![]() |
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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.. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 ^*^ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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... |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sign our Child Support patition for child support reform | [email protected] | Child Support | 0 | February 24th 07 10:01 AM |
Child support enforcement issue | per_lundquist | Child Support | 45 | November 24th 06 02:19 PM |
Monthly Support Guidelines Issue: NonCustodial Earnings or Cost of Living of Child? | SMH | Child Support | 3 | June 27th 06 02:46 AM |
New issue available for Journal of Child Custody | [email protected] | Child Support | 0 | December 20th 05 06:10 PM |
Ex-Boyfriend Can't Stop Abortion A woman's right to have an abortion"is not subject to being vetoed by a woman's husband or partner," said Conahan, | Clisby | Pregnancy | 0 | January 19th 04 08:36 PM |