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

"Max Burke" wrote in message
...
TeacherMama scribbled:

snip


I'm STILL waiting for you clarify several statements of yours. But you
conveniently ignore them....

I'll try again with this one:
When YOU believe that:
....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.

I responded By asking:
.....is dumping the wage earner into the SAH role right after years of
working? What do YOU say about that TM? what form of compensation do YOU
think the SAH should have to pay the wage earner when that happens?
Anything at ALL?

The wage-earner can survive on fast food, and will not die from a dirty
house. The SAH will have a very difficult time finding work at a survival
level after a dozen years out of the job market, let alone providing for her
children 50% of the time.


So, Max, in order that I can fully understand your position on these
issues, tell me what you think the system should be like.

That's simple. Make the system as legally and morally right to men and
their parental choices as it is for women.

Start from
scratch--don't patch up today's system by giving men "as many rights"
as women, because we know darn well that will not work.

There you go again, saying that giving men the same legal and moral
rights women already have will not work.......
Why wont it work? It works for women TM. It works damned well when they
have to decide if they will or will not be a parent.
Tell me why having that choice wont work for men?

This is why I believe your claimed stance of supporting men is so
hypocritical; You refuse to accept that men having the same legal and
moral rights as women already have to choose to be a parent or not wont
work if and when men have those rights.

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. At the points where
men and women's rights clash, we need to get back to ground Zero and rewrite
it! Because there are places where you can't give balancing rights--such as
the man wanting the woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy. Should the
woman be forced to carry the child because dad wants it? The child belongs
to both--should a judge be able to intervene in a case like this? Or are
the only "men's rights" we are talking about the ones that keep a man from
paying CS?


Telling men
"If you don't want the kid, just say you don't wanna be a dad." and
telling women "you didn't create the kid alone, you have a right to
help from the dad." is only going to create a battle of "rights"--it
won't solve the problem.
So, you found a lamp on the beach, rubbed it, and out came a genie,
who says "Tell me how to fix the family court system." What would
you say, Max?

See above and below.

You didn't say a thing, Max. Not a thing. Just the same ofl "The girls got
more cookies than I did...NO FAIR!!" stuff you always say. What,
specifically, do you want for men? No "As much as the girls got!"
Specifically!

TeacherMama scribbled:

Max Burke wrote:

snip

I'm STILL waiting for you clarify several statements of yours. But
you conveniently ignore them....
I'll try again with this one:
When YOU believe that:
....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.
I responded By asking:
.....is dumping the wage earner into the SAH role right after years
of working? What do YOU say about that TM? what form of compensation
do YOU think the SAH should have to pay the wage earner when that
happens? Anything at ALL?

The wage-earner can survive on fast food, and will not die from a
dirty house.

ROTFLOL
What about when they have the kids 50% of the time? Are you REALLY
suggesting that the kids survive on fast food while in the wage earners
custody, but when in the SAH's custody the wage earner pay the SAH just
so the kids DONT have to survive on fast food in a dirty house????

What you're really saying here is that the wage earner deserves nothing
for their chosen sacrifices made during the marriage.

As I said your hypocrisy is clearly evident when you claim to support
men and the way they are treated by the 'system' you claim to be opposed
to...
At the very least you probably haven't even thought about this
'situation' or more likely dont consider it a 'situation' at all so
there is no need for the wage earner to be considered at all.....

The SAH will have a very difficult time finding work at
a survival level after a dozen years out of the job market, let alone
providing for her children 50% of the time.

That's the result of THEIR CHOICE to be an SAH and their failure to keep
up their job skills while still married. And before you start whining
and bitching that both made that decision, both also made the decision
about who would be the wage earner, therefore if there is a need for
compensation for the consequences of those *mutual choices* then it
should apply to both parties.....

FYI (try reading it this time)
Men on the edge

SATURDAY , 31 MAY 2003
http://www.stuff.co.nz/inl/print/0,1...3a1861,00.html

It's the men's club no-one wants to join, but it claims as many as a
third of the country's men in its ranks. Geoff Collett reports on New
Zealand's army of blokes with little cash and few hopes. In a tidy,
modest, rented house in a tidy, modest, Christchurch suburban street,
47-year-old Richard is spelling out some of the mundane realities of
life as a marginal man.
He rarely goes out, except to work. He sold the motor mower because he
couldn't afford the petrol. He won't use electricity for heating, and he
relies on his teenage son's op-shopping skills for clothes. Such are
the facts of life on $300 a week.
Richard (his name has been changed for this article) clearly displays
many of the traits associated with masculinity in this day and age he
is proud, capable, fit-looking, resourceful. He is also better off than
many might be, working in a bar for $12 an hour, 30 hours a week. But no
matter that he can bake his own bread, grow his own veges, and look
after himself around the house.

Richard like tens of thousands of other Kiwi blokes is falling far
short in a crucial measure of being a man the ability to earn a decent
whack.
And the vast presence of these marginal men in the population statistics
is emerging as a troubling trend, calling into question the ability of a
large chunk of this country's men to contribute to society in the way
traditionally expected.
Membership of this least exclusive of men's clubs comes from earning
below $25,000 a year, or $12 an hour roughly two-thirds of the average
wage and a point not too far above where poverty starts to scratch at
the door. Besides being poor, many of their number are isolated and
alienated.

