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

Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old June 30th 03, 10:50 PM
Max Burke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?

TeacherMama scribbled:
I have NEVER read anything from you that states what you want done
with the exception of your unwavering belief that all men everywhere
should be able to walk away from the children they fathered without
looking back.


Then you obviously haven't read *ANYTHING* I have posted and just make
up all of the above and claim it IS what I have posted on this subject.
Lie IOW.....

That if they don't want to be fathers, the children
can starve in the gutters for all they care, because it is not their
responsibility.


BS.
Strawman
Try again.

They do not need to use ANY form of birth control,
because they can't get pregnant.


BS.
Strawman
Try again.

WOMEN are the ONLY ones responsible
for birth control.


BS.
Strawman
Try again.

MEN--real men--deserve SEX with no responsibility
for attempting to prevent another unwanted child.


BS.
Strawman
Try again.

And these rights
for men should be written into the law, put on golden tablets, and
displayed throughout the land.


BS.
Strawman
Try again.

Oh, yeah, one other thing: marriage is simply 2 people living
together WITH a piece of paper. Any decisions made by the couple are
really just 2 individuals making the same deision together. Marriage
isn't real.


BS.
Strawman
Try again.

But I don't see how that fixes the CS system we have today.


Neither do I. But then as *I* have NEVER anything remotely like the
above I dont need to explain how it does fix the CS system.
OTOH as YOU need to explain why you're blatantly lying about what *I*
post to this forum.

Oh and how about getting back to the discussion and STOP throwing up ALL
these lies to avoid doing so. It's just making you look STUPID and
feminist......

How does
giving men the right to father endless bastareds with no consequence
fix the system?


Men CANT father endless *******s OWN THEIR OWN. It REQUIRES a WOMAN to:

A) Get PREGNANT
B) CHOOSE to REMAIN PREGNANT
C) CLAIM WELFARE to support that child, because THE WOMAN cant support
it herself.

The men such women have sex with just HAVE SEX. They play NO OTHER PART
at ALL!

See how it has to be SPELLED out to YOU!
Now tell me once again how men father endless *******s with no
consequence.....

Your solution is to DENY women the right to abort or choose to have such
children just so we dont have to legalise that choice for men.
You would rather we take away women's rights rather than give men the
same rights that women already have. What a F****ING STUPID IDEA!!!!

Our taxes will go up to pay more welfare, but how
does it fix the system?


ROTFLOL

Since when has welfare EVER been designed to fix the system. Clue TM it
has NEVER been designed as a fix. It's part OF the system that says
women should NOT have their basic human right to bear children curtailed
in any way at all, by laws that prevent them getting rid of unwanted
pregnancies to avoid becoming a parent, or by financial or social
inability to care for their wanted children; Society (that includes you
and me) has 'deemed' that women should have the 'freedom' to have
children whenever they like and however they like. Society (that
includes you and me) has decide that when *WOMEN* are incapable of
caring for their children then society (that's yours and my tax dollars)
will pay whatever is required to WOMEN who cannot care for their own
children.

Now, where are the *FATHERS* of all these children TM? They DONT COUNT.
The fathers of these millions of children are an IRRELEVANCY. Their
ONLY importance is their 'ability' to reduce that tax burden of welfare
to society that's all. They're not seen as fathers by the government,
the CSA, the legal system, and MOST OF ALL they're NOT seen as fathers
by society, especially by the ones who blame them for the 'mess' as you
do above. All they did was HAVE SEX with a willing woman TM. That's
ALL!

And how does it fix the high CS awards that
are paid by so many formerly married men?


Are you saying they shouldn't get CS?

Or are you saying that
formerly married men can walk away from their children, too?


BS.
Strawman.
Try again.

And you didn't answer my question about what your system would do if
the man wanted the child and the woman did not. Could he force her
to continue the pregnancy?


Yes *I* DID! Here it is AGAIN!

Try actually READING IT this time!
=================
[From my previous post]
No we DONT! We dont need to take away women's rights to avoid men
having those same rights. After all we didn't have to take away men's
rights when giving women those same rights. I have to wonder why you
think this way, and wonder how you'd really feel when YOUR rights get
taken away just so men dont get the same rights.

Because there are places where you can't
give balancing rights--such as the man wanting the woman to continue
an unwanted pregnancy.


In cases like this men need to find and make a commitment to a woman who
wants a child as much as he does. There is no need for men to have the
right to force women to continue an unwanted pregnancy at all. But to
make it equal, when women want to give birth to the child when she knows
the man doesn't want the child, she likewise should have no right to
force him to be a father to that unwanted child. She needs to find a
man who wants that child as much as she does and be prepared to
make the long term commitment that is required.

Should the woman be forced to carry the child
because dad wants it?


Not at all. But then neither should men be required to be an 'unwilling
father' when they dont want the child and women do......

The child belongs to both--should a judge be
able to intervene in a case like this?


Men should have the legal, social, and moral right to decide if they'll
be a parent or not. Women already have this legal, social, and moral
right to decide, so should men.

I think by just awarding more and more "rights" to try to balance
things out is making a bigger and bigger mess than we have now.


IOW Society has handed out enough rights WRT being a parent; Too bad
that men missed out on those rights, they'll just have to live without
them....
You haven't even thought about this at all have you; You're making it
all up as you go along to justify your knee-jerk reactions.......

