out of this custody/support quagmire for me.

Ah, but the feminists would no longer be interested in the EQUAL Rights
Amendment... *No, today's modern feminist would be looking to put into
place the EQUITABLE Rights Amendment, which is a whole 'nother beast,
isn't it? *Equality has this annoying quirk of applying its benefits to
everyone, not just women. *It's simply outmoded -- unsound! *I'm sure
you can see the many benefits that EQUITABILITY offers women that
EQUALITY never could.

* * - Ron * ^*^

Unfortunately, I do...

"Werebat" wrote in message
...


Relayer wrote:

Actually, what needs to happen is the Equal Rights Admendment needs to
be revived and passed. Equal Rights pertains to everyone, not just
women. THAT is the way out of this custody/support quagmire for me.

Ah, but the feminists would no longer be interested in the EQUAL Rights
Amendment... No, today's modern feminist would be looking to put into
place the EQUITABLE Rights Amendment, which is a whole 'nother beast,
isn't it? Equality has this annoying quirk of applying its benefits to
everyone, not just women. It's simply outmoded -- unsound! I'm sure you
can see the many benefits that EQUITABILITY offers women that EQUALITY
never could.

- Ron ^*^

Ron is right. Passage of the Equal Rights Amendment would do absolutely
nothing for men -- particularly not in the custody area. Already, various
statutes give feminists the substance of everything they can justifiably
ask for in this respect. The only thing the Equal Rights Amendment would do
would be to make it easier for extremist feminist organizations to get
nonsense issues like comparable worth into the federal courts, where most
judges conspicuously lack ordinary commonsense, or even respect for the
rule of law or the democratic process.

I'm old enough to remember the early days of feminism in the late
sixties and early seventies. The story then was that men too would gain
from the breakdown of sexual stereotypes. There were quite a few men who
swallowed this improbable story. Some of those men are now among the
leaders of the MEN's rights movement. The only thing that men have gained
from 40+ years of feminism is the installation of baby-changing tables in
men's, as well as women's, restrooms.

Nothing will change until men are able to organize in defense of their
interests and to fight for those interests when they are in conflict with
the interests of women -- as in the custody and "child support" areas.