At the last Census, a third of New Zealand men in the prime of their
lives aged 25 to 44 qualified. Of those nearing retirement, those aged
55 to 64 , the proportion was 42 per cent. In Canterbury, a third of
men aged 25 to 64 40,000 in all declared their annual income at Census
time to be below $25,000. While it is tempting to dismiss their plight
as paling alongside the lot of other minorities sole mothers, for
example, or the profound disadvantages stacked against Maori and while
many more women than men occupy low-paying jobs, these marginal men have
problems all their own.

Many are single, or separated and embittered by child-custody
proceedings, their meagre incomes further reduced by child-support
obligations.
Their financial circumstances mean their prospects for starting a new
family are slim indeed. An Australian researcher has linked their
prevalence in his country to declining fertility rates. These men have
little hope of owning their own home if they don't already.
And at least some social workers are convinced there is a connection
between the numbers of marginal men and the fact that in 2000, men aged
25 to 55 accounted for almost half of New Zealand's suicides. Being
poor, isolated, and alienated cuts manhood to the quick. Even in a
generation where most women have more than proved their ability to look
after themselves financially, a man's ability to earn remains a core
expectation "that society has of its men and men have of themselves",
says
Rex McCann, the director of Auckland-based Essentially Men.

"The ability to earn is very deeply connected to our identity," he says,
likening it to the birthing and nurturing role in women. And women look
for a partner who can offer them financial security. That, McCann says,
is instinctive, too. Simon Jones, a counsellor and social worker with
Catholic Social Services in Christchurch, sees familiar signs in the
struggling single men he works with. They suffer low self-esteem, have
poor communication skills, "often feel they don't know how to approach
women ... they think basically they haven't got anything to offer".

And to rub their nose in it, a relationship is often all they really
yearn for. They feel that if they found a woman, got married, and had
children, that would be the answer to all their dreams, Jones says.
Another counsellor, Don Rowlands of the Home and Family organisation,
and co-ordinator of the Caring Fathers' Group, sees men who are excluded
not just from the dating game, but from any social activity that
requires money.
They cannot afford a night out, or live in such seedy accommodation they
are embarrassed to bring guests home. A round at the pub, a sports club
membership, a car to go on outings are all beyond them.

Karen Whittaker, the manager of the Salvation Army's Hope Centre in
Christchurch, tells of the men she and her staff see, the sort "who just
manages I wouldn't say he has quality but manages, to go to work, he
has his cigs, and that's probably about all". "And every fortnight,
he'll have the kids for the weekend, and there's not enough money to
feed the kids," she says. That is when the Sallies will see him when he
swallows his pride and shows up at the food bank. Or when it's kids'
birthdays, and he is scouring the op-shop for presents. "A dad on his
own would say he could go without a lot of things,"
Whittaker says.

"He's not worried about heating and that sort of thing. "But he would
rather come to us than lose face with his kids."
Whittaker worries about what she is seeing: the legacy of men who have
lost their place in life. "Society and culture has stripped so many of
the things from them that
are instinctively theirs to do. "There has to be some breaking out of
that."

One of her staff, Hope Centre advocate Rance Stuart, knows all about the
peculiar hardships of being a man trapped in a low-income existence. He
works with some pretty dire cases. His own income squeaks in above the
$25,000 level, and while he doesn't think that is too bad, he knows
about struggling to get by.
He shares custody of two daughters with his former partner. He doesn't
run a car. That is an obstacle to social activities he would like to
join a tramping club, but doesn't want to be in a situation where he
would always be hitching rides. He doesn't go out much and has chosen to
concentrate his money on things such as food, so the family can eat
properly, and on activities his daughters want to pursue.

But, as he laments, "there are little hidden traps in being poor". Like
not being able to afford insurance he recalls buying on hire purchase a
mountain bike for one of his girls who wants to ride competitively, only
for the bike to be stolen with just three payments to go. His dream is
to own his own home. He could afford the mortgage payments, he says, but
scraping up a deposit seems a distant hope. "I'm frustrated, very
frustrated, because for a lot of my life I wasn't
concerned about owning a home, but since I've had a family, particularly
since I've had them in my care, I've wanted to."
Stuart is philosophical about his own struggles, especially compared to
men who don't share even his modest lot, nor his determined optimism.
The men who have said to him that they have achieved nothing with their
lives. The men, single, alone, and poor, who count up the positive
aspects of their existence and settle on suicide.
It's ironic, Stuart reflects. Women who struggle alone, raise children,
and defy the odds simply by getting by are typically praised for their
fortitude. A man in such circumstances is called a loser.

One of the few attempts to raise the profile of New Zealand's struggling
men came earlier this month from a New Plymouth-based employment
researcher, Vivian Hutchinson. He used his website publication, The
Jobs Letter (www.jobsletter.org.nz), to report on their prevalence,
highlighting research by Professor Bob Birrell, who heads the centre for
population and urban research at Melbourne's Monash University.
Birrell sees a link between Australia's high proportion of single men
(40 per cent of Aussie guys aged 30 to 34) and the high proportion of
low-income men there (42 per cent of men aged 25 to 44). It is not a
direct correlation, but Birrell is convinced the connection is there
and, as he wrote in Melbourne's Age newspaper, he considered the low
rate of partnering was less to do with men "enjoying their manly
freedom" than with simple if bleak economic realities.