What, specifically, do you want for men? No "As much as the girls
got!" Specifically!


The SAME RIGHTS women already have. Why is that so hard for you to
understand TM? I mean what EXACTLY is it that you find so difficult
about understanding men having the same legal, social, and moral rights
as women?
You appear to be so totally against men having the right to decide if
they'll be a parent or not, you're quite willing to have that very right
taken away from women (including yourself apparently) just so men dont
get that right.
So I take it when you 'rewrite' these rights, start from scratch, you'll
say women cant abort the pregnancy they dont want, or cant keep the
[potential] child they cant possibly look after without needing welfare
or CS.....

That you'll tell women that when they choose to have sex and conceive as
a result tough that was YOUR CHOICE, you now have to live with the
consequences of that choice, and women DONT get to decide what the
outcome of that conception will be, it's all down to the law, judges,
and child care authorities that tell women what sort of parent they will
be and what their parental 'responsibilities' are......

Just like we treat men NOW in fact......
================

# If the abstract rights of men will bear discussion and explanation,
then those of women, by a parity of reasoning, will not fail the same
test; Although a different opinion prevails in the minds of most women
when their rights are put to that test....

--

Replace the obvious with paradise to email me.
See Found Images at:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke

  #32  
Old July 1st 03, 01:00 AM
TeacherMama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?


"Max Burke" wrote in message
...

Men CANT father endless *******s OWN THEIR OWN. It REQUIRES a WOMAN to:

A) Get PREGNANT
B) CHOOSE to REMAIN PREGNANT
C) CLAIM WELFARE to support that child, because THE WOMAN cant support
it herself.

The men such women have sex with just HAVE SEX. They play NO OTHER PART
at ALL!


Oh, good. Now we are getting somewhere. MEN just have sex. Women bear all
further responsibility beyond that point. Right?


See how it has to be SPELLED out to YOU!
Now tell me once again how men father endless *******s with no
consequence.....


Men don't father the *******s? By having sex? Huh? How does it work then?
My step-nephew has fathered at least 5--maybe 6. IOW, he provided the sperm
necessary for conception......



Your solution is to DENY women the right to abort or choose to have such
children just so we dont have to legalise that choice for men.
You would rather we take away women's rights rather than give men the
same rights that women already have. What a F****ING STUPID IDEA!!!!



Actually, Max, what I favor is a system where both partners make the
decision together as to what happens to the child. The father is NOT locked
out at the point of conception. Not take away rights--take away
*unilateral* rights, and bring both partners into the equation. Equal
rights--from the beginning.


Our taxes will go up to pay more welfare, but how
does it fix the system?


ROTFLOL

Since when has welfare EVER been designed to fix the system. Clue TM it
has NEVER been designed as a fix. It's part OF the system that says
women should NOT have their basic human right to bear children curtailed
in any way at all, by laws that prevent them getting rid of unwanted
pregnancies to avoid becoming a parent, or by financial or social
inability to care for their wanted children; Society (that includes you
and me) has 'deemed' that women should have the 'freedom' to have
children whenever they like and however they like. Society (that
includes you and me) has decide that when *WOMEN* are incapable of
caring for their children then society (that's yours and my tax dollars)
will pay whatever is required to WOMEN who cannot care for their own
children.


That's right, Max!! **BING** The light goes on!! Society (that's you and
me) has given *WOMEN* unilateral rights in this area!! The unilateral
decision making part is, however, not tempered with unilateral
responsibility. Therein lies the problem. This will not be solved by
giving men unilateral rights of their own, and removing all responsibility
from them, too. That would solve NOTHING! Welfare would pay what is now
being squeezed out of unwilling fathers. Equal rights and responsibilities
should belong to both parties from conception--and if neither is ready,
willing, or able to be a parent to the child on their own dime--then NEITHER
gets the child. Rights and responsibilities should be inseparable!


Now, where are the *FATHERS* of all these children TM? They DONT COUNT.
The fathers of these millions of children are an IRRELEVANCY. Their
ONLY importance is their 'ability' to reduce that tax burden of welfare
to society that's all.


And that is the heart of the problem, Max!! Right there. They are only
seen as wallets, and have no RIGHTS! I'm not saying, and never have been
saying, that these men should be forced into the crappy definition of
"fatherhood by wallet" that you describe above. I am saying that BOTH
parents should be in on ALL decision making from conception. And if either
one wants-but-cannot-support the child, too bad. Find a way, find a
cosigner who will guarantee the child's support. But don't force parenthood
on another just to assist your finances. And don't expect my tax dollars to
endlessly support you! But don't just give men permission to walk away from
wallethood! Put them in a position where they are expected to make
decisions--not just walk away. And make the moms take RESPONSIBILITY for
their choices, too--don't just add a little extra slop to the public trough!

They're not seen as fathers by the government,
the CSA, the legal system, and MOST OF ALL they're NOT seen as fathers
by society, especially by the ones who blame them for the 'mess' as you
do above. All they did was HAVE SEX with a willing woman TM. That's
ALL!


But that's NOT all, Max! Men know damn well that pregnancy can result from
sex. That does not mean I'm saying that they should pay for that moment of
sex for the next 21 years. But, dadgummit, maybe all the woman wanted was
sex, too. Now the 2 of them should have a decision to make about the
sexual-encounter-become-a-pregnancy.



And how does it fix the high CS awards that
are paid by so many formerly married men?