Another Australian academic, Professor Bob Gregory of the Australian
National University's department of economics, believes unskilled men
have been left behind during Australia's past two decades of economic
growth. Their low earning power was now affecting "the main
child-bearing, career-making, income-generating years of a man's life",
he told the Australian Financial Review.
"It is becoming a much more permanent thing," Gregory warned. "It is
stuck there as a mucking-up-people's-lives phenomenon, and all the
policy changes haven't been effective in getting to this group."
Wellington economist and researcher Paul Callister has studied the issue
in this country, and while his work is now a few years old, he reached
similar conclusions.

He thinks many low-income men will eventually escape their straitened
circumstances, but about a fifth of all New Zealand men are in a "fairly
difficult long-term position" as far as job and earning prospects go.
And, like the Australian researchers, Callister believes that throws up
doubts about their preparedness to enter the family way.
The numbers may seem huge, but economists and social researchers working
in the area can readily point to the reasons why.

Prominent among these are the waves of redundancies and corporate
restructurings of the 1990s which left thousands of men stranded with
out-of-date skills.
Divorce and the high costs to some men of custody disputes is another
popular theory. Less obvious causes include the number of men hampered
by physical injuries, especially from their youth, and former convicts
trying to get back into society.
Poor education, illness, dumb decisions and simple hard luck are other
factors blamed for holding men down in the sub-$25,000 income bracket.
And, of course, there is unemployment, and the general loss of union
power in the employment market.

Council of Trade Unions economist Peter Conway says: "Essentially, we
had an economy for 10 years or more run on the basis of getting the
cheapest possible labour, making it as flexible as possible." The
award system was abolished, removing minimum pay rates and conditions
(Conway is keen to point out that both men and women suffered). There
was a dire lack of investment in retraining and improving workers'
skills.

"The extent of poverty is a lot more embedded from the last 15 years
than many people realise," Conway argues. The CTU may see the current
Government as generally moving to address the shortcomings of the 1990s,
but "we don't bounce back from that in a couple of years".
Back in that tidy, modest rented house, Richard makes clear his dismay
with the way New Zealand has gone.

For much of his life he did well for himself. But circumstances such as
an expensive custody dispute after his divorce, and a serious accident
while working overseas after the dispute have conspired against him. He
returned to New Zealand with his savings gone, to discover a place which
had no room for a man down on his luck.
He is embittered about the divorce and child custody laws, about demands
on hard-up men to pay child support when the female partner may be
better off financially. He is angered by a social welfare system that
treats its users as the enemy. And he is frustrated at being part of a
low-wage economy.
Richard struggled for a year to find a job. He still has a folder
stuffed with job advertisements and rejection letters. He is loath to
complain about the one he now has, his $12-an-hour, 30-hours-a-week
behind a bar. But he can't help himself, saying wearily: "It's tough
coming home and being in a slave market." A man expects more.


So, Max, in order that I can fully understand your position on these
issues, tell me what you think the system should be like.

That's simple. Make the system as legally and morally right to men
and their parental choices as it is for women.

Start from
scratch--don't patch up today's system by giving men "as many
rights" as women, because we know darn well that will not work.

There you go again, saying that giving men the same legal and moral
rights women already have will not work.......
Why wont it work? It works for women TM. It works damned well when
they have to decide if they will or will not be a parent.
Tell me why having that choice wont work for men?
This is why I believe your claimed stance of supporting men is so
hypocritical; You refuse to accept that men having the same legal and
moral rights as women already have to choose to be a parent or not
wont work if and when men have those rights.

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.......

At
the points where men and women's rights clash, we need to get back to
ground Zero and rewrite it!

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.

Or are the only "men's
rights" we are talking about the ones that keep a man from paying CS?

No. See above.

Telling men
"If you don't want the kid, just say you don't wanna be a dad." and
telling women "you didn't create the kid alone, you have a right to
help from the dad." is only going to create a battle of "rights"--it
won't solve the problem.
So, you found a lamp on the beach, rubbed it, and out came a genie,
who says "Tell me how to fix the family court system." What would
you say, Max?

See above and below.

You didn't say a thing, Max. Not a thing. Just the same ofl "The
girls got more cookies than I did...NO FAIR!!" stuff you always say.

ROTFLOL
And your whining and bitching about the SAH not getting the same number
of 'cookies' and the wage earner after the divorce is NOTHING like that
is it......

If you REALLY want equality TM, then you'll need to realise that it will
require you to change your attitude and realise that equality means
being EQUAL, including men having the same rights that women already
have.

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......

# 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

Selfish and self centered, Max. Only "fairness to men" is important. Women
"have been supported" by the poor, long-suffering victims called men for so
long that all women deserve is to be screwed blue by the system--just as the
poor, long-suffering men-victims have for all these years. BECAUSE the
system has been so unjust to men, ALL women deserve to be screwed. Because
THAT will fix the whole system in Max's eyes. WOMEN suffering as MEN have
suffered will make it all better. I do note that you have not presented
YOUR plan for fixing the system, except for your notion that WOMEN deserve
to suffer. Wow! Let's get you into politics!

"Max Burke" wrote in message
...
TeacherMama scribbled:

Max Burke wrote:

snip

I'm STILL waiting for you clarify several statements of yours. But
you conveniently ignore them....
I'll try again with this one:
When YOU believe that:
....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.
I responded By asking:
.....is dumping the wage earner into the SAH role right after years
of working? What do YOU say about that TM? what form of compensation
do YOU think the SAH should have to pay the wage earner when that
happens? Anything at ALL?

The wage-earner can survive on fast food, and will not die from a
dirty house.

ROTFLOL
What about when they have the kids 50% of the time? Are you REALLY
suggesting that the kids survive on fast food while in the wage earners
custody, but when in the SAH's custody the wage earner pay the SAH just
so the kids DONT have to survive on fast food in a dirty house????

What you're really saying here is that the wage earner deserves nothing
for their chosen sacrifices made during the marriage.

As I said your hypocrisy is clearly evident when you claim to support
men and the way they are treated by the 'system' you claim to be opposed
to...
At the very least you probably haven't even thought about this
'situation' or more likely dont consider it a 'situation' at all so
there is no need for the wage earner to be considered at all.....

The SAH will have a very difficult time finding work at
a survival level after a dozen years out of the job market, let alone
providing for her children 50% of the time.

That's the result of THEIR CHOICE to be an SAH and their failure to keep
up their job skills while still married. And before you start whining
and bitching that both made that decision, both also made the decision
about who would be the wage earner, therefore if there is a need for
compensation for the consequences of those *mutual choices* then it
should apply to both parties.....

FYI (try reading it this time)
Men on the edge

SATURDAY , 31 MAY 2003
http://www.stuff.co.nz/inl/print/0,1...3a1861,00.html

It's the men's club no-one wants to join, but it claims as many as a
third of the country's men in its ranks. Geoff Collett reports on New
Zealand's army of blokes with little cash and few hopes. In a tidy,
modest, rented house in a tidy, modest, Christchurch suburban street,
47-year-old Richard is spelling out some of the mundane realities of
life as a marginal man.
He rarely goes out, except to work. He sold the motor mower because he
couldn't afford the petrol. He won't use electricity for heating, and he
relies on his teenage son's op-shopping skills for clothes. Such are
the facts of life on $300 a week.
Richard (his name has been changed for this article) clearly displays
many of the traits associated with masculinity in this day and age he
is proud, capable, fit-looking, resourceful. He is also better off than
many might be, working in a bar for $12 an hour, 30 hours a week. But no
matter that he can bake his own bread, grow his own veges, and look
after himself around the house.

Richard like tens of thousands of other Kiwi blokes is falling far
short in a crucial measure of being a man the ability to earn a decent
whack.
And the vast presence of these marginal men in the population statistics
is emerging as a troubling trend, calling into question the ability of a
large chunk of this country's men to contribute to society in the way
traditionally expected.
Membership of this least exclusive of men's clubs comes from earning
below $25,000 a year, or $12 an hour roughly two-thirds of the average
wage and a point not too far above where poverty starts to scratch at
the door. Besides being poor, many of their number are isolated and
alienated.

At the last Census, a third of New Zealand men in the prime of their
lives aged 25 to 44 qualified. Of those nearing retirement, those aged
55 to 64 , the proportion was 42 per cent. In Canterbury, a third of
men aged 25 to 64 40,000 in all declared their annual income at Census
time to be below $25,000. While it is tempting to dismiss their plight
as paling alongside the lot of other minorities sole mothers, for
example, or the profound disadvantages stacked against Maori and while
many more women than men occupy low-paying jobs, these marginal men have
problems all their own.

Many are single, or separated and embittered by child-custody
proceedings, their meagre incomes further reduced by child-support
obligations.
Their financial circumstances mean their prospects for starting a new
family are slim indeed. An Australian researcher has linked their
prevalence in his country to declining fertility rates. These men have
little hope of owning their own home if they don't already.
And at least some social workers are convinced there is a connection
between the numbers of marginal men and the fact that in 2000, men aged
25 to 55 accounted for almost half of New Zealand's suicides. Being
poor, isolated, and alienated cuts manhood to the quick. Even in a
generation where most women have more than proved their ability to look
after themselves financially, a man's ability to earn remains a core
expectation "that society has of its men and men have of themselves",
says
Rex McCann, the director of Auckland-based Essentially Men.

"The ability to earn is very deeply connected to our identity," he says,
likening it to the birthing and nurturing role in women. And women look
for a partner who can offer them financial security. That, McCann says,
is instinctive, too. Simon Jones, a counsellor and social worker with
Catholic Social Services in Christchurch, sees familiar signs in the
struggling single men he works with. They suffer low self-esteem, have
poor communication skills, "often feel they don't know how to approach
women ... they think basically they haven't got anything to offer".

And to rub their nose in it, a relationship is often all they really
yearn for. They feel that if they found a woman, got married, and had
children, that would be the answer to all their dreams, Jones says.
Another counsellor, Don Rowlands of the Home and Family organisation,
and co-ordinator of the Caring Fathers' Group, sees men who are excluded
not just from the dating game, but from any social activity that
requires money.
They cannot afford a night out, or live in such seedy accommodation they
are embarrassed to bring guests home. A round at the pub, a sports club
membership, a car to go on outings are all beyond them.

Karen Whittaker, the manager of the Salvation Army's Hope Centre in
Christchurch, tells of the men she and her staff see, the sort "who just
manages I wouldn't say he has quality but manages, to go to work, he
has his cigs, and that's probably about all". "And every fortnight,
he'll have the kids for the weekend, and there's not enough money to
feed the kids," she says. That is when the Sallies will see him when he
swallows his pride and shows up at the food bank. Or when it's kids'
birthdays, and he is scouring the op-shop for presents. "A dad on his
own would say he could go without a lot of things,"
Whittaker says.