Are you saying they shouldn't get CS?


Not me. I'm saying that this is another part of the system that needs
repair. The whole custody/CS thing needs to be repaired.


Or are you saying that
formerly married men can walk away from their children, too?


BS.
Strawman.
Try again.

And you didn't answer my question about what your system would do if
the man wanted the child and the woman did not. Could he force her
to continue the pregnancy?


Yes *I* DID! Here it is AGAIN!

Try actually READING IT this time!
=================
[From my previous post]
No we DONT! We dont need to take away women's rights to avoid men
having those same rights. After all we didn't have to take away men's
rights when giving women those same rights. I have to wonder why you
think this way, and wonder how you'd really feel when YOUR rights get
taken away just so men dont get the same rights.


Not take away rights, Max--take away *unilateral* rights! And LINK the
rights and responsibilities! If the woman says "I want this child" and the
man says "I give up my rights to this child." then the woman knowingly
accepts all further responsibility. BUT the thing I disgree with is men
just walking away. Maybe so many men wouldn't want to run if they knew that
they had equal rights to the child--that they weren't just going to be
mommy's little wallet.

And I agree with everything you say about men and women finding partners
they can commit to who want children as much as they do. Unfortunately,
there is no way to legislate that. It has to be done by example, and the
system we have today provides far too few examples of the kind of commitment
you are describing. At least in folks caught up endlessly in the CS system.
(And I am NOT saying that everyone in the system is a poor example, because
that is NOT true.)



The SAME RIGHTS women already have. Why is that so hard for you to
understand TM? I mean what EXACTLY is it that you find so difficult
about understanding men having the same legal, social, and moral rights
as women?


What do I want? I want to take the *unilateral* out of it. I want men and
women to each have choices--and I want those choices tied directly to the
responsibilities that those rights engender. INCLUDING supporting the
child! I don't want men like my stepnephew to father 50 kids, because there
is absolutley NO consequence for his actions! I don't want the fool women
that he has sex with to continue to bear his children at society's expense!
And what I would like to know from you, Max, is how this part of the problem
should be solved! Do you condone my stepnephew's behavior? Does he have a
right to continue to help populate the slum in which he lives because he is
not the one who gets pregnant? Does he have any responsibility for his own
sexual behavior? And how would you solve the problem of the women who
continue to bring into this world children that they know they can't
support, because they know that the money will always be there for them?
That's my big problem with "rights" unattached to "responsibilities".


  #33  
Old July 1st 03, 06:33 AM
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?


"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...
Such as, Chris, something to back up your statement that men picketing
against the CS system can lose their worldly belongings and end up in

jail.
But, apparently, women will not.


I'm sorry, but I just don't recall making such claim. Perhaps you might
refresh my memory.


"Chris" wrote in message
news:cr_La.85370$%[email protected]

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

"Max Burke" wrote in message
news TeacherMama scribbled:
I didn't say it didn't happen. I asked Chris to document

instances
where a group peacefully picketing outside a courthouse about the
injustices of
today's CS system were prevented from doing so, the MEN were

jsiled,
and the women just sent on their ways. That is what he claimed.

Did you even READ what I posted?????
The question that needs to be answered is why are YOU asking for

proof
that it happens when clearly it DOES happen.....

I do understand how unfair today's system is, Max. I'm in the

middle
of it, too!!

And yet you question what many of us post about the unfair 'system.'
And you also *defend* several aspects of this 'unfair system' as

being
justified and right.
Why is that?

Well, Max, since you asked, my impression is that YOU feel that ANY

support
paid for children is evil and wrong! I don't feel the same way. I do

not
feel that men should have the right to walk away from their children

just
because they want to. I think there needs to be a system that gives

men
equal rights to women as far as choosing to be fathers. But I do not

think
that permitting them to father children and walk away any time they

choose
should be part of the system. And I've said that before.

I believe joint custody shoud be the norm. But if a situation crops

up
where one parent or the other is unable to parent (whether it be

abuse--REAL
abuse, not the nonsense claims we see too often today--or not wanting

to
be
bothered), OF COURSE the NCP should pay their share of the child's

NEEDS!
The idea behind the system--that children should be provided for by

their
parents--is not a bad idea. It's how it is being done today that

needs
to
be changed--starting with 50-50 custody!

And dumping a SAH parent back into the job market after years of

taking
care
of home and family and saying "Support 'em your 50% of the time by

yourself"
isn't right, either. You don't want a fair system, Max. You want
"fairness" for men--and screw the kids and women.

Besides which, the question was for Chris. He jumps in with these

little
one-liners, but never backs up what he says with fact.


Such as?









  #34  
Old July 1st 03, 07:22 AM
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?


"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:Ln_La.85368$%[email protected]

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news99La.83450$%[email protected]

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:4uuKa.82494$%[email protected]

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Indyguy1 wrote:

Dave wrote:

snip to

But why do men fail to organize and protest?

I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many

have
been
raised.
Women have traditionally been the organizers in families.

They
see
to
it
that
the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked, the
family
events are
attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their

mothes
be
the
organizers
and then marry women who continue the pattern.

The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising

boys
to
expect
this of
women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo

role
as
women.
Do it
by example and in word.

I'm doing my share.

Mrs Indyguy


I have some theories too, and they're very different from Mrs.
Indyguy's. I think that very few men are willing to come out

and
openly
stand up for the interests of men, in situations where those
interests
are entirely the opposite of women -- as is the case in most
domestic
relations matters.

Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are subject to

the
very
real
threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly possessions

just
because
they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand, at

the
very
worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not much

to
lose
there.

Why do you say that?

It's called BIGGER GUNS.... ever hear of it?

Why would they go to jail or lose their worldly
possessions because they protested against the system? Now, if

their
protest was in the form of refusing to pay child support, then I

can
see
where that might be true. But organizing and picketing, etc--why

would
that
merit jail time?

It doesn't, but they get it anyway.


When? When did men get sent to jail for picketing about CS matters?


I said NOTHING about picketing. I referred to men fighting the system;

and
yes MANY of them go to jail for doing so.



And if women were out there picketing with them, why do
you think the women would get different treatment?

They DO when it's a "WOMAN'S" issue.

So there was some particular time when a group of men and women were
picketing, protesting the unfair CS system, and the men were sent to

jail,
and the women weren't? When?


Great strawman.



Do you have any examples
of this happening?

Go to ANY feminazi website, and there you will have your answer.

But you made the assertion, so you must have a specific time you are
speaking of.


Precisely WHAT is my assertion?

____________________________________________
Check this out, Chris. It is the thread that you responded to. It was
about men organizing and protesting the system:

********* But why do men fail to organize and protest?*********

I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many have been

raised.
Women have traditionally been the organizers in families. They see to

it
that
the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked, the family

events are
attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their mothes be the

organizers
and then marry women who continue the pattern.

The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising boys to

expect
this of
women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo role as

women.
Do it
by example and in word.

I'm doing my share.

Mrs Indyguy



I have some theories too, and they're very different from Mrs.
Indyguy's.


******I think that very few men are willing to come out and openly
stand up for the interests of men, in situations where those interests
are entirely the opposite of women -- as is the case in most domestic
relations matters.*********


Chris speaks he "Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are
subject to the very real
threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly possessions just

because
they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand, at the very
worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not much to lose
there."



We are discussing picketing and/or having protests. This is the statement
you made. I asked you to show me where picketing/protesting resulted in

men
losing property/jail time. But not women. It was a serious question.


I responded ONLY to the post and paragraph above. There was NO mention of
picketing.







  #35  
Old July 1st 03, 07:56 AM
TeacherMama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?


"Chris" wrote in message
news:TM9Ma.85627$%[email protected]

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:Ln_La.85368$%[email protected]

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news99La.83450$%[email protected]

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:4uuKa.82494$%[email protected]

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Indyguy1 wrote:

Dave wrote:

snip to

But why do men fail to organize and protest?

I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many

have
been
raised.
Women have traditionally been the organizers in families.

They
see
to
it
that
the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked,

the
family
events are
attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their

mothes
be
the
organizers
and then marry women who continue the pattern.

The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising

boys
to
expect
this of
women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo

role
as
women.
Do it
by example and in word.

I'm doing my share.

Mrs Indyguy


I have some theories too, and they're very different from

Mrs.
Indyguy's. I think that very few men are willing to come

out
and
openly
stand up for the interests of men, in situations where those
interests
are entirely the opposite of women -- as is the case in most
domestic
relations matters.

Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are subject to

the
very
real
threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly

possessions
just
because
they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand,

at
the
very
worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not

much
to
lose
there.

Why do you say that?

It's called BIGGER GUNS.... ever hear of it?

Why would they go to jail or lose their worldly
possessions because they protested against the system? Now, if

their
protest was in the form of refusing to pay child support, then I

can
see
where that might be true. But organizing and picketing,

etc--why
would
that
merit jail time?

It doesn't, but they get it anyway.


When? When did men get sent to jail for picketing about CS matters?

I said NOTHING about picketing. I referred to men fighting the system;

and
yes MANY of them go to jail for doing so.



And if women were out there picketing with them, why do
you think the women would get different treatment?

They DO when it's a "WOMAN'S" issue.

So there was some particular time when a group of men and women were
picketing, protesting the unfair CS system, and the men were sent to

jail,
and the women weren't? When?

Great strawman.



Do you have any examples
of this happening?

Go to ANY feminazi website, and there you will have your answer.

But you made the assertion, so you must have a specific time you are
speaking of.

Precisely WHAT is my assertion?

____________________________________________
Check this out, Chris. It is the thread that you responded to. It was
about men organizing and protesting the system:

********* But why do men fail to organize and protest?*********

I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many have been

raised.
Women have traditionally been the organizers in families. They see

to
it
that
the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked, the family

events are
attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their mothes be the

organizers
and then marry women who continue the pattern.

The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising boys to

expect
this of
women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo role as

women.
Do it
by example and in word.

I'm doing my share.

Mrs Indyguy


I have some theories too, and they're very different from Mrs.
Indyguy's.


******I think that very few men are willing to come out and openly
stand up for the interests of men, in situations where those interests
are entirely the opposite of women -- as is the case in most domestic
relations matters.*********


Chris speaks he "Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are
subject to the very real
threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly possessions just

because
they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand, at the

very
worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not much to lose
there."



We are discussing picketing and/or having protests. This is the

statement
you made. I asked you to show me where picketing/protesting resulted in

men
losing property/jail time. But not women. It was a serious question.


I responded ONLY to the post and paragraph above. There was NO mention of
picketing.