"He's not worried about heating and that sort of thing. "But he would
rather come to us than lose face with his kids."
Whittaker worries about what she is seeing: the legacy of men who have
lost their place in life. "Society and culture has stripped so many of
the things from them that
are instinctively theirs to do. "There has to be some breaking out of
that."

One of her staff, Hope Centre advocate Rance Stuart, knows all about the
peculiar hardships of being a man trapped in a low-income existence. He
works with some pretty dire cases. His own income squeaks in above the
$25,000 level, and while he doesn't think that is too bad, he knows
about struggling to get by.
He shares custody of two daughters with his former partner. He doesn't
run a car. That is an obstacle to social activities he would like to
join a tramping club, but doesn't want to be in a situation where he
would always be hitching rides. He doesn't go out much and has chosen to
concentrate his money on things such as food, so the family can eat
properly, and on activities his daughters want to pursue.

But, as he laments, "there are little hidden traps in being poor". Like
not being able to afford insurance he recalls buying on hire purchase a
mountain bike for one of his girls who wants to ride competitively, only
for the bike to be stolen with just three payments to go. His dream is
to own his own home. He could afford the mortgage payments, he says, but
scraping up a deposit seems a distant hope. "I'm frustrated, very
frustrated, because for a lot of my life I wasn't
concerned about owning a home, but since I've had a family, particularly
since I've had them in my care, I've wanted to."
Stuart is philosophical about his own struggles, especially compared to
men who don't share even his modest lot, nor his determined optimism.
The men who have said to him that they have achieved nothing with their
lives. The men, single, alone, and poor, who count up the positive
aspects of their existence and settle on suicide.
It's ironic, Stuart reflects. Women who struggle alone, raise children,
and defy the odds simply by getting by are typically praised for their
fortitude. A man in such circumstances is called a loser.

One of the few attempts to raise the profile of New Zealand's struggling
men came earlier this month from a New Plymouth-based employment
researcher, Vivian Hutchinson. He used his website publication, The
Jobs Letter (www.jobsletter.org.nz), to report on their prevalence,
highlighting research by Professor Bob Birrell, who heads the centre for
population and urban research at Melbourne's Monash University.
Birrell sees a link between Australia's high proportion of single men
(40 per cent of Aussie guys aged 30 to 34) and the high proportion of
low-income men there (42 per cent of men aged 25 to 44). It is not a
direct correlation, but Birrell is convinced the connection is there
and, as he wrote in Melbourne's Age newspaper, he considered the low
rate of partnering was less to do with men "enjoying their manly
freedom" than with simple if bleak economic realities.

Another Australian academic, Professor Bob Gregory of the Australian
National University's department of economics, believes unskilled men
have been left behind during Australia's past two decades of economic
growth. Their low earning power was now affecting "the main
child-bearing, career-making, income-generating years of a man's life",
he told the Australian Financial Review.
"It is becoming a much more permanent thing," Gregory warned. "It is
stuck there as a mucking-up-people's-lives phenomenon, and all the
policy changes haven't been effective in getting to this group."
Wellington economist and researcher Paul Callister has studied the issue
in this country, and while his work is now a few years old, he reached
similar conclusions.

He thinks many low-income men will eventually escape their straitened
circumstances, but about a fifth of all New Zealand men are in a "fairly
difficult long-term position" as far as job and earning prospects go.
And, like the Australian researchers, Callister believes that throws up
doubts about their preparedness to enter the family way.
The numbers may seem huge, but economists and social researchers working
in the area can readily point to the reasons why.

Prominent among these are the waves of redundancies and corporate
restructurings of the 1990s which left thousands of men stranded with
out-of-date skills.
Divorce and the high costs to some men of custody disputes is another
popular theory. Less obvious causes include the number of men hampered
by physical injuries, especially from their youth, and former convicts
trying to get back into society.
Poor education, illness, dumb decisions and simple hard luck are other
factors blamed for holding men down in the sub-$25,000 income bracket.
And, of course, there is unemployment, and the general loss of union
power in the employment market.

Council of Trade Unions economist Peter Conway says: "Essentially, we
had an economy for 10 years or more run on the basis of getting the
cheapest possible labour, making it as flexible as possible." The
award system was abolished, removing minimum pay rates and conditions
(Conway is keen to point out that both men and women suffered). There
was a dire lack of investment in retraining and improving workers'
skills.

"The extent of poverty is a lot more embedded from the last 15 years
than many people realise," Conway argues. The CTU may see the current
Government as generally moving to address the shortcomings of the 1990s,
but "we don't bounce back from that in a couple of years".
Back in that tidy, modest rented house, Richard makes clear his dismay
with the way New Zealand has gone.

For much of his life he did well for himself. But circumstances such as
an expensive custody dispute after his divorce, and a serious accident
while working overseas after the dispute have conspired against him. He
returned to New Zealand with his savings gone, to discover a place which
had no room for a man down on his luck.
He is embittered about the divorce and child custody laws, about demands
on hard-up men to pay child support when the female partner may be
better off financially. He is angered by a social welfare system that
treats its users as the enemy. And he is frustrated at being part of a
low-wage economy.
Richard struggled for a year to find a job. He still has a folder
stuffed with job advertisements and rejection letters. He is loath to
complain about the one he now has, his $12-an-hour, 30-hours-a-week
behind a bar. But he can't help himself, saying wearily: "It's tough
coming home and being in a slave market." A man expects more.


So, Max, in order that I can fully understand your position on these
issues, tell me what you think the system should be like.