But the whole thread was on picketing and protests, and men coming together
as a group to protest the system. Which was why I questioned your response.
And, yes, I do agree that men are far more likely to find themselves in
legal difficulties in today's family court system. But I had never seen any
stats on men being jsiled for picketing and protesting


  #36  
Old July 1st 03, 09:47 AM
Moon Shyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?

"Chris" wrote in message
news:L29Ma.85614$%[email protected]

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...
Such as, Chris, something to back up your statement that men picketing
against the CS system can lose their worldly belongings and end up in

jail.
But, apparently, women will not.


I'm sorry, but I just don't recall making such claim. Perhaps you might
refresh my memory.


Perhaps this will help:


"Chris" wrote in message
news:4uuKa.82494$%[email protected]

Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are subject to the very real
threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly possessions just because
they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand, at the very
worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not much to lose
there.



"Chris" wrote in message
news:cr_La.85370$%[email protected]

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

"Max Burke" wrote in message
news TeacherMama scribbled:
I didn't say it didn't happen. I asked Chris to document

instances
where a group peacefully picketing outside a courthouse about the
injustices of
today's CS system were prevented from doing so, the MEN were

jsiled,
and the women just sent on their ways. That is what he claimed.

Did you even READ what I posted?????
The question that needs to be answered is why are YOU asking for

proof
that it happens when clearly it DOES happen.....

I do understand how unfair today's system is, Max. I'm in the

middle
of it, too!!

And yet you question what many of us post about the unfair 'system.'
And you also *defend* several aspects of this 'unfair system' as

being
justified and right.
Why is that?

Well, Max, since you asked, my impression is that YOU feel that ANY
support
paid for children is evil and wrong! I don't feel the same way. I do

not
feel that men should have the right to walk away from their children

just
because they want to. I think there needs to be a system that gives

men
equal rights to women as far as choosing to be fathers. But I do not
think
that permitting them to father children and walk away any time they

choose
should be part of the system. And I've said that before.

I believe joint custody shoud be the norm. But if a situation crops

up
where one parent or the other is unable to parent (whether it be
abuse--REAL
abuse, not the nonsense claims we see too often today--or not wanting

to
be
bothered), OF COURSE the NCP should pay their share of the child's

NEEDS!
The idea behind the system--that children should be provided for by

their
parents--is not a bad idea. It's how it is being done today that

needs
to
be changed--starting with 50-50 custody!

And dumping a SAH parent back into the job market after years of

taking
care
of home and family and saying "Support 'em your 50% of the time by
yourself"
isn't right, either. You don't want a fair system, Max. You want
"fairness" for men--and screw the kids and women.

Besides which, the question was for Chris. He jumps in with these

little
one-liners, but never backs up what he says with fact.

Such as?











  #37  
Old July 1st 03, 01:57 PM
Kenneth S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?

There is a tiny snippet below of something that I posted some time
back, on the subject of why men don't organize adequately to fight back
against a system that is so grotesquely distorted against them. In the
interim, this thread has turned into a big argument between Max and
TeacherMama. I feel like someone who has failed to extinguish his camp
fire properly, and then seen it develop into a huge forest fire!

On the issue of fathers being penalized for speaking out, I have no
statistics, unfortunately. However, I have some experience of seeing
what happens to activist fathers. I'll cite two example that I know of
in recent years. I recognize, of course, that I heard only one side of
the story here, but I still think these episodes indicate what typically
happens. What it amounts to is that mothers' lawyers get hold of this
information, and -- in effect -- get the judges all riled up, because
they tell them that the father is leveling strong criticisms at them
outside the court.

One case was a father who was a deacon in a Baptist church and in every
respect an upright citizen. His wife left him, taking their child. In
the course of subsequent proceedings the father tried to expose what he
saw as improper intervention on his wife's behalf by a local female
police officer who was a member of the church and friendly with his
wife. He told me that he began to encounter serious problems with
getting his visitation rights honored as soon as he started to draw
attention to the police officer's activities on his wife's behalf. We
are talking about a small town, where people in the law enforcement
business all know each other.

The other is a father who, as a result of his treatment in the family
court system, wrote a book on the subject of what fathers should do. In
court, his wife's attorney then began drawing attention to the father's
book, and his other activities on behalf of fathers, with the obvious
intention of stirring up prejudice against him in the mind of the judge.

I doubt whether there are many cases in the U.S. where fathers are
jailed for protesting against the system. However, what frequently
happens, I think, is that fathers who do so are branded as
troublemakers. Judges have all kinds of discretion in these matters,
and they have all kinds of ways of punishing fathers who stand up for
their rights. For several years, I had a leading role in a local
fathers' groups. One reason why I was told I should take this on was
that my children were grown, and there was no longer any way that the
legal system could punish me for speaking out publicly.



TeacherMama wrote:

"Chris" wrote in message
news:TM9Ma.85627$%[email protected]

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:Ln_La.85368$%[email protected]

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news99La.83450$%[email protected]

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:4uuKa.82494$%[email protected]

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Indyguy1 wrote:

Dave wrote:

snip to

But why do men fail to organize and protest?

I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many

have
been
raised.
Women have traditionally been the organizers in families.

They
see
to
it
that
the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked,

the
family
events are
attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their

mothes
be
the
organizers
and then marry women who continue the pattern.