That's simple. Make the system as legally and morally right to men
and their parental choices as it is for women.

Start from
scratch--don't patch up today's system by giving men "as many
rights" as women, because we know darn well that will not work.

There you go again, saying that giving men the same legal and moral
rights women already have will not work.......
Why wont it work? It works for women TM. It works damned well when
they have to decide if they will or will not be a parent.
Tell me why having that choice wont work for men?
This is why I believe your claimed stance of supporting men is so
hypocritical; You refuse to accept that men having the same legal and
moral rights as women already have to choose to be a parent or not
wont work if and when men have those rights.

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.......

At
the points where men and women's rights clash, we need to get back to
ground Zero and rewrite it!

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.

Or are the only "men's
rights" we are talking about the ones that keep a man from paying CS?

No. See above.

Telling men
"If you don't want the kid, just say you don't wanna be a dad." and
telling women "you didn't create the kid alone, you have a right to
help from the dad." is only going to create a battle of "rights"--it
won't solve the problem.
So, you found a lamp on the beach, rubbed it, and out came a genie,
who says "Tell me how to fix the family court system." What would
you say, Max?

See above and below.

You didn't say a thing, Max. Not a thing. Just the same ofl "The
girls got more cookies than I did...NO FAIR!!" stuff you always say.

ROTFLOL
And your whining and bitching about the SAH not getting the same number
of 'cookies' and the wage earner after the divorce is NOTHING like that
is it......

If you REALLY want equality TM, then you'll need to realise that it will
require you to change your attitude and realise that equality means
being EQUAL, including men having the same rights that women already
have.

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......

# 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

TeacherMama scribbled:
Selfish and self centered, Max.

Naaa that would be YOU......

Only "fairness to men" is important.

No TM. Fairness to *everyone,* even shock, horror, MEN. Tell me again
why YOU dont want that.....

Women "have been supported" by the poor, long-suffering victims
called men for so long that all women deserve is to be screwed blue
by the system--just as the poor, long-suffering men-victims have for
all these years.

You sound just like a feminist, but that's not surprising since you
apparently hold so many feminist beliefs........ ROTFLOL

BECAUSE the system has been so unjust to men, ALL
women deserve to be screwed.

BS.
Strawman.
Try again.

Because THAT will fix the whole system
in Max's eyes.

What I suggest is a DAMNED sight better than what you say needs to be
done. You want WOMEN to lose their rights just so we dont have to give
the same rights to men. How STUPID is that TM?

WOMEN suffering as MEN have suffered will make it all
better.

BS.
Strawman.
Try again.

I do note that you have not presented YOUR plan for fixing
the system,

Yes I have but I doubt you have even bothered to read it at all. You're
just the usual feminist hypocrite aren't you......

except for your notion that WOMEN deserve to suffer.

BS.
Strawman.
Try again.

Oh and for once in your life why not try and post a *reasonable*
response and stop whining and bitch about your hypocritical beliefs in
being all for men.....
Be honest and tell us all what you REALLY think.......
Not that I'll hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

At least I have the satisfaction of showing ACS that yet another 'woman'
claiming to be 'for men' is nothing but a hypocrite when it comes down
to what you really believe about being 'for men'.....

The wage-earner can survive on fast food, and will not die from a
dirty house.

ROTFLOL
What about when they have the kids 50% of the time? Are you REALLY
suggesting that the kids survive on fast food while in the wage
earners custody, but when in the SAH's custody the wage earner pay
the SAH just so the kids DONT have to survive on fast food in a
dirty house????

What you're really saying here is that the wage earner deserves
nothing for their chosen sacrifices made during the marriage.
As I said your hypocrisy is clearly evident when you claim to support
men and the way they are treated by the 'system' you claim to be
opposed to...
At the very least you probably haven't even thought about this
'situation' or more likely dont consider it a 'situation' at all so
there is no need for the wage earner to be considered at all.....

The SAH will have a very difficult time finding work at
a survival level after a dozen years out of the job market, let
alone providing for her children 50% of the time.

That's the result of THEIR CHOICE to be an SAH and their failure to
keep up their job skills while still married. And before you start
whining and bitching that both made that decision, both also made
the decision about who would be the wage earner, therefore if there
is a need for compensation for the consequences of those *mutual
choices* then it should apply to both parties.....

So, Max, in order that I can fully understand your position on these
issues, tell me what you think the system should be like.

That's simple. Make the system as legally and morally right to men
and their parental choices as it is for women.

Start from
scratch--don't patch up today's system by giving men "as many
rights" as women, because we know darn well that will not work.

There you go again, saying that giving men the same legal and moral
rights women already have will not work.......
Why wont it work? It works for women TM. It works damned well when
they have to decide if they will or will not be a parent.
Tell me why having that choice wont work for men?
This is why I believe your claimed stance of supporting men is so
hypocritical; You refuse to accept that men having the same legal
and moral rights as women already have to choose to be a parent or
not wont work if and when men have those rights.

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.......

At
the points where men and women's rights clash, we need to get back
to ground Zero and rewrite it!

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.

Or are the only "men's
rights" we are talking about the ones that keep a man from paying
CS?

No. See above.

Telling men
"If you don't want the kid, just say you don't wanna be a dad." and
telling women "you didn't create the kid alone, you have a right to
help from the dad." is only going to create a battle of "rights"--it
won't solve the problem.
So, you found a lamp on the beach, rubbed it, and out came a genie,
who says "Tell me how to fix the family court system." What would
you say, Max?

See above and below.

You didn't say a thing, Max. Not a thing. Just the same ofl "The
girls got more cookies than I did...NO FAIR!!" stuff you always say.

ROTFLOL
And your whining and bitching about the SAH not getting the same
number of 'cookies' and the wage earner after the divorce is NOTHING
like that is it......

If you REALLY want equality TM, then you'll need to realise that it
will require you to change your attitude and realise that equality
means
being EQUAL, including men having the same rights that women already
have.

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......

# 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

"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?






There are several elements in this reluctance of men to openly
oppose
women. One is old-fashioned chivalry, which (despite all the
changes
in
society) remains an important factor. Another is that, to put it
bluntly, heterosexual men are usually on the lookout for women as
sexual
partners, and they realize that appearing hostile to the interests
of
women will not help them in that regard. Still another is that
men
are
more individualistic than women, and have a greater tendency to be
self-reliant.

In my opinion, the first step to changing the situation is for men
to
understand that there ARE scenarios where their interests are
totally
the opposite of women, and where there is a zero-sum game in
operation.
In short, we must have an end to the situation where, in the
battle
of
the sexes, only one side shows up. Balance will not be restored,
and
the two sexes will not achieve a fairer equilibrium, without an
interim
period of men taking back what has been stolen from them by
feminism.

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...
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.

Untrue.


I do understand how unfair today's system is, Max. I'm in the middle of
it,
too!!


"Max Burke" wrote in message
...
TeacherMama scribbled:

"Chris" wrote in message

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?

FYI TM......
The term "totalitarian" is frequently used to characterize high-profile
feminist campaigns such as "sexual harassment" and "date rape." Much
of this is exaggeration. Yet far more serious, and much less
scrutinized, is something going on in the United States - the
billion-dollar divorce, child custody, and child support industry.
In only the last few months, according to one federal public defender,
"the number of federal child support prosecutions has skyrocketed." And
it usually is the father who is targeted. If children are given in
custody to all his financial records. A father will be questioned about
how he "feels" about his children, what he does with them, where he
takes them, how he kisses them, how he feeds and bathes them, what he
buys for them, and what he discusses with them. Family courts regularly
tell fathers what worship they may or must take their children to and
control their discussions with their children about matters such as
religion and politics. Fathers must surrender personal diaries,
notebooks, correspondence, financial records, and other documents.

In many jurisdictions it is now a crime to criticize family court
judges. Following his congressional testimony critical of the family
courts in 1992, Jim Wagner was stripped of custody of his two children
and jailed by a Georgia judge. In both Britain and Australia, fathers
have been jailed for criticizing judges. Children too have been jailed
for refusing to testify against their father.

Government agents increasingly assume a vast array of intrusive powers
over parents whose children they control. "Never before have federal
officials had the legal authority and technological ability to . . .
keep tabs on Americans accused of nothing," declared the Washington
Post.

In Britain, the National Association for Child Support Action has
published a "Book of the Dead," chronicling 55 cases where it claims the
official Court Coroner concluded fathers were driven to suicide because
of judgements from family courts.

Why is this happening? The English-speaking countries with their Common
Law tradition allow enormous power to judges and lawyers. But the
problem is increasingly worldwide. In 1997 the German magazine Der
Spiegel ran a cover story on "The Fatherless Society." In February 1998
Deputy Pavel Dostal, now Minister of Culture, met with Czech fathers
protesting outside Parliament for changes in the family law.

Psychologist Eduard Bakalar, who has served as a court expert in custody
cases and heads Consultancy for Fathers (Poradna pro otce) in Prague,
says while fathers have not been criminalized to the extent they have in
the anglophone nations, they do face systematic bias in the courts,
which has been the prelude to criminalization. Bakalar also observes
"constant anti-father propaganda" in the media, especially noting the
impact of American films. "It is a systematic effort to devalue
fatherhood," he says.



http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/c...f_children.htm


Family courts routinely ignore basic civil liberties and international
human rights conventions. "Your job is not to become concerned about the
constitutional rights of the man that you're violating as you grant a
restraining order," American municipal court judge Richard Russell told
a judges' training seminar in 1994. "Throw him out on the street, give
him the clothes on his back and tell him, see ya around. . . . We don't
have to worry about the rights."

Family law is now criminalizing activity as basic as free speech. In
Australia it is a crime for litigants to speak publicly about family
law. A Sydney group protesting peacefully in 1998 was told "if any
people who had any involvement with family court were identified the
media and that person would be prosecuted to the fullest extent" of the
law. As in Britain, Australian family courts have closed Internet sites
operated by parents' groups.

In some American jurisdictions it is likewise a crime to criticise
judges. The former husband of singer Wynonna Judd was recently arrested
for speaking to reporters about his divorce. A father protesting outside
his Los Angeles home on Fathers' Day 1998 that he had not seen his son
in more than two years was apprehended by police for a "psychiatric
evaluation". Following his congressional testimony critical of family
courts, a Georgia father was stripped of custody of his two children,
ordered to pay lawyers he had not hired, and jailed. "We believe the
court is attempting to punish [him] for exposing the court's misconduct
to a congressional committee," said the president of a local fathers'
group.
http://users.rcn.com/baskerville/nig...mily_court.htm

So, TM, tell us again why you *apparently* hold the view that being
jailed for protesting against CS laws doesn't happen.