The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising

boys
to
expect
this of
women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo

role
as
women.
Do it
by example and in word.

I'm doing my share.

Mrs Indyguy


I have some theories too, and they're very different from

Mrs.
Indyguy's. I think that very few men are willing to come

out
and
openly
stand up for the interests of men, in situations where those
interests
are entirely the opposite of women -- as is the case in most
domestic
relations matters.

Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are subject to

the
very
real
threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly

possessions
just
because
they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand,

at
the
very
worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not

much
to
lose
there.

Why do you say that?

It's called BIGGER GUNS.... ever hear of it?

Why would they go to jail or lose their worldly
possessions because they protested against the system? Now, if
their
protest was in the form of refusing to pay child support, then I

can
see
where that might be true. But organizing and picketing,

etc--why
would
that
merit jail time?

It doesn't, but they get it anyway.


When? When did men get sent to jail for picketing about CS matters?

I said NOTHING about picketing. I referred to men fighting the system;

and
yes MANY of them go to jail for doing so.



And if women were out there picketing with them, why do
you think the women would get different treatment?

They DO when it's a "WOMAN'S" issue.

So there was some particular time when a group of men and women were
picketing, protesting the unfair CS system, and the men were sent to
jail,
and the women weren't? When?

Great strawman.



Do you have any examples
of this happening?

Go to ANY feminazi website, and there you will have your answer.

But you made the assertion, so you must have a specific time you are
speaking of.

Precisely WHAT is my assertion?
____________________________________________
Check this out, Chris. It is the thread that you responded to. It was
about men organizing and protesting the system:

********* But why do men fail to organize and protest?*********

I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many have been
raised.
Women have traditionally been the organizers in families. They see

to
it
that
the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked, the family
events are
attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their mothes be the
organizers
and then marry women who continue the pattern.

The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising boys to

expect
this of
women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo role as

women.
Do it
by example and in word.

I'm doing my share.

Mrs Indyguy


I have some theories too, and they're very different from Mrs.
Indyguy's.

******I think that very few men are willing to come out and openly
stand up for the interests of men, in situations where those interests
are entirely the opposite of women -- as is the case in most domestic
relations matters.*********

Chris speaks he "Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are
subject to the very real
threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly possessions just

because
they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand, at the

very
worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not much to lose
there."



We are discussing picketing and/or having protests. This is the

statement
you made. I asked you to show me where picketing/protesting resulted in

men
losing property/jail time. But not women. It was a serious question.


I responded ONLY to the post and paragraph above. There was NO mention of
picketing.


But the whole thread was on picketing and protests, and men coming together
as a group to protest the system. Which was why I questioned your response.
And, yes, I do agree that men are far more likely to find themselves in
legal difficulties in today's family court system. But I had never seen any
stats on men being jsiled for picketing and protesting

  #38  
Old July 1st 03, 03:02 PM
Dave
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
rthlink.net...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Dave" [email protected] wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:4uuKa.82494$%[email protected]

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Indyguy1 wrote:

Dave wrote:

snip to

But why do men fail to organize and protest?

I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many

have
been
raised.
Women have traditionally been the organizers in families.

They
see
to
it
that
the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked, the
family
events are
attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their

mothes
be
the
organizers
and then marry women who continue the pattern.

The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising

boys
to
expect
this of
women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo

role
as
women.
Do it
by example and in word.

I'm doing my share.

Mrs Indyguy


I have some theories too, and they're very different from Mrs.
Indyguy's. I think that very few men are willing to come out

and
openly
stand up for the interests of men, in situations where those
interests
are entirely the opposite of women -- as is the case in most
domestic
relations matters.

Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are subject to

the
very
real
threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly possessions

just
because
they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand, at

the
very
worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not much

to
lose
there.

Why do you say that? Why would they go to jail or lose their

worldly
possessions because they protested against the system? Now, if

their
protest was in the form of refusing to pay child support, then I

can
see
where that might be true. But organizing and picketing, etc--why

would
that
merit jail time? And if women were out there picketing with them,

why
do
you think the women would get different treatment? Do you have

any
examples
of this happening?

I was held in contempt of court and sanctioned for trying to stand

up
to
the
system on three occasions. One time I was in contempt for

attempting
the
"re-litigate" an issue. Another time I was in contempt for

"dragging
my
ex-spouse back into court." And finally, I was held in contempt for
"failing to inform the court my ex-spouse was having trouble

transferring
an
asset to her name." In everyone of these examples the judge ignored

her
own
order in the decree and held me accountable with sanctions for

trying
to
get
the decree implemented as written and signed.


Did you have to spend any time in jail time for contempt or did you

just
have to pay a fine?


Neither. The judge ordered me to deliver the proceeds from a retirement
account to my ex's attorney within 24 hours and have that attorney

contact
her by phone, or she would issue a bench warrant for my arrest. By
liquidating the retirement account to stay out of jail, I was hit with a
$21,500 tax liability for taking a premature retirement distribution. I

had
signed a written release on the account. My ex's attorney had reported

in
writing to my attorney the asset transfer had been completed and no

further
assistance was needed from me, and there would be no need for the

attorneys
to prepare a QDRO for the court to sign. My perspective is I was

penalized
for following the decree, accepting her statements that the transfer was
completed, and accepting her attorney's input no QDRO would be necessary

to
complete the transfer. The judge told me it was all my fault.