# Expecting men to be treated fairly is not a bad lesson to teach your
children. The problem today is that too many women want men to be
responsible so the woman don't have to be.

--

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

"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?

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...
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. 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. They do not need
to
use ANY form of birth control, because they can't get pregnant. WOMEN are
the ONLY ones responsible for birth control. MEN--real men--deserve SEX
with no responsibility for attempting to prevent another unwanted child.
And these rights for men should be written into the law, put on golden
tablets, and displayed throughout the land.

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.

But I don't see how that fixes the CS system we have today. How does
giving
men the right to father endless bastareds with no consequence fix the
system? Our taxes will go up to pay more welfare, but how does it fix the
system? And how does it fix the high CS awards that are paid by so many
formerly married men? Or are you saying that formerly married men can
walk
away from their children, too?

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?

Impossible to force anyone to "continue" a pregnancy. That's like forcing
one to breathe. You can force abortion of a pregnancy, but not the
"continuation" of a pregnancy since that's automatic.


"Max Burke" wrote in message
...
TeacherMama scribbled:
Selfish and self centered, Max.

Naaa that would be YOU......

Only "fairness to men" is important.

No TM. Fairness to *everyone,* even shock, horror, MEN. Tell me again
why YOU dont want that.....

Women "have been supported" by the poor, long-suffering victims
called men for so long that all women deserve is to be screwed blue
by the system--just as the poor, long-suffering men-victims have for
all these years.

You sound just like a feminist, but that's not surprising since you
apparently hold so many feminist beliefs........ ROTFLOL

BECAUSE the system has been so unjust to men, ALL
women deserve to be screwed.

BS.
Strawman.
Try again.

Because THAT will fix the whole system
in Max's eyes.

What I suggest is a DAMNED sight better than what you say needs to be
done. You want WOMEN to lose their rights just so we dont have to give
the same rights to men. How STUPID is that TM?

WOMEN suffering as MEN have suffered will make it all
better.

BS.
Strawman.
Try again.

I do note that you have not presented YOUR plan for fixing
the system,

Yes I have but I doubt you have even bothered to read it at all. You're
just the usual feminist hypocrite aren't you......

except for your notion that WOMEN deserve to suffer.

BS.
Strawman.
Try again.

Oh and for once in your life why not try and post a *reasonable*
response and stop whining and bitch about your hypocritical beliefs in
being all for men.....
Be honest and tell us all what you REALLY think.......
Not that I'll hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

At least I have the satisfaction of showing ACS that yet another 'woman'
claiming to be 'for men' is nothing but a hypocrite when it comes down
to what you really believe about being 'for men'.....

The wage-earner can survive on fast food, and will not die from a
dirty house.

ROTFLOL
What about when they have the kids 50% of the time? Are you REALLY
suggesting that the kids survive on fast food while in the wage
earners custody, but when in the SAH's custody the wage earner pay
the SAH just so the kids DONT have to survive on fast food in a
dirty house????

What you're really saying here is that the wage earner deserves
nothing for their chosen sacrifices made during the marriage.
As I said your hypocrisy is clearly evident when you claim to support
men and the way they are treated by the 'system' you claim to be
opposed to...
At the very least you probably haven't even thought about this
'situation' or more likely dont consider it a 'situation' at all so
there is no need for the wage earner to be considered at all.....

The SAH will have a very difficult time finding work at
a survival level after a dozen years out of the job market, let
alone providing for her children 50% of the time.

That's the result of THEIR CHOICE to be an SAH and their failure to
keep up their job skills while still married. And before you start
whining and bitching that both made that decision, both also made
the decision about who would be the wage earner, therefore if there
is a need for compensation for the consequences of those *mutual
choices* then it should apply to both parties.....

So, Max, in order that I can fully understand your position on these
issues, tell me what you think the system should be like.

That's simple. Make the system as legally and morally right to men
and their parental choices as it is for women.

Start from
scratch--don't patch up today's system by giving men "as many
rights" as women, because we know darn well that will not work.

There you go again, saying that giving men the same legal and moral
rights women already have will not work.......
Why wont it work? It works for women TM. It works damned well when
they have to decide if they will or will not be a parent.
Tell me why having that choice wont work for men?
This is why I believe your claimed stance of supporting men is so
hypocritical; You refuse to accept that men having the same legal
and moral rights as women already have to choose to be a parent or
not wont work if and when men have those rights.

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.......

At
the points where men and women's rights clash, we need to get back
to ground Zero and rewrite it!

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.

Or are the only "men's
rights" we are talking about the ones that keep a man from paying
CS?

No. See above.

Telling men
"If you don't want the kid, just say you don't wanna be a dad." and
telling women "you didn't create the kid alone, you have a right to
help from the dad." is only going to create a battle of "rights"--it
won't solve the problem.
So, you found a lamp on the beach, rubbed it, and out came a genie,
who says "Tell me how to fix the family court system." What would
you say, Max?

See above and below.

You didn't say a thing, Max. Not a thing. Just the same ofl "The
girls got more cookies than I did...NO FAIR!!" stuff you always say.

ROTFLOL
And your whining and bitching about the SAH not getting the same
number of 'cookies' and the wage earner after the divorce is NOTHING
like that is it......

If you REALLY want equality TM, then you'll need to realise that it
will require you to change your attitude and realise that equality
means
being EQUAL, including men having the same rights that women already
have.

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......

# 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

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.

"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?

"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.