I was threatened with jail. I was not fined directly by the court. But

the
penalty imposed by the court was converting a gross before taxes amount

to
a
net after taxes amount dollar for dollar. So the penalty was me paying

the
taxes and premature distribution fees liability for my ex because she

told
the judge she wouldn't accept an IRA to IRA transfer.

In researching the tax laws, with the help of a tax attorney and several
communications with IRS legal representatives, I found this happens a

lot.
When retirement accounts are awarded in property settlements, the

recipient
can refuse to accept the asset into their own IRA account, and the

original
owner of the account is forced to pay the taxes when the account is
liquidated to comply with state court orders.


I forgot one thing I wanted to say. This hearing was just another example
of how lawyers lie in court all the time. Their whole case was based on

the
premise I had "hidden" the asset from my ex. I pointed out to the judge

my
ex's attorney and I had a detailed meeting on this asset, how to transfer
it, and my desire to gain some level of compensation for protecting the
asset, filing all the required tax returns, etc. to maintain the assets

tax
deductibilty. My point was I could have not acted and let the IRS seize

the
asset because of her neglect in getting it transferred inot her name.

The attorney lied and told the judge the meeting I cited had never occured
after my ex got all huffy because her attorney had not informed her about
the meeting and our discussions. I was ordered to pay her attorney fees
and we were supposed to have a follow-up hearing to discuss any objections

I
might have. The problem for the attorney was the 1 1/2 hour meeting she
denied ever took place was detailed in her client billing records. My ex
was ****ed her attorney dropped the ball in pursuing the attorney fee

award.
I told my ex her attorney knew I was going to ask for a reversal of the
prior ruling based on the attorney's intentional misrepresentation of the
facts, for sanctions against her attorney for lying in open court to gain

an
advantage for her client, and ask for a referral to the state bar for
additional censure action.

My ex went to her attorney and miraculously the attorney was quick to
write-off all the attorney fees.


If I am getting ****ed off as I read your story I could only imagine the
anger and frustration you must have felt. I can believe it as I went
through some similar outrageous stuff from my ex's lawyer in the meetings.
Luckily all this happened and was worked out at the meetings and not in
court, since what they were asking was so completely outrageous including
making claims on money never existed. All this from a 8 month marriage from
a woman that came into it with nothing.

It was just so outrageous I could not contain myself and let my ex's lawyer
have it during the meeting. If it would have happened in court with the
Judge going along with it I would have certainly ended up in jail for
contempt. But I made it pretty clear to them that I would disappear,
become a fugitive or end up in jail if they persist taking it into
court. Either way I made it clear they were not going to get away with
screwing me.

My lawyer told me that this is normal, that my ex wife will be encouraged by
her lawyer to make false allegations and claims because that usually seals
the financial, child support and custody issues. Always go for more above
and beyond since the Judge will meet some where in the middle. I have been
to a number of
lawyers since then and they all told me this is the way it goes. That
lawyers will encourage their clients to make up false allegations and
financial claims, etc so they will have the upper hand in court

Back then I was pretty naive and ignorant just like many in this country
about what the system encourages women to do. When I confronted my ex-wife
about the false allegations and claims privately she said that is what she
had to do to win custody and that is what her lawyer recommended despite all
of it being false. (too bad I did not have it on tape). She was like come
on didn't your lawyer tell you it would be like this and what women do to
win in divorce proceedings. She said even her parents told her to make
stuff up so she would get the upper hand. (said like I am some fool not
to believe this is all quite normal and I should not let it bother me). Up
to that point in my life,
I had lived a life right out of Leave it to Beaver and stuff like this only
happened on TV or on Jerry Springer. So this all was pretty devastating.

I think this is why they are allowed to get away with it since most people
that have not been through it or have had a loved one who has been through
do not believe it. It just seems too outrageous to happen in real life and
in America. So I think when people do hear about how NCPs are treated they
believe it is rare
and not an every day occurrence.

It is bad enough being separated from your children, losing your wife,
losing your income, assetts but false allegations on top of that. It was
absolutely devastating and I will never forgive our government for creating
laws that encourage it. Some day I hope to join with others and through
legal means of our Constitution make all those mother ****ers
in our government pay for what they do to fathers in this country.






  #39  
Old July 1st 03, 03:29 PM
Dave
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?


"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:TM9Ma.85627$%[email protected]

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:Ln_La.85368$%[email protected]

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news99La.83450$%[email protected]

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:4uuKa.82494$%[email protected]

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Indyguy1 wrote:

Dave wrote:

snip to

But why do men fail to organize and protest?

I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many

have
been
raised.
Women have traditionally been the organizers in

families.
They
see
to
it
that
the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked,

the
family
events are
attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their

mothes
be
the
organizers
and then marry women who continue the pattern.

The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising

boys
to
expect
this of
women and stop raising girls to accept this as their

solo
role
as
women.
Do it
by example and in word.

I'm doing my share.

Mrs Indyguy


I have some theories too, and they're very different from

Mrs.
Indyguy's. I think that very few men are willing to come

out
and
openly
stand up for the interests of men, in situations where

those
interests
are entirely the opposite of women -- as is the case in

most
domestic
relations matters.

Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are subject

to
the
very
real
threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly

possessions
just
because
they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other

hand,
at
the
very
worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not

much
to
lose
there.

Why do you say that?

It's called BIGGER GUNS.... ever hear of it?

Why would they go to jail or lose their worldly
possessions because they protested against the system? Now,

if
their
protest was in the form of refusing to pay child support, then

I
can
see
where that might be true. But organizing and picketing,

etc--why
would
that
merit jail time?

It doesn't, but they get it anyway.


When? When did men get sent to jail for picketing about CS

matters?

I said NOTHING about picketing. I referred to men fighting the

system;
and
yes MANY of them go to jail for doing so.



And if women were out there picketing with them, why do
you think the women would get different treatment?

They DO when it's a "WOMAN'S" issue.

So there was some particular time when a group of men and women

were
picketing, protesting the unfair CS system, and the men were sent

to
jail,
and the women weren't? When?

Great strawman.



Do you have any examples
of this happening?

Go to ANY feminazi website, and there you will have your answer.

But you made the assertion, so you must have a specific time you

are
speaking of.

Precisely WHAT is my assertion?
____________________________________________
Check this out, Chris. It is the thread that you responded to. It

was
about men organizing and protesting the system:

********* But why do men fail to organize and protest?*********

I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many have been
raised.
Women have traditionally been the organizers in families. They see

to
it
that
the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked, the

family
events are
attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their mothes be

the
organizers
and then marry women who continue the pattern.

The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising boys to

expect
this of
women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo role as

women.
Do it
by example and in word.

I'm doing my share.

Mrs Indyguy


I have some theories too, and they're very different from Mrs.
Indyguy's.

******I think that very few men are willing to come out and openly
stand up for the interests of men, in situations where those

interests
are entirely the opposite of women -- as is the case in most

domestic
relations matters.*********

Chris speaks he "Bear in mind too that men who fight the system

are
subject to the very real
threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly possessions just

because
they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand, at the

very
worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not much to

lose
there."



We are discussing picketing and/or having protests. This is the

statement
you made. I asked you to show me where picketing/protesting resulted

in
men
losing property/jail time. But not women. It was a serious question.


I responded ONLY to the post and paragraph above. There was NO mention

of
picketing.


But the whole thread was on picketing and protests, and men coming

together
as a group to protest the system. Which was why I questioned your

response.
And, yes, I do agree that men are far more likely to find themselves in
legal difficulties in today's family court system. But I had never seen

any
stats on men being jsiled for picketing and protesting


I doubt such statistics will or have ever been taken since this knowledge
would jeopardize politically the system in its current state.

btw - this thread is getting to be a good example why men never are able to
organize a good protest.


  #40  
Old July 1st 03, 06:22 PM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?


"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
There is a tiny snippet below of something that I posted some time
back, on the subject of why men don't organize adequately to fight back
against a system that is so grotesquely distorted against them. In the
interim, this thread has turned into a big argument between Max and
TeacherMama. I feel like someone who has failed to extinguish his camp
fire properly, and then seen it develop into a huge forest fire!

On the issue of fathers being penalized for speaking out, I have no
statistics, unfortunately. However, I have some experience of seeing
what happens to activist fathers. I'll cite two example that I know of
in recent years. I recognize, of course, that I heard only one side of
the story here, but I still think these episodes indicate what typically
happens. What it amounts to is that mothers' lawyers get hold of this
information, and -- in effect -- get the judges all riled up, because
they tell them that the father is leveling strong criticisms at them
outside the court.

One case was a father who was a deacon in a Baptist church and in every
respect an upright citizen. His wife left him, taking their child. In
the course of subsequent proceedings the father tried to expose what he
saw as improper intervention on his wife's behalf by a local female
police officer who was a member of the church and friendly with his
wife. He told me that he began to encounter serious problems with
getting his visitation rights honored as soon as he started to draw
attention to the police officer's activities on his wife's behalf. We
are talking about a small town, where people in the law enforcement
business all know each other.

The other is a father who, as a result of his treatment in the family
court system, wrote a book on the subject of what fathers should do. In
court, his wife's attorney then began drawing attention to the father's
book, and his other activities on behalf of fathers, with the obvious
intention of stirring up prejudice against him in the mind of the judge.

I doubt whether there are many cases in the U.S. where fathers are
jailed for protesting against the system. However, what frequently
happens, I think, is that fathers who do so are branded as
troublemakers. Judges have all kinds of discretion in these matters,
and they have all kinds of ways of punishing fathers who stand up for
their rights. For several years, I had a leading role in a local
fathers' groups. One reason why I was told I should take this on was
that my children were grown, and there was no longer any way that the
legal system could punish me for speaking out publicly.


Kenneth's examples show how judges are easily influenced into prejudicial
thinking against fathers.

One time I asked my attorney why I lost on every issue. He told me "The
judge doesn't like you for some reason." I asked what we possibility could
have said or done to have the judge turn against me and favor my ex on every
issue. His response was judges form opinions about the parties and rule
against the party they don't like. His point was it didn't really matter
about the facts or testimony. It was more a judge picking a winner/loser
and using that premise for decision making.

Unfortunately this is not a one time process. Every time I went back before
the same judge as the case and the parties were being introduced she would
say, "I remember you." That was a clear sign the screwing was going to
continue.



 




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
Parent Stress Index another idiotic indicator list Greg Hanson General 11 March 22nd 04 01:40 AM
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 December 15th 03 10:42 AM
| Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed Kane Spanking 11 September 16th 03 11:59 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.